Background Given the increasing popularity of reading from screens, it is not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted comparing reading from paper and electronic sources. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to consolidate the findings on reading performance, reading times and calibration of performance (metacognition) between reading text from paper compared to screens. Methods A systematic literature search of reports of studies comparing reading from paper and screens was conducted in seven databases. Additional studies were identified by contacting researchers who have published on the topic, by a backwards search of the references of found reports and by a snowball search of reports citing what was initially found. Only studies that were experiments with random assignment and with participants who had fundamental reading skills and disseminated between 2008 and 2018 were included. Twenty‐nine reports with 33 identified studies met inclusion criteria experimentally comparing reading performance (k = 33; n = 2,799), reading time (k = 14; n = 1,233) and/or calibration (k = 11; n = 698) from paper and screens. Results Based on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper (g = −.25). Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts (g = −.32) as there was no difference with narrative texts (g = −.04). The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately (g = −.33 and g = −.26, respectively). No reliable differences were found for reading time (g = .08). Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens (g = .20). Conclusions Readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens.

Open textbooks have been developed in response to rising commercial textbook costs and copyright constraints. Numerous studies have been conducted to examine open textbooks with varied findings. The purpose of this study is to meta-analyze the findings of studies of postsecondary students comparing learning performance and course withdrawal rates between open and commercial textbooks. Based on a systematic search of research findings, there were no differences in learning efficacy between open textbooks and commercial textbooks (k = 22, g = 0.01, p = .87, N = 100,012). However, the withdrawal rate for postsecondary courses with open textbooks was significantly lower than that for commercial textbooks (k = 11, OR (odds ratio) = 0.71, p = .005, N = 78,593). No significant moderators were identified. Limitations and future directions for research, such as a need for more work in K–12 education, outside of North America, and that better examine student characteristics, are discussed.

No abstract

Rising textbook costs have prompted the development of open-source textbooks to increase access to education. The purpose of this case report is to examine open-source textbook adoption through the COUP framework (costs, outcomes, use, and perceptions) comparing a semester with a commercial textbook to a semester with an open-source textbook. Students (N = 520) were enrolled in an undergraduate course at a mid-sized public university in the United States. Results indicated that although costs were substantially lower, student learning outcomes and perceptions of quality were similar or better with an open-source textbook. Although students were much more likely to access the open-source textbook electronically, there were no differences in how they reported using the two textbooks to support their learning. Considering the financial savings of open-source textbooks, these findings build on existing empirical support that encourage the adoption of open-source textbooks.

The purpose of this study was to determine if there are gender differences among elementary school‐aged students in regard to the inferences they generate during reading. Fourth‐grade students (130 females; 126 males) completed think‐aloud tasks while reading one practice and one experimental narrative text. Females generated a larger number and a greater proportion of reinstatement inferences than did males (Cohen's d = .34, p = .01; Cohen's d = .26, p = .04, respectively). In contrast, there was no evidence for gender differences in other types of think‐aloud responses. These findings suggest that males and females differ in their use of cognitive processes that underlie reading comprehension, particularly with respect to the likelihood of retrieval of information from episodic memory.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract