Reading Medium and Communicative Purpose in Writing: Effects on Pausing Behaviour and Text Quality,Controlling for Reading Comprehension and Executive Functions

Abstract

This study investigated how reading medium (print vs. digital) and communicative purpose (informative vs. persuasive) shape writing processes and outcomes in integrative academic tasks. Eighty-one university students read three source texts in print or digitally and, after random assignment, produced either an informative or persuasive synthesis within a 2×2 between-subjects design. Keystroke logging recorded pausing across three writing stages, indexing planning, translation, and revision. Text quality was scored with holistic rubrics capturing discourse features and integration of sources. Reading medium significantly influenced pausing: students who read in print paused longer during writing, yet medium had no effect on overall text quality. Task purpose mattered: persuasive tasks yielded higher-quality formal writing, whereas scores reflecting level of source integration did not differ. No interaction between reading medium and task purpose emerged. When controlling for reading comprehension, working memory, and planning ability, the main effects of medium and task purpose remained, but period-specific pausing effects were no longer significant. Findings highlight distinct roles for reading medium and task purpose in shaping writing behavior and performance. The results support cautious causal interpretations and suggest that incorporating digital reading and varying task types may enhance academic writing in higher education, informing curriculum design and assessment.

Keywords

reading medium communicative purpose writing performance writing process executive functions keystroke logging

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ackerman

Lauterman

(2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023

Aguirre

(2015). Acercamiento al análisis pausológico del proceso de producción escrita mediante la técnica keystroke logging. Lingüística, 31(1), 81–91.

Alves

R. A.

Castro

S. L.

Olive

(2008). Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill. International Journal of Psychology, 43(6), 969–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701398951

Annisette

L. E.

Lafreniere

K. D.

(2017). Social media, texting, and personality: A test of the shallowing hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2016.02.043

Arce

McMullen

(2021). The Corsi block-tapping test: Evaluating methodological practices with an eye towards modern digital frameworks. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100099

Barzilai

Ka’adan

(2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 193–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7

Beers

S. F.

Nagy

W. E.

(2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9

Boccia

Marin

D’Antuono

Ciurli

Incoccia

Antonucci

Guariglia

Piccardi

(2017). The Tower of London (ToL) in Italy: Standardization of the ToL test in an Italian population. Neurological Sciences, 38(7), 1263–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-2957-y

Braasch

J. L. G.

Bråten

(2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219

10.

Braasch

J. L. G.

Haverkamp

Y. E.

Latini

Shaw

Arshad

M. S.

Bråten

(2022). Belief bias when adolescents read to comprehend multiple conflicting texts. Reading and Writing, 35(8), 1759–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11145-022-10262-W/TABLES/4

11.

Bråten

Haverkamp

Y. E.

Latini

Strømsø

H. I.

(2023). Measuring multiple-source based academic writing self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1212567

12.

Britt

M. A.

Rouet

J.-F.

(2012). Learning with multiple documents. Component skills and their acquisition. In Kirby

J. R.

Lawson

M. J.

(Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). Cambridge University Press.

13.

Brossart

D. F.

Laird

V. C.

Armstrong

T. W.

(2018). Interpreting Kendall’s Tau and Tau-U for single-case experimental designs. Cogent Psychology, 5(1), 1518687. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1518687

14.

Brunetti

Del Gatto

Delogu

(2014). eCorsi: Implementation and testing of the Corsi block-tapping task for digital tablets. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 939. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00939

15.

Brysbaert

(2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047

16.

Carnota

Pascual

Suárez-Coalla

(2024). The impact of handwriting fluency on bursts of written language and text quality in undergraduates. Reading and Writing, 38, 2929–2954.

17.

Casado-Ledesma

Cuevas

Van den Bergh

Rijlaarsdam

Mateos

Granado-Peinado

Martín

(2021). Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: Instructional practices in secondary education. Instructional Science 2021, 49, 515–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11251-021-09548-3

18.

Castells

Minguela

Nadal

(2023). Writing a synthesis versus reading: Strategies involved and impact on comprehension. Reading and Writing, 36(4), 849–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10341-y

19.

Castells

Minguela

Nadal

Cuevas

(2022). Learning through reading and writing tasks in higher education: What do students use, paper or screen? Culture and Education, 34(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2021.2006499

20.

