Children's reading outcomes in digital and print mediums: A systematic review

IF 2 2区教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Research in Reading Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12461

Carolynn Hare, Ben Johnson, Megan Vlahiotis, Erin J. Panda, Ayda Tekok-Kilic, Suzanne Curtin

{"title":"Children's reading outcomes in digital and print mediums: A systematic review","authors":"Carolynn Hare, Ben Johnson, Megan Vlahiotis, Erin J. Panda, Ayda Tekok-Kilic, Suzanne Curtin","doi":"10.1111/1467-9817.12461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Given the growing reliance on digital devices, an increasing number of studies have examined the effects of text medium on reading outcomes in development; however, the results have been mixed. The goal of this systematic review is to look at how print and digital formats affect reading comprehension, engagement and other reading outcomes (e.g. vocabulary, reading speed) in children and adolescents aged 1–17 years old while also considering the influence of several participant, task and study characteristics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A comprehensive search strategy involving seven electronic databases yielded 88 eligible articles comparing digital and print formats on reading outcomes published between 2000 and 2023 (3 reviewer inter-rater reliability: <i>k</i> = .54–.78). Three major characteristics were coded: participant-level (grade/age, diverse populations, testing language); task-level (text-genre, shared reading, digital comparability); study-level (publication recency, study quality) characteristics. Contingency tables were created for all studies, then for each reading outcome and for participant, task, and study characteristics separately to classify the percentage of studies that demonstrated outcomes favouring print, digital, no difference or reliance on specific reading measures or other factors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Except in the case of engagement as an outcome, the most common finding was no difference between digital and print. When participant, task and study characteristics were examined separately for the various reading outcomes, the results varied. More studies examining reading comprehension (particularly of informational text and in older children) found ‘print is better’, whereas ‘digital is better’ was more common in studies examining engagement, other outcomes such as vocabulary and diverse learners.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This review highlights the importance of examining multiple interacting factors when studying the impact of print versus digital mediums on reading outcomes in children and adolescents.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47611,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Reading","volume":"47 3","pages":"309-329"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-9817.12461","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Reading","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9817.12461","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Given the growing reliance on digital devices, an increasing number of studies have examined the effects of text medium on reading outcomes in development; however, the results have been mixed. The goal of this systematic review is to look at how print and digital formats affect reading comprehension, engagement and other reading outcomes (e.g. vocabulary, reading speed) in children and adolescents aged 1–17 years old while also considering the influence of several participant, task and study characteristics.

Methods

A comprehensive search strategy involving seven electronic databases yielded 88 eligible articles comparing digital and print formats on reading outcomes published between 2000 and 2023 (3 reviewer inter-rater reliability: k = .54–.78). Three major characteristics were coded: participant-level (grade/age, diverse populations, testing language); task-level (text-genre, shared reading, digital comparability); study-level (publication recency, study quality) characteristics. Contingency tables were created for all studies, then for each reading outcome and for participant, task, and study characteristics separately to classify the percentage of studies that demonstrated outcomes favouring print, digital, no difference or reliance on specific reading measures or other factors.

Results

Except in the case of engagement as an outcome, the most common finding was no difference between digital and print. When participant, task and study characteristics were examined separately for the various reading outcomes, the results varied. More studies examining reading comprehension (particularly of informational text and in older children) found ‘print is better’, whereas ‘digital is better’ was more common in studies examining engagement, other outcomes such as vocabulary and diverse learners.

Conclusions

This review highlights the importance of examining multiple interacting factors when studying the impact of print versus digital mediums on reading outcomes in children and adolescents.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

儿童在数字和印刷媒体中的阅读成果：系统回顾

背景鉴于人们对数字设备的依赖程度越来越高，越来越多的研究探讨了文字媒介对儿童阅读成果的影响；然而，研究结果喜忧参半。本系统性综述的目的是研究印刷和数字格式如何影响 1-17 岁儿童和青少年的阅读理解能力、参与度和其他阅读成果（如词汇量、阅读速度），同时考虑参与者、任务和研究特征的影响。方法采用综合搜索策略，在七个电子数据库中搜索出 88 篇符合条件的文章，这些文章对 2000 年至 2023 年间发表的数字格式和印刷格式的阅读效果进行了比较（3 位审稿人的互评可靠性：K = .54-.78）。对三个主要特征进行了编码：参与者层面（年级/年龄、不同人群、测试语言）；任务层面（文本类型、共享阅读、数字可比性）；研究层面（发表时间、研究质量）。针对所有研究，然后针对每种阅读结果以及参与者、任务和研究特征分别创建了或然率表，以对结果显示为印刷版、数字版、无差别或依赖特定阅读测量或其他因素的研究的百分比进行分类。结果除参与度这一结果外，最常见的结果是数字阅读和印刷阅读之间没有差异。当针对各种阅读结果分别研究参与者、任务和研究特点时，结果各不相同。更多有关阅读理解（尤其是信息文本和年龄较大儿童的阅读理解）的研究发现 "印刷品更好"，而 "数字产品更好 "在有关参与度、其他成果（如词汇和多样化学习者）的研究中更为常见。结论本综述强调了在研究印刷媒体和数字媒体对儿童和青少年阅读成果的影响时，研究多种相互作用因素的重要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Research in Reading Multiple-

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Journal of Research in Reading provides an international forum for researchers into literacy. It is a refereed journal, principally devoted to reports of empirical studies in reading and related fields, and to informed reviews of relevant literature. The journal welcomes papers researching issues related to the learning, teaching and use of literacy in a variety of contexts; papers on the history and development of literacy; papers about policy and strategy for literacy as related to children and adults. Journal of Research in Reading encourages papers within any research paradigm and from researchers in any relevant field such as anthropology, cultural studies, education, history of education, language and linguistics, philosophy, psychology and sociology.

期刊最新文献

Issue Information Issue Information What we have learned about learning to read in a digital age and children's contemporary reading experiences Evidence-based support provided to struggling readers in later primary years in the UK: A scoping review Using orthographic support to reduce the impact of noise on oral vocabulary learning in adults