Paper versus Screen: The impact of annotation tools on reading strategies among university students
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Previous research has shown that many students still prefer reading and annotating academic material in print form rather than on a screen, despite the increasing availability of digital reading material provided by instructors. This study aims to investigate the mediating effect of an Annotation Tool on digital reading as notetaking and underlining can enhance the capacity to understand and memorize digital written material by reducing cognitive load and facilitates comprehension. It involved 112 first-year students of a Master's Degree Course on Educational Technologies. The results confirmed that most students prefer academic texts on paper and that the use of a social annotation tool with digital academic texts can positively change perceptions of digital reading and comprehension. A significant correlation exists between reading others’ annotations to summarize concepts, clearer content understanding, and satisfaction with digital academic texts, suggesting improvements for academic teaching practices in digital material provision.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
References
Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816-1828.
Al Tawil, L., Aldokhayel, S., Zeitouni, L., Qadoumi, T., Hussein, S., & Ahamed, S. S. (2020). Prevalence of self-reported computer vision syndrome symptoms and its associated factors among university students. European Journal of Ophthalmology, 30(1), 189-195.
Andrianatos, K. (2018). First year university students' reading strategies and comprehension: Implications for academic reading support (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University). https://repository.nwu.ac.za/handle/10394/30846
Annisette, L. E., & Lafreniere, K. D. (2017). Social media, texting, and personality: A test of the shallowing hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 154-158.
Baron, N. (2021). How we read now: Strategic choices for print, screen, and audio. Oxford University Press.
Baron, N. S., Calixte, R. M., & Havewala, M. (2017). The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 590-604.
Boakye, N., Sommerville, J., & Debusho, L. (2014). The relationship between socio-affective factors and reading proficiency: Implications for tertiary reading instruction. Journal for Language Teaching = Ijenali Yekufundzisa Lulwimi = Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig, 48(1), 173-213.
Chen, C. M., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67-81.
Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288-325.
Delgado, P., & Salmeron, L. (2021). The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure. Learning and Instruction, 71, 101396.
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-38.
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616-1641.
Dontre, A. J. (2021). The influence of technology on academic distraction: A review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(3), 379-390.
Elliott, L. J., Ljubijanac, M., & Wieczorek, D. (2020). The effect of screen size on reading speed: A comparison of three screens to print. In Advances in Human Factors in Training, Education, and Learning Sciences. Springer International Publishing.
Foasberg, N. M. (2014). Student reading practices in print and electronic media. College & Research Libraries, 75(5), 705-723.
Goodwin, A. P., Cho, S. J., Reynolds, D., Brady, K., & Salas, J. (2020). Digital versus paper reading processes and links to comprehension for middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 57(4), 1837-1867.
Griffiths, F., & Starkey, K. (2018). Sensing through objects. In F. Griffiths & K. Starkey (Eds.), Sensory Reflections: Traces of Experience in Medieval Artifacts (pp. 1-21). Walter de Gruyter.
Haverkamp, Y. E., Bråten, I., Latini, N., & Salmerón, L. (2022). Is it the size, the movement, or both? Investigating effects of screen size and text movement on processing, understanding, and motivation when students read informational text. Reading and Writing, 1-20.
Hou, J., Rashid, J., & Lee, K. M. (2017). Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 84-94.
Ihara, R., & Del Principe, A. (2018). What we mean when we talk about reading: Rethinking the purposes and contexts of college reading. Across the Disciplines, 15, 1-14.
Johnson, T. E., Archibald, T. N., & Tenenbaum, G. (2010). Individual and team annotation effects on students' reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1496-1507.
Kaakinen, J. K., Papp-Zipernovszky, O., Werlen, E., Castells, N., Bergamin, P., Baccino, T., & Jacobs, A. M. (2018). Emotional and motivational aspects of digital reading. In Learning to Read in a Digital World (pp. 141-164).
Kulo, S., Indembukhani, K., & Onchera, P. (2014). Influence of background knowledge on reading comprehension ability in Kenyan secondary schools. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5, 592-599.
Latini, N., Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Salmerón, L. (2019). Investigating effects of reading medium and reading purpose on behavioral engagement and textual integration in a multiple text context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101797
Lenhard, W., Schroeders, U., & Lenhard, A. (2017). Equivalence of screen versus print reading comprehension depends on task complexity and proficiency. Discourse Processes, 54(5-6), 427-445.
Li, M., & Li, J. (2022). Using Perusall to motivate students’ curriculum-based academic reading. Journal of Computers in Education, 1-25.
