Zu Hauptinhalt springen

Programme - Reading 2019

Programme (PDF, 44 pages)

Preliminary Programme

Thursday, November 7, 2019:

4:00 p.m.

Guided Tour Eye-Tracking-Classroom
Meeting point: Vielberth Building, H24 (URwalking)

6:00 p.m.

Dinner at Haus Heuport
Haus Heuport, Domplatz 7, 93047 Regensburg, first floor

Friday, November 8,  2019:

Vielberth Building, H24 (URwalking)

from 8:00 a.m. Registration and Coffee
9:00 - 9:30 a.m.

Prof. Dr. Nikolaus Korber, Universität Regensburg, Germany
Dr. André Schüller-Zwierlein, University Library Regensburg, Germany

09:30 - 10:45 a.m.

Keynote Talk
Reading on Paper and Screens: What Do We Know, and What Should We Know More About? (Abstract)
Prof. Dr. Anne Mangen, University of Stavanger, Norway

10:45 - 11:15 a.m. Break
11:15 - 12:00 a.m. Examining Print and Digital Reading: The Importance of Readers' Individual Differences (Abstract)
Prof. Dr. Peter Afflerbach, University of Maryland, Washington D.C., USA
12:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Lunch
1:00 - 1:45 p.m. Why Reading Multiple (Digital) Documents Is That Complicated – and What Remedies This Pain: Proven Methods to Enhance Processes of Integration and Sourcing (Abstract)
Prof. Dr. Maik Philipp, Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
1:45 - 2:30 p.m. Fostering Undergraduate Students’ Information Evaluation on the Internet (Abstract)
Dr. Ladislao Salmerón, University of Valencia, Spain
2:30 - 3:15 p.m. Coffee Break and Poster Session
3:15 - 4:00 p.m. Disrupted Reading (Abstract)
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Johannes Schneider, Leipzig University Library, Germany
4:00 - 4:15 p.m.

Summary & Future Challenges

Saturday, November 9, 2019:

9:00 - 10:30 a.m.

City Tour "Regensburg - Experience a Historic City"
Meeting point: Haus Heuport, Domplatz 7, 93047 Regensburg

Prof. Dr. Anne Mangen, Reading on Paper and Screens: What Do We Know, and What Should We Know More About?

With digital technologies, we probably read more than ever, but the ways in which we read have changed quite dramatically in a very short time – whether we talk about reading for study or reading for pleasure. This talk will give some highlights from current research on the effect of medium on cognitive and emotional aspects of reading. Based on empirical research, what can we say about the role of the substrate – paper and screens – for e.g. reading comprehension, recall, and immersion? What are the still unanswered questions in this area? And, is the “P vs E” still a relevant question to ask?

Prof. Dr. Peter Afflerbach, Examining Print and Digital Reading: The Importance of Readers' Individual Differences

Reading is complex, as are readers. When readers succeed, they do so in relation to the cognitive, affective and conative aspects of their reading development. The past three decades have witnessed burgeoning research on digital reading that disrupts the century-old focus on traditional print. The majority of this research investigates cognition—how readers perceive and process text in traditional or electronic forms, how readers navigate simple or complex reading venues, and how multimodal reading enhances or challenges comprehension. While the focus on cognitive strategies is appropriate, it is not sufficient to explain single acts of reading, nor the cumulative reading experiences that contribute to development in traditional and digital forms of reading. This presentation describes readers’ cognitive, affective and conative individual differences and proposes that our attention to these differences will enhance theoretical models of digital reading, and related instruction and learning. 

Prof. Dr. Maik Philipp, Why Reading Multiple (Digital) Documents Is That Complicated – and What Remedies This Pain: Proven Methods to Enhance Processes of Integration and Sourcing

Comprehending multiple documents is considered as a complex interaction of several processes. Two of them tackle two major challenges. On the one hand, integration processes are necessary in order to create inferences and build a coherent intertextual mental model of the content stemming from multiple documents. On the other hand, processes of sourcing (i.e. recognizing and evaluating metadata) are required to evaluate the usability and credibility of documents – especially when it comes to intertextual conflicts. A lot of intervention studies have been conducted in order to clarify what helps students to achieve better integration and sourcing outcomes. The talk presents selected results from a quantitative and qualitative re-analysis of 24 intervention studies. The findings indicate some guiding principles for successful instruction.

Dr. Ladislao Salmerón, Fostering Undergraduate Students’ Information Evaluation on the Internet

In the current digital world, undergraduate students need increased literacy skills to benefit from the unprecedented access to information on the Internet. Still, the open editorial policy of the Internet means that anybody can post information regardless of their level of expertise or their motives. Thus, to avoid misinformation, students need to take a critical stance while gathering information from the Internet, particularly when they want to learn about a topic for which there are several conflicting views. But as recent research has demonstrated, even digitally savvy undergraduate students tend to be rather credulous about information online, as they rarely consider information about source characteristics to access and use information from the Internet (McGrew, Breakstone, Ortega, Smith, & Wineburg, 2018).
There have been increased efforts during the last decade to develop instructional programs aimed to enhance students’ critical reading (Brante & Strømsø, 2018). Most intervention programs tend to request students’ to solve an inquiry task by using multiple webpages that provide different perspectives of the topic. Guidance to source is usually provided via scripts or prompts. Overall, students profit from instruction to a certain degree, with big variations between studies. Of note is that the majority of studies measure the effectiveness of the programs by using offline tests, and thus there is no evidence that students change the way they evaluate the information while reading.
In this study we tested a short instructional program aimed at fostering undergraduate students’ critical reading on the Internet, and we measure their progress by tracking their eye-movements both at pre and post test. To model critical reading, we used Eye-Movements Modelling Examples (EMMEs), which consisted of a set of videos that characterized how expert students visually read web pages while learning about a controversial topic (e.g. a video showed a student reading all snippets from a Search Engine Results Page (SERP) before proceeding to read the first web page). Initially, 64 participants from a large Spanish university read a set of multiple webpages from sources of different trustworthy levels. Pages provided different solutions to climate change, and they wrote an argumentative essay to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed solutions. Then, half of the students watched the EMMEs, while the other half watched other videos about the content covered at pre-test. Finally, at post-test students read a different set of web pages about the pros and cons of genetically modified food, and wrote an essay. Eye-movements analyses revealed that from pre to post test, that the instructional group increased their visual inspection of the SERP, of the source information within the pages, and reduced their reading time of texts from less trustworthy sources (e.g. commercially biased or unedited forums). The control group didn’t change their reading behavior from pre to post test. Mediation analyses indicated that increased SERP inspection at the instructional group resulted in a higher number of source citations in the essays, and on the inclusion of a higher percentage of ideas from trustworthy web pages.
In sum, our study indicated that EMMEs can be a quick and easy way to foster students’ critical reading behavior. As EMMEs consist of short videos, they can be easily integrated in online courses or class sessions.

Prof. Dr. Johannes Schneider, Disrupted Reading

Reading is emphatically understood as a unified process, often charged with inner energy. This happens in theories about both the receptivity of reading and its productivity. What is missing is a pragmatics of reading in terms of its disruptibility. In reality, reading is a dissected process in everyday life and also in professional milieus. Like other intellectual activities, reading has temporal limits and separate stages. This has nothing to do with inattention and nothing with new media, such as reading on a screen. We live within a culture of reading which is voluntarily and involuntarily interrupted, and this culture has its history.

  1. Universität

Reading in a Digital Environment

International Conference
| 2019