No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
“Should You Really Chat While Reading?” Effects of On-Screen Multitasking and Text Disfluency on Integrated Understanding
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Background
During digital reading on internet‐connected devices, students may be exposed to a variety of on‐screen distractions. Learning by reading can therefore become a fragmented experience with potentially negative consequences for reading processes and outcomes.
Objectives
This study investigated the effects of on‐screen distractions, as advertisements and social media notifications, during reading on text processing, perception of cognitive load and text comprehension.
Methods
University students (N = 54) participated in a within‐participant design. They read two digital science expository texts, one with and the other without distractions. Participants' eye movements were recorded during reading. Process variables were the first‐pass fixation time on text areas and the fixation time on distractions. Working memory was taken into account as possible moderator of outcome variables, while controlling for prior knowledge and text topic.
Results
Participants spent very short time fixating the distractions. From linear mixed models the main effect of distractions did not emerge for the immediate text processing. Perception of cognitive load and text comprehension were not affected by distractions either. Among individual differences, prior knowledge contributed to text comprehension. Text topic contributed to the perception of cognitive load.
Takeaways
The study suggests that simple, static and very usual on‐screen distractions during reading do not seem particularly harmful for university students' processing and comprehension of expository texts. Findings indicate the importance of students' top‐down attentional control over on‐screen distractions not to impair their own comprehension of complex content.
The deep cloze test was developed by Jensen and Elbro (Read Writ Interdiscip J 35(5):1221–1237, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10230-w) to assess reading comprehension at the level of global situational understanding. In two independent studies, we examined potential contributors to students’ scores on the deep cloze reading comprehension test, as well as the predictability of students’ scores on this measure for their course achievement and integrated text understanding measured with an open-ended written comprehension assessment. Results showed that students’ language background, word recognition skills, and working memory resources explained unique portions of the variance in students’ scores on the deep cloze reading comprehension test. Further, scores on this test were positively correlated with students’ course achievement and uniquely predicted their integrated text understanding when language background, working memory, and prior topic knowledge were controlled for. Taken together, our findings support an interpretation of the deep cloze reading comprehension test as an effective and efficient measure of situation level understanding that draws on language skills, word level processes, and working memory resources and also can be used to predict students’ performance on important criterial tasks requiring deeper level understanding.
As handheld devices, such as tablets, become a common tool in schools, a critical and urgent question for the research community is to assess their potential impact on educational outcomes. Previous meta-analytic research has evidenced the “screen inferiority effect”: Readers tend to understand texts slightly worse when reading on-screen than when reading the same text in print. Most primary studies from those meta-analyses used computers as on-screen reading devices. Accordingly, the extent to which handheld devices, which provide a reading experience closer to books than computers, are affected by the screen inferiority effect remains an open question. To address this issue, we reviewed relevant literature regarding potential moderating factors for the screen inferiority effect through the lenses of the reading for understanding framework. We then performed two meta-analyses aimed at examining the differences in reading comprehension when reading on handheld devices, as compared to print. Results from the two multilevel random-effect meta-analyses, which included primary studies that used either between-participant (k = 38, g = −0.113) or within-participant (k = 21, g = −0.103) designs, consistently showed a significant small size effect favoring print text comprehension. Moderator analyses helped to partially clarify the results, indicating in some cases a higher screen inferiority effect for undergraduate students (as compared to primary and secondary school students) and for participants who were assessed individually (as opposed to in groups). We discuss the need to continue fostering print reading in schools while developing effective ways to incorporate handheld devices for reading purposes.
With the pace of life accelerating, multitasking has become the norm in daily life. According to research, multiple cognitive processes, including numerical reasoning, comprehension, and writing, are negatively affected by multitasking. However, only a few studies have investigated the relationship between multitasking and metacognition. In this study, the effect of multitasking on metacognition was examined using a prospective monitoring paradigm (prediction of subsequent recall performance). In Experiment 1, the participants simultaneously studied word pairs (primary task) and differentiated between different sound pitches (secondary task) and then predicted their performance in a subsequent memory test for the studied word pairs (prospective metacognitive monitoring). The accuracy of metacognitive evaluation with multitasking was then compared with that without multitasking. In Experiment 2, sounds and icons of real-life applications were used to improve the ecological validity of the experiment in the secondary task. The results indicated that multitasking impaired metacognition in both artificial and real-life simulated scenarios. In addition, the participants who engaged in more media multitasking in their daily lives exhibited poorer metacognitive monitoring abilities in single tasks.
Educational researchers have been confronted with a multitude of definitions of task complexity and a lack of consensus on how to measure it. Using a cognitive load theory-based perspective, we argue that the task complexity that learners experience is based on element interactivity. Element interactivity can be determined by simultaneously considering the structure of the information being processed and the knowledge held in long-term memory of the person processing the information. Although the structure of information in a learning task can easily be quantified by counting the number of interacting information elements, knowledge held in long-term memory can only be estimated using teacher judgment or knowledge tests. In this paper, we describe the different perspectives on task complexity and present some concrete examples from cognitive load research on how to estimate the levels of element interactivity determining intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load. The theoretical and practical implications of the cognitive load perspective of task complexity for instructional design are discussed.
