Cognitive Load in Online Reading
Shujen L. Chang
University of Houston
Yegmin Chang
National Cheng-Chi University
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of different material formats (paper, onlinelinear, and online-nonlinear) on reading comprehension and time needed to complete
reading from a cognitive load perspective. One hundred and thirty five undergraduate
students participated in the experiment. Significant differences of reading comprehension
and time were found among groups using different material formats, while participants
reported no significant differences in content and format cognitive loads among groups.
Introduction
Educators have noted that online reading adversely influenced reading
comprehension (Patterson, 2000; Shapiro, 1998; Shapiro & Niederhauser, 2004). This
influence may be attributed to the format of online material and cognitive load required
for reading online material. The format of online material was changed from traditional
linear paper format to nonlinear multi-window format (Barker & Tedd, 1999; Quinlan,
1997; Wiley & Schooler, 2001); reading nonlinear multi-window material might require
greater cognitive load (Britt & Gabrys, 2001; Hill & Hannafin, 2001; Yang, 2001).
However, is online reading comprehension affected by the nonlinearity of online material
formats or by reading from a digital display on screen instead of paper? Do different
material formats require a change in cognitive load and therefore need various lengths of
time to complete reading? Does the content or the format of reading material cause
increase in cognitive load? These questions have not been empirically inspected so far.
This study investigated the effects of the different material formats (paper, onlinelinear, and online-nonlinear) on reading comprehension and the length of time needed to
complete reading from a cognitive load perspective. Reading comprehension referred to
the score a participant earned from the reading tests. The length of time referred to how
many minutes a participant used to complete reading and tests. The content and the
format cognitive loads were participants’ report of the extent of perceived mental effort
spent with respect to the content or the format of reading material. The research question
examined whether reading different material formats would require various levels of the
content and the format cognitive loads, which would subsequently interfere reading
comprehension and require more time to complete the readings.
Method
Design
One hundred and thirty five undergraduate students (95 females and 35 males) of
College of Commerce at a large state university in Taiwan participated in this study
voluntarily. This study was a three-group randomized experimental design. Each group
received the same reading material but in a different format. This study observed two
dependent variables, reading comprehension and time, with two covariates, content and
11
format cognitive loads under the treatment – three different material formats: paper,
online-linear, and online-nonlinear.
Reading Material
The reading material included three short reading passages in Chinese and each passage
was followed by a test containing 5 multiple-choice questions. All groups received the
same content of the reading material but in different formats. The paper format linearly
displayed passages and tests on paper; although linearly, the online-linear format
presented passages and tests on computer screen within a single-window; and the onlinenonlinear format displayed a list of three links on screen and each link opened a new
window displaying the corresponding passage and test. All groups were asked to record
answers of tests on the given answer sheet.
Variables
The two dependent variables were reading comprehension and time used to
complete reading and tests. Reading comprehension was measured by the total score that
a participant earned from the three reading tests; the time was the number of minutes
used to complete reading and tests reported by participants.
The two covariates were content and format cognitive loads referred to
participants’ report of the extent of self-perceived mental effort invested in reading
comprehension with respect to the content and the format of reading material. Content
and format cognitive loads were measured via two cognitive load questions on a
subjective 9-point rating scale developed by Paas (1992).
Procedure
The researchers, first, explained the purpose of this study and randomly assigned
participants into three groups: the paper group in a regular classroom and the two online
groups in a computer laboratory with Internet connection. Second, the researchers
distributed and explained instruction with the answer sheet. Finally, the researchers
collected answer sheets after participants finished the experiment.
Data Analysis
MANCOVA tests with content and format cognitive loads as two interactive
covariates were used to determine whether there were differences concerning the effects
of different material formats on reading comprehension and time. MANOVA tests were
also employed to determine whether different formats required different amount of
content and format cognitive loads. Scatter plots and Pearson correlations were used to
determine the association between reading comprehension and time. A priori of .05
significance level was used for all statistical tests in this study.
Results
Reading comprehension and time had means 11.75 points (SD = 1.90) ranging
from 5 to 15, and 13.96 minutes (SD = 2.93) ranging from 5 to 15 minutes. Content and
format cognitive load had means 14.80 (SD = 4.01) and 14.16 (SD = 4.31) on a 9-point
scale, respectively.
