Lidia Altamura
ABSTRACT
This pilot study analyzes the reading patterns of 15 German students while receiving instant messages through a smartphone, imitating an online conversation. With this pilot study, we aim to test the eye-tracking setup and methodology employed, in which we analyze specifically the moment in which participants return to the reading after answering the instant messages. We explore the relationships with reading comprehension performance and differences across readers, considering individual differences regarding reading habits and multitasking behavior.
- Naomi S. Baron, Rachelle M. Calixte, and Mazneen Havewala. 2017. The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 590-604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Laura L. Bowman, Laura E. Levine, Bradley M. Waite, and Michael Gendron. 2010. Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927–931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024.Google ScholarDigital Library
- James E. Cane, Fabrice Cauchard, and Ulrich W. Weger. 2012. The time-course of recovery from interruption during reading: Eye movement evidence for the role of interruption lag and spatial memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65-7, 1397-1413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.656666Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guillaume Chevet, Thierry Baccino, Lucas Marlot, Annie Vinter, and Véronique Drai-Zerbib. 2021. Effects of interruption on eye movements and comprehension during reading on digital devices. Learning and Instruction, 101565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101565Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kit W. Cho, Jeanette Altarriba, and Maximilian Popiel. 2015. Mental juggling: when does multitasking impair reading comprehension? The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 90-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2014.1003029Google ScholarCross Ref
- Virginia Clinton. 2019. Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269Google ScholarCross Ref
- Virginia Clinton-Lisell, Ben Seipel, Staci Gilpin and Christine Litzinger. 2021. Interactive features of E-texts’ effects on learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1943453Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pablo Delgado, Cristina Vargas, Rakefet Ackerman, and Ladislao Salmerón. 2018. Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003Google ScholarCross Ref
- Liping Deng. 2020. Laptops and mobile phones at self-study time: Examining the mechanism behind interruption and multitasking. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 55-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5048Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rhiannon Fante, Lora L. Jacobi, and Vicki D. Sexton. 2013. The effects of instant messaging and task difficulty on reading comprehension. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 287–298.Google Scholar
- Jake D. Follmer. 2018. Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 42–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295Google ScholarCross Ref
- Annie Beth Fox, Jonathan Rosen, and Mary Crawford. 2009. Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 51–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0107.Google ScholarCross Ref
- May Irene Furenes, Natalia Kucirkova, and Adriana G. Bus. 2021. A Comparison of children's reading on paper versus screen: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483–517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998074Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yiren Kong, Young Sik Seo, and Ling Zhai. 2018. Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138-149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anastasia Kononova, Eunsin Joo, and Shupei Yuan. 2016. If I choose when to switch: Heavy multitaskers remember online content better than light multitaskers when they have the freedom to multitask. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 567–575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.011.Google ScholarDigital Library
- OECD. 2019. PISA 2018 Reading Framework,in PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5c07e4f1-en.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Özgür Örün and Yavuz Akbulut. 2019. Effect of multitasking, physical environment and electroencephalography use on cognitive load and retention. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 216-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.027Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harold Pashler, Sean H.K Kang, and Renita Y. Ip. 2013. Does multitasking impair studying? Depends on timing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 593–599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2919.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Megan A. Pollard, and Mary L. Courage. 2017. Working memory capacity predicts effective multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.008Google ScholarDigital Library
- Larry D. Rosen, L. Mark Carrier, and Nancy A. Cheever. 2013. Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jonathan Smallwood, Merrill McSpadden, and Jonathan W. Schooler. 2008. When attention matters: The curious incident of the wandering mind. Memory & Cognition,36, 1144–1150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1144Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaveri Subrahmanyam, Minas Michikyan, Christine Clemmons, Rogelio Carrillo, Yalda T. Uhls, and Patricia M. Greenfield. 2013. Learning from paper, learning from screens: Impact of screen reading and multitasking conditions on reading and writing among college students. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 3(4), 1–27. DOI: https://www.igi-global.com/article/learning-from-paper-learning-from-screens/102454Google ScholarDigital Library
- Phuoc Tran, Rogelio Carrillo, and Kaveri Subrahmanyam. 2013. Effects of online multitasking on reading comprehension of expository text. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2013-3-2Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Effects of print-storybooks and E-storybooks with reading comprehension strategies on fifth graders' reading comprehension ability
HCII'11: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction: users and applications - Volume Part IVThe goal of the study was to develop the instruction module of the estorybooks reading comprehension in the elementary school and test the effect of the instruction module of the e-storybooks reading comprehension. This study was to compare the ...
A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception
Purpose -- This paper aims to assess the usability of electronic books (e-books) and paper books (p-books) with objective measures, including user comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception.Design/methodology/approach -- A total of 56 sixth-year public ...
Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis
AbstractThis 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 ...
Highlights- Reading on paper is better than reading on screen in terms of reading comprehension.
Comments