Reading is increasingly taking place on digital media, which are vectors of attentional disruption. This manuscript aims to characterize attentional disruption during reading on a computer screen in an ecological environment. To this end, we collected information relating to reader interruptions (number, type, duration, position, mental effort, and valence) and self-caught mind wandering (occurrence, position) throughout the reading session for high and low media multitaskers in their own specific ecological environment, at home. Comprehension of the narrative text was assessed both with surface and inferential questions. In total, 74 participants (M = 22.16, SD = 2.35) took part in the experiment. They reported attentional disruptions on average every 4 mins during reading. Moreover, there were more attentional disruptions during the first half of the text. Most interruptions were short and little mental effort was required to process them. We made a distinction between media-related and media-unrelated related interruptions. Multiple linear regression analyses showed that media-unrelated interruptions were actually related to better performance for both inferential and surface level questions. Furthermore, media-related interruptions were more frequent for high than low media multitaskers. Pleasure experienced when reading the text was also a significant predictor of comprehension. The results are discussed with regard to Long-Term Working Memory and strategies that the readers could have implemented to recover the thread of their reading.
Students more than ever learn from online sources, such as digital texts or videos. Little research has compared processes and outcomes across these two mediums. Using a between-participants experimental design, this study investigated whether medium (texts vs. videos) and context (less authoritative vs. more authoritative), independently and in concert, affected students' engagement, integrated understanding, and calibration. The two mediums presented identical information on the topic of social media, which was distributed across two complementary texts in the text condition and across two complementary videos in the video condition. In the less authoritative context, the two information sources (texts or videos) were posted by a friend on Facebook; in the more authoritative context, the same information sources (texts or videos) were posted by a professor on Moodle. Results showed a main effect of medium on behavioral engagement in terms of processing time, as students used longer time watching the two videos than reading the two digital texts. No other main medium or context effects were statistically significant; nor were there any interaction effects of medium with context on any of the outcome variables. The findings are discussed in light of the alternative hypotheses that guided the study and the directions it suggests for future research.
Supplementary information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11251-022-09591-8.
Traditional cloze tests (such as the CBM-maze) may be poor measures of comprehension processes beyond the single sentence level. This paper presents an alternative, a deep cloze test with gaps that are strategically chosen to assess comprehension beyond the sentence level. To fill each gap, the reader has to draw global cohesion inferences during reading. A study with 83 adult students found support for the validity of the deep cloze test. It contributed unique variance to global reading comprehension as measured with a conventional test even after controlling for sentence-level cloze, word decoding, and vocabulary knowledge. The deep cloze also explained all of the shared variance between reading comprehension and a topic identification task designed to require global comprehension. Future studies may explore how the deep cloze format can be used to tap other component processes of reading comprehension.
We examined the hidden costs of intermittent multitasking. Participants performed a pursuit-tracking task (Experiment 1) or drove in a high-fidelity driving simulator (Experiment 2) by itself or while concurrently performing an easy or difficult backwards counting task that periodically started and stopped, creating on-task and off-task multitasking epochs. A novel application of the Detection Response Task (DRT), a standardized protocol for measuring cognitive workload (ISO 17488, 2016), was used to measure performance in the on-task and off-task intervals. We found striking costs that persisted well after the counting task had stopped. In fact, the multitasking costs dissipated as a negatively accelerated function of time with the largest costs observed immediately after multitasking ceased. Performance in the off-task interval remained above baseline levels throughout the 30-s off-task interval. We suggest that loading new procedures into working memory occurs fairly quickly, whereas purging this information from working memory takes considerably longer. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Media multitasking has been long considered as a distraction, as something that is inherently negative or irrational. Yet, casual observations and study findings indicate that in the current permanently online, permanently connected society, people still media multitask frequently, sometimes in spite of their knowledge of the costs. In this article, we introduce the exploitation–exploration model of media multitasking (EEMMM), which proposes that media multitasking occurs as a natural part of the waxing and waning of our task engagement: When primary task engagement (exploitation) begins to wane, alternative tasks become more attractive (exploration). In the first part of this paper, we delineate the limitations of the current perspective of media multitasking as a distraction. The second part provides an exposition for our model: What defines behavior exploitation and exploration, and why maintaining an optimal trade-off between the two is important; the everyday, media-related cues for exploiting and exploring; and the neurobiological evidence of a brain system that supports the transition from exploitation to exploration. Lastly, we show how our approach may explain why people media multitask spontaneously and in spite of their knowledge of the costs, and why not all media multitaskers are able to multitask optimally. We conclude the paper with an agenda for future media multitasking research based on the proposed framework.
This study investigated whether accessing conflicting claims in other documents by means of hyperlinks embedded within currently read documents may facilitate conflict detection and source-content integration. Norwegian undergraduates (n = 85) read multiple conflicting documents on a controversial health-related issue, with half of the conflicting claims across documents hyperlinked and the other half not. Moreover, half of the participants were told that they would get more information by clicking on the links (weak prompting condition) while the other half were additionally told that clicking on the links was necessary to get a more complete understanding of the issue (strong prompting condition). Results indicated that the extent to which participants accessed conflicting claims in other documents via the hyperlinks was positively related to their detection of cross-document conflicts as well as their integration of source-content information. A mediational analysis indicated that conflict detection mediated the effect of accessing conflicting claims via the hyperlinks on source-content integration. No relationship was found between the prompting condition and participants’ selection of the hyperlinks. The theoretical significance as well as the practical value of our findings are discussed.
University students often engage in multimedia (e.g., texting or social networks) and nonmultimedia (e.g., chatting with neighbors) off-task multitasking behaviors during courses. The aim of the present study was to describe these off-task multitasking behaviors and analyze their effects on learning performance in a real teaching session. More specifically, 187 students attended a cognitive psychology tutorial as usual, taking notes either on paper or on a laptop. In an effort to preserve the ecological setting, they were not informed of our research on multitasking. After 20 min, students had to report the number and duration of off-task multitasking behaviors they had engaged in and complete a learning questionnaire. Results showed that multimedia and nonmultimedia multitasking behaviors were frequent but also additive, especially among students who used a laptop. These behaviors had a negative impact on students’ memorization of course content, although we found no significant effects on comprehension. Our study also showed that students who used a laptop had lower memory scores. A mediation analysis confirmed that this deleterious effect was partly attributable to multitasking. These results are discussed in terms of interference between off-task behaviors and the cognitive processes essential for learning.
