名古屋高等教育研究

第 14 号 （2014）

The Effects of E-book Reading Purposes andScreen Formats on Reading Performance andCognitive Loads of College Students
Jeeheon RYU*
Taehyeong LIM**＜Abstract＞
As e-books have become prevalent during the past few years,
screen design of e-book readers (EBRs) has also become a key issue
for better readability; EBR screen design should be such that itsupports the reading process.
The purpose of reading isimportant in determining a reader’s strategy for text
comprehension because readers adjust their thinking process to fit
the purpose. This study therefore examines the effect of EBR
screen formats designed to improve readability on reading
performance and cognitive loads.

The results revealed thatreading for entertainment demanded the least mental effort.
When participants were reading for study, their self-evaluation was
higher than those of other groups.

One interesting result was thatthe response time for secondary tasks was fastest when a reader’spurpose was study using a multiple screen format EBR.

Multiple

screen format yielded better results by increasing mental effort
and perceived ease of use.

This result indicates that the multiple

screen format is useful in managing the cognitive process ofreading for study to organize information.

*Associate Professor, Department of Education, Chonnam National

University, Republic of Korea(Visiting Associate Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher
Education, Nagoya University)**Doctoral Student, Department of Educational Psychology andLearning Systems, Florida State University, USA

197

1．Introduction
Using e-book at university has grown significantly over the past few
years.

E-book is gaining popularity for college students and faculty as

well because it is easy to conduct academic searching and accessible fromanywhere (Hernon, Hopper, Leach, Saunders & Zhang 2007).

The

advantages of reading from e-books are convenience and mobility.
Although e-book requires a special device to display content, major
publishers transform considerable portions of their publications intoe-book (Quinn 2011).

According to Miller (2011), 95% of academic libraries

are providing access to e-book format.

It indicates that use of e-book is

becoming common (Bailey 2006, Rose & Li 2007, Walton 2007).

Such aproliferation of producing e-book collections yields the dramaticallyincreased use by students and faculty in higher education.

Although the

popularity of using e-book has been increasing, college students are notalways preferred to e-book.

Using e-book is not equivalent printed bookin legibility and readability (Woody, Daniel & Baker 2010).

Screen designfor effective and/or efficient reading plays a critical role in ensuring better
reading conditions.
1.1

Effective Screen Formats of E-book

Legibility indicates how quickly and accurately letters and words can be
identified (Huang & Ma 2007).

The more legible screen design is to makethe better e-book for readers because they can easily recognize the letters,
which are the basic elements of words and contents.

Font style, point

size, and typeface size are key features to enhance e-book look legible.
High legibility facilitates readability of e-book when it has the greater
perception of letters as well as the easier to read and understand.
Addition to the importance of legibility, readability can be determined how
the content is laid out on a screen.

In an effort to design an effective

screen layout, many navigational methods have been developed by placing
text and graphics in various layout formats (de Bruijn & Spence 2000).
Among them, multiple screen and sequential screen formats were mostly

198

The Effects of E-book Reading Purposes and Screen Formats on Reading Performance and Cognitive Loads of College Students

employed methods to evaluate the effectiveness of screen layout (Barrett
2002, Lin & Ho 2007, Spence 2002).
Multiple screen format is to provide simultaneous information on thesame screen.

The simultaneous presentation on the same location

provides readers with a series of images or information of learning
contents to allow them to select their own learning sequence.

Presenting

information simultaneously on the dual-screen makes readers perceive
learning effectiveness better and also reduce learners’ cognitive load
effectively than that on the single screen (Chang, Hsu & Yu 2011, Hsu,
Chang & Yu, 2012, Kuo, Chang, Hsu & Yu 2009).

In contrast, presenting

successive information in a sequence is based on linearity.

Linearpresentation refers to display content pages successively like a slide show.
The benefit of this method is to help readers focus on one page; thus, thereader can sequentially process his cognitive load on each page of e-book.
However, sequential screen format may not be appropriate for those whowant to compare other pages by cross-checking the content (Lin & Ho
2007, Spence 2002).
1.2

Reading Purposes and Cognitive Load

Reading

text

consistsofinformation

retrievalandknowledge

construction for readers to accomplish reading goals and organize new
information into schema.

While the reader is actively performing visual

searching and organizing knowledge to transfer, the new information
should be proceeded to build a meaningful schema (Bråten & Samuelstuen
2004, Linderholm 2006, Linderholm & van den Broek 2002).

