Reading comprehension on handheld devices versus on paper: A narrative review and meta-analysis of the medium effect and its moderators.

Abstract

As handheld devices, such as tablets, become a common tool in schools, a critical and urgent question for the research community is to assess their potential impact on educational outcomes. Previous meta-analytic research has evidenced the "screen inferiority effect": Readers tend to understand texts slightly worse when reading on-screen than when reading the same text in print. Most primary studies from those metaanalyses used computers as on-screen reading devices. Accordingly, the extent to which handheld devices, which provide a reading experience closer to books than computers, are affected by the screen inferiority effect remains an open question. To address this issue, we reviewed relevant literature regarding potential moderating factors for the screen inferiority effect through the lenses of the reading for understanding framework. We then performed two meta-analyses aimed at examining the differences in reading comprehension when reading on handheld devices, as compared to print. Results from the two multilevel random-effect meta-analyses, which included primary studies that used either between-participant (k = 38, g = −0.113) or within-participant (k = 21, g = −0.103) designs, consistently showed a significant small size effect favoring print text comprehension. Moderator analyses helped to partially clarify the results, indicating in some cases a higher screen inferiority effect for undergraduate students (as compared to primary and secondary school students) and for participants who were assessed individually (as opposed to in groups). We discuss the need to continue fostering print reading in schools while developing effective ways to incorporate handheld devices for reading purposes. Educational Impact and Implications StatementHandheld devices, such as tablets, are widely used in schools as reading devices. Our synthesis of existing studies indicates that readers comprehend slightly better when they read a text in print as opposed to on a handheld device. In-print reading can be considered as an efficient way to promote students' text comprehension.

Reading Medium and Epistemic Emotions in the Continued Influence Effect of Misinformation

“…It is possible that the medium used to read misinformation and corrections would affect how both are processed. Multiple research syntheses have concluded that readers remember and understand informational text better on paper than on screens (Clinton, 2019;Delgado et al, 2018;Kong et al, 2018;Salmerón et al, 2023). This is thought to be due to the shallowing hypothesis in which screens are associated with quick, enjoyable tasks with low cognitive demand (Annisette & Lafreniere, 2017;Delgado & Salmerón, 2021).…”

Middle-schoolers’ reading and lexical-semantic processing depth in response to digital and print media: An N400 study

“…The effects of text genre (expository or narrative) are also mixed; for instance, Mangen et al [ 29 ] observed a comprehension advantage for print over digital media for both narrative and expository texts, whereas others have shown that reading narrative texts yields similar comprehension outcomes regardless of the medium [ 1 , 2 , 30 ]. However, in a recent meta-analysis, Salmerón et al [ 4 ] showed that level of comprehension (textual and inferential) was not moderated by text genre (narrative or expository), whether the texts were read on a tablet/computer or paper.…”

“…The use of digital platforms for delivery of instruction and information at school and at home is now requisite for students at all levels, from elementary school through higher education. The increased use of digital materials alongside paper-based materials in learning environments has motivated research into the efficacy of reading and learning in one format versus the other (e.g., [1][2][3][4]), and although there is an overall finding for a paper-based advantage, the outcomes have been characterized by small effect sizes and variability associated with participant, stimulus, and task factors (e.g., [5,6]). Some reports have indicated no differences between print and digital media with respect to story understanding or comprehension measures [7][8][9][10], or test scores [11].…”