Is Digital Reading Generally More Difficult? Nuances of Effective Reading Behaviors for Middle School Readers

• In Event: Interrogating Assumptions to Pursue Truth: Research That Reframes How We Talk About and Teach Readers

Abstract

Objectives: Multiple syntheses and meta-analyses suggest readers tend to perform better on comprehension of paper-based texts compared to digital texts (Clinton, 2019; Delgado, Vargas, Ackerman & Salmeron, 2018; Kong, Seo, & Zhai, 2018), yet research is inconclusive (Coiro, 2021). Often, product (i.e., reading comprehension) is prioritized over process (i.e.., understanding what readers are doing during reading). This proposed study using mixed methods explores how students use tools to support digital and paper reading comprehension. We investigate qualities of highlighting and links to comprehension for 370 students grades 5 – 8. We then explore qualitatively the broader strategies used by 10 overperforming students (i.e., who perform better than district-tests would suggest) when reading a NAEP passage digitally. We consider medium, reader, text, and item differences to critique and extend current understandings.

Theoretical Framework: The theory of New Literacies (Leu, et al., 2013) emphasizes how “both old and new elements of literacy are layered in complex ways” (p. 1157). Highlighting, a traditional tool, involves new elements when used in the digital context. Also, behaviors can serve different roles when associated with screens and digital reading.

Methods: Quantitatively, we used nonparametric tests to explore similarities and differences, latent profile analysis to investigate profiles of highlighting, and explanatory item response models to link highlighting variables to comprehension and take into account medium, reader, text, and item differences. Qualitative analyses involved examining videos from selected students' digital reading and question-answering sessions using procedural coding (Guest, et al., 2012) and pattern coding (Miles, et al., 2020) to identify visible student actions.

Data sources: Data from a diverse sample of N=370 fifth through eighth graders were explored quantitatively, with 10 students examined qualitatively. Students read a NAEP-passage (half digitally, half on paper). Pretest content knowledge, post-test reading comprehension, demographics, preference, item-characteristics, and highlighting content (length, linguistic features, and whether associated with areas of interest) were analyzed. Qualitative analyses additionally involved coding of videos of digital reading which had approximate eye-tracking data included.

Results: Quantitative results involving nonparametric tests indicate similarities and differences across mediums, and these patterns differ by part of text, yet few interactions between mediums and reader characteristics occur. For comprehension, explanatory item response models show most highlighting variables are nonsignificant predictors except highlights in areas of interest which support comprehension for both mediums controlling for other predictors. Differences by items and readers are explored. Results suggest highlighting in areas of interest is particularly important for locate and recall items and for students with more content knowledge. Qualitative results suggest movement (i.e., swaying, leaning, etc.) and breaks (i.e., head down, playful behaviors like humming or making faces, or manipulating digital tools) are part of overperforming students’ reading behaviors. Video and eye-tracking data suggest that students continued to engage with the task or reengaged immediately after such behaviors, suggesting that behaviors that are commonly seen as "off-task" may be supportive of digital reading success.

Significance: This study highlights effective ways of using tools (highlighting, movement, distraction) to support reading, and in particular digital reading.

Authors

• Amanda P. Goodwin, Vanderbilt University
  Presenting Author

• Michael Samuel Havazelet, Vanderbilt University
  Presenting Author

• Sun-Joo Cho, Vanderbilt University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jorge Salas, Vanderbilt University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Matthew Naveiras, Vanderbilt University
  Non-Presenting Author