Within the IBM galaxy: Exploring differences in online processes and comprehension outcomes between reading on screen and reading on paper

Dado el uso extendido de los dispositivos digitales para aprender, resulta crucial conocer si la lectura en pantalla ejerce alguna influencia sobre la comprensión lectora. Sin embargo, la evidencia previa es aún no concluyente. Esta tesis doctoral trata de arrojar más luz sobre dicha circunstancia, así como poner a prueba la Hipótesis de Superficialidad como posible explicación del efecto negativo de la lectura en pantalla sobre la comprensión lectora encontrado por algunos estudios previos. Esta hipótesis propone que los peores resultados en comprensión durante lectura en pantalla son causados por una disminución del esfuerzo cognitivo en este medio. Así, en primer lugar, llevamos a cabo un meta-análisis que sintetizó la literatura empírica publicada entre los años 2000 y 2017 que comparan la comprensión lectora entre la lectura en papel y la lectura en pantalla. Nuestros resultados mostraron peores niveles de comprensión al leer en pantalla que al leer los mismos textos impresos. Además, algunas variables moderaron este efecto. Encontramos que la inferioridad de la lectura en pantalla es mayor entre aquellos estudios que usaron textos expositivos (vs narrativos) y entre aquellos estudios que impusieron a los participantes un límite temporal para la lectura, en comparación con aquellos que permitían a los participantes leer durante el tiempo que estimasen oportuno. Estos hallazgos sugieren que el efecto de inferioridad de la lectura en pantalla aparece especialmente cuando la tarea demanda un mayor esfuerzo cognitivo. Además, encontramos que el efecto es mayor entre los estudios más recientes, es decir, entre las generaciones más jóvenes. Adicionalmente, realizamos dos estudios experimentales con la intención de poner a prueba la Hipótesis de Superficialidad como explicación del efecto de inferioridad de la lectura en pantalla. El primero de ellos comparó el compromiso cognitivo de los lectores, medido a través de sus movimientos oculares, mientras leían varios textos expositivos tanto en pantalla como en papel. También se examinó su nivel de comprensión de los textos y su monitorización meta-cognitiva de dicho nivel de comprensión. Así, una muestra de 116 estudiantes universitarios leyó tres textos en un cuadernillo impreso y otros tres textos en una tablet. De ellos, un grupo leyó durante el tiempo que estimó oportuno, mientras que otro grupo leyó bajo presión temporal. Los resultados indicaron que el tiempo de fijación ocular de los participantes durante la lectura fue mayor cuando leyeron los textos impresos y que la precisión relativa de su monitorización meta-cognitiva fue más elevada en este medio de lectura. En consecuencia, la comprensión fue algo más elevada al leer en papel que al leer en pantalla, aunque este último efecto solo se aproximó a la significatividad con un test estadístico conservador de dos colas. El tercer estudio comparó la atención sobre la tarea de lectura (mediante medidas de mind-wandering, esto es, la generación de pensamientos ajenos a la tarea), la monitorización cognitiva y la comprensión lectora de los participantes al leer un artículo expositivo largo en pantalla o impreso. Ciento cuarenta estudiantes universitarios fueron asignados a una de cuatro condiciones experimentales, según leyeran en un ordenador o en la revista impresa, y según leyeran con tiempo ilimitado o bajo presión temporal. Encontramos que, bajo presión temporal, solo quienes leyeron el artículo impreso aumentaron su atención a la tarea de lectura. Así, este grupo obtuvo mejores resultados de comprensión que el grupo que leyó en pantalla también bajo presión temporal. En cambio, con tiempo ilimitado de lectura los dos grupos de medio de lectura mostraron un nivel de atención similar y obtuvieron puntuaciones similares en comprensión. Por último, no encontramos diferencias entre los grupos experimentales respecto a la monitorización meta-cognitiva de su nivel de comprensión. En conjunto, los resultados de los tres estudios indican que leer en pantalla provoca peores resultados de comprensión, especialmente bajo limitaciones de tiempo de lectura. Este efecto parece estar causado por un menor compromiso cognitivo con la tarea en dicho medio de lectura. Por lo tanto, nuestros hallazgos apoyan la Hipótesis de Superficialidad.Given the pervasive use of digital devices for learning, it is crucial to know whether reading on screens exerts any influence on text comprehension. Nevertheless, previous findings are still inconclusive. This dissertation tried to shed more light on this issue, and aimed to test the Shallowing hypothesis as a possible explanation for the detrimental effect of on-screen reading on text comprehension previously found by some studies. This hypothesis proposes that poorer comprehension outcomes when reading on screen are caused by a lessened cognitive engagement with texts in this medium. To that ends, we first conducted a meta-analysis including the existing empirical literature from 2000 to 2017 comparing reading comprehension between reading in print and on screens. The results showed poorer comprehension outcomes for reading on screen than for reading in print. Furthermore, some moderators qualified this effect. The on-screen inferiority was found to be larger among those studies that used expository texts (vs. narrative texts) and those that required participants to read under time constraints (vs. self-paced reading time). These findings pointed out that the medium effect especially appears when the reading task demands increased mental effort. In addition, we found that the medium effect is larger among the more recent studies, so in younger generations. In addition, we conducted two experimental studies aiming to test the Shallowing hypothesis of the on-screen inferiority for reading comprehension. The first study compared readers’ cognitive engagement, as measured by readers’ eye-movements, while reading several expository texts both on screen and in print. It also examined readers’ reading comprehension outcomes and comprehension monitoring. A sample of 116 undergraduates read three texts on a printed booklet and three texts on a tablet. Some of the participants self-paced their study time, whereas the rest of the sample read under time pressure. Our findings indicated that, regardless of the reading-time frame, the participants fixated longer when reading in print, and that the relative accuracy of their comprehension monitoring was higher also in this medium. Accordingly, they scored higher on the comprehension questions, although this effect only approached significance with a conservative two-tail test. Our third study compared readers’ mind-wandering while reading (i.e., the generation of task-unrelated thoughts), metacognitive monitoring, and text comprehension when reading a long expository article in print or on screen. One hundred and forty undergraduates were allocated to one of four experimental condition, varying in the reading medium (desktop computers vs. the printed magazine) and the reading time-frame (self-paced vs. time pressure). We found that only those participants who read in print reduced their mindwandering (i.e., they increased on-task sustained attention) when the task required to read under time pressure. Thus, in this time-frame condition, the participants who read on screen scored lower on the comprehension test. In contrast, when reading time was self-paced, the level of mind-wandering and the comprehension scores were similar regardless of the medium. Finally, there were no differences in metacognitive monitoring of comprehension between the experimental groups. Altogether, the results from our three studies revealed that reading on screen yields poorer comprehension outcomes, especially under time constraints. This effect seems to be caused by a lessened cognitive engagement in this medium. Therefore, our findings support the Shallowing hypothesis of the on-screen inferiority for reading