***** OPEN ACCESS at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
****************
With the increasing dominance of digital reading over paper reading, gaining understanding of the effects of the medium on reading comprehension has become critical. However, results from research comparing learning outcomes across printed and digital media are mixed, making conclusions difficult to reach. In the current meta-analysis, we examined research in recent years (2000–2017), comparing the reading of comparable texts on paper and on digital devices. We included studies with between-participants (n = 38) and within-participants designs (n = 16) involving 171,055 participants. Both designs yielded the same advantage of paper over digital reading (Hedge's g = −0.21; dc = −0.21). Analyses revealed three significant moderators: (1) time frame: the paper-based reading advantage increased in time-constrained reading compared to self-paced reading; (2) text genre: the paper-based reading advantage was consistent across studies using informational texts, or a mix of informational and narrative texts, but not on those using only narrative texts; (3) publication year: the advantage of paper-based reading increased over the years. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.
Research on cognitive load theory (CLT) has focused primarily on identifying the mechanisms and strategies that enhance cognitive learning outcomes. However, CLT researchers have given less attention to the ways in which cognitive load may interact with the motivational and emotional aspects of learning. Motivational beliefs have typically been assumed to be merely a precursor to the cognitive process. This view provides an incomplete picture of the dynamic relationship between cognitive load and motivational beliefs. In this review, we synthesize previous scholarly efforts concerning the motivational effects of anticipated investment of mental effort, new developments in the expectancy-value theory of motivation, and recent findings implicating cognitive load in the formulation of motivational beliefs. By conceptualizing cognitive load as motivational cost, we argue that motivational beliefs are an important outcome that result from instruction. We examine recent empirical evidence supporting this proposition and consider the implications for the further development of both CLT and motivational theories through their integration.
Extending from the increasing prevalence of media in personal, social, and work environments, research has indicated that media multitasking (i.e., engaging in more than one media or non-media activity simultaneously) is associated with changes in cognitive control and failures of everyday executive functioning. While more research is required to elucidate these associations, the emergent trend, while small, suggests a negative relationship between high levels of media multitasking and aspects of cognitive control. In response, researchers have called for studies investigating the remedial efficacy of interventions targeting the effects of media multitasking on executive functioning. To provide a foundation for such research this systematic review integrates current findings concerning such interventions. Four databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Academic Search Premier, and PsycINFO) were searched to identify relevant studies, producing 2792 results. 15 studies met the eligibility criteria. At the time of review current interventions fall into three categories: awareness, restriction, and mindfulness. While some interventions have been effective at changing behaviour or cognitive outcomes, no single category contains interventions which, categorically, produced improvements in attention-related performance. Extending from this synthesis key research gaps are identified, with suggestions for future research proposed.
Five experiments investigated whether people allocate their study time according to the discrepancy reduction model (i.e., to the most difficult items; J. Dunlosky & C. Hertzog, 1998) or to items in their own region of proximal learning. Consistent with the latter hypothesis, as more time was given, people shifted toward studying more difficult items. Experts, whether college students or Grade 6 children, devoted their time to items that were more difficult than did novices. However, in a multiple-trials experiment, people regressed toward easier items on Trial 2 rather than shifting to more difficult items, perhaps because Trial 1 feedback revealed poor learning of the easiest items. These findings are in opposition to the discrepancy reduction model and support the region of proximal learning hypothesis.
The purpose of this study was to test a hypothesized model that specified direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on readers’ ability to integrate information about sources and content when reading multiple conflicting texts on a controversial socio-scientific issue. Using a path analytic approach with a sample of 140 Norwegian upper secondary school students, it was found that the textual factor of presentation format, specifically whether they read about the conflicting issue in multiple texts or in a single text, affected source-content integration directly as well as indirectly through memory for textual conflicts. Thus, compared to interacting with a single text, interacting with multiple texts improved students’ sourcing performance directly as well as indirectly. Further, the individual factors of prior knowledge and gender affected source-content integration directly, with prior knowledge also having an indirect effect that was mediated by memory for textual conflicts. Specifically, students with higher prior knowledge and girls were likely to display better sourcing performance than were students with lower prior knowledge and boys, and prior knowledge also had an indirect positive effect on sourcing via memory for textual conflicts. Theoretical as well as educational implications of the findings are discussed.
Cognitive Load Theory is one of the most powerful research frameworks in educational research. Beside theoretical discussions about the conceptual parts of cognitive load, the main challenge within this framework is that there is still no measurement instrument for the different aspects of cognitive load, namely intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Hence, the goal of this paper is to develop a differentiated measurement of cognitive load. In Study 1 (N = 97), we developed and analyzed two strategies to measure cognitive load in a differentiated way: (1) Informed rating: We trained learners in differentiating the concepts of cognitive load, so that they could rate them in an informed way. They were asked then to rate 24 different learning situations or learning materials related to either high or low intrinsic, extraneous, or germane load. (2) Naïve rating: For this type of rating of cognitive load we developed a questionnaire with two to three items for each type of load. With this questionnaire, the same learning situations had to be rated. In the second study (N = between 65 and 95 for each task), we improved the instrument for the naïve rating. For each study, we analyzed whether the instruments are reliable and valid, for Study 1, we also checked for comparability of the two measurement strategies. In Study 2, we conducted a simultaneous scenario based factor analysis. The informed rating seems to be a promising strategy to assess the different aspects of cognitive load, but it seems not economic and feasible for larger studies and a standardized training would be necessary. The improved version of the naïve rating turned out to be a useful, feasible, and reliable instrument. Ongoing studies analyze the conceptual validity of this measurement with up to now promising results.
