Search

The introduction and wide use of devices, especially mobile ones, has changed the way learners read and do research for a variety of reasons, and this trend has attracted a number of studies conducted regarding reading on screen and on paper in addition to those dealing with the students’ behavior in using online resources to print ones. This paper aims at identifying the major findings and trends in reading research by describing the current state of knowledge and practice in the studies comparing reading on screen and on paper and to provide guidance for practitioners by analyzing and summarizing the existing research. The current review adopted a systematic review as the research methodology as well as the article selection and screening process. The articles published between 2009 and 2017 were reviewed, and 37 articles were included in the analysis. The review revealed that the research on onscreen and paper-based reading focused on comparing the learners’ performances in reading activities in both contexts and sharing preliminary findings and students’ views. However, the findings are inconclusive as mixed findings were produced as to the effects of reading on screen and on paper. Moreover, the review also indicates that practitioners are also interested in examining the factors and affordances in reading on screen. As a result, there is still further research needed to establish the factors affecting reading and comprehension while reading on screen and on paper.

Word learning is critical for the development of reading and language comprehension skills. Although previous studies have indicated that word learning is compromised in children with reading disability (RD) or developmental language disorder (DLD), it is less clear how word learning difficulties manifest in children with comorbid RD and DLD. Furthermore, it is unclear whether word learning deficits in RD or DLD include difficulties with offline consolidation of newly learned words. In the current study, we employed an artificial lexicon learning paradigm with an overnight design to investigate how typically developing (TD) children (N = 25), children with only RD (N = 93), and children with both RD and DLD (N = 34) learned and remembered a set of phonologically similar pseudowords. Results showed that compared to TD children, children with RD exhibited: (i) slower growth in discrimination accuracy for cohort item pairs sharing an onset (e.g. pibu‐pibo), but not for rhyming item pairs (e.g. pibu‐dibu); and (ii) lower discrimination accuracy for both cohort and rhyme item pairs on Day 2, even when accounting for differences in Day 1 learning. Moreover, children with comorbid RD and DLD showed learning and retention deficits that extended to unrelated item pairs that were phonologically dissimilar (e.g. pibu‐tupa), suggestive of broader impairments compared to children with only RD. These findings provide insights into the specific learning deficits underlying RD and DLD and motivate future research concerning how children use phonological similarity to guide the organization of new word knowledge., We employed an artificial lexicon learning paradigm with an overnight design to investigate how typically developing (TD) children, children with reading disability (RD), and children with both RD and developmental language disorder (DLD) learned and remembered a set of phonologically similar pseudowords. Compared to TD children, children with RD experienced difficulty learning and remembering phonologically similar items, whereas children with both RD and DLD experienced difficulty learning and remembering phonologically dissimilar items in addition to phonologically similar items. These findings suggest one of the specific deficits underlying RD and DLD is difficulty establishing robust phonological representations for newly learned words.

v anglickém jazyce Title: How the students of the 9th grades of elementary schools understand the digital versions of texts comparing to the printed ones. Goal: The dissertation aims at drawing the comparaison between the digital and the printed versions of the identical materials. The research was held in a number of selected schools. The materials were presented via personal computers, tablet personal computers and in printed versions. Our goal is to determine the differences among all the three kinds of media in terms of understanding the presented texts. Procedure: The essay is primarily based on the historical and the present days research of comprehensive reading. It also follows the bachelor essay written in 2014. Output: The theoretical processing of basic terms and the review of both the previous and the latest outcomes of the scientific literature. The most important part of the essay were focus on the research and the subsequent assessment of the findings. The research itself was preceded by a pre - research. The essay included the qualitative research which was reached through one of the comprehension test methods. The students were provided with the questionnaire comprising questions. The text was distributed both in the digital and in the printed versions.

Purpose With the global expansion of technology, our reading platform has shifted from traditional text to hypertext, yet little consideration has been given to how this shift might help or hinder students' reading comprehension. The purpose of this study was to compare reading comprehension of computer-based and paper-based texts in adolescents with and without language-learning disabilities (LLD). Method Fourteen adolescents with LLD and 25 adolescents with typical language development (TLD) read literary texts in computer-based and paper-based formats and then answered reading comprehension questions. Results The LLD group scored significantly lower than the TLD group on the reading comprehension measure, but there were no significant between-group differences for reading or answering time. In addition, there were no significant within-group differences for the computer-based or paper-based conditions. Predictors for reading comprehension varied by group and condition. Conclusion Neither group appeared to be affected by the additional cognitive load imposed by hypertext in the computer-based condition; however, the load between conditions may not have been sufficient to differentially impact reading comprehension. Based on the regression analyses, it appears that working memory, oral language, and decoding differed in their contribution to reading comprehension for each group and condition.

E-readers are fast rivaling print as a dominant method for reading. Because they offer accessibility options that are impossible in print, they are potentially beneficial for those with impairments, such as dyslexia. Yet, little is known about how the use of these devices influences reading in those who struggle. Here, we observe reading comprehension and speed in 103 high school students with dyslexia. Reading on paper was compared with reading on a small handheld e-reader device, formatted to display few words per line. We found that use of the device significantly improved speed and comprehension, when compared with traditional presentations on paper for specific subsets of these individuals: Those who struggled most with phoneme decoding or efficient sight word reading read more rapidly using the device, and those with limited VA Spans gained in comprehension. Prior eye tracking studies demonstrated that short lines facilitate reading in dyslexia, suggesting that it is the use of short lines (and not the device per se) that leads to the observed benefits. We propose that these findings may be understood as a consequence of visual attention deficits, in some with dyslexia, that make it difficult to allocate attention to uncrowded text near fixation, as the gaze advances during reading. Short lines ameliorate this by guiding attention to the uncrowded span.