How to teach digital reading?

This paper offers a discussion of the knowledge, skills, and awareness involved in digital reading. Reading, in this paper, is used in the broader sense to include deriving meaning from media on a digital screen. This paper synthesises key ideas from existing studies and presents a taxonomy for the teaching of digital reading. The taxonomy includes the development of: 1) the knowledge of linear and deep reading strategies; 2) basic and critical information skills; and 3) a multimodal semiotic awareness. The goal of this paper is to unpack the specific knowledge and skills for digital reading which will support educators, including classroom teachers and librarians, on the aspects to pay attention to as students engage in digital reading. This paper argues that, in addition to equipping students with the knowledge of reading strategies and information skills, an awareness of how the various semiotic modes make meaning is fundamental to effective digital reading

Print versus digital texts: understanding the experimental research and challenging the dichotomies

This article presents the results of a systematic critical review of interdisciplinary literature concerned with digital text (or e-text) uses in education and proposes recommendations for how e-texts can be implemented for impactful learning. A variety of e-texts can be found in the repertoire of educational resources accessible to students, and in the constantly changing terrain of educational technologies, they are rapidly evolving, presenting new opportunities and affordances for student learning. We highlight some of the ways in which academic studies have examined e-texts as part of teaching and learning practices, placing a particular emphasis on aspects of learning such as recall, comprehension, retention of information and feedback. We also review diverse practices associated with uses of e-text tools such as note-taking, annotation, bookmarking, hypertexts and highlighting. We argue that evidence-based studies into e-texts are overwhelmingly structured around reinforcing the existing dichotomy pitting print-based (‘traditional’) texts against e-texts. In this article, we query this approach and instead propose to focus on factors such as students’ level of awareness of their options in accessing learning materials and whether they are instructed and trained in how to take full advantage of the capabilities of e-texts, both of which have been found to affect learning performance

Modeling E-Textbook Tools or Encouraging Reading from Paper: What are the Effects on Medium Choice and Textbook Use?

