"Differences in Print and Screen Reading in Graduate Students"
Download PDF About the AuthorLauren 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 |
DiscussionMy participants’ reasoning for preferring print reading to reading on a screen, citing the “clunkiness” of annotating digitally, suggests that explicit instruction with digital interfaces could benefit students making use of these technologies. Instructors may assume that their students, especially their graduate students, already know how to read and effectively understand texts regardless of medium. However, as my study suggests, students may not feel as comfortable reading digital texts as they do print ones because they lack instruction. Further research could aid instructors in guiding their students towards the development of effective digital reading habits. As with any discussion of technology as an educational resource, access is a factor in who has greater convenience in utilizing digital texts, if preferred. The fact that all of my participants were able to choose whether to utilize print versus screen texts indicates a level of privilege that not all students have available. Unfortunately, my study does not contain insight from those in lower socioeconomic statuses, though I hope future studies, including my own, will contain a more varied set of voices. Seventy-five percent of Vandenhoek’s (2013) respondents preferred reading in print, though they chose to do their course readings online if that was the format in which they were posted by their instructors. The same is true of all of my participants. The majority of Vandenhoek’s participants would take notes on print texts, though a slim 16% would do the same on a screen. Again, this finding correlates with my own study in that Phil noted that he would “at most take comments” when reading digitally, which differs from his print reading practices. He goes on to say that he would only take notes or highlight on screen if “I absolutely need to know what I’m talking about, I have to be in a discussion, [or] I have to really engage in the text.” Similarly, Gertrude avoids reading on screen and will only do so if she doesn’t have printer access because she finds the process disconcerting. She takes separate handwritten notes when reading digitally, whereas she is able to make margin notes on print texts. Claudia, though abler to navigate screen reading than other participants, still commented on the inefficiency of taking notes and highlighting on PDFs and Kindle. Courtney emphasized that she would highlight digital texts only if she “must” read in that format and there was no other option. Finally, Vandenhoek speaks to student uncertainty and unfamiliarity with digital interfaces. As mentioned previously, Phil comments that we haven’t yet been trained as a population to use e-readers, and as Gertrude reflected on her own literacy practices, she realized she is better able to read academic articles in digital format because that is the first format in which they appeared to her and were, in a way, “taught” to her. These findings suggest that not only does a lack of technology cause hurdles for students to overcome when reading online, as with Claudia and David, who find the process of reading on their computers or Kindles “clunky,” but a lack of explicit instruction in how to best utilize reading strategies on various interfaces causes hurdles, as well. Courtney’s lack of confidence in whether her highlighting is effective further ties in with Ben-Yehudah and Eshet-Alkalai’s (2018) understanding that a lack of experience can lead to an augmented cognitive load. Confidence in one’s ability to effectively learn comes from experience and training, among other things. As alluded to earlier, how can instructors equip students with confidence in their abilities to read and learn most affectively? When would this kind of training take place (elementary school, middle school, high school, or college)? If students are taught to write within the confines of their specific disciplines and the genres within, would it then be appropriate to suggest that instructors in biology teach their students how most effectively to read texts relating to biology? Reflective of Vandenhoek’s (2013) study at the University of Limerick, it appears as though part of the reason students prefer print reading to screen reading is familiarity. In Vandenhoek’s study, students were mostly uninterested in using digital annotation, though the majority did make use of annotation on printed texts. While students often pick up instruction on annotation strategies for print texts, instructors are less likely to translate these strategies or offer instruction in how to do so digitally. The links between reading and writing “fit naturally together” (Elbow, 1993, p. 5). So my conclusion is that it would be an organic move to teach a lesson(s) on how to read, especially before assigning texts that are genre and discipline specific. Instructors could simply show students how they read as a sample—not as a mandate, but as an example of how one accomplished reader successfully navigates the field. Instruction of this type could lead students to develop a greater set of reading preferences beyond print. Once students gain a clearer grasp of how to read digitally, they will begin to feel more comfortable doing so. Instruction could take the form of photocopied versions of a text the instructor has read and the types of annotations present—highlighting, margin notes, etc. If there are any strategies that don’t show up physically on the page, the instructor could talk about that with his or her students (e.g. notes that may have been taken outside of the text, post-its that have been removed, etc.). Talking through this process can provide students with one method through which to navigate a text, or remind them of strategies they may have forgotten. If instructors took the time to divulge this process to students in multiple disciplines, students would start to see what strategies work well for them in certain contexts. How one reads in science may be ineffective in the humanities, for instance. Alternatively, students will gain habits that serve them well across multiple genres and disciplines. Perhaps the most significant limitation of this study is size. Gaining insight from a greater number of students could only validate my claims further or, paradoxically, reveal that reading preference is more deeply complicated than I originally imagined. In the future, I would like to open this study to undergraduates and faculty, as well as have participants perform reading tasks in print and on screen while I observe. Further research could also inquire if discipline has any influence on preferred method of reading. |