Chen, Cheng, Chang, Zheng, and Huang (2014) compared the comprehension of 90 college students using tablet, computer, and text formats. Their findings support the conclusion that metacognitive judgments were of lower quality when using a screen presentation, even when the task was brief. Sidi, Ophir, and Ackerman (2016) investigated whether the inferiority in comprehension generally found with screen presentation would continue if the tasks were brief. Those using the screen format indicated a perception of greater workload. Mayes, Sims, and Koonce (2001) found no difference in comprehension between screen and text, but did find a significant difference in perceived workload and comprehension. Although they found no difference among the groups they did note that older readers with less comfort using technology may respond differently and they concluded that there is a need to continue to present print text even while supporting e-technology and integrated technology skills.
Margolin, Driscoll, Toland, and Kegler (2013) studied 90 college students using paper, computer (PDF), and e-reader formats to determine comprehension differences.
#Student reading texts online pdf#
Mangen, Walgermo, and Bronnick (2013) compared paper copy with a PDF model and found that the paper readers out-performed the digital readers on comprehension and the ability to mentally reconstruct a text. He noted that E-readers lack the haptic qualities that print books provide. print media and concluded that print books are still best suited for all of these tasks.
Tanner (2014) examined optical, cognitive, and metacognitive outcomes of digital vs. When comprehension is examined, print either outperforms electronic models or no statistical difference is found. Their research used an E-textbook, TTF (Task Technology Fit) model and concluded that when students perceive the fit between their learning task and the technology (E-text) they recognize the value and exhibit greater buy-in. When asked, students overwhelmingly chose print textbooks over e-textbooks (Gerhart, Peak, & Prybutok, 2015).
#Student reading texts online portable#
Gattiker, Lowe, and Terpind (2012) reported that as many as 50% of college students print their online textbooks-generally at college expense, because they want a portable copy. Similarly, Gregory (2008) noted that students found E-textbooks hard to navigate. Reporting in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Chen (2012) noted that students find E-textbooks clumsy and therefore underutilize them. These participants included in their preference for print a love for the smell of books, ease of following, ability to more carefully read, and the difficulty of keeping place in digital text. He supported this statement with evidence from the Pew Society findings that indicated the highest print readership among 18-29 year olds. Rosenwald (2015) stated, “Digital natives prefer reading in print” (np). Direct Textbook conducted a survey and found 72% of college students prefered traditional textbooks to electronic text for reasons like ease of reading, cost, ability to physically highlight, reduced eyestrain, and freedom from Internet access (Bolkan, 2015). Their findings indicated that while there were positive influences on the ease of use of the E-readers, there was no similar positive influence on perceived enjoyment. Tsai and Yen (2014) examined reader willingness to use E-books and E-reading devices. In most studies, print books score higher than E-books on measures of general utilization and enjoyment. But does it necessarily follow that coming of age in the digital reading era means millennials and those even younger will prefer screen reading to handheld print reading? Emerging research seems to indicate that all readers, regardless of age, tend to prefer text to online reading sources. Because of E-books and E-readers like Nook and Kindle, both educational and leisure reading selections are extensive and immediately available. They have little patience when it comes to waiting for access to anything.
Millennials have grown up with digital text and immediate access to almost any online resource.
0 kommentar(er)
