Document Type : Research
Authors
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine differences in reading performance when an Electronic format with a scrolling text mode on a LCD monitor and a traditional paper format were used to present reading. The method which is used is experimental method and the research population consists of students of PayameNoor University in FirouzAbad.This study consists of 94 individuals that have been chosen by Random Sampling method. They were randomized into two groups, where the first group read text in print, and the other group read the same texts as PDF on a computer screen. Main findings of analyzing by using T-test measurement showed that students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally. In addition, in this study, no significant differences between matched computer and paper-based text in terms of the time taken to study, on the other hand Main findings of analyzing by using Enter regression measurement showed context factors significant effect on reading speed and no effect on reading comprehension. These findings have strong implications for educators, educational administrators, policymaking and test development.
Keywords
سرمدی، زهره و همکاران (1376). روش‌های تحقیق در علوم رفتاری- نشر آگه – تهران.
علی‌نژاد؛ مهرانگیز (1393). "روند پژوهش‌های حوزة یادگیری الکترونیکی در ایران با رویکرد فراتحلیل". فصلنامة پژوهش در یادگیری آموزشگاهی و مجازی، سال اول، شماره 3.
مهدیون، روح‌اله؛ قهرمانی، محمد؛ فراستخواه، مقصود؛ ابوالقاسمی، محمود (1390). "کیفیت یادگیری در مراکز آموزش الکترونیکی دانشگاهی: مطالعه‌ای کیفی". فصلنامة تحقیقات کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی دانشگاهی. 58: 77-100.
Ackerman, R. & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32.
Askwall, S. (1985). Computer supported reading vs reading text on paper: a comparison of two reading situations. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies 22 (4), 425–439.
Baccino, T. (2004). La lecture e´lectronique: De la vision a` la compre´hension. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble
Baker, R.D. (2010). Comparing the readability of text displays on paper, e-book readers, and small screen devices. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas.
Bannert, M. & Arbinger, P.R. (1996). Gender-related differences in exposure to and use of computers: Results of a survey of secondary school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 269–282.
Belmore, S.M., Reading computer-presented text. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 23 (1), (1985), pp: 12–14.
Blehm, C., Vishnu, S., Khattak, A., Mitra, S. & Yee, R.W. (2005). Computer vision syndrome: A review. Survey of Ophthalmology, 50(3), 253–262.
Broos, A. (2005). Gender and information and communication technologies (ICT) anxiety: Male self-assurance and female hesitation. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 8(1), 21-31.
Bulger, M. (2006). Beyond search: A preliminary skill set for online literacy. The Trans literacy Project.
Campbell, J. R., Kelly, D.L., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O. & Sainsbury, M. (2001). Framework and Specifications for PIRLS assessment 2001 (2nded.). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College
Champers. L. (2009) Computer-based and paper-based writing assessment: a comparative text analysis Proceedings of the BAAL Annual Conference 2009 Newcastle University
Choi, S. &.Tinkler, T. (2002, April). Evaluating Comparability of Paper-and-Pencil and Computer Based Assessment in a K-12 Setting. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 200–216). London: Sage.
Clariana, R. & Wallace, P. (2002). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: Key factors associated with mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 593-602.
Clarke, V.A. (1990). Sex differences in computing participation: concerns, extent, reasons and strategies. Australian Journal of Communication, 34, 52–66.
Comber, C., Colley, A., Hargreaves, D.J. & Dorn, L. (1997). The effects of age, gender and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educational Research, 39(2), 123–133.
Cushman, W.H. (1986). Reading from microfiche, VDT and the printed page: subjective fatigue and performance. Human Factors 28 (1), 63–73.
Destefano, D. & Lefevre, J. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior. (23), 3, 1616-1641.
Dillon, A. (1994). Designing usable electronic text: Ergonomic aspects of human information usage. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
Dundar, H. & Akcayır, M. (2012). Tablet vs. Paper: The effect on learners' reading performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 4(3), 441- 450
Dziuban, C. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE. 1-12.
Eno, Linda P. (2011). "Comparing the Reading Performance of High-Achieving Adolescents: Computers-Based Testing Versus Paper/Pencil". Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs).
From: http://dev.assets.pearsonschool.com/asset-_mgr/legacy/200746/Trends%20in%20Comparability%20Studies_rr0505_3963_1.pdf.
Gallagher, A., Bridgeman, B. & Calahan, C. (2002). The effect of computer-based test on racial-ethnic and gender groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(2), 133-147.
Garland, K.J. & Noyes, J.M. (2004). CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning? Behavior and Information Technology, 23(1), 43–52.
Gomez. (2007). Reading for learning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 224-228.
Gould, J.D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N., Minuto, A. (1987). Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: attempts to isolate a single variable explanation. Human Factors 29 (3), 269–299.
