Display & Reading Comprehension

By: Kody JurpikLuke Rary

Kelsey Mosteller

Introduction● Studies have shown that people have a strong preference for print over digital

media● Apple Software uses anti-aliasing technology, which creates the illusion of

curved edges similar to the pages found in a textbook.● Reasons That people prefer Printed media:

-Hardware: Eye strain, limited viewing panels

-Software: Font style, font size, orientation and navigation difficulties/inconveniences

Introduction (Cont.)● In a study by Young (2014), two study groups (one reading print, and one reading online text), read

text and were asked to answer questions about the text.● They were not given any time constraints and were allowed answer the questions after reading the

article, but were allowed to reference the text to answer.● Results: both groups answered, but their methods were different.

-The online group scrolled through the text just to find facts, and then referenced the textbook afterwards.

-The print group did not need to reference the material; they were more engaged with the material

● A similar study was conducted by Ackerman & Lauterman (2012), but with time constraints.● In this experiment, the online group had much lower scores than the print group did.

Hypothesis

People will have a higher level of reading comprehension when reading print material over online material.

Methods● Participants (N=30)● Materials:

○ Laptop, paper copy of both passages,

question sheet for each reading, and a writing utensil.

● Selected readings:○ Passage 1: Pride & Prejudice○ Passage 2: The Great Gatsby

● Four Conditions:○ 1) Computer 1 (P&P), Paper 2 (GG)○ 2) Computer 2 (GG), Paper 1 (P&P)○ 3) Paper 1 (P&P), Computer 2 (GG)○ 4) Paper 2 (GG), Computer 1 (P&P)

Methods● Procedure:

1) Researchers presented each participant with a brief passage to read.

2) After reading the passage, participants completed a two question reading comprehension assessment.

3) The process was then repeated for the second reading passage.

4) Debriefing

Results

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 comquest - Paperquest .10000 .95953 .17518 -.25829 .45829 .571 29 .573

- Repeated Measures (Within Subject) T-Test- T = .57, P > .05- M = .10, St. Dv. = .96- No difference between computer questions vs. paper questions- Not statistically significant study

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 comquest 2.6667 30 .71116 .12984

Paperquest 2.5667 30 .67891 .12395

Discussion

-Overall our hypothesis was not supported.

-Our results are both similar and different to the ones found in Reference #1-Experiment #1:

-Hypothesis supported-No difference when given free regulation-Between subject design; ANOVA-Main effect and interaction-Statistical significance; OSL scored less than OPL participants

-Experiment #2:-Within subject design; ANOVA-Hypothesis supported and not supported-Statistical significance for time-No main effect on order-Main effect and interaction for 3-way ANOVA

Discussion (cont.)-Our results are more different than similar for those found in Reference #2

-Tested computer vs. paper while using advertisements-Tested for recall and recognition-Between subject and within subject design

-Hypothesis #1: Print recall higher than screen recall for ad claims-Statistical significance-Recalled more infomation; Higher % success rate

-Hypothesis #2: Print recall higher than screen recall for nonpersuasive infomation-Statistical significance-Recalled more information; No higher % success rate

-Hypothesis #3: Memory for nonpersuasive information greater than persuasive information-Statistical significance-Recalled more information; Higher % success rate

-Hypothesis #4: Differences between paper and screen will disappear for nonpersuasive information

-No statistical significance

Discussion (cont.)-Our results are more different than similar to those found in Reference #3

-Model A:-More variance when texts read second rather than first

-Model B:-Text for absolute value has no clear difference between text order-Singular Variables

-Statistical significance for situation model when text read first-Statistical significance for self-efficacy when text read second

-Current text shows more variance of student self-assessment when text read second-Model C:

-No singular variable statistical significance for text-RQ1:

-More statistical significance of self-assessment for text about absolute value-RQ2:

-More statistical significance for text about practical fraction decomposition-Statistical significance when text read second

Discussion (cont.)

-Our results are both similar and different to the ones found in Reference #4

-No hypotheses, just research questions

-RQ1: Is the on-line reading process similar to reading the printed page as measured by the reader’s comprehension and retention of information? If not, why and how do they differ?

-They are the same-RQ2: What reading strategies that differ from print do readers adopt when reading online?

-They scroll through to retrieve facts from the Internet and then verify the facts on paper

-Completed questionnaires after each text-No measurable difference between paper and screen reading processes

-Read each in depth

References

Ackerman, R., Lauterman, T. (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. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023

Jones, M. Y., Pentecost, R., Requena, G. (2005) Memory for advertising and information content: comparing the printed

page to the computer screen. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 623-648. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20077

Österholm, M. (2015) What is the basis for self-assessment of comprehension when reading mathematical expository

texts? Reading Psychology, 36, 673-699, DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2014.949018

Young, J. (2014) A study of print and computer-based reading to measure and compare rates of comprehension and

retention. New Library World, 115, 376-393. DOI: 10.1108/NLW-05-2014-0051