Metacognitive Regulation of Text Learning: On Screen versus on Paper

Autor/inn/en	Ackerman, Rakefet; Goldsmith, Morris
Titel	Metacognitive Regulation of Text Learning: On Screen versus on Paper
Quelle	In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17 (2011) 1, S.18-32 (15 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1076-898X
DOI	10.1037/a0022086
Schlagwörter	Multiple Choice Tests; Prediction; Metacognition; Program Effectiveness; Reader Text Relationship; Experimental Psychology; Learning Processes; Study Skills; Computer Uses in Education; Comparative Analysis; Foreign Countries; Undergraduate Students; Israel + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Multiple choice examinations; Multiple-choice tests, Multiple-choice examinations; Multiple-Choice-Verfahren; Vorhersage; Meta cognitive ability; Meta-cognition; Metakognitive Fähigkeit; Metakognition; Experimentelle Psychologie; Learning process; Lernprozess; Studientechnik; Computernutzung; Ausland
Abstract	Despite immense technological advances, learners still prefer studying text from printed hardcopy rather than from computer screens. Subjective and objective differences between on-screen and on-paper learning were examined in terms of a set of cognitive and metacognitive components, comprising a "Metacognitive Learning Regulation Profile" (MLRP) for each study media. Participants studied expository texts of 1000-1200 words in one of the two media and for each text they provided metacognitive prediction-of-performance judgments with respect to a subsequent multiple-choice test. Under fixed study time (Experiment 1), test performance did not differ between the two media, but when study time was self-regulated (Experiment 2) worse performance was observed on screen than on paper. The results suggest that the primary differences between the two study media are not cognitive but rather "metacognitive"-less accurate prediction of performance and more erratic study-time regulation on screen than on paper. More generally, this study highlights the contribution of metacognitive regulatory processes to learning and demonstrates the potential of the MLRP methodology for revealing the source of subjective and objective differences in study performance among study conditions. (Contains 4 footnotes, 1 table, and 3 figures.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10