The best way

to accomplish the reading goal with e-book is to help learners read thecontent more easily and organize the information efficiently.

Readingrequires various reading strategies to achieve the reading goal, andreaders should match cognitive strategies and reading purpose (Bråten &Samuelstuen 2004, Linderholm & van den Broek 2002).

Readers shouldmatch proper text-processing strategies with reading-text so that they
increase cognitive coherence of reading (van den Broek, Lorch,
Linderholm & Gustafson 2001).

199

Among the various reading purposes, readings for study andentertainment are the most distinctive reading purposes in regarding forvery different cognitive strategies to read (Linderholm, Cong & Zhao 2008).
Walton (in press) found that college students were more likely to engage inrereading text and to report knowledge-based coherence breaks when
they read for examinations than for entertainment.

In addition, van den

Broek et al. (2001) found that college students read text with a study
purpose to focus more on inferential structure of content than those whoread with an entertainment purpose.

Similarly, Linderholm and van den

Broek (2002) reported that college students more often paraphrased andtried to connect text information for study whereas they produced moreassociations and elaborations of the reading text with personal experience
when reading for entertainment.
1.3

Cognitive Loads in Reading

It is important for a reader to manage his cognitive capacity in order toreach reading purposes so that he can efficiently manage his thinking
process to understand without being overloaded.

The invested amount ofcognitive capacity indicates the imposed cognitive load to understandreading text.

A cognitively designed screen layout can foster effective

reading of text comprehension without imposing too much mental load on
the reader ’s cognitive load (DeStefano & LeFevre 2007, Zumbach &Mohraz 2008).

According to cognitive load theory (CLT), cognitive load isa mental allocation of performing a particular task (Sweller, vanMerriënboer & Paas 1998), and an effective instruction has to be designed
to reduce unnecessary cognitive load for learning (Paas, Renkl & Sweller2004).

By reducing the unnecessary cognitive load, learners can allocate

more cognitive capacity to read and learn. CLT defines three types ofcognitive load−intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. Intrinsic cognitive load
is caused by the complexity of the content of the materials to be learned,
and extraneous cognitive load by the format of the instructional materials
provided; germane load is the mental effort invested directly in learning(Ayres & Paas 2009).

The total cognitive load is the sum of the three

types of cognitive load in a learner experience.

200

The Effects of E-book Reading Purposes and Screen Formats on Reading Performance and Cognitive Loads of College Students

The cognitive load theory can be utilized to identify how well a screen
format is appropriate for a specific reading purpose.

If a reader has astudy purpose to read, he needs to apply reading strategies of connecting
information and elaborating relations within a reading material to organize
the contents.

With the study purpose, a multiple screen format would bea better way for him to support his cognitive process because the screen
format is appropriate to present simultaneous information format on thesame screen.

A proper screen design will have a positive impact on

increasing motivation to read. It may be necessary to increase learner’s
motivation, and encourage them to employ learning processes that yield
germane cognitive load (van Merriënboer & Ayres 2005).
1.4

Purpose of the Present Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate a screen format of e-bookwith reading purposes on reading performance and cognitive load.
Reading purposes are important for readers to select appropriate
cognitive strategies.

Reading purposes and screen formats wereidentified as key factors to affect readers’ cognitive strategies andcognitive loads in reading e-book; however, the factors have not been
investigated together.

The screen formats may provide readers withexternal factors to read e-books whereas the reading purposes may guideinternal cognitive process in understanding the text.

In particular,

screen formats and reading purposes are important for college students
while the popularities of using e-book is increasing in these days in higher
education. The purpose of this study was to identify the differences
between screen formats and reading purposes that lead to different
cognitive processes. For the purpose of study two representative reading
purposes (study vs. entertainment) as well as two screen presentation
formats (sequential screen vs. multiple screen) were compared regarding
reading performance and cognitive load.

201

2．Methods
2.1

Participants

The participants of the study were undergraduate students registeredin a public university located in one of six metropolitan cities in Korea.
Ninety five students were recruited as a paid participation.

The sample

consisted of thirty five males (36.8%) and sixty females (63.2%).

The agesof the participants ranged from 20 to 27 years old with a mean age of 22.30
The numbers of participants ’ grades were 23 freshman (24.2%),(SD=2.11).

