Comprehension of academic expository texts in e-book Reader vs. paper: influence of prior domain knowledge and verbal aptitude
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v12i2.1680Keywords:
E-book Reader, reading comprehension, expository texts, verbal aptitude, metacognitionAbstract
In a study involving 102 university students, reading comprehension of printed academic texts versus e-book Reader format was compared. Effects of specific previous domain knowledge and verbal ability were examined. Students’ attitudes towards the e-book Reader before and after the experiment were also investigated. Results suggest that the e-book Reader would benefit more competent readers, and that it could promote greater metacognitive activity in comprehension processes. Also, attitudes towards the e-book Readerchanged after the experience, although self-evaluation judgments showed that the printed format is still preferred.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P., & Paris, S. (2007). Skills and strategies: Their differences, their relationships, and why it matters. En K. Mokhtari& R. Sheorey. (Eds.). Reading strategies in first- and second- language learners: See how they read (pp. 11-24). Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
Ahlroos, P. & Hahto, J. (2012). The e-Reader -An educational or an entertainment tool?- E-Readers in an academic setting. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 21, 249-261.
Albarello, F. (2011). Leer/navegar en Internet. Las formas de lectura en la computadora. Buenos Aires: La Crujía.
Alonso Arévalo, J., Cordón García, J., & Gómez Díaz, R. (2011). El libro electrónico en la biblioteca universitaria y de investigación. Biblos, 42, 15-35.
Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, A., & Mariné, C. (2009).Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation cognitive load, and learnig. Learning and Instruction, 19, 376-386.
Baker, R.D. (2010). Comparing the readability of text displays on paper, e-book Readers, and small screen devices.Tesis Doctoral.Denton: University of North Texas.
Benéitez, L.M., Camarero, C., & San José, R. (2012). Tecnologías útiles para el consumidor pero con riesgo para las industrias de contenidos. El caso del libro electrónico. Universia Business Review, 2,82-101.
Burin, D. I., Barreyro, J.P., Saux, G., & Irrazabal, N. (2015). Navigation and comprehension of expository hypertext: Hypertext structure, previous domain knowledge, and working memory capacity. ElectronicJournal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(3), 529-550.
Burin, D., Kahan, E., Irrazabal, N., & Saux, G. (2010). Procesos cognitivos en la comprensión de hipertexto: papel de la estructura del hipertexto, de la memoria detrabajo, y del conocimiento previo. Actas Congreso Iberoamericano de Educación, 1-12.
Burin, D., Kahan, E., Irrazabal, N., & Saux, G. (2014). Comprensión de contenidos científicos en formato hipertextual: La estructura de navegación tiene efectos distintos según el conocimiento previo y la capacidad de memoria de trabajo. En: V. Jaichenco (Comp.). Psicolingüística en español. Homenaje a Juan Seguí (pp. 345-355). Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Campbell, A., Callaghan, G., McGarvie, D.W., & Hynd, M. (2013). Do students study and learn differently using e-Readers? A cross-discipline research investigation into the pedagogical implications of using e-Readers to study university level texts.The QAA Enhancement Themes International Conference on Enhancement and Innovation in Higher Education. Glasgow, UK.
Connell, C., Bayliss, L., & Farmer, W. (2012).Effects of eBook Readers and tablet computers on reading comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 131-140.
Cordón García, J.A., Alonso Arévalo, J. & Martín Rodero, H. (2010). Los libros electrónicos: la tercera ola de la revolución digital. Anales de Documentación, 13, 53-80.
Cortada de Kohan, N. (2004). Baires. Test de Aptitud Verbal “Buenos Aires”. Madrid: Tea.
Davis, D. & Woody, W. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic vs. print texts. Computers & Education, 62,18-23. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016
Federación de Gremios de Editores (2011). Hábitos de lectura y compra de libros. Informe técnico. Madrid: Conecta.
Fernández Gómez, M. J., Cordón-García, J. A., Alonso-Arévalo, J., & Gómez-Díaz, R. (2013). Prácticas de consumo electrónico: los lectores ante los nuevos soportes. En: Cordón-García, J. A., Gómez-Díaz, R., & Alonso-Arévalo, J. (2014). Documentos electrónicos y textualidades digitales: nuevos lectores, nuevas lecturas, nuevos géneros (pp. 177-219).Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Gielen, N. (2010). Handheld e-book Readers and scholarship: Report and Reader survey. New York, NY: American Council of Learned Societies.
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & Van Lehn, K. (2005).Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through point & query, auto tutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225-234. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4004_4
Irrazabal, N., Burin, D., & Saux, G. (2012).Conocimiento previo y memoria de trabajo en la comprensión de textos expositivos. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 4(2), 11-18.
