Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 15–33 | Cite as

Generalizing screen inferiority - does the medium, screen versus paper, affect performance even with brief tasks?

  • Yael SidiEmail author
  • Yael Ophir
  • Rakefet Ackerman


Screen inferiority in performance and metacognitive processes has been repeatedly found with text learning. Common explanations for screen inferiority relate to technological and physiological disadvantages associated with extensive reading on screen. However, recent studies point to lesser recruitment of mental effort on screen than on paper. Learning tasks involving a heavy reading burden confound technological and physiological media differences with potential media effects on recruitment of mental effort. The present study focused on media effects on effort recruitment. We examined whether screen inferiority remains even with a brief task that nevertheless requires effort recruitment. In two experiments, participants faced three short math problems that require systematic processing to solve correctly. We examined media effect on solving these problems, and the potential of disturbed perceptual fluency (i.e., disfluent versus fluent fonts) to induce effort investment. Overall, there were no performance differences between the media. However, when collecting confidence ratings, disfluency improved performance on screen and hindered it on paper. Only on paper confidence ratings were sensitive to performance differences associated with fluency, and resolution was better with the disfluent font than with the fluent font. Correspondingly, another sample reported on their preference of media for solving the problems. They expressed a clear reluctance to working on screen despite the task being brief. This preference is suggestive of reliable meta-metacognitive judgments reflecting the general lower quality of metacognitive processes on screen. The findings call for considering medium and presentation format effects on metacognitive processing when designing computerized environments, even for brief tasks.


Metacognitive monitoring Meta reasoning Human computer interaction Disfluency Problem solving 



The study was supported by grants from the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 957/13).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Ackerman, R. (2014). The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1349–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2008). Control over grain size in memory reporting –with and without satisficing knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(5), 1224–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32.Google Scholar
  4. Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ackerman, R., & Zalmanov, H. (2012). The persistence of the fluency–confidence association in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6), 1189–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Annand, D. (2008). Learning efficacy and cost-effectiveness of print versus e-book instructional material in an introductory financial accounting course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(2), 152–164.Google Scholar
  8. Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Rodríguez, J. (2013). Usefulness, enjoyment, and self-image congruence: the adoption of e-book readers. Psychology & Marketing, 30(4), 372–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ball, R., & Hourcade, J. P. (2011). Rethinking reading for age from paper and computers. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(11), 1066–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013). E-readers and visual fatigue. PLoS One, 8(12), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ben-Yehudah, G., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2014). The influence of text annotation tools on print and digital reading comprehension. In Y. Eshet, A. Caspi, N. Geri, Y. Kalman, V. Silber-Varod, & Y. Yair (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Chais Conference for Innovation in Learning Technologies (pp. 28–35). Raanana, Israel: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435–459). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chiong, C., Ree, J., Takeuchi, L., & Erickson, I. (2012). Comparing parent–child co-reading on print, basic, and enhanced e-book platforms. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
  16. Cokely, E. T., & Kelley, C. M. (2009). Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: a protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(1), 20–33.Google Scholar
  17. Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: a review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1616–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98(1), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2013). Four cornerstones of calibration research: why understanding students’ judgments can improve their achievement. Learning and Instruction, 24, 58–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eden, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2013). The effect of format on performance: editing text in print versus digital formats. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 846–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: new perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gu, X., Wu, B., & Xu, X. (2015). Design, development, and learning in e-textbooks: what we learned and where we are going. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillesund, T. (2010). Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the Web and electronic paper. First Monday (Online). Retrieved from
  28. Hirshman, E., & Mulligan, N. (1991). Perceptual interference improves explicit memory but does not enhance data-driven processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(3), 507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holzinger, A., Baernthaler, M., Pammer, W., Katz, H., Bjelic-Radisic, V., & Ziefle, M. (2011). Investigating paper vs. screen in real-life hospital workflows: performance contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(9), 563–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koriat, A., & Ackerman, R. (2010). Metacognition and mindreading: judgments of learning for self and other during self-paced study. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(1), 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 36–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kühl, T., & Eitel, A. (this issue). Effects of Disfluency on Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes and Outcomes. Metacognition and Learning.Google Scholar
  34. Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leeson, H. V. (2006). The mode effect: a literature review of human and technological issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li, L. Y., Chen, G. D., & Yang, S. J. (2013). Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book reading and navigation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li, F., Xie, R., Li, X., & Li, W. (2015). The influence of perceptual information on control processes involved in self-regulated learning: evidence from item selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1007–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Masson, M. E., & Rotello, C. M. (2009). Sources of bias in the Goodman–Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: implications for studies of metacognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T., Guevara Pinto, J. D., Boyer, T. W., Ball, L. J., Pennycook, G., Ackerman, R., Thompson, V., & Schuldt, J. P. (2015). Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), e16–e30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mizrachi, D. (2015). Undergraduates’ academic reading format preferences and behaviors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morineau, T., Blanche, C., Tobin, L., & Guéguen, N. (2005). The emergence of the contextual role of the e-book in cognitive processes through an ecological and functional analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(3), 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J. (2011). E-textbooks are coming: are we ready? Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, 49–60.Google Scholar
  47. Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Norman, E., & Furnes, B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media? Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oeberst, A., Haberstroh, S., & Gnambs, T. (2015). Not really the same: computerized and real lotteries in decision making research. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 250–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. (2006). Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction, 1, 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prowse Turner, J. A., & Thompson, V. A. (2009). The role of training, alternative models, and logical necessity in determining confidence in syllogistic reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 15(1), 69–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Salmerón, L., & García, V. (2012). Children’s reading of printed text and hypertext with navigation overviews: the role of comprehension, sustained attention, and visuo-spatial abilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shynkaruk, J. M., & Thompson, V. A. (2006). Confidence and accuracy in deductive reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 34(3), 619–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soderstrom, N. C., Clark, C. T., Halamish, V., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 553–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19(10), 986–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sungkhasettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and metamemory for inverted words: illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(5), 973–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2012). Measuring memory monitoring with judgements of retention (JORs). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1376–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128(2), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 466–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: the influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41(2), 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Engineering and ManagementTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations