Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration

•Text learning was found to be less effective on screen than on paper.•Screen learning was consistently accompanied by overconfidence.•Practice and in-depth processing successfully eliminated screen inferiority.•Medium preference was associated with utilization of these methods.•Generally, in-depth processing was associated with attenuated overconfidence.

Metacognitive monitoring that accompanies a learning task reflects self-prediction of achievement at test. Well-calibrated monitoring is important because it is by this subjective assessment that people allocate their learning efforts. Previous studies that compared learning outcomes and calibration of monitoring when learning texts on screen and on paper have found screen inferiority: screen learners performed worse and were more overconfident about their success. However, learning from one’s preferred medium was associated with attenuated overconfidence. The present study examined two methods for overcoming screen inferiority in these respects. First, practicing the study-test task allowed overcoming screen inferiority, but only among those who preferred reading from screens. Second, in-depth processing was encouraged by having participants generate keywords at a delay, before monitoring their knowledge and taking the test. This method eliminated screen inferiority even for the first-studied texts, but after practicing it, screen inferiority was re-exposed among those who preferred studying on paper. This study makes a practical contribution to educational practice by suggesting directions for overcoming screen inferiority. From a broader perspective, the study demonstrates that experience with the task and in-depth processing can attenuate overconfidence and that the effectiveness of learning-enhancing methods depends on the study context and learners’ preferences.