Kintsch, W. (1996). El rol del conocimiento en la comprensión del discurso: un modelo de construcción–integración. En K. Goodman & W. Kintsch. Textos en contexto 2. Los procesos de lectura y escritura (pp. 71-133). Buenos Aires: Kapeluz.
Lartigue, J., Rutledge, R., & Rice, A. (2013). Paper or pixel: assessing reading performance across multiple mediums. En J. Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.).Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2013 (pp. 1045-1052). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
León, J.A. & Escudero, I. (2003).Protocolos verbales en el estudio de las inferencias: una metodología emergente. En León, J.A. (coord.). Conocimiento y discurso. Claves para inferir y comprender (pp.99–119). Madrid: Pirámide.
McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
Margolin, S.J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M.J., & Kegler, J.L. (2013). E-Readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512-519. doi: 10.1002/acp.2930
Nielsen, J. (2010). iPad and Kindle Reading Speeds. Disponible en: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindle-reading.html
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357-383. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530730
Perfetti, C. & Stafura, J. (2014).Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 22-37. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). The rise of e-reading. Washington, D.C: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
Rich, S. (2012).The influence of electronic books on third grade reading comprehension. A Master’s Project of Science in Education Literacy Education.Fredonia, New York: State University of New York at Fredonia. Department of Education.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2012).Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Computers & Education, 6, 259-266. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Wendt, J., & Lunde, R. (2013). Electronic versus print textbooks: the influence of textbook format on university students’ self-regulated learning strategies, motivation, and text anxiety. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(3), 179-188. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2013.796230
Rubio, G. A., & Giménez, B. G. D. (2014). Papel vs. digital: hábitos de lectura de los estudiantes de la Universidad Europea de Madrid (UEM). Caracteres.net, 3(1), 241-271.
Schugar, J.T., Schugar, H., & Penny, C. (2011). A nook or a book? Comparing college students’ reading comprehension levels, critical reading, and study skills. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 174-192.
Shibata, H. & Omura, K. (2012).Comparing Paper Books and Electronic Media in Reading to Answer Questions. International Conference on Digital Printing Technologies,1, 43-46.
Shurtz, S.& von Isenburg, M. (2011).Exploring e-Readers to support clinical medical education: two case studies.Journal of the Medical Library Association,99(2), 110. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.2.002.
Van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. Nueva York: Academic Press.
Wexelbaum, R., Miltenoff, P., & Parault, S. (2011). EBooks and reading comprehension: Perspectives of librarians and educators. Bibliosphera, 14(3), 1-12.
Zhang, L. (2012). Changes in reading behavior among eReader adopters. (Tesis doctoral). Rochester Institute of Technology, New York, U.S.A.
Ahlroos, P. & Hahto, J. (2012). The e-Reader -An educational or an entertainment tool?- E-Readers in an academic setting. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 21, 249-261.
Albarello, F. (2011). Leer/navegar en Internet. Las formas de lectura en la computadora. Buenos Aires: La Crujía.
Alonso Arévalo, J., Cordón García, J., & Gómez Díaz, R. (2011). El libro electrónico en la biblioteca universitaria y de investigación. Biblos, 42, 15-35.
Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, A., & Mariné, C. (2009).Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation cognitive load, and learnig. Learning and Instruction, 19, 376-386.
Baker, R.D. (2010). Comparing the readability of text displays on paper, e-book Readers, and small screen devices.Tesis Doctoral.Denton: University of North Texas.
Benéitez, L.M., Camarero, C., & San José, R. (2012). Tecnologías útiles para el consumidor pero con riesgo para las industrias de contenidos. El caso del libro electrónico. Universia Business Review, 2,82-101.
Burin, D. I., Barreyro, J.P., Saux, G., & Irrazabal, N. (2015). Navigation and comprehension of expository hypertext: Hypertext structure, previous domain knowledge, and working memory capacity. ElectronicJournal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(3), 529-550.
Burin, D., Kahan, E., Irrazabal, N., & Saux, G. (2010). Procesos cognitivos en la comprensión de hipertexto: papel de la estructura del hipertexto, de la memoria detrabajo, y del conocimiento previo. Actas Congreso Iberoamericano de Educación, 1-12.
Burin, D., Kahan, E., Irrazabal, N., & Saux, G. (2014). Comprensión de contenidos científicos en formato hipertextual: La estructura de navegación tiene efectos distintos según el conocimiento previo y la capacidad de memoria de trabajo. En: V. Jaichenco (Comp.). Psicolingüística en español. Homenaje a Juan Seguí (pp. 345-355). Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Campbell, A., Callaghan, G., McGarvie, D.W., & Hynd, M. (2013). Do students study and learn differently using e-Readers? A cross-discipline research investigation into the pedagogical implications of using e-Readers to study university level texts.The QAA Enhancement Themes International Conference on Enhancement and Innovation in Higher Education. Glasgow, UK.