Our goal in this paper is to understand the extent to which, and under what conditions, executive functions (EFs) play a role in reading comprehension processes. We begin with a brief review of core components of EF (inhibition, shifting, and updating) and reading comprehension. We then discuss the status of EFs in process models of reading comprehension. Next, we review and synthesize empirical evidence in the extant literature for the involvement of core components of EF in reading comprehension processes under different reading conditions and across different populations. In conclusion, we propose that EFs may help explain complex interactions between the reader, the text, and the discourse situation, and call for both existing and future models of reading comprehension to include EFs as explicit components.
Self-regulated learning (SRL), the ability to set goals and monitor and control progress toward these goals, is an important part of a positive mathematical disposition. Within SRL, accurate metacognitive monitoring is necessary to drive control processes. Students who display this accuracy are said to be calibrated, and although calibration is a growing area of research within Educational Psychology, unanswered questions remain about calibration's role as an aspect of metacognition, including the unique association between calibration and academic performance. In this study, calibration is characterized as part of a dynamic system that varies across tasks within the same person; variance in calibration is associated with variance in performance gain for the same student across tasks (quizzes within a year-long mathematics curriculum, ST Math). Both accurate determinations of certainty (Sensitivity) and uncertainty (Specificity) have unique small, yet statistically significant, associations with performance gains from pre to posttest in ST Math. For Specificity, there also remains a contextual association with performance at the Person level. Results are discussed in light of prior research on calibration and of theories of SRL; the data and analyses present a novel approach to studying calibration within a dynamic system and offer insights for future work.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the distractive effects of background speech, aircraft noise and road traffic noise on text memory and particularly to examine if displaying the texts in a hard-to-read font can shield against the detrimental effects of these types of background sounds. This issue was addressed in an experiment where 56 students read shorter texts about different classes of fictitious creatures (i.e., animals, fishes, birds, and dinosaurs) against a background of the aforementioned background sounds respectively and silence. For half of the participants the texts were displayed in an easy-to-read font (i.e., Times New Roman) and for the other half in a hard-to-read font (i.e., Haettenschweiler). The dependent measure was the proportion correct answers on the multiple-choice tests that followed each sound condition. Participants’ performance in the easy-to-read font condition was significantly impaired by all three background sound conditions compared to silence. In contrast, there were no effects of the three background sound conditions compared to silence in the hard-to-read font condition. These results suggest that an increase in task demand—by displaying the text in a hard-to-read font—shields against various types of distracting background sounds by promoting a more steadfast locus-of-attention and by reducing the processing of background sound.
The target articles explore a common hypothesis pertaining to whether perceptually degrading materials will improve reasoning, memory, and metamemory. Outcomes are mixed, yet some evidence was garnered in support of a version of the disfluency hypothesis that includes moderators, and along with evidence from prior research, researchers will likely continue to explore the impact of disfluency on reasoning and learning. Toward this end, evidence and discussion from the target articles also suggest recommendations – both explicitly and implicitly – about how to explore this effect: (a) treat disfluency as a hypothesis to be tested and evaluate the disfluency hypothesis against alternatives; (b) pursue multiple replications of any disfluency effects; (c) attempt to measure differences in processing fluency across conditions; and (d) resist labeling manipulated variables with theoretically-laden terms. We expand on these recommendations in the present commentary.
According to Cognitive Load Theory, learning material should be designed in a way to decrease unnecessary demands on working memory (WM). However, recent research has shown that additional demands on WM caused by less legible texts lead to better learning outcomes. This so-called disfluency effect can be assumed as a metacognitive regulation process during which learners assign their cognitive resources depending on the perceived difficulty of a cognitive task. Increasing the perceived difficulty associated with a cognitive task stimulates deeper processing and a more analytic and elaborative reasoning. Yet there are studies which could not replicate the disfluency effect indicating that disfluency might be beneficial only for learners with particular learner characteristics. Additional demands on working memory caused by disfluent texts are possibly just usable by learners with a high working memory capacity. Therefore the present study investigated the aptitude-treatment-interaction between working memory capacity and disfluency. Learning outcomes were measured by means of a retention, a comprehension, and a transfer test. Moreover, the three types of cognitive load (intrinsic, extraneous, and germane) were assessed. The results revealed significant aptitude-treatment-interaction effects with respect to retention and comprehension. Working memory capacity had a significant influence only in the disfluency condition: The higher the working memory capacity, the better the retention and comprehension performance in the disfluency condition. No effects were found with respect to transfer or cognitive load. Thus, the role of metacognitive regulation and its possible effects on cognitive load need further investigation.
Do students learn better with texts that are slightly harder-to-read (i.e., disfluent)? Previous research yielded discrepant findings concerning this question. To clarify these discrepancies, the present study aimed at identifying a boundary condition that determines when disfluent text is, and is not, beneficial to learning. This boundary condition is knowledge about whether a test will follow (high test expectancy) versus not (low test expectancy). Participants with high test expectancy may already engage in effortful processing, so that making text harder-to-read (disfluent) might not change their processing mode any further. Thus, particularly when no test is expected, disfluency is supposed to exert its beneficial effect. This assumption was tested in a 2x2 design (N=97) with text legibility (fluent vs. disfluent) and test expectancy (low vs. high) as factors, and learning outcomes (retention, transfer) and learning times as main dependent variables. Results revealed that high test expectancy led to better learning outcomes (for retention and transfer), but disfluent text did not. Unlike expected, there was no interaction between the two factors. Moreover, both high test expectancy and
disfluency led to longer learning times, resulting in a lower efficiency when learning with disfluent compared to fluent text. Hence, the present results further question the stability and generalizability of a positive disfluency effect on learning, because only high test expectancy - but not disfluency - stimulated better learning through more effortful processing the way it was supposed to.
