Just finished reading an interesting study that was a meta-analysis of digital versus paper reading. The research done by Virginia Clinton (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-9817.12269) concluded with:
Reading from screens, such as tablets, smartphones and computers, has become ubiquitous for leisure, academic and work‐related reading. This review examined the literature on performance and two processes in reading text from screens and paper. There is legitimate concern that reading on paper may be better in terms of performance and efficiency. Future examination of key issues related to mind wandering, medium preference and contextual cues provided by medium will inform the practical implications of reading text from paper compared to screens.
The study is well done and I wouldn't have any issues with her conclusions. Her study looked at 33 high-quality studies that tested students’ comprehension after they were randomly assigned to read on a screen or on paper. According to the study, the benefit for reading on paper was rather small, with 29 of the 33 laboratory studies found that readers learned more from text on paper. The study also identifies that the reading genre also makes a difference, the studies that had students read narrative fiction, found there was no benefit to paper over screens.
She also points out some of the issues of such studies. Such as how age is an important factor. Because adults have had more experience with reading (and for them, much of it would have been limited to paper). Today though, it has become more common for elementary school students to read from screens. So it is likely that readers who are children today may be more accustomed to reading from screens and readers who are adults likely learned how to read from paper. This makes me wonder how much of this is an experience effect. Also with that experience would be the devices. Other than her mentioning them being on screens and being studies after 2008, there was no differentiation of the analysis that I could find about the different kinds of screens, especially important for light-emitting versus the modern eink devices, like a Kindle. Additionally, she was using studies that didn't have participants with disabilities, including visual impairments, which is quite reasonable to avoid possible confounds related to disabilities.
I'm not surprised to find that there is some difference, or that it may be more for print - printed paper is a great technology with a long history. The study is a good one. But the issue that could develop are such a comparison of something that do one thing versus a variety of things. Consider, if you had to compare a rowboat and a powerboat, but you could only compare them by rowing. I've seen amazing changes in the reading experience by some of my students just by a minor increase in font size. Although, for those reading from lighted screens you have to worry also about the light effect and the distractions of other apps that might be one. Everything has advantages and disadvantages. We also need studies not to just combine all devices into one category, reading from a computer (screen just ahead), would be different from a tablet (down at an angle like a book), as could be the led screen versus the eink. More studies such as this one are needed.
Comments
Post a Comment