Connell, C., Bayliss, L., & Farmer, W. (2012).Effects of eBook Readers and tablet computers on reading comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 131-140.
Cordón García, J.A., Alonso Arévalo, J. & Martín Rodero, H. (2010). Los libros electrónicos: la tercera ola de la revolución digital. Anales de Documentación, 13, 53-80.
Cortada de Kohan, N. (2004). Baires. Test de Aptitud Verbal “Buenos Aires”. Madrid: Tea.
Davis, D. & Woody, W. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic vs. print texts. Computers & Education, 62,18-23. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016
Federación de Gremios de Editores (2011). Hábitos de lectura y compra de libros. Informe técnico. Madrid: Conecta.
Fernández Gómez, M. J., Cordón-García, J. A., Alonso-Arévalo, J., & Gómez-Díaz, R. (2013). Prácticas de consumo electrónico: los lectores ante los nuevos soportes. En: Cordón-García, J. A., Gómez-Díaz, R., & Alonso-Arévalo, J. (2014). Documentos electrónicos y textualidades digitales: nuevos lectores, nuevas lecturas, nuevos géneros (pp. 177-219).Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Gielen, N. (2010). Handheld e-book Readers and scholarship: Report and Reader survey. New York, NY: American Council of Learned Societies.
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & Van Lehn, K. (2005).Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through point & query, auto tutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225-234. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4004_4
Irrazabal, N., Burin, D., & Saux, G. (2012).Conocimiento previo y memoria de trabajo en la comprensión de textos expositivos. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 4(2), 11-18.
Kintsch, W. (1996). El rol del conocimiento en la comprensión del discurso: un modelo de construcción–integración. En K. Goodman & W. Kintsch. Textos en contexto 2. Los procesos de lectura y escritura (pp. 71-133). Buenos Aires: Kapeluz.
Lartigue, J., Rutledge, R., & Rice, A. (2013). Paper or pixel: assessing reading performance across multiple mediums. En J. Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.).Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2013 (pp. 1045-1052). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
León, J.A. & Escudero, I. (2003).Protocolos verbales en el estudio de las inferencias: una metodología emergente. En León, J.A. (coord.). Conocimiento y discurso. Claves para inferir y comprender (pp.99–119). Madrid: Pirámide.
McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
Margolin, S.J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M.J., & Kegler, J.L. (2013). E-Readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512-519. doi: 10.1002/acp.2930
Nielsen, J. (2010). iPad and Kindle Reading Speeds. Disponible en: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-kindle-reading.html
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357-383. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530730
Perfetti, C. & Stafura, J. (2014).Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 22-37. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). The rise of e-reading. Washington, D.C: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
Rich, S. (2012).The influence of electronic books on third grade reading comprehension. A Master’s Project of Science in Education Literacy Education.Fredonia, New York: State University of New York at Fredonia. Department of Education.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2012).Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Computers & Education, 6, 259-266. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Wendt, J., & Lunde, R. (2013). Electronic versus print textbooks: the influence of textbook format on university students’ self-regulated learning strategies, motivation, and text anxiety. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(3), 179-188. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2013.796230
Rubio, G. A., & Giménez, B. G. D. (2014). Papel vs. digital: hábitos de lectura de los estudiantes de la Universidad Europea de Madrid (UEM). Caracteres.net, 3(1), 241-271.
Schugar, J.T., Schugar, H., & Penny, C. (2011). A nook or a book? Comparing college students’ reading comprehension levels, critical reading, and study skills. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 174-192.
Shibata, H. & Omura, K. (2012).Comparing Paper Books and Electronic Media in Reading to Answer Questions. International Conference on Digital Printing Technologies,1, 43-46.
Shurtz, S.& von Isenburg, M. (2011).Exploring e-Readers to support clinical medical education: two case studies.Journal of the Medical Library Association,99(2), 110. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.2.002.
Van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. Nueva York: Academic Press.
Wexelbaum, R., Miltenoff, P., & Parault, S. (2011). EBooks and reading comprehension: Perspectives of librarians and educators. Bibliosphera, 14(3), 1-12.
Zhang, L. (2012). Changes in reading behavior among eReader adopters. (Tesis doctoral). Rochester Institute of Technology, New York, U.S.A.
Downloads
Published
2018-10-22
How to Cite
Piovano, S., Irrazabal, N., & Burin, D. I. (2018). Comprehension of academic expository texts in e-book Reader vs. paper: influence of prior domain knowledge and verbal aptitude. Ciencias Psicológicas, 12(2), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v12i2.1680
Issue
Section
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
License
The reproduction rights of the article are granted under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), open access system.
