Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring

IF 4.1 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Computers and Education Open Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100243
Elena Florit , Pietro De Carli , Antonio Rodà , Kate Cain , Lucia Mason
{"title":"Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring","authors":"Elena Florit ,&nbsp;Pietro De Carli ,&nbsp;Antonio Rodà ,&nbsp;Kate Cain ,&nbsp;Lucia Mason","doi":"10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent meta-analyses indicate poorer comprehension when reading from computers or handheld devices compared to paper-based reading of informational texts. Meta-analyses also suggest that this screen inferiority effect may be linked to individual differences in metacognition. However, most paper vs. screen research to date has been conducted with university students. This study investigated whether the inferiority of screen-based reading from computers and handheld devices for informational texts is evident in beginner readers and related to comprehension monitoring skills. In a within-subjects design, first graders' (N = 58; M<sub>age</sub> = 6.8 years) comprehension of main point, literal and inferential information was assessed using one narrative and one informational (i.e., descriptive) text read on paper, computer (laptop), and tablet. Comprehension monitoring was assessed through an inconsistency detection task. A standardized measure of reading comprehension was included as a control in the main analyses. Supplementary analyses controlling for word reading accuracy and medium preferences were also run. Linear mixed models showed superiority of main point comprehension for descriptive texts presented on tablets and inferential comprehension for narrative over descriptive texts, independent of medium. Results for literal comprehension were mixed. In addition, comprehension monitoring was related to main point and literal comprehension regardless of medium and had a greater effect on descriptive than narrative text comprehension at the inferential level. A screen inferiority effect was not detected in beginner readers' comprehension of texts from two digital mediums. Text comprehension was supported by metacognition, independent of medium.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100322,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Education Open","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100243"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Education Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557325000023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent meta-analyses indicate poorer comprehension when reading from computers or handheld devices compared to paper-based reading of informational texts. Meta-analyses also suggest that this screen inferiority effect may be linked to individual differences in metacognition. However, most paper vs. screen research to date has been conducted with university students. This study investigated whether the inferiority of screen-based reading from computers and handheld devices for informational texts is evident in beginner readers and related to comprehension monitoring skills. In a within-subjects design, first graders' (N = 58; Mage = 6.8 years) comprehension of main point, literal and inferential information was assessed using one narrative and one informational (i.e., descriptive) text read on paper, computer (laptop), and tablet. Comprehension monitoring was assessed through an inconsistency detection task. A standardized measure of reading comprehension was included as a control in the main analyses. Supplementary analyses controlling for word reading accuracy and medium preferences were also run. Linear mixed models showed superiority of main point comprehension for descriptive texts presented on tablets and inferential comprehension for narrative over descriptive texts, independent of medium. Results for literal comprehension were mixed. In addition, comprehension monitoring was related to main point and literal comprehension regardless of medium and had a greater effect on descriptive than narrative text comprehension at the inferential level. A screen inferiority effect was not detected in beginner readers' comprehension of texts from two digital mediums. Text comprehension was supported by metacognition, independent of medium.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
TPACK in context: An updated model Representing groups of students as personas: A systematic review of persona creation, application, and trends in the educational domain Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring Low-performing students benefit mostly from Open-Book Examinations Instructor Maladaptive and Adaptive Relational Styles (I-MARS) as drivers of online-student retention and satisfaction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1