This study investigated the effects of reading texts on paper versus on screen on reading time, text comprehension, and calibration of performance, while controlling for relevant individual difference variables. In a within-subjects design, eighth graders (N = 150) read two informational texts, one printed on a sheet of paper and one on a tablet. Reading time was registered. Text comprehension was assessed with open-ended questions at three levels: main idea, key points, and other relevant information. Calibration of performance was assessed as calibration bias by subtracting participants’ actual comprehension performance from their judgment of comprehension performance. Results of linear mixed models showed that reading medium did not affect reading time, but an interaction effect of medium with gender on reading time emerged. Boys were faster when reading on screen than on paper. Reading medium affected comprehension at the level of the main idea, favoring reading on paper. Moreover, reading medium affected calibration of performance, with larger calibration bias when reading on screen. Further, an interaction of medium with gender on calibration bias showed that boys were less calibrated when reading on screen than when reading on paper. Finally, mediation analyses showed that calibration bias mediated the effects of reading medium on text comprehension at the levels of main idea and key points.
This study sought to determine if the inhibitory construct of executive function (EF) and self-regulation (SR) contributes unique variance to reading comprehension (RC) beyond word recognition/decoding (WR/D) and language comprehension (LC), and if the contribution differs according to language history. Thirty-two sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students participated in this study. Seventeen students had language difficulties (LD) and fifteen students had typical language histories (LH). Participants were given a battery of RC, LC, WR/D, and inhibition (attentional control and interference) measures. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses and tests for moderation effects were used to explore the contribution of each variable to RC. Inhibition contributed significant variance to RC in addition to the variance accounted for by LC and WR/D in adolescent learners. Inhibition contributed a greater proportion of variance to RC for students with typical LH than for students with LD. Advancing the understanding of the role of inhibition in EF, SR, and RC may support early identification efforts and drive the development of interventions that effectively target RC deficits.
Background: Multitasking while reading is a commonplace activity. Many studies have been conducted examining the effect of multitasking on reading comprehension and times. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to consolidate the empirical findings on reading comprehension and times in order to understand the overall effect of multitasking on reading. Characteristics of the reading situation, comprehension assessment, and the secondary task were examined to determine if they varied the effect of multitasking.
Methods: A systematic search of studies on multitasking and reading was conducted. Only studies that used random assignment and had participants reading independently were included. This screening yielded a total of 22 independent studies (20 reports) that met inclusion criteria, with 20 studies on reading comprehension and 9 studies on reading times. Most of the studies involved adults reading expository texts.
Results: Based on Robust Variance Estimation (RVE) analyses, multitasking had a negative effect on reading comprehension (g = -0.28, p = .002). The effect was similar after outliers were removed, (g = -0.26, p = .001). Based on moderator analyses, this negative effect may only occur when time was limited because the reading pace was controlled by the experimenter (g = -0.54, p < .001) as there was not a reliable effect when reading was self-paced (g = -0.14, p = .10). Multitasking during reading lead to longer reading times (g = 0.52, p < .001).
Conclusions: Multitasking during reading is detrimental to reading comprehension when time is limited. When readers control their own pace of reading, multitasking lengthens the time for the reading task. Therefore, multitasking while reading is less efficient than focusing attention on the primary task of reading.
Students consistently report multitasking (e.g., checking social media, texting, watching Netflix) when studying on their own (e.g., Junco & Cotton, Computers & Education, 59[2], 505–514, 2012). Multitasking impairs explicit learning (e.g., Carrier, Rosen, Cheever, & Lim, Developmental Review, 35, 64–78, 2015), but the impact of multitasking on metacognitive monitoring and control is less clear. Metacognition may compete with ongoing cognitive processing for mental resources (e.g., Nelson & Narens, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–141, 1990) and would be impaired by dividing attention; alternatively, metacognition may require little attention (e.g., Boekaerts & Niemivirta, Handbook of Self-Regulation [pp. 417–450], 2000) and would not be impacted by dividing attention. Across three experiments, we assessed the influence of divided attention on metacognition. Participants made item-by-item judgements of learning (JOLs) after studying word pairs under full or divided attention (Experiment 1) and made restudy choices (Experiments 2 & 3). Dividing attention had little impact on the resolution of learners’ metacognitive monitoring, but significantly impaired calibration of monitoring, the relationship between monitoring and control, and the efficacy of metacognitive control. The data suggest that monitoring may require few cognitive resources, but controlling one’s learning (e.g., planning what to restudy and implementing a plan) may demand significant mental resources.
While digital natives are sometimes perceived as effective multitaskers, empirical studies suggest that multitasking is associated with negative learning outcomes. In this regard, an experiment was conducted to see the effects of secondary task relevance and timing on learning from multimedia presentations. A total of 356 undergraduate students were assigned randomly to either a control condition or one of the multitasking conditions (i.e., relevant-sequential, relevant-concurrent, irrelevant-sequential, and irrelevant-concurrent). While the primary task involved watching a biology video on the life cycle of the malaria parasite, the secondary tasks involved either relevant or irrelevant chat questions, which were presented either concurrently or sequentially with the primary task. Computation span and topic interest were measured as potential covariates. The computation span correlated with the gain scores towards the post-test so it was considered as a covariate. ANCOVA results revealed significant differences across the groups. The students in the control group were more successful than those in the irrelevant-sequential, the irrelevant-concurrent, and the relevant-concurrent conditions. However, the difference between the control group and the relevant-sequential group was not significant. The findings are likely to guide further research on multitasking performance and interactive video design in online learning environments.
