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

Abstract

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.

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

“…In the screen condition, students were instructed to circle their responses using their computer mice, whereas students in the paper condition circled their responses using a pencil. Despite the conclusion of Wang et al (2008) that paper and computer-based testing are similar, it is possible that the different psychomotor demands of assessment in Kim and Kim (2013) were responsible for the substantially longer reading times in the paper than the screen condition.…”

“…There were limitations in the quality of the studies covered in this review. Across many of the studies, a common limitation is a lack of reliability statistics reported for measures (e.g., Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011;Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012;Chen et al, 2014;Daniel & Woody, 2013;Green et al, 2010;Kim & Kim, 2013;Lauterman & Ackerman, 2014;Porion et al, 2016;Taylor, 2011). Reading comprehension is a multidimensional construct, which makes developing measures with good internal consistency challenging (Clinton, 2014;Kamalski, 2004).…”

A joker in the class: Teenage readers' attitudes and preferences to reading on different devices

“…Research projects vary with respect to scope and method, and main findings concerning the effects of technological affordances on central aspects of reading are still to a considerable extent inconsistent. Some studies (Jeong, 2012;Kim & Kim, 2013;Mangen, Walgermo, & Brønnick, 2013;Stoop, Kreutzer, & Kircz, 2013a,b;Wästlund, 2007;Wästlund, Reinikka, Norlander, & Archer, 2005) find reading on screen to be inferior to reading on paper with respect to cognitive outcomes (e.g., reading comprehension). Other studies have found that there are no or only minor cognitive differences, and that the main differences are on a metacognitive level (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011) or pertain to subjective experience and evaluations rather than objective outcomes (Grzeschik, Kruppa, Marti, & Donner, 2011;Kretzschmar et al, 2013).…”

The affordances of screen capture technology for retrospective analysis of the writing process

“…Other students and instructors have a full workload and planning feedback session for every student will inevitably become a scheduling nightmare. In order to decrease the workload, computer assisted writing (and reading) has been studied in an EFL context with promising results (Kazemzadeh & Fard Kashani, 2013;Kim & Kim, 2013). The advance of the instrumentation and the methodology used in the current study are the affordances they offer for distance learning education.…”