E-textbooks have become more popular with college students, but there are concerns that reading is not as effective from screens as paper. In addition, students may not take advantage of tools afforded by e-textbooks. The purpose of this study was to determine if encouraging students to read from paper or modeling e-textbook tools would be better for students in terms of reading and using their textbooks. Two instructors randomly assigned students (N = 144) to view a video and answer an essay question about either the benefits of reading from paper, how to use etextbook tools, or general information about open educational resources (control). Findings indicated that students told about the benefits of reading from paper were not more likely to read the textbook from paper. Students also generally used both paper and e-textbooks in a similar manner, except students in the e-textbook tools condition reported more notetaking while reading than students in the paper condition. Finally, student medium preference for studying did not change based on condition. Findings from this study provide guidance for how instructors should advise students on reading their course textbooks

Effects of reading media on reading comprehension in health professional education : a systematic review protocol

Objective: To evaluate the effect of digital-based reading versus paper-based reading on reading comprehension among students, trainees, and residents participating in health professional education. Introduction: Several reviews have examined the effects of reading media on reading comprehension; however, none have considered health professional education specifically. The growing use of electronic media in health professional education, as well as recent data on the consequences of digital-based reading on learning, justify the necessity to review the current literature to provide research and educational recommendations. Inclusion criteria: Studies conducted with health professions students, trainees, and residents individually receiving educational material written in their first language in a paper-based or a digital-based format will be considered. Studies conducted among participants with cognitive impairment or reading difficulties will be excluded. Observational, experimental and quasi-experimental studies that assess reading comprehension measured by previously validated or researcher-generated tests will be considered. Methods: Relevant studies will be sought from CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (SCI and SSCI), without date or language restrictions. Two independent reviewers will perform title and abstract screening, full-text review, critical appraisal, and data extraction. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or with a third independent reviewer. Synthesis will occur at four levels (i.e., study, participant, intervention, and outcome levels) in a table format. Data will be synthesized descriptively and with meta-analyses if appropriate

Reading and Studying on the Screen, and, Addendum: two articles

As distance education moves increasingly towards online provision, and because of the benefits provided by online approaches, students will be expected to engage with more resources available on screen. Contemporary forms of reading from the screen include reading from tablet devices, LCD monitors, and smartphones. However, print remains the preferred means of reading text, and student preference for print is accentuated when reading involves thorough study (Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Foasberg, 2014). Education providers face an interesting challenge. Although many learners prefer having access to printed materials, on-screen reading can improve education’s convenience, portability, media-richness, engagement, support, and data-evidenced practice. In this context it is timely to consider the potential for on-screen reading from the perspective of learning design. This article considers studies related to reading on screen, and suggests good practice principles for on-screen-only learning design. In 2016 the article “Reading and Studying on the Screen: An Overview of Literature Towards Good Learning Design Practice” was published. The article overviewed comparative studies related to reading on screen and reading from print, and proposed recommendations for on-screen learning design. This addendum to that article considers additional studies that have been analysed in subsequent blog posts (see “An Update to ‘Reading and Studying From the Screen’” [http://tel-lingit.blogspot.com/2018/02/an-update-to-reading-and-studying-from.html] and “A Further Update to ‘Reading and Studying From the Screen’” [https://tel-lingit.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-further-update-to-reading-and.html]) up to the end of November 2018. As this is an invited addendum, I’ll take the opportunity to adopt a more personal and self-disclosing style to talk more about my own position and experience regarding digital education and on-screen reading. This piece alternates is both scholarly and polemic.

Reading and Studying on the Screen, and, Addendum: two articles

As distance education moves increasingly towards online provision, and because of the benefits provided by online approaches, students will be expected to engage with more resources available on screen. Contemporary forms of reading from the screen include reading from tablet devices, LCD monitors, and smartphones. However, print remains the preferred means of reading text, and student preference for print is accentuated when reading involves thorough study (Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Foasberg, 2014). Education providers face an interesting challenge. Although many learners prefer having access to printed materials, on-screen reading can improve education’s convenience, portability, media-richness, engagement, support, and data-evidenced practice. In this context it is timely to consider the potential for on-screen reading from the perspective of learning design. This article considers studies related to reading on screen, and suggests good practice principles for on-screen-only learning design. In 2016 the article “Reading and Studying on the Screen: An Overview of Literature Towards Good Learning Design Practice” was published. The article overviewed comparative studies related to reading on screen and reading from print, and proposed recommendations for on-screen learning design. This addendum to that article considers additional studies that have been analysed in subsequent blog posts (see “An Update to ‘Reading and Studying From the Screen’” [http://tel-lingit.blogspot.com/2018/02/an-update-to-reading-and-studying-from.html] and “A Further Update to ‘Reading and Studying From the Screen’” [https://tel-lingit.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-further-update-to-reading-and.html]) up to the end of November 2018. As this is an invited addendum, I’ll take the opportunity to adopt a more personal and self-disclosing style to talk more about my own position and experience regarding digital education and on-screen reading. This piece alternates is both scholarly and polemic.