MANCOVA tests indicated significant differences among groups in reading
comprehension and time while content and format cognitive load were used as covariates
(Pillais’ Trace p = .01). Tests of between-subject effects also indicated significant
differences among groups in reading comprehension (p = .01) and time (p = .05). On
reading comprehension, the paper group achieved the highest score (M = 12.24), the onlinenonlinear group achieved the medium score (M = 11.74), and the online-linear group
12
achieved the lowest score (M = 11.28). As to time, the paper group used the shortest time (M
= 13.24), the online-linear group used the medium time (M = 13.65), and the onlinenonlinear group used the longest time (M = 15.05). However, scatter plots and Pearson
correlations indicated no significant correlation between reading comprehension and time
(r = .01, p = .94).
MANOVA tests indicated no significant differences among groups concerning
content and format cognitive loads (Pillais’ Trace p = .62, Partial Eta Squared = .01,
Observed Power = .21). Also, tests of between-subject effects indicated no significant
differences among groups concerning content cognitive load (F = .60, p = .55) and format
cognitive load (F = .11, p = .90).
Discussion
Reading Comprehension
Significant differences of reading comprehension were found among groups using
different formats of reading. Specifically, the paper group outperformed both online-linear
and online-nonlinear groups on reading comprehension. The finding confirms with
previous findings that online reading does interfere reading comprehension (Patterson,
2000; Shapiro, 1998; Shapiro & Niederhauser, 2004). However, the finding that onlinenonlinear group outperformed the online-linear group on reading comprehension is not in
line with previous studies (Britt & Gabrys, 2001; Hill & Hannafin, 2001; Yang, 2001).
This finding implies that online-linear material may not facilitate reading comprehension.
Specifically, scrolling up and down on screen to read online linear material may interfere
reading comprehension the most, compared to flipping through paper or clicking links.
Time
Consistent with our hypotheses, the time used to complete reading and tests was
found significantly different among groups. Specifically, the paper group used the shortest
time, the online-linear group used the medium time, and the online-nonlinear group used the
longest time. This finding indicates that reading online, compared to paper, material takes
more time because of the required additional activities for online reading, such as scrolling
on screen and navigating multi-windows. Also, navigating between multi-windows may
take more time than scrolling on screen because additional time is needed to access multiwindows. Thus, online instruction should allow more time for online reading. In addition, it
was found that there was no significant correlation between time and reading
comprehension. This finding suggests that the additional time needed for online learning
may not affect online learning effectiveness.
Content and Format Cognitive Loads
Participants using different formats reported no significant differences in perceived
content and format cognitive loads, contrary to previous studies (Britt & Gabrys, 2001;
Hill & Hannafin, 2001; Yang, 2001). The short length of reading passages in this study
may not create significant variations in content and format cognitive loads among groups.
In summary, this study found that reading comprehension and time needed for
completing reading were significantly affected by material formats (paper, online-linear,
and online-nonlinear). However, participants using different formats reported no
significant differences of perceived content and format cognitive loads.
13
References
Barker, A. L., & Tedd, L. A. (1999). The Ariadne project: An evaluation of a print and
Web magazine for library and information science professionals. Journal of
Information Science, 25(6), 427-444.
Britt, M. A., & Gabrys, G. L. (2001). Teaching advanced literacy skills for the World
Wide Web. In C. R. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web
(pp. 74-91). San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.
Hill, J., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The
resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 49(3), 37-52.
Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in
statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,
429-434.
Patterson, N. (2000). Hypertext and the changing roles of readers. English Journal, 90(2),
74-80.
Quinlan, L. A. (1997). Crafting a Web-based lesson. Part two: Organizing the
information and constructing the page. TechTrends, 42(1), 6-8.
Shapiro, A. M. (1998). Promoting active learning: the role of system structure in learning
from hypertext. Human-Computer Interaction, 13(1), 1-35.
Shapiro, A. M., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2004). Chapter 23 learning from hypertext:
research issues and findings. In D. H. Johassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 605-620). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wiley, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2001). The mental web pedagogical and cognitive
implications of the net. In C. R. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and Teaching on the
World Wide Web (pp. 243-257). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Yang, S. (2001). Synergy of constructivism and hypermedia from three constructivist
perspectives - social, semiotic, and cognitive. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 24(4), 321-361.
14