Castillo-Martínez

I. M.

Cerros Regalado

C. P.

Glasserman-Morales

L. D.

Ramírez-Montoya

M. S.

(2023). Academic literacy among the university students in Mexico and Spain: A holistic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1055954. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1055954

21.

Clinton

(2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269

22.

Collins

Tate

T. P.

won Lee

Krishnan

J. A.

Warschauer

(2021). A multi-dimensional examination of adolescent writing: Considering the writer, genre and task demands. Reading and Writing, 34(8), 2151–2173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10140-x

23.

Conijn

Roeser

van Zaanen

(2019). Understanding the keystroke log: The effect of writing task on keystroke features. Reading and Writing, 32(9), 2353–2374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09953-8

24.

De La Paz

Swanson

P. N.

Graham

(1998). The contribution of executive control to the revising by students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 448–460. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.448

25.

Delgado

Salmerón

(2021). The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure. Learning and Instruction, 71, 101396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101396

26.

Delgado

Serrano-Mendizábal

Gómez-Merino

Pi-Ruano

Rubio

Skrobiszewska

Salmerón

(2023). Changes in reading habits during COVID-19 confinement in Spain. Culture and Education, 35(2), 420–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2022.2135271

27.

Delgado

Vargas

Ackerman

Salmerón

(2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003

28.

DEMRE - Universidad de Chile. (2022). Informe Técnico de las Pruebas de Admisión. https://demre.cl/estadisticas/documentos/informes/2022-informe-resultados-admision-2022.pdf

29.

Diamond

(2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

30.

List

(2020). Researching and writing based on multiple texts. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101297

31.

Escorcia

Passerault

J.-M.

Ros

Pylouster

(2017). Profiling writers: Analysis of writing dynamics among college students. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 233–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9166-6

32.

Follmer

D. J.

Tise

(2022). Effects of an executive function-based text support on strategy use and comprehension–integration of conflicting informational texts. Reading and Writing, 35(7), 1731–1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10257-7

33.

Furenes

M. I.

Kucirkova

Bus

A. G.

(2021). A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483–517. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998074

34.

Georgiou

G. K.

Das

J. P.

(2017). Tower of London: What level of planning does it measure? Psychological Studies, 62(3), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-017-0416-8

35.

Gil

Bråten

Vidal-Abarca

Strømsø

H. I.

(2010a). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002

36.

Gil

Bråten

Vidal-Abarca

Strømsø

H. I.

(2010b). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31(2), 30–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710902733600

37.

Grabowski

Mathiebe

(2024). A direct functional measure of text quality: Did the reader understand? Written Communication, 41(2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883231222952

38.

Graham

Liu

Bartlett

Harris

K. R.

Aitken

Barkel

Kavanaugh

Talukdar

(2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927

39.

Granado-Peinado

Cuevas

Olmos

Martín

Casado-Ledesma

Mateos

(2022). Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: Explicit instruction and practice. Reading and Writing, 36(4), 909–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11145-022-10318-X/FIGURES/4

40.

Granado-Peinado

Mateos

Martín

Cuevas

(2019). Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 2037–2058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09939-6

41.

Hall

Baaijen

V. M.

Galbraith

(2022). Constructing theoretically informed measures of pause duration in experimentally manipulated writing. Reading and Writing, 37(2), 329–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11145-022-10284-4/TABLES/4

42.

Humphry

Heldsinger

(2019). Raters’ perceptions of assessment criteria relevance. Assessing Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.04.002

43.

(2024). Examining simultaneous pausing on the cognitive writing process: A micro-formative writing assessment. Current Psychology, 43(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04429-z

44.

Latini

Bråten

Anmarkrud

Ø.

Salmerón

(2019). Investigating effects of reading medium and reading purpose on behavioral engagement and textual integration in a multiple text context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101797

45.

Latini

Bråten

Salmerón

(2020). Does reading medium affect processing and integration of textual and pictorial information? A multimedia eye-tracking study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101870

46.

Leijten

Van Waes

(2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692

47.

Liao

Zhao

(2024). The role of executive function in an integrated writing task. Written Communication, 41(2), 230–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883231222950

48.

Limpo

Alves

R. A.

(2017). Written language bursts mediate the relationship between transcription skills and writing performance. Written Communication, 34(3), 306–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317714234

49.

List

Alexander

P. A.

(2017). Analyzing and integrating models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1328309

50.

List

Alexander

P. A.

(2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514

51.