High levels of Internet-based media use is a defining feature of behaviour among university students. A growing body of evidence indicates, firstly, that their learning activities are characterised by frequent switching between academic content and online media, and, secondly, that this form of behaviour is negatively associated with academic outcomes. It is less clear, however, whether media use and media multitasking in general is associated with academic performance. In the present study we adopted an exploratory frame and a survey-based methodology to investigate this relationship among students from three countries in Southern Africa. In addition to self-reported media use measures, we investigated the predictive capacity of online vigilance on academic performance. Online vigilance is a novel construct which describes individual differences in users’ cognitive orientation to online connectedness, their attention to and integration of online-related cues and stimuli, and their prioritisation of online communication. Our findings (n=1445) indicate a weak, negative association between self-reported media use measures and academic performance, as well as online vigilance and academic performance. Combined, media use and online vigilance predict 9% of variance in academic performance for our full sample. However, when considering only Namibian students (n=402), they predict 27% of variance. The study findings raise important questions relating to concerns over the potential impacts of general media use behaviours on academic performance among university students.
Media multitasking has been investigated for its links to executive functions (EFs). Research in the area has produced mixed outcomes which may in part be due to an extreme groups approach to data analysis. This study avoided this issue by using media multitasking as a continuous variable to examine its relationship with the EFs of working memory (WM) and inhibition. Participants completed tasks assessing WM (Digit Ordering Task), inhibition (Spatial Stroop Task) and a task employing both WM and inhibition (Go/No-Go task with low and high task loads). After controlling for the effect of age, IQ and attentional impulsivity, there was a marginally significant association between higher levels of media multitasking and greater WM capacity scores. Participants with higher media multitasking scores also had more efficient go trial performance (Go/No-Go task) which suggested superior processing speed. There was a trend towards significance for higher levels of media multitasking to be associated with poorer performance on the outcome measures of the inhibition tasks (lower accuracy in the Spatial Stroop task incongruent condition, and the Go/No-Go task; go trials low load congruent distractor condition and no-go trials high cognitive load incongruent distractor condition). The different pattern of performance outcomes for the WM and inhibition tasks further illustrates the complexity of understanding the relationship between media multitasking and EFs.
Concerns about the negative impact of media multitasking on people’s learning and psychological aspects, such as well-being and self-esteem, have increased in the last decade. However, the contradictory findings of previous cross-sectional studies have caused much debate. Methodological improvements are urgently needed to determine whether media multitasking has causal effects. This study used a cross-lagged panel design to explore the relationships between media multitasking, academic performance and self-esteem in a sample of Chinese adolescents. Two waves of data with a six-month interval were collected from 447 Chinese adolescents (40.7% boys, mean age = 15.0). The data were analysed, and the results indicated that media multitasking negatively correlated with academic performance but not self-esteem; the relationship between self-esteem and academic performance was reciprocal; and academic performance may mediate the relationship between media multitasking and self-esteem. The implications of this study were also discussed.
Background:
Reading comprehension can be considered the main learning activity. All learning experiences are infused with emotions; however, to date, few studies have focused on the role of emotional aspects in reading comprehension performance. The impact of emotions on academic achievement is thought to be mediated or moderated by cognitive aspects. Among them, working memory updating is an executive function that plays a crucial role in reading comprehension.
Aims:
This study aimed to investigate the relationships between reading‐related emotions and reading comprehension performance. We also consider the role that updating may play in these relationships.
Sample:
Two hundred and eight 8th graders were involved in four sessions.
Method:
Students completed measures of achievement emotions specifically related to reading comprehension activity, updating, and reading comprehension performance. Gender and general cognitive ability were also considered as control variables. Mixed‐effects models were used for statistical analyses. According to the Akaike information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1974), we selected the most plausible model among a set of candidate models fitted to the same data.
Results:
Results showed that activating‐negative emotions (i.e., anxiety, anger, and shame), deactivating‐negative emotions (i.e., boredom and hopelessness), and updating are related with reading comprehension performance. Moreover, the interaction between activating‐negative emotions and updating also emerged. When activating‐negative emotions interact with low and moderate updating, students’ reading comprehension performance gets worse.
Conclusions:
The study indicates the moderating role of a main cognitive ability in the link between reading‐related emotions and reading comprehension performance. Strategies can be taught to improve students’ ability to self‐regulate negative emotions and to update information in working memory.
As students are processing information from digital media and educational materials, they are increasingly being interrupted by competing media and their surroundings. This trend of increased interruptions suggests the continuous increase of instances of fragmented reading in learning settings for the younger generation of students. This study investigated learning in situations where information and the processing of information were either fragmented or congruous. In this study, information (congruous and fragmented) and information processing (congruous and fragmented) were examined using a 2 × 2 design on reading materials. Four classes totaling 129 students participated in the study. The effects of these two factors on reading skills (including reading attention and comprehension), perceived reading motivation, persistence, and attitude of primary school students were investigated. The findings showed four effects. (1) Significant differences in the reading comprehension and attention scores of the four student groups; (2) significant influence of reading processing (congruous vs. fragmented) on reading comprehension results; (3) an interaction between genders and reading conditions, that is, girls exhibited higher reading attention than boys when using fragmented reading materials; and (4) a relationship among different levels of reading engagement and reading skills, that is, readers with medium-level reading engagement gained high reading scores regardless of their reading conditions. Fragmented information and fragmented information processing are increasingly common in and out of classroom. The results of this study may help in the design of instruction, instructional activities, and instructional support, especially amid the expansion of ICT in various educational contexts.