32 sophomore (33.7%), 19 junior (20.0%), and 21 senior (22.1%).
2.2

Materials

The participants read four topics of expository texts of human memory
structures and functions.

The sub-titles of text were “childhood amnesia(1,086 words)”, “flashbulb memory (1,147 words)”, “selective memory (1,113
words)” and “emotional memory (1,120 words)” written in Korean.

The

original text was written adult readers, and it was assumed that there wasno problem to read the text for the study participants in terms of the
vocabulary and expressions.

In order to ensure the readability of text, apilot study was conducted with twenty college students (9 males and 11
females).

The difficulties of text were evaluated as normal to read andunderstand.
Desktop based e-book was developed for this study, and the participants
can navigate and read expository text with mouse click.

An oralpresentation of how to use was given to the participants.

Navigation

methods were different from screen formats: 1) sequential screen format
and 2) multiple screen format.

First, sequential screen format presents

one text page on the center of the screen (see Figure 1).

The next button

and back button were placed at the left and right side of the text page.
The participants are able to linearly navigate throughout the four text
pages.

202

The Effects of E-book Reading Purposes and Screen Formats on Reading Performance and Cognitive Loads of College Students

Figure 1

Screen Capture of Sequential Screen Format

In contrast, the multiple screen format simultaneously presents four
pages on the screen.

When a reader selects a page, it becomes centeredon the screen with a large size while the other pages were presented as asmall size around the centered page (see Figure 2).

The participants

were able to freely navigate the whole pages by clicking the small size
pages.

Figure 2

Screen Capture of Multiple Screen Format

203

2.3

Independent Variables

Screen formats and reading purposes were the independent variables ofthis study.

First, the screen formats had two types: 1) sequential screen(see Figure 1 and 2) multiple screen formats (see Figure 2).

Sequential

screen format is to place the reading text in a sequential way so that a
participant only can linearly navigate pages one by one.

In contrast,

multiple screen format is to simultaneously show several content screenson a monitor when a main screen is centered.

Second independent

variable was reading purposes: 1) reading for study, 2) reading forentertainment, and 3) reading without particular purpose.

Reading

purpose is very important for a reader to determine what cognitive
strategies

need

to

be

activated.

The

three

conditions

were

corresponding to 1) reading for study group (STU group), 2) reading forentertainment group (ENT group), and 3) no purpose as a control group(CON group) respectively.
2.4
2.4.1

Dependent Variables
Reading Performance

Completion time, comprehension test score, and response time were
employed to measure performance of learning.

The completion time is a

total amount of time to read the given text, and it is assumed to measure
how long readers pursue their task.

The comprehension test score is tomeasure how accurately remember the facts in the text.

The test wasadministered with eight multiple-choice question items, and the total scorewas eight.

The response time (RT) of secondary task measures the

behavioral reaction, the primary task. The faster reaction time ofsecondary task indicates that a learner has enough cognitive capacity
remained.

A button appeared on the screen as the secondary task during

the reading task.

The participants were instructed to click the button assoon as possible.

The response time was defined as the time gap between

appearance and click of the button.

204

The Effects of E-book Reading Purposes and Screen Formats on Reading Performance and Cognitive Loads of College Students

2.4.2

Cognitive Load Factors

The cognitive load factors (CLF) were to measure multi-dimensional
aspects of cognitive loads of learning with multimedia (Ryu & Kim 2011).
CLF consisted of five categories: 1) task demand, 2) mental effort, 3)
perceived task difficulty, 4) self-evaluation, and 5) perceived easiness of use.
Each category has four question items with 7 points Likert scale.
question items are twenty.

Total

First, task demand (TDE) is a psycho-physicalfactor that measures how much a learner invests his effort physically tosolve problems.

The general description of task demand can be given as

the amount of physical fatigue experienced in order to finish the relevant
learning task.

When mental demands for a task increase, learners

supposedly perceive higher cognitive load.

Second, mental effort (MEF)

is the level of cognitive exertion experienced by the learner.

This factor

reflects an effort based on learners ’ allocation of cognitive resources forcognitive processing.

The increased cognitive load may have a positive

impact on schema acquisition.

Third, perceived task difficulty (PTD) isan anticipated cognitive load caused by a given task. If a task has a highlevel of complexity, then learners ’ perception of its difficulty increases.
Task difficulty is very sensitive to the level of the learner’s priorknowledge and expertise on a given subject matter.