López

Fidalgo

(2018). Análisis de pausas y ejecuciones para el estudio de procesos de escritura. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology INFAD Revista de Psicología, 2(1), 261. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2018.n1.v2.1222

52.

Mangen

Olivier

Velay

J.-L.

(2019). Comparing comprehension of a long text read in print book and on kindle: Where in the text and when in the story? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00038

53.

Matsuhashi

(1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15(2), 113–134.

54.

McCarthy

K. S.

Yan

E. F.

Allen

L. K.

Sonia

A. N.

Magliano

J. P.

McNamara

D. S.

(2022). On the basis of source: Impacts of individual differences on multiple-document integrated reading and writing tasks. Learning and Instruction, 79, 101599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101599

55.

Medimorec

Risko

E. F.

(2016). Effects of disfluency in writing. British Journal of Psychology, 107(4), 625–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12177

56.

Medimorec

Risko

E. F.

(2017). Pauses in written composition: On the importance of where writers pause. Reading and Writing, 30(6), 1267–1285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9723-7

57.

Moreno

Korzeniowski

Espósito

(2022). Procesos cognitivos y ejecutivos asociados a la expresión escrita infantil. Ocnos. Revista de estudios sobre lectura, 21(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2022.21.2.2839

58.

Muñoz Martín

Apfelthaler

. (2022). A task segment framework to study keylogged translation processes. Translation & Interpreting, 14(2), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.114202.2022.a02

59.

Naumann

A. B.

Wechsung

Krems

J. F.

(2009). How to support learning from multiple hypertext sources. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 639–646. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.639

60.

Nelson

King

J. R.

(2023). Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading and Writing, 36(4), 769–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

61.

Olive

(2010). Methods, techniques, and tools for the on-line study of the writing process. In N. L. Mertens (Ed.), Writing: Processes, tools and techniques (pp. 1–18). Nova Science Publishers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319087762_Methods_techniques_and_tools_for_the_on-line_study_of_the_writing_process

62.

Olive

(2021). Executive functions in skilled writers. In Limpo

Olive

(Eds.), Executive functions and writing (pp. 207–226). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198863564.003.0009

63.

Olos

Hoff

E.-H.

(2006). Gender ratios in European psychology. European Psychologist, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.1.1

64.

Parodi

Ibáñez

Venegas

(2009). El Corpus PUCV-2006 del Español: Identificación y definición de los géneros discursivos académicos y profesionales. Literatura y Lingüística, 20, 75–101. https://doi.org/10.29344/0717621X.20.1564

65.

Parodi

Moreno-de-León

Julio

Burdiles

(2019). Google or Gutenberg Generation: Chilean university students’ reading habits and reading purposes. Comunicar, 27(58), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.3916/C58-2019-08

66.

Perfetti

C. A.

Rouet

J. F.

Britt

M. A.

(1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In van Oostendorp

Goldman

S. R.

(Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

67.

Primor

Katzir

(2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(2294), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294

68.

Primor

Yeari

Katzir

(2021). Choosing the right question: The effect of different question types on multiple text integration. Reading and Writing, 34(6), 1539–1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11145-021-10127-8

69.

Rojas-Barahona

(2017). Funciones Ejecutivas y Educación. Comprendiendo habilidades clave para el aprendizaje. Ediciones UC.

70.

Rossetti

Van Waes

(2022). It’s not just a phase: Investigating text simplification in a second language from a process and product perspective. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 983008. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.983008

71.

Rosu

M. M.

Cosmoiu

Ianole-Călin

Podina

I. R.

(2023). When is reliable data effective? The role of media engagement in reducing the impact of fake news on worry regarding terrorism. Current Psychology, 42(14), 11460–11474. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12144-021-02427-7/FIGURES/4

72.

Rouet

J. F.

(2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning (1st ed.). Erlbaum. http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/toc/ze_2006_1378.pdf

73.

Rouet

J. F.

Britt

(2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In Mccrudden

M. T.

Magliano

Schraw

(Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Information Age Publishing. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268011216_Relevance_processes_in_multiple_document_comprehension

74.

Rouet

J. F.

Britt

M. A.

Durik

A. M.

(2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015

75.

Salmerón

Altamura

Delgado

Karagiorgi

Vargas

(2024). Reading comprehension on handheld devices versus on paper: A narrative review and meta-analysis of the medium effect and its moderators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000830

76.

