Is printed-text the best choice? A mixed-method case study on reading comprehension

Year 2020, , 458 - 473, 29.03.2020

Semin Kazazoğlu

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712879

Abstract

Reading is a basic language skill which is essential not only because it develops the literacy skills of the students but because enables them to comprehend and formulate the discourse within a language. Lack of reading, on the other hand, causes impairment of comprehension and affects the academic progress of students greatly. The range of studies suggesting that screen-based reading has a greater effect than primarily paper-based is growing each day. Accordingly, this study aims to set forth the effects of screen-based versus paper-based reading on reading comprehension of English. This is a mixed-method case study, conducted by a group of 30 freshmen, majoring in English Language Teaching undergraduate program at a state-run university. As a tool for data collection, performance tests and written opinion forms were used. Before the study, three different reading texts have been specified. Of these, two were printed, and four of them were digital. Two of the digital text was plain text (pdf); the other two texts were enriched with pictures and links (hypertext). After reading the texts, the participants answered the reading comprehension questions provided by the researcher. Besides, after each application, the written views of the participants have been gathered. In the process of data analysis, performance tests have been scored, and written views are divided into themes. As a result, the success of the application with the highest means score has been identified as the first and fourth reading texts, which were printed. The two lowest success means are identified as containing links to text pictures and hypertext. The findings additionally discovered that students who study texts in print, scored substantially higher at the studying comprehension tests than the students who study the texts digitally. All in all, this study involves several pedagogical implications for reading comprehension in the field of foreign language settings.

Keywords

EFL; reading comprehension; printed-text; digital text; hypertext.

References

• Bodomo, A., Lam, M., & Lee, C. (2003). Some students still read books in the 21st Century: A study of user preferences for print and electronic libraries, The Reading Matrix, 3, 3. Brown, D. (1994). Teaching by principles. An interactive approach to language pedagogy. USA: Prentice Hall. Brown, G. J. (2001). Beyond print: Reading digitally. Library Hi Tech, 19 (4), 390-399. Cazacu, S. T., & Banica, L. (2001). Reading long (continuous) texts on paper and on computer’, in Arabski, J. (ed.). Challenging tasks for psycholinguistics in the new Century, Proceedings of the 7th ISAPL Congress, Katowice, University of Silesia, 188-292. Chauhan, P., & Lal, P. (2012). Impact of information technology on reading habits of college students. IJRREST: International Journal of Research Review in Engineering Science and Technology, 1(1), 101-106. Chou, I. C. (2009). Exploring international ESL students’ on-screen reading behaviours with two academic reading purposes. Doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, USA. Connell, C., Bayliss, L., Farmer, W. (2012). Effects of e-book readers and tablet computers on reading comprehension, International Journal of Instructional Media, 39, 2, 131. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (1st Edition). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Dündar, H., & Akçayır, M. (2012). Tablet vs. paper: The effect on learners' reading performance, International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4 (3), 441-450. Elo S, Kaariainen M, Kanste O, Polkki T, Utriainen K, Kyngas H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1):1-10. Fischbein, E. & Nachlieli, T. (1998). Concepts and figures in geometrical reasoning, International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1193–1211. Gardener, L. (2011). A Kindle in the classroom: E-Reading devices and reading habits. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 27(1). Given, L. (Ed.). (2008). The SAGE encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. Vol. 1, 2. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Greene, J. C., Krayder, H., & Mayer, E. (2005). Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Inquiry. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.). Research Methods in the Social Sciences (p. 275-282). London: Sage Publishing. Güneş, F. (2009). Speed reading and meaning configuration. Ankara: Nobel Publishing. Güneş, F. (2010). Öğrencilerde ekrandan okuma ve ekranik düşünme, Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 7, 14. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.), Boston: Pearson. Halme, O. (2011). E-Reading devices as a new medium for newspaper reading. Unpublished master’s thesis. Department of Marketing, Aalto University, School of Economics: Finland. Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006). Computerized representation of Text: Effects on children's reading of informational material. Special Issue on Reading Comprehension, Part II., Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19 (1), 1-19. Landow, J. (2013). Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 2, (1), 15-24. Larson, L. C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in E-Book reading and response. The Reading Teacher, 64, 1, 15-22. Luo, M., & Dappen, L. (2005). Mixed-methods design for an objective-based evaluation of a magnet school assistance project. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(1), 109-118. Maden, S. (2012). Screen reading types and opinions of prospective teacher of Turkish language towards Screen reading. International Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 3(7), 16-28. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension, International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68. Mazzoleni, A. K. (2012). Digital and paper-based: The complex literacies of composition students and instructors. Unpublished master’s thesis. Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Mikulecky, B. S., & Jeffries, L. (2007). Advanced reading power, Pearson Longman, NY. Mikuska, D., & Seaton, M. (2011). Paper or Electronic Books: Reading World Literature with High School Students and Staff. International Journal of the Book, 8, 1, 32-42. Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language, Macmillan Publishers Limited, Oxford. Schweigert, W.A. (2012). Research methods in psychology: A Handbook. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Shang, H. F. (2015). An investigation of scaffolded reading on EFL hypertext comprehension. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31. 293-312. Solak, E. (2014). Computer versus paper-based reading: A case study in English language teaching context. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 4, 1, 202-211. Spencer, C. (2006). Research on learners’ preferences for reading From a printed text or from a computer screen, Journal Of Distance Education, 21, 1, 33-50. Tuncer M., & Bahadır F. (2014). Effect of screen reading and reading from printed out material on student success and permanency in introduction to computer lesson, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13, issue 3. Tseng, M. (2008). Comparing EFL learners’ reading comprehension between hypertext and printed text, CALL-EJ Online, 9(2). Vandenhoek, T. (2013). Screen reading habits among university students, International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9, 2, 37-47. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.