Fourth, self-

evaluation (SEV) is a personal perception of how successfully and/or
efficiently a learner deals with a given problem to achieve desirable
The learner’s subjective judgments are assumed tolearning outcomes.

be an important factor for efficiency of learning.

Last, perceived easinessof use (PEU) measures how well the learning content is used towards thelearning purpose.

If a learner ’s perception of usability is high, it indicatesthat the learning content can facilitate learning or at least will not impede
the learning process.

All of the question items were develop with 7 point

Liker scale format.

The overall internal consistency of CLF (TDE, MEF,

PTD, SEV and PEU) was measured at .74.
2.5

Procedures and Data Analysis

Before the experimental, the participants took a training session of what
to do for the response time measure and navigation method.

The reading205

purposes were manipulated as a task for each group.

For the reading forstudy group, they were asked to read the experimental text in preparation
for a test after the experiment.

For the group of reading forentertainment, they were asked to read the text trying to connect
personal experience and the reading text.

For the control group, no

specific instruction was given to the participants.

Rather, participants ofthe control group were asked to read the text as much as he would like tounderstand.

After the participants completed the reading session, thepaper-based cognitive load survey and comprehension test wereadministered.

The entire procedure takes approximately 45 minutes.

A 3X2 factorial design was applied to this study.

In order to identify

the impact on the reading performance (completion time, comprehension
score, and response time) a two way ANOVA was conducted for eachsub-dependent variable.

To examine the impact on cognitive load factors(CLF), 3x2 two way MANOVA was conducted.

3．Results
3.1

Reading Performance

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the completiontime, comprehension scores, and response time.

First, there was asignificant main effect found in the completion time by reading purposes: F(2, 89)=3.70, p=.029.

No significant difference was found by screen

formats: F (1, 89)=.00, p=.978.

Additionally, no significant interaction

between reading purpose and screen design in the completion time wasfound: F (2, 89)=.06, p=.939. A Scheffe test of completion time between
reading purposes was followed, but there was no significant difference
among the reading purposes.

Although there was a significant difference

by reading purposes, it was not strong enough to show the groupdifferences. It was not clear which reading purpose causes the main effect.

206

The Effects of E-book Reading Purposes and Screen Formats on Reading Performance and Cognitive Loads of College Students
Table1Means and Standard Deviations of Completion Time,
Comprehension Test, and Response Time (n=sample size)
STD

Completion

SEQ

Time
MUL

Total

Comprehensi
on ScoreResponse

SEQ

ENT

CON

Total

363.54311.92317.57332.02(98.98)(80.78)(97.99)(94.44)

n=18

n=16

n=17

n=51

367.11

316.35308.08330.64(80.46)(100.82)(64.24)(84.25)

n=15

n=13

n=16

n=44

365.16313.90312.97331.38(89.67)(88.64)(82.21)(89.40)

n=33

n=29

n=33

n=95

5.72 (1.41)

5.75 (1.77)

6.59 (1.42)

6.02 (1.56)

MUL

5.93 (1.53)

5.62 (1.19)

6.19 (1.52)

5.93 (1.42)

Total

5.82 (1.45)

5.69 (1.51)

6.39 (1.46)

5.98 (1.49)

SEQ

1132.941103.171107.341115.07(47.91)(52.15)(58.10)(53.45)

MUL

1079.251137.401127.801114.09(71.25)(124.09)(49.56)(86.40)Total

1108.541118.511117.26

1114.61(64.63)(91.42)(54.29)(70.25)Time

NOTE: STD=Reading for study group
ENT=Reading for entertainment group
CON=No purpose (control group)
SEQ=Sequential Screen Format
MUL=Multiple Screen Format

Second, a 3×2 factorial ANOVA was conducted, but there was no
significant main effect in the comprehension test score by reading
purposes (F(2, 89)=1.98, p=.144) and screen formats (F(1, 89)=.12, p=.726).
No significant interaction in the comprehension test score between
reading purposes and screen formats was found: F(2, 89)=.35, p =.707.
Third, there was no significant main effect by reading purposes: F(2,89)=.37, p=.689. Neither was a significant main effect by screen formats:F(1, 89)=.00, p=.981. However, there was a significant interaction
between reading purposes and screen formats with F(2, 89)=3.69, p=.029.
A simple main effect analysis was followed and revealed that there was a207significant difference between screen formats at reading for study (F(1,89)=4.74, p=.032).