Gould, J.D., Grischkowsky, N. (1984). Doing the same work with hard copy and cathode-ray tube (CRT) computer terminals. Human Factors 26 (3), 323–337.
Heppner, F., Anderson, J., Farstrup, A., Weiderman, N.(1985). Reading performance on a standardized test is better from print than from computer display. Journal of Reading 28, 321–325.
Holzinger, A., Baernthaler, M., Pammer, W., Katz, H., Bjelic-Radisic, V. & Jiefle, M (2011). Investigating paper vs. screen in real-life hospital workflows: Performance contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.69 (9), 563-570.
Keenan, S.A. (1984). Effects of chunking and line length on reading efficiency. Visible Language 18, 61–80.
Kerr, M.A. & Symons, S.E. (2006) Computerized presentation of text: Effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and Writing, 1-19.
Kim, H. & Kim, J. (2013) Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 2(1), 1-10
Kruk, R.S., Muter, P. (1984). Reading of continuous text on video screens. Human Factors 26, 339–345.
Latham, P. & Gross, M. (2008). Broken links: Undergraduates look back on their experiences with information literacy in K-12 education. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, School of Information.
Lee, D.S., Ko, Y.H., Shen, I.H. & Chao, C.Y. (2011). Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays, 32(1), 1–7.
Macedo-Rouet, M. (2009). Students' performance and satisfaction with web vs. paper-based practice quizzes and lecture notes. Computers and Education, 53(2), 375384.
Mangen, A. (2006). New narrative pleasures? A cognitive-phenomenological study of the experience of reading digital narrative fictions. Doctoral thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology [NTNU], Trondheim, Norway. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/-resolve?urn=urn:-nbn:no:ntnu:diva-1833.
Mangen, A. (2010). Point and click: Theoretical and phenomenological reflections on the digitization of early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood11 (4).
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R. & Brønnick, K. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of educational research, 58, 61-68.
Muter, P., Latr!emoullie, S.A., Treurniet, W.C., Beam, P., (1982). Extended reading of continuous text on television screens. Human Factors 24 (5), 501–508.
Newsted, P.R. (1985). Paper versus online presentations of subjective questionnaires. International Journal of Man– Machine Studies 23, 231–247.
Noyes, J.M. & Garland, K.J. (2008). Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics, (51), No. 9, 1352–1375.
Noyes, J.M. Garland, K.J. (2003) International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 ,411–423
Noyes, J.M., Garland, K.J. & Robbins, E.L. (2004). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: Is workload another test mode effect? British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 111–113
Oborne, D.J., Holton, D. (1988) Reading from screen versus paper: there is no difference. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies 28 (1), 1–9.
OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on line: Digital technologies and performance (Vol. VI, pp.). OECD.
Peak, P. Recent trends in comparability studies. (2005). Retrieved on September 2,2015
Pickering, R. (1997). Reading music from screens vs paper. Behavior and Information Technology 16 (2), 72–78.
Pommerich, M. (2004). Developing Computerized Versions of Paper and Pencil Tests: Mode Effects for Passage-Based Tests. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 6(2).
Shepperd, J., Grace, Jodi L. &, Erika J. (2008). Evaluating the electronic textbook: Is it time to dispense with the paper text? Teaching of Psychology, 35:1, 2 – 5
Tanner, M.J. (2014). Digital vs. print: Reading comprehension and the future of the book. SJSU School of Information Student Research Journal.
Tseng, M. (2010). Factors that influence online reading: An investigation into EFL students’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix. (10),1.
Wa¨ stlund, E. et al. (2005). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psych
Wa¨ stlund, E. et al. (2005). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 377–394.
Way, W., Davis, L. & Fitzpatrick, P. (2006). Score comparability of online and paper administration of the Texas Assessment of Skills and Knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA, and (April).
Weldon, L., Mills, C., Koved, L., Shneiderman, B. (1985). The structure of information in online and paper technical manuals. In: Proceedings of 29th Annual Meeting of Human Factors Society. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 1110–1113.
Wilkinson, R.T., Robinshaw, H.M., (1987). Proof-reading: VDU and paper text compared for speed, accuracy and fatigue. Behaviour and Information Technology 6 (2), 125–133.
Wright, P., Lickorish, A. (1983). Proof-reading texts on screen and paper. Behavior and Information Technology 2, 227–235.
Yan, Z., Hu, L., Chen, H. & Lu, F. (2008). Computer vision syndrome: A widely spreading but largely unknown epidemic among computer users. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2026–2042.
Yen, C. & Wang, M. (2002). Study of user experiences on electronic- and paper- based reading. Retrieved from http://www.idemp-loyee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.NotOpen/ADC/final_p-ap-zer/183.pdf.
)