Profiling reading in print and digital mediums

Trakhman, Lauren M. Singer; Alexander, Patricia A.; Silverman, Alexis B.

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.001

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that literal reading tasks are typically considered easier than inferential reading tasks (Basaraba et al, ), this finding was contrary to expectations that screens would be more detrimental for challenging tasks than easier tasks. In three studies with similar materials and populations (college students), there were no differences by medium for determining the main idea of expository texts, but readers were better able to recall details from texts read from paper than screens (Singer & Alexander, ; Singer Trakhman et al, in‐press; Singer Trakhman et al, ). Determining the main idea of a text requires making connections (inferences) throughout the text in order to get an overall understanding, whereas recall does not require making connections (Leopold & Leutner, ; Schiefele & Krapp, ).…”

Section: Rq1: Reading Performance Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Determining the main idea of a text requires making connections (inferences) throughout the text in order to get an overall understanding, whereas recall does not require making connections (Leopold & Leutner, ; Schiefele & Krapp, ). Singer Trakhman et al (in press), Singer and Alexander () and Singer Trakhman et al () concluded that readers may be able to make connections to understand the overall main idea similarly with different media, but reading from screens may interfere with encoding specific details relative to paper. Literal measures are based on memory of the text, and subsequently, it is logical that encoding difficulty would affect performance on literal measures.…”

Section: Rq1: Reading Performance Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, one area in which they differ is in the presence of visual representations. In studies in which there was only text, reading times were longer from paper (Chen & Catrambone, ; Singer Trakhman et al, ; Singer Trakhman et al, in press). In contrast, the studies in which there were visual representations (e.g., graphs and illustrations), reading times were longer from screens (Connell et al, ; Daniel & Woody, ).…”

Section: Rq2: Reading Processes Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, the reading time findings that were significant at the study level varied from longer reading times for paper in some studies (Chen & Catrambone, 2015;Singer Trakhman et al, in press;Singer Trakhman et al, 2018) and longer reading times for screens in others (Connell et al, 2012;Daniel & Woody, 2013). These studies each involved college students and expository texts; therefore, age and genre are not potential explanations.…”

Section: Reading Timementioning

confidence: 95%

“…A synthesis by Dillon in concluded that reading text from screens is slower than paper because of the awkwardness of reading from screens compared to paper. However, comparisons of reading times by medium have been inconsistent in empirical findings since that review, with longer reading times for paper in some (e.g., Chen & Catrambone, ; Singer Trakhman, Alexander, & Berkowitz, in press; Singer Trakhman, Alexander, & Silverman, ) and longer reading times for screens in others (e.g., Connell, Bayliss, & Farmer, ; Kim & Kim, ). Considering that differences in reading times by medium have been proposed as key to understanding reading performance from paper and screens (Singer Trakhman et al, in press), a comprehensive examination of the findings on reading time is needed.…”

Section: Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinton

2019

Journal Research in Reading

270

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Given the increasing popularity of reading from screens, it is not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted comparing reading from paper and electronic sources. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to consolidate the findings on reading performance, reading times and calibration of performance (metacognition) between reading text from paper compared to screens. Methods A systematic literature search of reports of studies comparing reading from paper and screens was conducted in seven databases. Additional studies were identified by contacting researchers who have published on the topic, by a backwards search of the references of found reports and by a snowball search of reports citing what was initially found. Only studies that were experiments with random assignment and with participants who had fundamental reading skills and disseminated between 2008 and 2018 were included. Twenty‐nine reports with 33 identified studies met inclusion criteria experimentally comparing reading performance (k = 33; n = 2,799), reading time (k = 14; n = 1,233) and/or calibration (k = 11; n = 698) from paper and screens. Results Based on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper (g = −.25). Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts (g = −.32) as there was no difference with narrative texts (g = −.04). The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately (g = −.33 and g = −.26, respectively). No reliable differences were found for reading time (g = .08). Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens (g = .20). Conclusions Readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens.

show abstract

Section: Rq1: Reading Performance Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rq1: Reading Performance Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rq2: Reading Processes Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reading Timementioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinton

2019

Journal Research in Reading

270

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis

2023

Educ Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of digital technology on learning outcomes, specifically deep learning, has been a subject of considerable debate and scrutiny in educational settings. This study aims to provide clarity by conducting a meta-analysis of empirical publications that examine students' deep learning outcomes in relation to digital technology. A comprehensive search of databases and a thorough literature review yielded 60 high-quality, peer-reviewed journal articles that met the inclusion criteria. Using Review Manager 5.4.1 software, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess the overall effectiveness of digital technology. The calculated effect size indicates a positive influence of digital technology on students' deep learning outcomes. Furthermore, a moderator variable analysis revealed several significant findings: 1. Different categories of digital technology tools have a favorable impact on deep learning outcomes; 2. The duration of digital technology treatment does not significantly affect deep learning outcomes; 3. Digital technology demonstrates a highly positive influence on deep learning within the humanities and social sciences disciplines; 4. Combining online and offline utilization of digital technology in education leads to a substantially greater enhancement in deep learning compared to relying solely on online methods; 5. The effectiveness of digital technology on deep learning is enhanced when accompanied by appropriate instructional guidance; 6. Utilizing digital technology in a systematic manner produces different outcomes compared to fragmented approaches, highlighting the importance of a cohesive implementation; 7. Integrating digital technology with collaborative learning has a more pronounced effect on deep learning compared to independent learning. These findings contribute to our understanding of the impact of digital technology on deep learning outcomes and underscore the importance of thoughtful integration and instructional support in educational contexts.

show abstract

Audiobooks, Print, and Comprehension: What We Know and What We Need to Know

Singh

Alexander

2022

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Profiling reading in print and digital mediums

Cited by 30 publications

References 34 publications

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis

Audiobooks, Print, and Comprehension: What We Know and What We Need to Know

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About