Reading on Paper and Screen among Senior Adults: Cognitive Map and Technophobia

Hou, Jinghui; Wu, Yijie; Harrell, Erin R.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02225

Cited by 33 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For within subject experiments, only the total provided. The performance statistics available for Baker (), Dundar and Akarcir (), Hou, Wu, and Harrell () and Wells () were a composite of expository and narrative texts, so these studies were not included in genre analyses.…”

Section: Rq1: Reading Performance Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If a study used both narrative and expository texts but did not separate findings by genre, the findings by genre were requested from the author. Four studies were excluded from the genre moderator analyses because findings by genre were not available (Baker, ; Dündar & Akçayır, ; Hou, Wu, & Harrell, ; Wells, ). The genre of the experimental texts was significant as a moderator, Q between (1) = 6.86, p = .01, R 2 = .13.…”

Section: Rq1: Reading Performance Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinton

2019

Journal Research in Reading

250

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Rq1: Reading Performance Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rq1: Reading Performance Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinton

2019

Journal Research in Reading

250

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, when people read a text, not only the words and semantics of the text but also the physical location and background information of the text enter the brain for processing as a whole, forming a cognitive map of the text ( Payne and Reader, 2006 ; Hou et al, 2017a ). Similar to how a physical landscape is remembered, readers form a cognitive map of the physical location of text segments on a page ( Hou et al, 2017b ). During the reading process, readers first identify “landmarks,” namely, important concepts, knowledge, or information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, they integrate these landmarks and relationships into survey knowledge, i.e., build textual cognitive maps ( Foo et al, 2005 ; Voeroes et al, 2011 ). Based on this, cognitive maps in the reading area can be identified as the mental representation of the structure of a text and its background context that are constructed by readers during reading ( Thayer et al, 2011 ; Li et al, 2013 ; Hou et al, 2017a , b ). The construction of such cognitive maps not only helps to locate the content that has been read, but also leads to more effective retention and recall of text information ( Rothkopf, 1971 ; Lovelace and Southall, 1983 ; O’Hara et al, 1999 ; Morineau et al, 2005 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to cognitive map theory, whether a text presentation can promote the formation of a cognitive map of the text structure is the key factor that influences reading outcomes ( Hou et al, 2017a , b ). During paper reading, the provision of rich background information helps the formation of knowledge landmarks ( Li et al, 2016 ), which readers can use to locate information and associate its physical position in the text with the logical order of its contents ( Li et al, 2013 ; Mangen et al, 2019 ), thus forming survey knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Construction of Cognitive Maps to Improve Reading Performance by Text Signaling: Reading Text on Paper Compared to on Screen

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading text from a screen has been shown to be less effective compared with reading text from paper. Various signals may provide both background information and navigational cues, and may promote the construction of cognitive maps during on-screen reading, thus improving reading performance. This study randomly divided 75 college students into a paper reading group and an on-screen reading group. Both groups were tested for navigation and reading comprehension in response to three different forms of signaling (plain text, physical signaling, and verbal signaling). The results showed that when plain text was presented, the navigation and comprehension scores of the paper reading group were significantly higher than those of the on-screen reading group. However, no significant difference was found between both groups under signaling conditions. The navigation and comprehension scores of both groups were significantly higher under signaling conditions than under plain text. Moreover, the comprehension score of the on-screen reading group under physical signaling was significantly higher than that under verbal signaling. This research suggested that signals help to construct cognitive maps and effectively improve reading performance. Besides, physical signaling, such as underlining and bold formatting, is more effective for on-screen reading. The present study provides a practical and effective approach for improving on-screen reading based on cognitive map theory.

show abstract