Salmerón

Arfé

Avila

Cerdán

De Sixte

Delgado

Fajardo

Ferrer

García

Gil

Gómez-Merino

Jáñez

Á.

Lluch

Mañá

Mason

Natalizi

Pi-Ruano

Ramos

, . . . Perea

(2020). READ-COGvid: A database from reading and media habits during COVID-19 confinement in Spain and Italy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 575241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575241

77.

Salmerón

Delgado

(2019). Critical analysis of the effects of the digital technologies on reading and learning. Cultura y Educación, 31(3), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2019.1630958

78.

Schaefer

S. Y.

Hooyman

Haikalis

N. K.

Essikpe

Lohse

K. R.

Duff

Wang

(2022). Efficacy of Corsi Block Tapping Task training for improving visuospatial skills: a non-randomized two-group study. Experimental Brain Research, 240(11), 3023–3032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-022-06478-5

79.

Schoor

Rouet

J. F.

Britt

M. A.

(2022). Effects of context and discrepancy when reading multiple documents. Reading and Writing, 36, 1111–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10321-2

80.

Segev-Miller

(2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing strategies. In Torrance

Van Waes

Galbraith

(Eds.), Studies in writing (pp. 231–250). Elsevier Science.

81.

Singer

A. R.

Cassin

S. E.

Dobson

K. S.

(2005). The role of gender in the career aspirations of professional psychology graduates: Are there more similarities than differences? Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 46(4), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087029

82.

Snow

Uccelli

(2009). The challenge of academic language. In Olson

D. R.

Torrance

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge University Press.

83.

Spivey

N. N.

King

J. R.

(1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7–26.

84.

Tabullo

Á. J.

Chiófalo

M. F.

Wainselboim

A. J

. (2023). Reading comprehension in undergraduates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Associations with executive function difficulties, reading habits and screen times. Reading Psychology, 45(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2023.2246972

85.

Torrance

Johansson

Wengelin

. (2016). Reading during the composition of multi-sentence texts: An eye-movement study. Psychological Research, 80(5), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0683-8

86.

Valenzuela

. (2022). ¿Escribo siempre igual?: Efectos de los propósitos comunicativos de las tareas en la organización temporal durante el proceso de escritura. Revista Signos, 55(110), 873–897. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-09342022000300873

87.

Valenzuela

Á.

Castillo

R. D

. (2023). The effect of communicative purpose and reading medium on pauses during different phases of the textualization process. Reading and Writing, 36(4), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10309-y

88.

Van Waes

Leijten

Pauwaert

Van Horenbeeck

. (2019). A multilingual copy task: Measuring typing and motor skills in writing with inputlog. Journal of Open Research Software, 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5334/JORS.234

89.

Van Waes

Leijten

Roeser

Olive

Grabowski

. (2021). Measuring and assessing typing skills in writing research. Journal of Writing Research, 13(1), 107–153. https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2021.13.01.04

90.

Vandermeulen

van den Broek

Van Steendam

Rijlaarsdam

(2020). In search of an effective source use pattern for writing argumentative and informative synthesis texts. Reading and Writing, 33(2), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09958-3

91.

Vandermeulen

Van Steendam

De Maeyer

Lesterhuis

Rijlaarsdam

(2024). Learning to write syntheses: The effect of process feedback and of observing models on performance and process behaviors. Reading and Writing, 37(6), 1375–1405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10483-7

92.

Ventura-León

Caycho-Rodríguez

(2017). El coeficiente Omega: Un método alternativo para la estimación de la confiabilidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 15(1), 625–627.

93.

Williamson

M. M.

Pence

(1989). Word processing and student writers. In Britton

B. K.

Glynn

S. M.

(Eds.), Computer writing environments: Theory, research, and design (pp. 93–127). Erlbaum.

94.

(2025). Remodeling reading-to-write process: A response writing task for Chinese English learners. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 3, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/flang.2024.1422123

95.

Zarrabi

Bozorgian

(2020). EFL students’ cognitive performance during argumentative essay writing: A log-file data analysis. Computers and Composition, 55, 102546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102546

96.

Zheng

(2019). What has been assessed in writing and how? Empirical evidence from Assessing Writing (2000–2018). Assessing Writing, 42, 100421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100421

97.

Zhu

Zhang

Deane

(2019). Analysis of keystroke sequences in writing logs. ETS Research Report Series, 2019(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12247