Search

This study discusses the preferred highlighting mode for graphical user interface (GUI) design. The study investigated the effects of different highlighting modes on the search time and accuracy of the element on the screen. The experimental factors were the type of highlighting (color, bold, or color and bold), the target highlighting (highlighted or not highlighted), and the number of elements on GUI (few or many). The participants had to search for a predetermined target on the screen. The evaluation measures were the reaction time and percentage correctly identified. The statistical analysis result shows that bold highlighting had the shortest search time, and color highlighting had the worst accuracy. Under the conditions of this experiment, bold highlighting should contribute to the design of the screen for an easier search of information in terms of both search speed and accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examines the existing published research about the effectiveness of learner-generated highlighting and instructor-provided highlighting on learning from text. A meta-analysis was conducted of scientifically rigorous experiments comparing the learning outcomes (i.e., performance on memory and/or comprehension tests) of students (i.e., college students and/or K-12 students) who read an academic text with or without being asked to highlight important material (i.e., with or without learner-generated highlighting) or who read an academic text with or without the important material already being highlighted (i.e., with or without instructor-provided highlighting). We found 36 published articles that met these criteria ranging from the years 1938 to 2019, which generated 85 effect sizes. The results showed that learner-generated highlighting improved memory but not comprehension, with average effect sizes of 0.36 and 0.20, respectively; and instructor-provided highlighting improved both memory and comprehension, both with an average effect size of 0.44. Learner-generated highlighting improved learning for college students but not for school students, with average effect sizes of 0.39 and 0.24, respectively; and instructor-provided highlighting improved learning for both college and school students, with average effect sizes of 0.41 and 0.48, respectively. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined whether there is a difference in comprehension when reading from computer-based text versus reading from paper-based text and whether there is any benefit from the ability to take notes and highlight text while reading. In two experiments, students' reading times and comprehension scores were compared between electronic text and paper text excerpted from a popular psychology textbook. In the first experiment, students were only allowed to read, while the second experiment allowed the use of highlighting and note-taking. The results revealed no significant difference in reading times and comprehension scores across conditions. More important, there was no significant difference in highlighting and note-taking across text formats. Overall, comprehension was poor and this may reflect highlighting and note-taking as ineffective or rather the type of behavior when engaging in these types of reading aids should be reconsidered. Alternatively, poor comprehension may have been a result of low motivation from participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Use of highlighting is a prevalent study strategy among students, but evidence regarding its benefit for learning is mixed. We examined highlighting in relation to distributed study and students' attitudes about highlighting as a study strategy. Participants read a text passage twice while highlighting or not, with their readings either distributed or massed, and followed by a week-delayed test. An overall benefit of highlighting occurred, with highlighting being especially beneficial with massed readings of the passages. Importantly, highlighting did not impair knowledge of non-highlighted information. Interestingly, those students reporting that they did not think highlighting was beneficial or were unsure about its benefits actually benefitted more from highlighting than did students who were pro-highlighting. Overall, our results indicate that under some conditions, highlighting can be a beneficial study strategy for learning and argue for students being trained in how to optimize the potential benefits of their highlighting behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]