When struggling readers meet the screen – A secondary analysis of ePIRLS 2016 data

IF 3.8 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL

Learning and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102623

Oscar Skovdahl , Ladislao Salmerón , Øistein Anmarkrud

{"title":"When struggling readers meet the screen – A secondary analysis of ePIRLS 2016 data","authors":"Oscar Skovdahl , Ladislao Salmerón , Øistein Anmarkrud","doi":"10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite past efforts to investigate how students' interactions with digital devices shape their digital reading comprehension skills, we still need more knowledge about struggling readers in digital reading contexts. Previous research has shown that digital reading comprehension is negatively associated with general digital device usage and positively associated with some academic digital reading activities in the general student population. We used data from ePIRLS 2016 to investigate whether such patterns are related differently to struggling and nonstruggling readers. For struggling readers, we found that digital reading comprehension was negatively associated with the general use of digital devices for schoolwork. There was no statistically significant relationship between academic digital reading activities and digital reading comprehension. In contrast, this relationship was positively associated with digital reading comprehension among nonstruggling readers. We discuss how typical digital classroom activities may be differently related to digital reading comprehension depending on students' print reading comprehension skills.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48336,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Individual Differences","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 102623"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608024002164","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite past efforts to investigate how students' interactions with digital devices shape their digital reading comprehension skills, we still need more knowledge about struggling readers in digital reading contexts. Previous research has shown that digital reading comprehension is negatively associated with general digital device usage and positively associated with some academic digital reading activities in the general student population. We used data from ePIRLS 2016 to investigate whether such patterns are related differently to struggling and nonstruggling readers. For struggling readers, we found that digital reading comprehension was negatively associated with the general use of digital devices for schoolwork. There was no statistically significant relationship between academic digital reading activities and digital reading comprehension. In contrast, this relationship was positively associated with digital reading comprehension among nonstruggling readers. We discuss how typical digital classroom activities may be differently related to digital reading comprehension depending on students' print reading comprehension skills.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Learning and Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-

CiteScore

6.60

自引率

2.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： Learning and Individual Differences is a research journal devoted to publishing articles of individual differences as they relate to learning within an educational context. The Journal focuses on original empirical studies of high theoretical and methodological rigor that that make a substantial scientific contribution. Learning and Individual Differences publishes original research. Manuscripts should be no longer than 7500 words of primary text (not including tables, figures, references).