MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Investigating multiple-text reading process under high and low topic familiarity using eye-tracking technology: Which task instruction is more effective?
Investigating multiple-text reading process under high and low topic familiarity using eye-tracking technology: Which task instruction is more effective?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Investigating multiple-text reading process under high and low topic familiarity using eye-tracking technology: Which task instruction is more effective?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Investigating multiple-text reading process under high and low topic familiarity using eye-tracking technology: Which task instruction is more effective?
Investigating multiple-text reading process under high and low topic familiarity using eye-tracking technology: Which task instruction is more effective?

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Investigating multiple-text reading process under high and low topic familiarity using eye-tracking technology: Which task instruction is more effective?
Investigating multiple-text reading process under high and low topic familiarity using eye-tracking technology: Which task instruction is more effective?
Journal Article

Investigating multiple-text reading process under high and low topic familiarity using eye-tracking technology: Which task instruction is more effective?

2025
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Information literacy is crucial in learning from multiple digital texts. Understanding when and how cognitive processes are taxed in developing information literacy is urgent. Previous research mainly used log data, think-aloud protocols, or note-taking to explore digital reading processes, but fine-grained cognitive processes need further investigation. This study combines eye-tracking technology, click times, and essay writing to examine in-depth multiple-text reading. Forty post-secondary novices read multiple history texts and wrote essays expressing their opinions. They read two topics-one familiar and one unfamiliar-and were instructed to write either an argument or a summary. Each topic had four texts connected through hyperlinks, including three paragraphs: background, source, and content. Eye-movement data revealed that during early reading, novices allocated attention to different paragraphs depending on the task instruction. For the familiar topic, the argument group selectively reread content paragraphs longer for integration, while the summary group evenly distributed rereading time across paragraphs. Both groups had more source-content back-and-forth saccade counts. The argument group had more click times for hyperlink selection than the summary group. In their essays, the argument group produced more text-based inferences and higher-quality writing for both topics. Conversely, the summary group demonstrated the poorest comprehension quality for the familiar topic. This study provides educators with guidance on selecting appropriate reading materials for diverse students. Educators may assign argumentative tasks for familiar topics to deepen comprehension, and summary tasks for unfamiliar topics to reduce cognitive load and support learning. These insights contribute to cultivating information literacy through multiple-text reading.
Publisher
International Forum of Educational Technology & Society,International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan,International Forum of Educational Technology & Society