"Differences in Print and Screen Reading in Graduate Students"

Download PDF

About the Author

Lauren J. Short is a PhD candidate in Composition at the University of New Hampshire. Her research interests include religious rhetorics, feminist rhetorics, and digital literacy pedagogy.

Contents

Introduction

Theory

Study Aims and Introduction to Research Framework

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

References

Appendix: Interview Questions

Results

Perhaps my most significant finding is that respondents described their print and reading practices as different. Generally speaking, respondents said they did not employ similar reading strategies on screen as opposed to print because they found the digital interfaces too difficult to interact with or because they had never been explicitly trained on how to read on screen. Included below is a code chart indicating student response to my interview questions. Codes are expanded upon qualitatively below the chart.

Table 1: Code chart indicating student responses to the interview questions

Readers Cite Ease as Motivator of Preference

A majority of respondents cite ease (in reading, absorbing information, annotating, and on the eyes), as well as a penchant for the tactile experience for their preference of reading in print versus reading on a screen. Claudia reveals that she spends more of her time reading on a screen, and though she doesn’t explicitly state whether or not that is her preferred method, it is implied in one of her responses in which she says, “I think . . . [reading preference is] more about convenience and money . . . and portability than anything else.” According to Amanda, “the convenience factor of storing all these annotations digitally tends to outweigh those hard copy advantages for me, especially because I’m currently writing my dissertation, which requires me to review literature at a greater volume without the necessity to comprehensively understand every nuance of everything I read.” She also cites “eco-guilt” as a motivator for her tendency to read more on screen, which isn’t entirely surprising since she is part of the Natural Resources department. Though the reasons these respondents cite for preference are different, they mostly come back to what one considers to be the easiest mode to read. Claudia’s reading preference comes down to convenience and cost. For Amanda, the preference to read digitally is multifold: ease of storage, accessibility, and a smaller environmental impact.

Readers Cite Difficulty Interacting with Digital Texts

The majority of my respondents admitted that interacting with texts on screen is much more difficult than in print. When interacting with a text on screen, Phil will “at most make comments” unless he is going to be held responsible for the material in the form of a presentation or discussion. Claudia revealed that both reading PDFs on her computer and highlighting on Kindle were “terrible options” and that she wished there were better ones since the interfaces were difficult to interact with and inefficient for various reasons. Gertrude also expressed the difficulties that she faces in highlighting digital texts and taking notes, so much so that she would prefer to take handwritten notes rather than deal with the hassle of highlighting or taking notes on screen. Courtney indicated that if she “must” read on screen, she will try to highlight, especially on Adobe’s PDF Reader, but she concedes that the whole process feels much less comfortable than hard copy and highlighter pen. David responded in saying that he found the process of taking notes digitally “clunky,” as he will often write questions in the margins that he will have to go back and “cross out” once he has the answer. For these respondents, note taking and highlighting, two common print reading strategies, are difficult to transfer over digitally.

Readers Cite Lack of Training/Confidence in Using Digital Texts

As Phil says, readers may be more responsive to physical texts because “we haven’t been trained on e-readers.” Furthermore, Gertrude considers that even though she prefers print reading, she can read academic articles online much easier than other formats because “they were introduced to [her] on screen. I learned about them first on screen, so I can read those easier on screen…” When asked how effective she believed her reading strategies to be, Courtney responded, “I am honestly unsure how effective highlighting is in my interpretation of a text. I think my apprehension derives from the fact that I am often unsure if I am highlighting too little information or too much. My lack of confidence in discerning what is most pertinent to highlight makes the highlighting strategy feel less effective (in my opinion).” As proven by Ben-Yehudah and Eshet-Alkalai (2018), highlighting is one of the more effective reading comprehension strategies, but as they also write, “studies found that highlighting can be harmful for comprehension . . . possibly, because the lack of experience with highlighting strategies increases extrinsic cognitive load” (158). If training for how to go about effective highlighting were provided, students may feel more confident in the strategies they utilize in reading. But that begs the question: who is to provide this training and when throughout a student’s learning process?