Abstract
The introduction and wide use of devices, especially mobile ones, has changed the way learners read and do research for a variety of reasons, and this trend has attracted a number of studies conducted regarding reading on screen and on paper in addition to those dealing with the students’ behavior in using online resources to print ones. This paper aims at identifying the major findings and trends in reading research by describing the current state of knowledge and practice in the studies comparing reading on screen and on paper and to provide guidance for practitioners by analyzing and summarizing the existing research. The current review adopted a systematic review as the research methodology as well as the article selection and screening process. The articles published between 2009 and 2017 were reviewed, and 37 articles were included in the analysis. The review revealed that the research on onscreen and paper-based reading focused on comparing the learners’ performances in reading activities in both contexts and sharing preliminary findings and students’ views. However, the findings are inconclusive as mixed findings were produced as to the effects of reading on screen and on paper. Moreover, the review also indicates that practitioners are also interested in examining the factors and affordances in reading on screen. As a result, there is still further research needed to establish the factors affecting reading and comprehension while reading on screen and on paper.
References
Ackerman, Rakefet, & Lauterman, Tirza. 2012. Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in human behavior 28. 1816-1828.
Berg, Selinda A. & Hoffmann, Kristin & Dawson, Diane. 2010. Not on the same page: Undergraduates’ information retrieval in electronic and print books. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 36(6). 518-525.
Bowman, Laura L. & Levine, Laura E. & Waite, Bradley M. & Gendron, Michael. 2010. Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education 54. 927-931.
Chen, Chih-Ming & Chen, Fang-Ya. 2014. Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education 77. 67-81.
Chen, Nian-Shing & Teng, Daniel. C. & Lee, Cheng-Han. 2011. Augmenting paper-based reading activity with direct access to digital materials and scaffolded questioning. Computers & Education 57. 1705-1715.
Daniel, David B. & Woody, William D. 2013. E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education 62. 18-23.
Farinosi, Manuela & Lim, Christopher & Roll, Julia. 2016. Book or screen, pen or keyboard? A cross-cultural sociological analysis of writing and reading habits basing on Germany, Italy and the UK. Telematics and Informatics 33. 410-421.
Fesel, Sabine S. & Segers, Elaine & Clariana, Roy B. & Verhoeven, Ludo. 2015. Quality of children’s knowledge representations in digital text comprehension: Evidence from pathfinder networks. Computers in Human Behavior 48. 135-146.
Fortunati, Leopoldina & Vincent, Jane. 2014. Sociological insights on the comparison of writing/reading on paper with writing/reading digitally. Telematics and Informatics 31. 39-51.
Gil-Flores, Javier & Torres-Gordillo, Juan-Jesus & Perera-Rodríguez, Victor-Hugo. 2012. The role of online reader experience in explaining students’ performance in digital reading. Computers & Education 59. 653-660.
Holzinger, Andreas & Baernthaler, Markus & Pammer, Walter & Katz, Herman & Bjelic-Radisic, Vesna & Ziefle, Martina. 2011. Investigating paper vs. screen in real-life hospital workflows: Performance contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 69. 563-570.
Hou, Jinghui & Rashid, Justin & Lee, Kwan M. 2017. Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Computers in Human Behavior 67. 84-94.
Huang, Ding-Long & Rau, Pei-Luen P. & Liu, Ying. 2009. Effects of font size, display resolution and task type on reading Chinese fonts from mobile devices. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39. 81-89.
Huang, H. C., Chern, C. L., & Lin, C. C. 2009. EFL learners’ use of online reading strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education 52. 13-26.
Jan, Jiun-Chi & Chen, Chih-Ming & Huang, Po-Han. 2016. Enhancement of digital reading performance by using a novel web-based collaborative reading annotation system with two quality annotation filtering mechanisms. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 86. 81-93.
Ji, Sung W. & Michaels, Sherri & Waterman, David. 2014. Print vs. electronic readings in college courses: Cost-efficiency and perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education 21. 17-24.
Kang, Yen-Yu & Wang, Mao-Jiun J. & Lin, Rungtai. 2009. Usability evaluation of E-books. Displays 30. 49-52.
Kao, Gloria Y. & Tsai, Chin-Chung & Liu, Chia-Yu & Yang, Cheng-Han. 2016. The effects of high/low interactive electronic storybooks on elementary school students’ reading motivation, story comprehension and chromatics concepts. Computers & Education 100. 56-70.
Khezrlou, Sima & Ellis, Rod & Sadeghi, Karim. 2017. Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System 65. 104-116.