Multiple screen format showed much quicker responsetime to sequential screen format when the reading purpose was for study(see Figure 3).

Figure3

3.2

Mean of the Response Time by Reading Purposes and Screen Formats

Cognitive Load

Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of cognitive loadfactors (TDE, MEF, PTD, SEV, and PEU).

Box’s M Test of equality was

satisfied (Box’s M=94.35, F=1.07, p=.314).

The reading purposes have nosignificant effect on the dependent variables: Wilks’ Lambda values of thereading purposes (F(10, 172)=2.23, p=.018).

However, there were no

significant effect of screen formats (F (5, 172)=2.01, p=.085) and no
significant interaction effect as well (F(10,170=.90, p=.537).

208

The Effects of E-book Reading Purposes and Screen Formats on Reading Performance and Cognitive Loads of College Students

Table2Means and Standard Deviations of the Cognitive Load Factors

Task Demand(TDE)
Mental Effort(MEF)
Perceived Task

STD

ENT

CON

Total
3.35 (1.20)

SEQ

3.56 (.74)

3.23 (1.39)

3.24 (1.43)

MUL

2.75 (1.35)

3.02 (1.44)

3.33 (1.34)

3.04 (1.36)

Total

3.19 (1.12)

3.14 (1.39)

3.28 (1.37)

3.21 (1.28)
5.37 (.83)

SEQ

5.57 (.80)

4.94 (.70)

5.57 (.86)

MUL

5.67 (.64)

5.53 (1.20)

6.14 (.75)

5.80 (.90)

Total

5.61 (.72)

5.20 (.98)

5.85 (.85)

5.57 (.88)

SEQ

3.33 (1.20)

3.57 (1.01)

3.01 (.91)

3.30 (1.06)

Difficulty

MUL

3.20 (1.15)

3.15 (1.20)

3.11 (1.20)

3.15 (1.15)

(PTD)

Total

3.27 (1.16)

3.39 (1.10)

3.06 (1.04)

3.23 (1.10)

SEQ

4.91 (.82)

4.14 (.74)

4.61 (.72)

4.57 (.81)

Self-evaluation
(SEV)

MUL

4.87 (.73)

4.38 (.87)

5.21 (.75)

4.85 (.83)

Total

4.89 (.77)

4.25 (.80)

4.90 (.78)

4.70 (.83)

Perceived

SEQ

4.51 (1.20)

4.17 (.73)

3.94 (.81)

4.22 (.96)

Easiness of Use

MUL

5.03 (1.31)

4.35 (1.17)

4.67 (1.09)

4.70 (1.20)

(PEU)

Total

4.75 (1.26)

4.25 (.94)

4.30 (1.01)

4.44 (1.10)

NOTE: STD=Reading for study group
ENT=Reading for entertainment group
CON=No purpose (control group)
SEQ=Sequential Screen Format
MUL=Multiple Screen Format

Further analysis of between subject effect was conducted, and two
significant main effects were found by the reading purposes on MEF (F(2,89)=4.34, p=.016) and SEV (F(2, 89)=6.81, p=.002).
conducted for MEF and SEV.

A post-hoc test was

Regarding the effect on MEF, ENT group

showed lower level of there was a significant difference (p=.008) on MEF
between ENT and CON.

It indicated that entertainment group showed

lower mental effort than the control group did.

Regarding the effect on

SEV, a post-hoc test revealed that ENT was lower than both STD andCON.

The entertainment group showed the lowest level of self-

evaluation.

There were two significant difference on MEF (F(1, 92)=6.00,

p=.016) and PEU (F (1,92)=5.30, p=.034) by the screen formats. Regarding
the screen formats, the multiple screen format was better than the209sequential screen format for mental effort (MEF) and perceived ease ofuse (PEU).

4．Discussions
4.1

Reading Performance

In this study, completion time, comprehension test score, and responsetime were measured to examine the effect on reading performances.
First, there was a significant main effect of reading purpose on completiontime.

According to a previous study, college students who read for study

reported that their reading time for texts was relatively longer(Linderholm et al., 2008).

However, a post-hoc test did not reveal any

significant differences between the reading purposes.
Second, there was no significant difference in the comprehension testscore among the reading purposes.

Previous studies have also reported

no significant difference of learner comprehension by reading purposes(Linderholm et al. 2008, Linderholm & Wilde 2010).

