Self-Regulatory Metacognitive Skill Use in Elementary Students During Computer and Paper Reading Assignments: A Qualitative Study

References

1. Ackerman, R., & Leiser, D. (2014). The effect of concrete supplements on metacognitive regulation during learning and open-book test taking. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12021
2. Al-Jarrah, T. M., Mansor, N., Rashid, R. A., Bashir, I., & Al-Jarrah, J. M. (2018). EFL students’ attitude toward using metacognitive strategies in writing. English Language Teaching, 11(10), 162–171. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n10p162
3. Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
4. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9
5. Baker, S., Elsie, & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research (pp. 1–42). National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM). http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf
6. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
7. Bannert, M., Sonnenberg, C., Mengelkamp, C., & Pieger, E. (2015). Short-and long-term effects of students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.038
8. Brown, A. L. (1977). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. (Technical Report No. 47; Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., p. 146). Center for the Study of Reading. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED146562
9. Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X010002014
10. Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2012). Supporting problem-solving performance in a hypermedia learning environment: The role of students’ prior knowledge and metacognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1162–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.026
11. Ceyhan, S., & Yildiz, M. (2021). The effect of interactive reading aloud on student reading
12. comprehension, reading motivation and reading fluency. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2021.201
13. Chen, C.-M., Chen, L.-C., & Horng, W.-J. (2019). A collaborative reading annotation system with formative assessment and feedback mechanisms to promote digital reading performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636091
14. Chen, Q.-S. (2009). Metacomprehension monitoring and regulation in reading comprehension. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(8), 676–683. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2009.00676
15. Chevalère, J., Cazenave, L., Berthon, M., Martinez, R., Mazenod, V., Borion, M. C., Pailler, D.,
16. Rocher, N., Cadet, R., Lenne, C., Maïonchi-Pino, N., & Huguet, P. (2021). Computer-
17. assisted instruction versus inquiry-based learning: The importance of working memory
18. capacity. PLoS ONE, 16(11 November). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259664
19. Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269
20. Combrinck, C., & Mtsatse, N. (2019). Reading on paper or reading digitally? Reflections and implications of ePIRLS 2016 in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 39. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1242907
21. Connor, C. M., Day, S. L., Zargar, E., Wood, T. S., Taylor, K. S., Jones, M. R., & Hwang, J. K. (2019). Building word knowledge, learning strategies, and metacognition with the Word-Knowledge e-Book. Computers & Education, 128, 284–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.016
22. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 1–20.
23. Corno, L. (1994). Implicit teachings and self-regulated learning. Invited Address to Divisions K and C, 52. https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED377140
24. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
25. Crooks, S. M., & Cheon, J. (2013). Strategies for note taking on computer-based graphic organizers. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays. (2014-01969-008; pp. 187–221). IAP Information Age Publishing.
26. Curriculum Associates LLC. (2019). Personalized learning for all students [Education & Curriculum]. https://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/i-ready
27. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
28. Deekens, V. M., Greene, J. A., & Lobczowski, N. G. (2018). Monitoring and depth of strategy use in computer‐based learning environments for science and history. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12174
29. Delfino, M., Dettori, G., & Persico, D. (2008). Self-regulated learning in virtual communities. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 17(3), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390802383785
30. Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review (Vol. 25), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
31. Dresel, M., & Haugwitz, M. (2008). A computer-based approach to fostering motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 77(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.77.1.3-20
32. Earle, F. S., Del Tufo, S. N., Evans, T. M., Lum, J. A. G., Cutting, L. E., & Ullman, M. T. (2020). Domain-general learning and memory substrates of reading acquisition. Mind, Brain, and Education, 14(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12234
33. Ferreira, P. C., Simão, A. M. V., & da Silva, A. I. (2017). How and with what accuracy do children report self-regulated learning in contemporary EFL instructional settings? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(4), 589–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0313-x
34. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000065
35. Flavell, J., H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive—Developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
36. Follmer, D. J., & Sperling, R. A. (2019). Examining the role of self-regulated learning microanalysis in the assessment of learners’ regulation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(2), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1409184
37. Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4). https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998074
38. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
39. Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2021). Use of educational technology for instruction in public schools:
40. -20. First looksummary. NCES 2021-017. National Center for Education Statistics.
41. Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students’ self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515932
42. Greenhow, C., Graham, C. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2022). Foundations of online learning:
43. Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 57(3).
44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2090364
45. Groß, D. (2021). In the self-control and self-regulation maze: Integration and importance. Personality and Individual Differences, 175, 110728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110728
46. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). In Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, p. 105). Thousand Oaks, Sage. http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/3311/reading/10-guba_lincoln_94.pdf
47. Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2), 1–39. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1655/1501
48. Halamish, V., & Elbaz, E. (2020). Children’s reading comprehension and metacomprehension on screen versus on paper. Computers & Education, 145, 103737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103737
49. Hardcastle, J., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2017). Comparing student performance on paper-and-pencil and computer-based-tests. ScienceDaily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170612115723.htm
50. Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2011). Introduction to research methods in psychology (3rd ed). Prentice Hall/Pearson.
51. Kim, H., & Kim, J. (2013). Reading from a LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 2(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2012.170
52. Koriat, A. (2012). The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 296–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.002
53. Kornbluh, M. (2015). Combatting challenges to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(4), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1021941
54. Koutsouraki, S. (2020). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Recent trends in theory, research and practice. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 16(3), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.12681/psyhps.23815
55. Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758–770. https://dx.doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2005.1831
56. Kuisma, M., & Nokelainen, P. (2018). Effects of progressive inquiry on cognitive and affective learning outcomes in adolescents’ geography education. Frontline Learning Research, 6(2), 1–19. eric. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i2.309
57. Latini, N., & Bråten, I. (2022). Strategic text processing across mediums: A verbal protocol study. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.418
58. Lin, C.-H., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, B. (2017). The roles of learning strategies and motivation in online language learning: A structural equation modeling analysis. Computers & Education, 113, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.014
59. Máñez, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Magliano, J. P. (2022). Comprehension processes on
60. question-answering activities: A think-aloud study. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 20(56). https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v20i56.3776
61. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y
62. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6
63. McCrudden, M. T., Marchand, G., & Schutz, P. (2019). Mixed methods in educational psychology inquiry. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.008
64. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.
65. Mora, T., Escardíbul, J.-O., & Di Pietro, G. (2018). Computers and students’ achievement: An analysis of the One Laptop per Child program in Catalonia. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.013
66. Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
67. Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Di Leo, I., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000071
68. Muis, K. R., Ranellucci, J., Trevors, G., & Duffy, M. C. (2015). The effects of technology-mediated immediate feedback on kindergarten students’ attitudes, emotions, engagement and learning outcomes during literacy skills development. Learning & Instruction, 38, 1–13. a9h. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.02.001
69. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(422), 28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
70. Paris, S. G., & Flukes, J. (2005). Assessing children’s metacognition about strategic reading. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. (2005-07525-007; pp. 121–139). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
71. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00015-4
72. Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
73. Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., & Lopez, M. J. (2013). A computer-based spatial learning strategy approach that improves reading comprehension and writing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(5), 819–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9310-9
74. Postholm, M. B. (2011). Self-regulated learning in teaching: Students’ experiences. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(3), 365–382.
75. Pratt, S. M., & Martin, A. M. (2017). The differential impact of video-stimulated recall and concurrent questioning methods on beginning readers’ verbalization about self-monitoring during oral reading. Reading Psychology, 38(5), 439–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1290726
76. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
77. Price, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). A framework for conceptualising the impact of technology on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 16–27.
78. Qi, X. (2021). Effects of self-regulated learning on student’s reading literacy: Evidence from Shanghai. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.555849
79. Robinson, K. (2016). The effect of technology integration on high school student’s literacy achievement. Teaching English with Technology, 16(3), 3–16.
80. Robson, S. (2016). Are there differences between children’s display of self-regulation and metacognition when engaged in an activity and when later reflecting on it? The complementary roles of observation and reflective dialogue. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 36(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2015.1129315
81. Roussel, S. (2011). A computer assisted method to track listening strategies in second language learning. ReCALL, 23(2), 98–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000036
82. Salmerón, L., Delgado, P., Vargas, C., & Gil, L. (2021). Tablets for all? Testing the screen inferiority effect with upper primary school students. Learning and Individual Differences, 86, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.101975
83. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
84. Schacter, D. L., & Szpunar, K. K. (2015). Enhancing attention and memory during video-recorded lectures. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000011
85. Schiavo, G., Mana, N., Mich, O., Zancanaro, M., & Job, R. (2021). Attention-driven read-aloud technology increases reading comprehension in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 875-886. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12530
86. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
87. Schunk, D. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 463–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9086-3
88. Schwartz, N. H., Ellsworth, L. S., Graham, L., & Knight, B. (1998). Accessing prior knowledge to remember text: A comparison of advance organizers and maps. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(1), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0958
89. Serrano, M.-Á., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Ferrer, A. (2018). Teaching self-regulation strategies via an intelligent tutoring system (TuinLECweb): Effects for low-skilled comprehenders. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12256
90. Sha, L., Looi, C.-K., Chen, W., Seow, P., & Wong, L.-H. (2012). Recognizing and measuring self-regulated learning in a mobile learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 718–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.019
91. Smith, M. (2016). Computer science for all. Whitehouse.Gov. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
92. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1091
93. Squire, L. R. (2009). Memory and brain systems: 1969-2009. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(41), 12711-12716. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3575-09.2009
94. Stoop, J., Kreutzer, P., & Kircz, J. (2013). Reading and learning from screens versus print: A study in changing habits: Part 1 – reading long information rich texts. New Library World, 114(7/8), 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-01-2013-0012
95. Storz, M. G., & Hoffman, A. R. (2013). Examining response to a one-to-one computer initiative: Student and teacher voices. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 36(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2013.11462099
96. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). SAGE Publications.
97. The White House. (2021). Executive order on supporting the reopening and continuing operation of schools and early childhood education providers [Governmental]. The White House Briefing Room. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/21/executive-order-supporting-the-reopening-and-continuing-operation-of-schools-and-early-childhood-education-providers/
98. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. Office of Educational Technology. https://tech.ed.gov/netp/learning/
99. Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020062
100. Wilson, V. A. (1998). Qualitative research: An introduction. Purposes, methodology, criteria for judgment, and a rationale for mixed methodology. (Mixed Method Evaluation ED 423 285; p. 18). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED423285.pdf
101. Xu, Y., Wang, D., Collins, P., Lee, H., & Warschauer, M. (2021). Same benefits, different communication patterns: Comparing children’s reading with a conversational agent vs. a human partner. Computers & Education, 161, 104059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104059
102. Yin, R. K. (2011). Ch. 5 Doing Fieldwork. In Qualitative research from start to finish (pp. 109–128). Guilford Press.
103. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645
104. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
105. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.

Keywords

self-regulated learning, metacognition, online reading, elementary grades

Affiliations