Li, Y., & Yan, L. (2024). Which reading comprehension is better? A meta-analysis of the effect of paper versus digital reading in recent 20 years. Telematics and Informatics Reports, 14, 100142.
Liu, Z. (2022). Reading in the age of digital distraction. Journal of Documentation, 78(6), 1201-1212.
Luke, S. G., & Jensen, T. (2022). The effect of sudden-onset distractors on reading efficiency and comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221108355
Mangen, A., Olivier, G., & Velay, J.-L. (2019). Comparing comprehension of a long text read in print book and on Kindle: Where in the text and when in the story? Frontiers in Psychology, 38.
Marbouti, F., & Wise, A. F. (2016). Starburst: a new graphical interface to support purposeful attention to others’ posts in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 87-113.
McLaughlin, T. (2016). Reading and the body: The physical practice of reading. Springer.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2012). Discuss, reflect, and collaborate: A qualitative analysis of forum, blog, and wiki use in an EFL blended learning course. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 146-152.
Mizrachi, D., Salaz, A. M., Kurbanoglu, S., Boustany, J., & ARFIS Research Group. (2018). Academic reading format preferences and behaviors among university students worldwide: A comparative survey analysis. PloS One, 13(5), e0197444.
Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. A., & Gardner, A. (2009). The impact of internet and television use on the reading habits and practices of college students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(7), 609-619.
Mowatt, L., Gordon, C., Santosh, A. B. R., & Jones, T. (2018). Computer vision syndrome and ergonomic practices among undergraduate university students. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 72(1), e13035.
Muñoz, C., Valenzuela, J., Avendaño, C., & Núñez, C. (2016). Improvement in academic reading motivation: Motivated students perspective. OCNOS Revista de Estudios sobre Lectura, 15(1), 52-68. https://10.18239/ocnos_2016.15.1.941
Nor, N. F. M., Azman, H., & Hamat, A. (2013). Investigating students' use of online annotation tool in an online reading environment. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(3), 87-101.
Payne, S. J., & Reader, W. R. (2006). Constructing structure maps of multiple online texts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(5), 461-474
Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Irvine, A., Malmström, H., & Mežek, Š. (2012). Reading in tertiary education: Undergraduate student practices and attitudes. Quality in Higher Education, 18(2), 235-256.
Pelletier, D., Gilbert, W., Guay, F., & Falardeau, É. (2022). Teachers, parents, and peers support in reading predicting changes in reading motivation among fourth to sixth graders: A systematic literature review. Reading Psychology, 43(5-6), 317-356.
Porion, A., Aparicio, X., Megalakaki, O., Robert, A., & Baccino, T. (2016). The impact of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization. Computers in Human Behavior, 5, 569-576.
Suhre, C., Winnips, K., de Boer, V., Valdivia, P., & Beldhuis, H. (2019, June). Students’ experiences with the use of a social annotation tool to improve learning in flipped classrooms. In Fifth International Conference on Higher Education Advances.
Rosen, L. D. (2017). The distracted student mind-enhancing its focus and attention. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 8-14.
Sheen, K. A., & Luximon, Y. (2021). Effect of in-app components, medium, and screen size of electronic textbooks on reading performance, behavior, and perception. Displays, 66, 101986.
Schugar, J. T., Schugar, H., & Penny, C. (2011). A Nook or a Book? Comparing college students' reading comprehension levels, critical reading, and study skills. International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning, 7(2).
Smoker, T. J., Murphy, C. E., & Rockwell, A. K. (2009). Comparing memory for handwriting versus typing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53(22), 1744-1747. SAGE Publications.
Spence, C. (2020). The multisensory experience of handling and reading books. Multisensory Research, 33(8), 902-928.
Suhre, C., Winnips, K., De Boer, V., Valdivia, P., & Beldhuis, H. (2019). Students' experiences with the use of a social annotation tool to improve learning in flipped classrooms. In HEAD'19. 5th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (pp. 955-964). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.
Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2017). Comparing the use of a social annotation tool and a threaded discussion forum to support online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 72-79.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact, and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359-384.
Venkatraman, V., Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P., & Vo, K. (2016). Effectiveness of print and digital media: Insights from neuroscience. ACR North American Advances.
Weinerman, J., & Kenner, C. (2016). Boredom: That which shall not be named. Journal of Developmental Education, 18-23.
Wise, A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. T. (2013). Broadening the notion of participation in online discussions: Examining patterns in learners' online listening behaviors. Instructional Science, 41(2), 323-343.
Wright, T. S., & Cervetti, G. N. (2017). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203-226.