Regarding the impact

by screen formats, no significant differences were found in neither
completion time nor comprehension test score.

This result indicates thatscreen formats do not have any impacts on behavioral aspects of reading
performance.
Third, there was a significant interaction effect of response time
between the reading purposes and screen formats.

Multiple screen

format with the readers for study performed the fastest response time,
whereas sequential screen format with the study purpose did the slowest
one.

This result indicates that multiple screen format is more suitable forstudy and can reduce reader’s extraneous cognitive load.
4.2

Cognitive Load Factors

The cognitive load factors (CLF) were investigated how the reading
purposes and screen formats had impacts on.
impacts on mental effort and self-evaluation.

Reading purposes had

A post-hoc test revealed

that the participants with the entertainment purpose showed significantly
lower mental effort than those with the no reading purpose.

210

The group

The Effects of E-book Reading Purposes and Screen Formats on Reading Performance and Cognitive Loads of College Students

with entertainment purpose typically uses individual experience-based
cognitive strategies and spends a shorter amount of time reading the text.
It shows that readers with entertainment purpose mentally concentrateless on the text than those under other conditions.
self-evaluation

showedthatreaders

for

study

The results ofperceived

higherself-evaluation than others. According to a post-hoc test, there was asignificant difference between study and entertainment purposes.

Whenthe learners read for study, they perceived that they had a better
understanding of the task and felt that they had succeeded in it.

It seems

that they were encouraged to use specific cognitive strategies when theyread for study.

While they were trying to memorize or reread the text,

they perceived that they understood the contents. As a result, theirself-evaluations were higher.
Screen formats have significant impacts on mental effort and perceived
ease of use as well.

It was found that the multiple screen formats canincrease the readers’ mental effort and perceived ease of use.

Readers

perceived the multiple screen format as more effective formats than thesequential screen format regardless of the reading purposes.

Becausethe multiple screen format presents all of the pages of reading text on asingle screen, readers could see overall pages and rapidly complete visual
searching to each page they wanted to see.

It was predicted that thesequential screen format is more effective to manage cognitive load
because it does not provide too much information.

However, unlike to theprediction, the results showed that multiple screen format is successfully
reducing readers’ cognitive load with reading for study.

When reading

for study, readers need to memorize, organize, and reread the text for
preparing a test, so that multiple screen format was an effective format
that enabled readers to rapidly reread and access the texts.

Multiple

screen format, which allows readers to see several pages simultaneously,
could reduce cognitive load.

It was concluded that readers with multiple

screen format shows faster response time when reading for study.

211

References
Ayres, P. & Paas, F., 2009, Interdisciplinary Perspectives Inspiring a New
Generation of Cognitive Load Research, Educational Psychology Review , 21:
1-9.
Bailey, T. P., 2006, Electronic Books Usage at a Master’s Level I university: A
Longitudinal Study, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(1): 52-9.
Barrett, A., 2002, Implementing RSVP as an Image Browser. Christchurch,
New Zealand: Department of Computer Science, University of Canterbury.
Bråten, I. & Samuelstuen, M. S., 2004, Does the Influence of Reading Purpose
on Reports of Strategic Text Processing Depend on Students’ Topic
Knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2): 324-36.
DeStefano, D. & LeFevre, J. A., 2007, Cognitive Load in Hypertext Reading: areview, Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3): 1616-41.
Hernon, P., Hopper, R., Leach, M. R., Saunders, L. L. & Zhang, J., 2007, E-book
Use by Students: Undergraduates in Economics, Literature, and Nursing,

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1): 3-13.
Hsu, J. M., Chang, T. W. & Yu, P. T., 2012, Learning Effectiveness andCognitive Loads in Instructional Materials of Programming Language on
Single and Dual Screens, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational

Technology, 11(2): 156-66.
Huang, J. S. & Ma, M. Y., 2007, A Study on the Cognitive of Complexity andDifficulty of Chinese Characters when Reading and Recognizing, Displays,
28: 8-25.
Kuo, F. O., Chang, T. W., Hsu, J. M. & Yu, P. T., 2009, The learning Effects ofSimultaneous Dual-screen Instructional Presentation in Programming
Language Instruction, Paper presented at the The 17th International
Conference on Computers in Education, Hong Kong.
Lin, Y.-L. & Ho, C. M., ed., C. Stephanidis, 2007, Evaluation of RSVP and Display
Types on Decoding Performance of Information Extraction Tasks, Universal

