%0 Journal Article %1 norman2016relationship %A Norman, Elisabeth %A Furnes, Bjarte %D 2016 %I Elsevier %J Computers in Human Behavior %K digital learning metacognition print text חומרילימוד %P 301-309 %T The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: Is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media? %U https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215300546 %V 54 %X Technological development has influenced the ways in which learning and reading takes place, and a variety of technological tools now supplement and partly replace paper books. Previous studies have suggested that digital study media impair metacognitive monitoring and regulation (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011; Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Lauterman & Ackerman 2014). The aim of the current study was to explore the relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning for digital versus non-digital texts in a test situation where metacognitive experiences were assessed more broadly compared to previous studies, and where a larger number of potentially confounding factors were controlled for. Experiment 1 (N = 100) addressed the extent to which metacognitive monitoring accuracy for 4 factual texts was influenced by whether texts were presented on a paper sheet, a PC, an iPad, or a Kindle. Metacognitive experiences were measured by Predictions of Performance (PoP), Judgements of Learning (JoL), and Confidence Ratings (CR), and learning outcome was measured by recognition performance. Experiment 2 (N = 50) applied the same basic procedure, comparing a paper condition with a PC condition with the opportunity to take notes and highlight text. In both experiments, study media had no consistent effect on metacognitive calibration or resolution. The results give little support to previous claims that digital learning impairs metacognitive regulation.

@article{norman2016relationship, abstract = {Technological development has influenced the ways in which learning and reading takes place, and a variety of technological tools now supplement and partly replace paper books. Previous studies have suggested that digital study media impair metacognitive monitoring and regulation (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011; Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Lauterman & Ackerman 2014). The aim of the current study was to explore the relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning for digital versus non-digital texts in a test situation where metacognitive experiences were assessed more broadly compared to previous studies, and where a larger number of potentially confounding factors were controlled for. Experiment 1 (N = 100) addressed the extent to which metacognitive monitoring accuracy for 4 factual texts was influenced by whether texts were presented on a paper sheet, a PC, an iPad, or a Kindle. Metacognitive experiences were measured by Predictions of Performance (PoP), Judgements of Learning (JoL), and Confidence Ratings (CR), and learning outcome was measured by recognition performance. Experiment 2 (N = 50) applied the same basic procedure, comparing a paper condition with a PC condition with the opportunity to take notes and highlight text. In both experiments, study media had no consistent effect on metacognitive calibration or resolution. The results give little support to previous claims that digital learning impairs metacognitive regulation.}, added-at = {2018-12-29T18:13:10.000+0100}, author = {Norman, Elisabeth and Furnes, Bjarte}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/203fdc847d5a6cf8d82f8ab939d2672f1/yish}, interhash = {f3d6b16e8a5fac64314ed004a8785003}, intrahash = {03fdc847d5a6cf8d82f8ab939d2672f1}, journal = {Computers in Human Behavior}, keywords = {digital learning metacognition print text חומרילימוד}, pages = {301-309}, publisher = {Elsevier}, timestamp = {2018-12-29T18:13:10.000+0100}, title = {The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: Is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media?}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215300546}, volume = 54, year = 2016 }