Cited by 254Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences

Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure

Ackerman, Rakefet, Lauterman, Tirza·2012·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ackerman and Lauterman (2012) found that under time pressure, but not under free time, computer readers showed screen inferiority: more overconfidence and lower test scores than paper readers.

    “Under time pressure, but not under free time, those who read from computers showed screen inferiority: they had more pronounced overconfidence than paper learners and achieved lower test scores.”
  • Only in paper-based reading, participants improved their efficiency under time pressure compared to learning in a free time frame.

    “Moreover, only in paperbased reading, participants improved their efficiency under time pressure, compared to learning in a free time frame.”
  • Digital-based environments harm performance under time pressure conditions but not under a loose time frame, even for brief texts and no scrolling.

    “Sidi et al. (2017) found that even when performing tasks involving reading only brief texts and no scrolling (solving challenging logic problems presented in an average of 77 words), digital-based environments harm performance under time pressure conditions, but not under a loose time frame.”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 94 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T.
Affiliations
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
Corresponding author
Ackerman, Rakefet
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
1816-1828
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080115115
Cited by
254
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 5
FWCI
14.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Keywords
reading comprehension, time pressure, metacognition, student self-regulation, media preferences, exam performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review