2025/09/30 by Emely Hoch, Stefan Stürmer, Kathrin Jonkmann +1 · 1 voice
Computer Science · Social Sciences · #Library Collection Development and Digital Resources #Information Systems Education and Curriculum Development #Gender and Technology in Education
paper · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102226
openalex publication_date 2025/09/30 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
Background There is well-documented empirical evidence of the screen inferiority effect, reflected in lower performance and a stronger metacognitive bias for reading or solving problems on screen than on paper. Shallow processing of information presented on-screen serves as an explanation. In this vein, previous studies suggested in-depth processing as a boundary condition under which screen inferiority does not occur. Aims As previous research has been conducted in laboratory studies focusing on learning performance, this study aimed to investigate the screen inferiority effect in high-stakes testing at university, taking into account students’ assessments of their mental effort. This constitutes an ecologically valid context under which high effort investment and in-depth processing can be assumed. Sample We analyzed data from a large sample of university students taking their end-of-module exams either on paper ( n = 1592) or as e-exams on tablet computers ( n = 658). Methods After taking their paper-pencil or e-exam, students estimated their performance and gave appraisals of mental effort and task difficulty. The examination office provided performance measures. Metacognitive accuracy was computed as the discrepancy between students’ estimated and their actual performance. Results No differences in exam mode were observed in performance or metacognitive accuracy; however, students reported having invested less effort in the e-exam and appraised it as less effortful and difficult than the paper-pencil exam. Conclusions The results might be explained by shallow processing being reflected in differences of effort and difficulty appraisals even during in-depth processing, thus, in the absence of screen inferiority.