一年级学生在纸、电脑和平板电脑上的阅读:理解监测的作用

IF 4.1 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Elena Florit , Pietro De Carli , Antonio Rodà , Kate Cain , Lucia Mason
{"title":"一年级学生在纸、电脑和平板电脑上的阅读:理解监测的作用","authors":"Elena Florit ,&nbsp;Pietro De Carli ,&nbsp;Antonio Rodà ,&nbsp;Kate Cain ,&nbsp;Lucia Mason","doi":"10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent meta-analyses indicate poorer comprehension when reading from computers or handheld devices compared to paper-based reading of informational texts. Meta-analyses also suggest that this screen inferiority effect may be linked to individual differences in metacognition. However, most paper vs. screen research to date has been conducted with university students. This study investigated whether the inferiority of screen-based reading from computers and handheld devices for informational texts is evident in beginner readers and related to comprehension monitoring skills. In a within-subjects design, first graders' (N = 58; M<sub>age</sub> = 6.8 years) comprehension of main point, literal and inferential information was assessed using one narrative and one informational (i.e., descriptive) text read on paper, computer (laptop), and tablet. Comprehension monitoring was assessed through an inconsistency detection task. A standardized measure of reading comprehension was included as a control in the main analyses. Supplementary analyses controlling for word reading accuracy and medium preferences were also run. Linear mixed models showed superiority of main point comprehension for descriptive texts presented on tablets and inferential comprehension for narrative over descriptive texts, independent of medium. Results for literal comprehension were mixed. In addition, comprehension monitoring was related to main point and literal comprehension regardless of medium and had a greater effect on descriptive than narrative text comprehension at the inferential level. A screen inferiority effect was not detected in beginner readers' comprehension of texts from two digital mediums. Text comprehension was supported by metacognition, independent of medium.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100322,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Education Open","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100243"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring\",\"authors\":\"Elena Florit ,&nbsp;Pietro De Carli ,&nbsp;Antonio Rodà ,&nbsp;Kate Cain ,&nbsp;Lucia Mason\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Recent meta-analyses indicate poorer comprehension when reading from computers or handheld devices compared to paper-based reading of informational texts. Meta-analyses also suggest that this screen inferiority effect may be linked to individual differences in metacognition. However, most paper vs. screen research to date has been conducted with university students. This study investigated whether the inferiority of screen-based reading from computers and handheld devices for informational texts is evident in beginner readers and related to comprehension monitoring skills. In a within-subjects design, first graders' (N = 58; M<sub>age</sub> = 6.8 years) comprehension of main point, literal and inferential information was assessed using one narrative and one informational (i.e., descriptive) text read on paper, computer (laptop), and tablet. Comprehension monitoring was assessed through an inconsistency detection task. A standardized measure of reading comprehension was included as a control in the main analyses. Supplementary analyses controlling for word reading accuracy and medium preferences were also run. Linear mixed models showed superiority of main point comprehension for descriptive texts presented on tablets and inferential comprehension for narrative over descriptive texts, independent of medium. Results for literal comprehension were mixed. In addition, comprehension monitoring was related to main point and literal comprehension regardless of medium and had a greater effect on descriptive than narrative text comprehension at the inferential level. A screen inferiority effect was not detected in beginner readers' comprehension of texts from two digital mediums. Text comprehension was supported by metacognition, independent of medium.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers and Education Open\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100243\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers and Education Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557325000023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Education Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557325000023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的荟萃分析表明,与基于纸张的信息文本阅读相比,通过电脑或手持设备阅读的理解能力更差。荟萃分析还表明,这种屏幕自卑效应可能与元认知的个体差异有关。然而,到目前为止,大多数纸质与屏幕的研究都是在大学生中进行的。本研究调查了初级读者在电脑和手持设备上阅读信息文本的劣势是否明显,并与理解监测技能有关。在主题内设计中,一年级学生(N = 58;通过在纸上、电脑(笔记本电脑)和平板电脑上阅读一篇叙事性和一篇信息性(即描述性)文本,评估学生对主要观点、文字和推断性信息的理解。综合监控通过不一致检测任务进行评估。在主要分析中,阅读理解的标准化测量作为对照。还进行了控制单词阅读准确性和媒介偏好的补充分析。线性混合模型显示,在独立于媒介的情况下,叙事性文本的要点理解和叙事性文本的推理理解均优于叙事性文本。字面理解的结果好坏参半。此外,无论何种媒介,理解监测都与要点和文字理解有关,并且在推理层面上对描述性文本理解的影响大于叙述性文本理解。初级读者对两种数字媒体文本的理解不存在屏幕自卑效应。文本理解由元认知支持,独立于媒介。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring
Recent meta-analyses indicate poorer comprehension when reading from computers or handheld devices compared to paper-based reading of informational texts. Meta-analyses also suggest that this screen inferiority effect may be linked to individual differences in metacognition. However, most paper vs. screen research to date has been conducted with university students. This study investigated whether the inferiority of screen-based reading from computers and handheld devices for informational texts is evident in beginner readers and related to comprehension monitoring skills. In a within-subjects design, first graders' (N = 58; Mage = 6.8 years) comprehension of main point, literal and inferential information was assessed using one narrative and one informational (i.e., descriptive) text read on paper, computer (laptop), and tablet. Comprehension monitoring was assessed through an inconsistency detection task. A standardized measure of reading comprehension was included as a control in the main analyses. Supplementary analyses controlling for word reading accuracy and medium preferences were also run. Linear mixed models showed superiority of main point comprehension for descriptive texts presented on tablets and inferential comprehension for narrative over descriptive texts, independent of medium. Results for literal comprehension were mixed. In addition, comprehension monitoring was related to main point and literal comprehension regardless of medium and had a greater effect on descriptive than narrative text comprehension at the inferential level. A screen inferiority effect was not detected in beginner readers' comprehension of texts from two digital mediums. Text comprehension was supported by metacognition, independent of medium.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信