↓ Skip to main content

Reading a Story: Different Degrees of Learning in Different Learning Environments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reading a Story: Different Degrees of Learning in Different Learning Environments
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00701
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Maria Giannini, Pierluigi Cordellieri, Laura Piccardi

Abstract

The learning environment in which material is acquired may produce differences in delayed recall and in the elements that individuals focus on. These differences may appear even during development. In the present study, we compared three different learning environments in 450 normally developing 7-year-old children subdivided into three groups according to the type of learning environment. Specifically, children were asked to learn the same material shown in three different learning environments: reading illustrated books (TB); interacting with the same text displayed on a PC monitor and enriched with interactive activities (PC-IA); reading the same text on a PC monitor but not enriched with interactive narratives (PC-NoIA). Our results demonstrated that TB and PC-NoIA elicited better verbal memory recall. In contrast, PC-IA and PC-NoIA produced higher scores for visuo-spatial memory, enhancing memory for spatial relations, positions and colors with respect to TB. Interestingly, only TB seemed to produce a deeper comprehension of the story's moral. Our results indicated that PC-IA offered a different type of learning that favored visual details. In this sense, interactive activities demonstrate certain limitations, probably due to information overabundance, emotional mobilization, emphasis on images and effort exerted in interactive activities. Thus, interactive activities, although entertaining, act as disruptive elements which interfere with verbal memory and deep moral comprehension.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 35%
Researcher 3 18%
Professor 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,449,496
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,211
of 16,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,876
of 323,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#175
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,313 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.