A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis

IF 8.3 1区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Review of Educational Research Pub Date : 2021-03-08 DOI:10.3102/0034654321998074

May Irene Furenes, N. Kucirkova, A. Bus

{"title":"A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"May Irene Furenes, N. Kucirkova, A. Bus","doi":"10.3102/0034654321998074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This meta-analysis examines the inconsistent findings across experimental studies that compared children’s learning outcomes with digital and paper books. We quantitatively reviewed 39 studies reported in 30 articles (n = 1,812 children) and compared children’s story comprehension and vocabulary learning in relation to medium (reading on paper versus on-screen), design enhancements in digital books, the presence of a dictionary, and adult support for children aged between 1 and 8 years. The comparison of digital versus paper books that only differed by digitization showed lower comprehension scores for digital books. Adults’ mediation during print books’ reading was more effective than the enhancements in digital books read by children independently. However, with story-congruent enhancements, digital books outperformed paper books. An embedded dictionary had no or negative effect on children’s story comprehension but positively affected children’s vocabulary learning. Findings are discussed in relation to the cognitive load theory and practical design implications.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":"91 1","pages":"483 - 517"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"68","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998074","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 68

Abstract

This meta-analysis examines the inconsistent findings across experimental studies that compared children’s learning outcomes with digital and paper books. We quantitatively reviewed 39 studies reported in 30 articles (n = 1,812 children) and compared children’s story comprehension and vocabulary learning in relation to medium (reading on paper versus on-screen), design enhancements in digital books, the presence of a dictionary, and adult support for children aged between 1 and 8 years. The comparison of digital versus paper books that only differed by digitization showed lower comprehension scores for digital books. Adults’ mediation during print books’ reading was more effective than the enhancements in digital books read by children independently. However, with story-congruent enhancements, digital books outperformed paper books. An embedded dictionary had no or negative effect on children’s story comprehension but positively affected children’s vocabulary learning. Findings are discussed in relation to the cognitive load theory and practical design implications.

查看原文本刊更多论文

儿童纸上阅读与屏幕阅读的Meta分析比较

这项荟萃分析考察了将儿童的学习结果与数字和纸质书籍进行比较的实验研究中不一致的发现。我们定量回顾了30篇文章中报道的39项研究（n=1812名儿童），并比较了儿童的故事理解和词汇学习与媒介（纸上阅读与屏幕阅读）、数字图书的设计改进、词典的存在以及成人对1至8岁儿童的支持的关系。数字图书与纸质图书的比较仅在数字化方面有所不同，显示数字图书的理解得分较低。成人在纸质书阅读过程中的调解比儿童独立阅读数字书时的调解更有效。然而，随着故事连贯性的增强，数字图书的表现优于纸质图书。嵌入式词典对儿童的故事理解没有或有负面影响，但对儿童的词汇学习有积极影响。研究结果与认知负荷理论和实际设计含义有关。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

24.10

自引率

2.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.