Access in HCI, 380-8.
Linderholm, T., 2006, Reading with Purpose, Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 36(2): 70-80.
Linderholm, T., Cong, X. & Zhao, Q., 2008, Differences in Low and High
Working-memory Capacity Readers’ Cognitive and Metacognitive
Processing Patterns as a Function of Reading for Different Purposes,

Reading Psychology, 29: 61-85.
Linderholm, T. & van den Broek, P., 2002, The Effects of Reading Purpose and212

The Effects of E-book Reading Purposes and Screen Formats on Reading Performance and Cognitive Loads of College Students
Working Memory Capacity on the Processing of Expository text, Journal of

Educational Psychology, 94(4): 778-84.
Linderholm,T.

&

Wilde,

A.,

2010,

Collegestudents’

Beliefs

about

Comprehension when Reading for Different Purposes, Journal of College

Reading and Learning, 40(2): 7-19.
Miller, R., 2011, Dramatic Growth, Library Journal, 136(17): 32-4.
Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J., 2004, Cognitive Load Theory: Instructional
Implications of the Interaction between Information Structures andCognitive Architecture, Instructional Science, 32: 1-8.
Quinn, M., 2011, Spring E-reference Update, 2, E-books., Booklist, 107(17): 103.
Rose, J. & Li, Y., 2007, June 5-6, What do you do with an Ebook Collection:

Manage it or Get it and Forget it? Paper presented at the MOBIUS 8th
Annual Conference, Lake of the Ozarks, MO, USA.
Ryu, J. & Kim, M., 2011, Validating Cognitive Load Factors: Sensitivity on

Latent Mean Differences between Easy and Difficult Tasks, Paper
presented at the the 4th International Conference of Cognitive Load Theory.
Spence, R., 2002, Rapid, Serial and Visual: A Presentation Technique withPotential, Information Visualization, 1: 13-9.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G. & Paas, F. G. W. C., 1998, Cognitive
Architecture and Instructional Design, Educational Psychology Review,
10(3): 251-96.
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F. J., Linderholm, T. & Gustafson, M., 2001, The
Effects of Readers’ Goals on Inference Generation and Memory for Texts,

Memory & Cognition, 29(8): 1081-7.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G. & Ayres, P., 2005, Research on Cognitive Load Theory
and its Design Implications for E-learning, Educational Technology Research& Development, 53(3): 5-13.
Walton, E. W., 2007, Faculty and Student Perceptions of Using E-books in a
Small Academic Institution, Paper presented at the ACRL 13th National
Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Walton, E. W., in press, Why Undergraduate Students Choose to Use E-books,

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B. & Baker, C. A., 2010, E-books or Textbooks:
Students Prefer Textbooks, Computers & Education, 55(3): 945-8.
Zumbach, J., & Mohraz, M., 2008, Cognitive Load in Hypermedia Reading
Comprehension: Influence of Text Type and Linearity, Computers in Human

Behavior, 24: 875-87.

213電子書籍の読書目的と画面フォーマットが読者に与える影響−大学生の読書行為とその認知的負荷に注目して−ジホン・リュ*テヒョン・リム**＜要旨＞

近年、電子書籍の普及が進むにつれて、電子書籍の読みやすさを高めるための画面設計が重要な課題となっている。電子書籍の画面設計を行う目的は読書のプロセスを支援することにある。読者は読書目的に沿って自分の思考プロセスをはたらかせようとするので、読書目的
は読書方略を大きく左右するといえる。本稿の目的は、電子書籍の読みやすさを高める上で、画面フォーマットが読者にどのような影響を与えるかを、読書行為とその認知的負荷の観点から検証することである。その結果、娯楽目的の読書に要する心理的努力は最も少ないことがわかった。学習目的の読書の場合、彼らの自己評価は他目的の読書の場合よりも高かった。学習者が電子書籍で複数の画面フォーマット
を扱う場合、副次的作業への反応は最も速かった。複数の画面フォー
マットを用いると、心理的努力は増大し、使いやすさも向上することがわかった。このことから、情報を組織化する学習活動として読書行為を行う場合、複数の画面フォーマットを用いることは認知プロセス
において有効であるとの示唆が得られた。

*韓国全南大学校教育学部・副教授
名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・客員准教授**米国フロリダ州立大学・博士課程大学院生

214