Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: the paperless office revisited?

Muter, Paul; Maurutto, Paula

doi:10.1080/01449299108924288

Cited by 135 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mayes, Sims & Koonce, 2001;Noyes & Garland, 2003;Rice, 1994), while some indicated only minimal differences between the two presentational formats (e.g. Cushman, 1986;Muter & Maurutto, 1991;Oborne & Holton, 1988). Noyes and Garland (2003) explained that the inconsistency in the findings appears primarily due to variations in the methodologies employed; different experimental designs make comparative interpretation difficult, especially where the computer-based learning format is used as an adjunct to paper-based instruction, or where study time is not matched.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A research on comprehension differences between print and screen reading

Sun

Shieh

Huang

2013

SAJEMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1980s, extensive research has been conducted comparing reading comprehension from printed text and computer screens. The conclusions, however, are not very consistent. As reading from computer screens requires a certain degree of individual technical skill, such variables should be objectively taken into consideration when conducting an experiment regarding the comparison between print and screen reading. This study analyses the difference in the level of understanding of the two presentational formats (text on printed pages and hypertext on computer screens) for people between 45−54 years of age (i.e. "middleaged" adults). In our experimental findings there were no significant differences between the levels of comprehension for print and screen presentations. With regard to individual differences in gender, age group and educational level, the findings are as follows: gender and education effects on print reading comprehension performance were significant, while those on screen reading comprehension performance were not. For middle-aged computer learners, the main effect of age group on both print and screen reading comprehension performance was insignificant. In contrast, linear texts of traditional paper-based material are better for middle-aged readers' literal text comprehension, while hypertext is beneficial to their inferential text comprehension. It is also suggested that hypermedia could be used as a cognitive tool for improving middle-aged adults' inferential abilities on reading comprehension, provided that they were trained adequately to use available computers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A research on comprehension differences between print and screen reading

Sun

Shieh

Huang

2013

SAJEMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, several other studies (Askwall, 1985;Cushman, 1986;Muter & Maurutto, 1991;Holzinger et al, 2011) reported no reading speed difference between screens and paper. In the Cushman (1986) experiment, 76 subjects read continuous text for 80 minutes using microfiche, video display terminals and printed paper copy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Nonetheless, many studies on the effect of presentation medium on reading comprehension have been conducted since 1980s. Most of the studies (Muter, Latremouille, Treurniet, & Beam, 1982;Kruk & Muter, 1984;Cushman, 1986;Feldmann & Fish, 1987;Muter & Maurutto, 1991;McKnight, Dillon, Ricardson, Haraldsson, & Spinks, 1992;Pommerich, 2004;Higgins, Russell, & Hoffmann, 2005;Baker, 2010;Holzinger et al, 2011) have reported no significant reading comprehension differences between the two media. Muter, Latremouille, Treurniet, and Beam (1982) required 32 subjects to answer 25 multiple-choice questions after reading text for two hours, with half of the subjects reading from a videotext terminal and the other half from a book.…”

Section: International Journal Of Research Studies In Educational Tecmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Cushman study found that the difference between mean reading speeds for video display terminals and paper copy was not statistically significant. Muter and Maurutto (1991) conducted two experiments to test difference in reading speed between a CRT and a book. In the first and second experiments, 24 and 18 adult subjects were respectively tested.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance

Kim¹,

Kim²

2013

IJRSET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to examine differences in reading performance when an electronic test format with a scrolling text mode on a LCD monitor and a traditional paper test format were used to present reading tests to teenagers who belong to Generation Z. In this study, participants were 108 high school students who each read two different reading passages, one from paper and the other from an LCD monitor. The results show that teenagers' reading performance is affected by a presentation medium. Teenagers scored significantly higher on the paper reading comprehension tests than on the electronic ones, with average scores of 76 and 61 respectively. In addition, teenagers took much longer time to read passages and answer questions on the electronic tests than the paper tests. The paper tests only took teenagers an average of 10 minutes, but the electronic tests took an average of 16 minutes to complete. Several other variables such as gender and presentation medium preference were also tested against the variables of reading performance. These findings have strong implications for educators and educational administrators.

show abstract

“…Later studies pointed to the text quality on the computer monitor as being responsible for the poorer accuracy (Gould, Alfaro, Barnes, & Finn, 1987). Indeed, Muter and Maurutto (1991), using high-resolution computer monitors, found reading speed and comprehension comparable for computer and paper displays. Skimming speed, however, remained slower on the computer, indicating that other aspects ofthe computer interface, in addition to text quality, required improvement in order to make skimming, editing, and locating information as efficient on the computer as on the printed page (Haas & Hayes, 1986;Mills & Weldon, 1987).…”

Section: Computers and Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children’s reading skills: A comparison of traditional and computerized assessment

Evans

Tannehill

Martín

1995

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student's ability to read computer text was investigated by comparing reading performance on decoding and phonetics tests ofthe Woodcock-Johnson (Revised) Tests of Achievement, Forms A and B. Fifty-one students completed one form of the reading tests through the traditional administration method and a second form using computer administration. Initial form and administration order were counterbalanced. Coefficients of equivalence of .91 and .86 were obtained for traditional and computer administration methods of the two tests. The results are interpreted as indicating that computer-administered reading tests can assess the same domains as traditional measures, and that they may become increasingly important in the complete assessment of functional reading skills.

show abstract

Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: the paperless office revisited?

Cited by 135 publications

References 27 publications

A research on comprehension differences between print and screen reading

A research on comprehension differences between print and screen reading

Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance

Children’s reading skills: A comparison of traditional and computerized assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About