Kılıçkaya, Ferit. 2016. Video killed the radio star: Language students’ use of electronic resources-Reading or viewing? In Arıkan, Arda & Saraç, Hatice Sezgi & Leal, Elana Seoane & Zorba, Hatice Akın (eds.), Proceedings from 2nd International Language, Culture and Literature Workshops, 89-92. Antalya, Turkey: Damla Kırtasiye. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570284.pdf. (Accessed 2018-09-12.)
Korat, Ofra. 2010. Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education 55. 24-31.
Lee, Der-Song & Ko, Ya-Hsien & Shen, I-Hsuan & Chao, Chih-Yu. 2011. Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays 32. 1-7.
Li, Liang-Yi & Chen, Gwo-Dong & Yang, Sheng-Jie. 2013. Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book reading and navigation. Computers & Education 60. 32-39.
Lin, Hsuan & Wu, Fong-Gong & Cheng, Yune-Yu. 2013. Legibility and visual fatigue affected by text direction, screen size and character size on color LCD e-reader. Displays 34. 49-58.
Lysenko, Larysa V. & Abrami, Philip C. 2014. Promoting reading comprehension with the use of technology. Computers & Education 75. 162-172.
Macedo-Rouet, Mônica & Ney, Muriel & Charles, Sandrine & Lallich-Boidin, Geneviève. 2009. Students’ performance and satisfaction with Web vs. paper-based practice quizzes and lecture notes. Computers & Education 53. 375-384.
Mangen, Anne & Walgermo, Bente R. & Brønnick, Kolbjørn. 2013. Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research 58. 61-68.
Martin-Beltrán, Melinda & Tigert, Johanna M. & Peercy, Megan M. & Silverman, Rebecca D. 2017. Using digital texts vs. paper texts to read together: Insights into engagement and mediation of literacy practices among linguistically diverse students. International Journal of Educational Research 82. 135-146.
Martinez, Vicente G. & López-Río, Joaquim. 2015. About the horrific peril of reading on digital devices. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 178. 105-109.
Marzban, Amir. 2011. Improvement of reading comprehension through computer-assisted language learning in Iranian intermediate EFL students. Procedia Computer Science 3. 3-10.
Park, Ho-Ryong & Kim, Deoksoon. 2017. English language learners’ strategies for reading online texts: Influential factors and patterns of use at home and in school. International Journal of Educational Research 82. 63-74.
Pölönen, Monika & Järvenpää, Toni & Häkkinen, Jukka. 2012. Reading e-books on a near-to-eye display: Comparison between a small-sized multimedia display and a hard copy. Displays 33. 157-167.
Porion, Aalexandre & Aparicio, Xavier & Megalakaki, Olga & Robert, Alisson & Baccino, Thierry. 2016. The impact of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization. Computers in Human Behavior 54. 569-576.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, Amanda J. & Courduff, Jennifer & Carter, Kimberly C. & Bennett, David. 2013. Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Computers & Education 63. 259-266.
Rosenblatt, Louise M. 1988. Writing and reading: the transactional theory. Technical Report No. 416. New York University: Center for the Study of Reading. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/18044/ctrstreadtechrepv01988i00416_opt.pdf. (Accessed 2018-06-17.)
Salter, Purue. 2016. Impact of reading from a screen versus from printed material. https://www.radford.act.edu.au/storage/reading-on-screens-v-paper.pdf. (Accessed 2018-08-20.)
Siegenthaler, Eva & Wrutz, Pascal & Bergamin, Per & Groner, Rudolf. 2011. Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays 32. 268-273.
Stone, Robert W. & Baker-Eveleth, Lori. 2013. Students’ expectation, confirmation, and continuance intention to use electronic textbooks. Computers in Human Behavior 29. 984-990.
Taipale, Sakari. 2014. The affordances of reading/writing on paper and digitally in Finland. Telematics and Informatics 31(4). 532-542.
Tracey, Diane H, & Morrow, Lesley Mandel. 2002. Preparing young learners for successful reading comprehension. In Collins Block, Cathy & Pressley, Michael (eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 319-333. New York: Guilford.
Tveit, Ase K. & Mangen, Anne. 2014. A joker in the class: Teenage readers’ attitudes and preferences to reading on different devices. Library & Information Science Research 36. 179-184.
Woody, William. D. & Daniel, David B. & Baker, Crystal A. 2010. E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education 55. 945-948.
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Kenan Çetin, Ferit Kılıçkaya
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.