Background
Given the increasing popularity of reading from screens, it is not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted comparing reading from paper and electronic sources. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to consolidate the findings on reading performance, reading times and calibration of performance (metacognition) between reading text from paper compared to screens.
Methods
A systematic literature search of reports of studies comparing reading from paper and screens was conducted in seven databases. Additional studies were identified by contacting researchers who have published on the topic, by a backwards search of the references of found reports and by a snowball search of reports citing what was initially found. Only studies that were experiments with random assignment and with participants who had fundamental reading skills and disseminated between 2008 and 2018 were included. Twenty‐nine reports with 33 identified studies met inclusion criteria experimentally comparing reading performance ( k = 33; n = 2,799), reading time ( k = 14; n = 1,233) and/or calibration ( k = 11; n = 698) from paper and screens.
Results
Based on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper ( g = −.25). Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts ( g = −.32) as there was no difference with narrative texts ( g = −.04). The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately ( g = −.33 and g = −.26, respectively). No reliable differences were found for reading time ( g = .08). Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens ( g = .20).
Conclusions
Readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens.
Two experiments were conducted to investigate the role of multitasking, physical setting and electroencephalography use on retention and cognitive load among undergraduate students in a computer supported learning environment. In the first experiment 129 subjects were assigned randomly to three multitasking scenarios while studying a biology video: Concurrent multitasking (n = 42), sequential multitasking (n = 44) and control/no multitasking (n = 43). While some subjects studied the material in a library room (n = 63) others (n = 66) studied in a cafeteria. Working memory, retention, subjective cognitive load, perceived mental effort and objective cognitive load (i.e., EEG) were measured. Findings revealed significant retention loss among concurrent multitaskers, whose perceived mental effort increased in cafeteria. Perceived mental effort correlated with the beta frequency (F7) of the frontal lobe. In the second experiment the influence of using EEG headsets was checked. Therefore, 60 new subjects were exposed to same interventions in a computer laboratory without EEG headsets. Retention and cognitive load measures were similar to Experiment 1. Retention of the content during online messaging was significantly worse. Working memory components and perceived mental effort correlated with retention in both experiments, whereas subjective cognitive load did not.
This meta-analysis looked at 17 studies which focused on the comparison of reading on screen and reading on paper in terms of reading comprehension and reading speed. The robust variance
estimation (RVE)- based meta-analysis models were employed, followed by four different RVE meta-regression models to examine the potential effects of some of the covariates (moderators) on the mean differences in comprehension and reading speed between reading on screen and reading on paper. The RVE meta-analysis showed that reading on paper was better than reading on screen in terms of reading comprehension, and there were no significant differences between reading on paper and reading on screen in terms of reading speed. None of the moderators were significant at the 0.05 level. In the meanwhile, albeit not significant, examination of the p-values
for the difference tests prior to 2013 and after 2013 respectively (not shown here) indicated that the magnitude of the difference in reading comprehension between paper and screen followed a diminishing trajectory. It was suggested that future meta-analyses include latest studies, and other potential moderators such as fonts, spacing, age and gender.
Cognitive Load Theory
John Sweller, Paul Ayres, Slava Kalyuga
Effective instructional design depends on the close study of human cognitive architecture—the processes and structures that allow people to acquire and use knowledge. Without this background, we might recognize that a teaching strategy is successful, but have no understanding as to why it works, or how it might be improved.
Cognitive Load Theory offers a novel, evolutionary-based perspective on the cognitive architecture that informs instructional design. By conceptualizing biological evolution as an information processing system and relating it to human cognitive processes, cognitive load theory bypasses many core assumptions of traditional learning theories. Its focus on the aspects of human cognitive architecture that are relevant to learning and instruction (particularly regarding the functions of long-term and working memory) puts the emphasis on domain-specific rather than general learning, resulting in a clearer understanding of educational design and a basis for more effective instructional methods. Coverage includes:
• The analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognition.
• Categories of cognitive load and their interactions in learning.
• Strategies for measuring cognitive load.
• Cognitive load effects and how they lead to educational innovation.
• Instructional design principles resulting from cognitive load theory.
Academics, researchers, instructional designers, cognitive and educational psychologists, and students of cognition and education, especially those concerned with education technology, will look to Cognitive Load Theory as a vital addition to their libraries.
Media use has been on the rise in adolescents overall, and in particular, the amount of media multitasking—multiple media consumed simultaneously, such as having a text message conversation while watching TV—has been increasing. In adults, heavy media multitasking has been linked with poorer performance on a number of laboratory measures of cognition, but no relationship has yet been established between media-multitasking behavior and real-world outcomes. Examining individual differences across a group of adolescents, we found that more frequent media multitasking in daily life was associated with poorer performance on statewide standardized achievement tests of math and English in the classroom, poorer performance on behavioral measures of executive function (working memory capacity) in the laboratory, and traits of greater impulsivity and lesser growth mindset. Greater media multitasking had a relatively circumscribed set of associations, and was not related to behavioral measures of cognitive processing speed, implicit learning, or manual dexterity, or to traits of grit and conscientiousness. Thus, individual differences in adolescent media multitasking were related to specific differences in executive function and in performance on real-world academic achievement measures: More media multitasking was associated with poorer executive function ability, worse academic achievement, and a reduced growth mindset.
The “shallowing hypothesis” suggests that recent media technologies have led to a dramatic decline in ordinary daily reflective thought. According to this hypothesis, certain types of social media (e.g., texting and Facebook) promote rapid, shallow thought that can result in cognitive and moral “shallowness” if used too frequently. The purpose of this study was to test key claims made by the shallowing hypothesis, while simultaneously advancing our general knowledge regarding the effects of social media usage. The relationships between texting frequency, social media usage, the Big Five personality traits, reflectiveness, and moral shallowness were examined in undergraduate students at a Canadian university (N = 149). Participants completed an online questionnaire comprised of five measures that assessed their social media and texting behavior, use of reflective thought, life goals, personality dimensions, and demographic characteristics. Correlates of both texting frequency and social media usage were consistent with the shallowing hypothesis and previous literature; participants who frequently texted or used social media were less likely to engage in reflective thought and placed less importance on moral life goals.
