Carolynn Hare, Ben Johnson, Megan Vlahiotis, Erin J. Panda, Ayda Tekok-Kilic, Suzanne Curtin
{"title":"儿童在数字和印刷媒体中的阅读成果：系统回顾","authors":"Carolynn Hare, Ben Johnson, Megan Vlahiotis, Erin J. Panda, Ayda Tekok-Kilic, Suzanne Curtin","doi":"10.1111/1467-9817.12461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Given the growing reliance on digital devices, an increasing number of studies have examined the effects of text medium on reading outcomes in development; however, the results have been mixed. The goal of this systematic review is to look at how print and digital formats affect reading comprehension, engagement and other reading outcomes (e.g. vocabulary, reading speed) in children and adolescents aged 1–17 years old while also considering the influence of several participant, task and study characteristics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A comprehensive search strategy involving seven electronic databases yielded 88 eligible articles comparing digital and print formats on reading outcomes published between 2000 and 2023 (3 reviewer inter-rater reliability: <i>k</i> = .54–.78). Three major characteristics were coded: participant-level (grade/age, diverse populations, testing language); task-level (text-genre, shared reading, digital comparability); study-level (publication recency, study quality) characteristics. Contingency tables were created for all studies, then for each reading outcome and for participant, task, and study characteristics separately to classify the percentage of studies that demonstrated outcomes favouring print, digital, no difference or reliance on specific reading measures or other factors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Except in the case of engagement as an outcome, the most common finding was no difference between digital and print. When participant, task and study characteristics were examined separately for the various reading outcomes, the results varied. More studies examining reading comprehension (particularly of informational text and in older children) found ‘print is better’, whereas ‘digital is better’ was more common in studies examining engagement, other outcomes such as vocabulary and diverse learners.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This review highlights the importance of examining multiple interacting factors when studying the impact of print versus digital mediums on reading outcomes in children and adolescents.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47611,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Reading","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-9817.12461","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Children's reading outcomes in digital and print mediums: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Carolynn Hare, Ben Johnson, Megan Vlahiotis, Erin J. Panda, Ayda Tekok-Kilic, Suzanne Curtin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-9817.12461\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Given the growing reliance on digital devices, an increasing number of studies have examined the effects of text medium on reading outcomes in development; however, the results have been mixed. The goal of this systematic review is to look at how print and digital formats affect reading comprehension, engagement and other reading outcomes (e.g. vocabulary, reading speed) in children and adolescents aged 1–17 years old while also considering the influence of several participant, task and study characteristics.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A comprehensive search strategy involving seven electronic databases yielded 88 eligible articles comparing digital and print formats on reading outcomes published between 2000 and 2023 (3 reviewer inter-rater reliability: <i>k</i> = .54–.78). Three major characteristics were coded: participant-level (grade/age, diverse populations, testing language); task-level (text-genre, shared reading, digital comparability); study-level (publication recency, study quality) characteristics. Contingency tables were created for all studies, then for each reading outcome and for participant, task, and study characteristics separately to classify the percentage of studies that demonstrated outcomes favouring print, digital, no difference or reliance on specific reading measures or other factors.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Except in the case of engagement as an outcome, the most common finding was no difference between digital and print. When participant, task and study characteristics were examined separately for the various reading outcomes, the results varied. More studies examining reading comprehension (particularly of informational text and in older children) found ‘print is better’, whereas ‘digital is better’ was more common in studies examining engagement, other outcomes such as vocabulary and diverse learners.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This review highlights the importance of examining multiple interacting factors when studying the impact of print versus digital mediums on reading outcomes in children and adolescents.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47611,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research in Reading\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-9817.12461\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research in Reading\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9817.12461\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Reading","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9817.12461","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Children's reading outcomes in digital and print mediums: A systematic review
Background
Given the growing reliance on digital devices, an increasing number of studies have examined the effects of text medium on reading outcomes in development; however, the results have been mixed. The goal of this systematic review is to look at how print and digital formats affect reading comprehension, engagement and other reading outcomes (e.g. vocabulary, reading speed) in children and adolescents aged 1–17 years old while also considering the influence of several participant, task and study characteristics.
Methods
A comprehensive search strategy involving seven electronic databases yielded 88 eligible articles comparing digital and print formats on reading outcomes published between 2000 and 2023 (3 reviewer inter-rater reliability: k = .54–.78). Three major characteristics were coded: participant-level (grade/age, diverse populations, testing language); task-level (text-genre, shared reading, digital comparability); study-level (publication recency, study quality) characteristics. Contingency tables were created for all studies, then for each reading outcome and for participant, task, and study characteristics separately to classify the percentage of studies that demonstrated outcomes favouring print, digital, no difference or reliance on specific reading measures or other factors.
Results
Except in the case of engagement as an outcome, the most common finding was no difference between digital and print. When participant, task and study characteristics were examined separately for the various reading outcomes, the results varied. More studies examining reading comprehension (particularly of informational text and in older children) found ‘print is better’, whereas ‘digital is better’ was more common in studies examining engagement, other outcomes such as vocabulary and diverse learners.
Conclusions
This review highlights the importance of examining multiple interacting factors when studying the impact of print versus digital mediums on reading outcomes in children and adolescents.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Research in Reading provides an international forum for researchers into literacy. It is a refereed journal, principally devoted to reports of empirical studies in reading and related fields, and to informed reviews of relevant literature. The journal welcomes papers researching issues related to the learning, teaching and use of literacy in a variety of contexts; papers on the history and development of literacy; papers about policy and strategy for literacy as related to children and adults. Journal of Research in Reading encourages papers within any research paradigm and from researchers in any relevant field such as anthropology, cultural studies, education, history of education, language and linguistics, philosophy, psychology and sociology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