Substantial research indicates decoding difficulties are a primary contributor to reading comprehension problems. Yet, far less is known about sources of reading comprehension problems when readers' decoding abilities are appropriate for grade level (i.e., specific reading comprehension difficulties; RCD). Executive functioning contributes uniquely to RCD beyond traditional predictors, such as decoding ability and vocabulary. However, of the three core executive functions, working memory and inhibition have received relatively more research attention than cognitive flexibility, even though readers with RCD typically focus inflexibly on decoding processes without attention to meaning. Two studies assessed the contribution of cognitive flexibility to RCD. Study 1 employed a matched sampling approach to examine general and reading-specific cognitive flexibility in 24 readers with RCD and 24 typically developing readers (from a pool of 140 students) at the end of 1st and 2nd grades. Readers with RCD were significantly lower in reading-specific cognitive flexibility than typically developing peers, even when decoding, verbal ability, nonverbal matrix reasoning ability, and vocabulary were controlled; a similar, though not significant, difference emerged for general, color-shape cognitive flexibility. Study 2 revealed a teacher-delivered cognitive flexibility intervention produced significant improvements in reading comprehension for students with RCD (n = 18) who had not shown significant growth prior to intervention; after intervention, their reading comprehension growth was comparable to typically developing controls (n = 21).
The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement describes the benefits of interest for people of all ages. Using case material as illustrations, the volume explains that interest can be supported to develop, and that the development of a person’s interest is always motivating and results in meaningful engagement. This volume is written for people who would like to know more about the power of their interests and how they could develop them: students who want to be engaged, educators and parents wondering about how to facilitate motivation, business people focusing on ways in which they could engage their employees and associates, policy-makers whose recognition of the power of interest may lead to changes resulting in a new focus supporting interest development for schools, out of school activity, industry, and business, and researchers studying learning and motivation. It draws on research in cognitive, developmental, educational, and social psychology, as well as in the learning sciences, and neuroscience to demonstrate that there is power for everyone in leveraging interest for motivation and engagement.
According to disfluency theory, introducing difficulties on a perceptual level (e.g. harder-to-read text) can function as a metacognitive cue that one does not have mastery over materials, hence stimulating deeper processing and fostering performance. Such positive effects of disfluency have received much attention; however, only a few published studies were able to replicate them, with several (unpublished) studies finding no or even negative effects of disfluency. Thus, the first aim of this special issue was to accumulate empirical evidence in (dis-)favor of disfluency to better estimate the real size of the overall effect. Additionally, to know not only whether, but also when and how disfluency might foster metacognition and learning, the second aim was to test potentially moderating and mediating variables. Applying this rationale, six manuscripts were assembled in this special issue, comprising 13 experiments with a total of more than 1,000 participants. Experimental tasks ranged from solving short syllogisms to recalling word lists and understanding complex expository texts. All 13 experiments failed to show overall better performance due to disfluency and there was only little evidence of moderation, suggesting the effect either to be marginal or to be bound to specific (partially unknown) conditions. Results and conclusions from these experiments will be commented by two leading experts in the field of metacognition and learning. In this introduction to the special issue, we will provide a summary of the six manuscripts as well as a brief review of related research.
Much of college students' computer use, including for academic reading, occurs under conditions of multitasking. In three experiments, we investigated their technology use and habitual multitasking and the learning effects of multitasking with online communication while reading expository text. In Experiment 1 (n = 35), participants engaged in a primary content learning task and a secondary communication task either sequentially or concurrently. Experiment 2 (n = 90) used a modified primary learning task involving reading comprehension and recall with a within-subjects design, wherein task difficulty (easy, difficult) and condition (sequential, concurrent) were within-subjects factors. Experiment 3 (n=40) used a moderately difficult task with condition (sequential, concurrent) as a within-subjects factor and a filler task for participants in the concurrent condition. Our results suggested that our college student participants were comfortable with technology and reported that on average they multitasked with four other activities while reading. Across the three experiments, we found no evidence that multitasking while reading disrupted content learning, reading comprehension, and recall. On the contrary, we found a beneficial effect of multitasking for the easy task (Experiment 2) and a trend toward a beneficial effect for the moderately difficult task (Experiment 3). We discuss possible explanations for why multitasking might enhance performance at lower levels of cognitive load and identify future directions for research.
With the advent of cyber technology and instant messaging (IMing), the effects of IMing on reading comprehension are of importance in both academic and industrial settings. The current research assessed the effects of responding to instant messages and the level of task difficulty on measures of reading comprehension. The difficulty of the written passage was manipulated to be either easy or difficult, where the readability of the passage was determined using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Test. Forty male and female participants either faced no distractions or were required to respond to instant messages from two confederates while simultaneously reading either the high or low difficulty passage. Reading comprehension was measured based on the percentage of questions participants' answered correctly at the end of the passage; additionally, the total time required to finish reading the passage was also recorded. Comprehension scores did not differ significantly between instant messaging conditions. However, the amount of time required to read the passage differed across the IMing conditions, where those who received instant messages took significantly more time to read the passage. Results indicate that persons who instant messaged (IMed) during task completion are less efficient readers and take more time to complete tasks involving reading comprehension. The findings were considered with regard to multitasking, dual processing, and the role of interference involved in reading while instant messaging.
