This study examined the processes of reading comprehension using paper presentation compared to computer presentation. Computers are increasingly being used more as a mode for instruction in schools, however, no study was identified that provides explanations regarding underlying reading comprehension processes or constructs. To examine constructs of reading comprehension, a text recall measure was employed. Additionally, to examine reading comprehension in an interactive mode a highlighting task was used. In the memory recall measure, a significant main effect was found for rhetorical type (collection over causal) but not for mode of presentation or for idea units. Findings were consistent with Meyer's results [1–3]. In using an on-line measure of highlighting, a significant main effect was found for mode of presentation (paper over computer). It would be expected under Meyer's constructs that there would be a difference by rhetorical type; however, no differences were found. The conclusion of this study is that reading comprehension constructs appear to be the same between computer presentation and paper presentation of text. However, when readers interact with text via computer (highlighting task) there appear to be different comprehension constructs evoked.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MeyerB. J. F.YoungC. J., and BartlettB. J., Memory Improved: Reading and Memory Enhancement across the Life Span Through Strategic Text Structures, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1989.
2.
MeyerB. J. F., The Structure of Prose: Effects on Learning and Memory and Implications for Educational Practice, in Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, AndersonR. C.SpiroR. J., and MontagueW. E. (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 179–200, 1977.
3.
MeyerB. J. F. and RiceG. E., The Structure of Text, in Handbook of Reading Research, PearsonP. D. (ed.), Longman, New York, pp. 319–333, 1984.
4.
BalajthyE., Computers and Reading, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
5.
DollC. A., Evaluating Educational Software, American Library Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1987.
6.
FeldmannS. C. and FishM. C., Use of Computer-Mediated Reading Supports to Enhance Reading Comprehension of High School Students, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7: 1, pp. 25–36, 1991.
7.
LathropA., Courseware in the Classroom: Selecting, Organizing, and Using Educational Software, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Menlo Park, California, 1983.
8.
LittleD. L.HannumW. H., and StuckG. B., Computers and Effective Instruction, Longman, New York, 1989.
9.
MadduxC.JohnsonD. L., and WillisJ. W., Educational Computing, Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts, 1992.
10.
Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning (OTA-SET-379), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1988.
11.
MerrillP. F., Computers in Education, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1986.
12.
ReinkingD., Computer, Reading and a New Technology of Print, in Reading and Computers: Issues for Theory and Practice, ReinkingD. (ed.), Teacher College Press, New York, pp. 3–23, 1987.
13.
ReinkingD. and Bridwell-BowlesL., Computers in Reading and Writing, in Handbook of Reading Research, II, BarrR.KamilM.MosenthalP., and PearsonP. D. (eds.), Longman, New York, pp. 310–340, 1991.
14.
MessickS., The Standard Problem: Meaning and Values in Measurement and Evaluation, American Psychologist, 30, pp. 955–965, 1975.
15.
MessickS., Validity, in Educational Measurement (3rd Edition), LinnR. L. (ed.), MacMillan, New York, pp. 13–104, 1989.
16.
AskwallS., Computer Supported Reading versus Reading Text on Paper: A Comparison of Two Reading Situations, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, pp. 425–439, 1985.
17.
DillonA.RichardsonJ., and McKnightC., The Human Factors of Journal Usage and the Designs of Electronic Text, Interacting with Computers, 1: 2, pp. 183–189, 1989.
18.
OborneD. J. and HoltonD., Reading from Screen versus Paper: There Is No Difference, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 28, pp. 1–9, 1988.
19.
BundersonC. V.InouyeD. K., and OlsenJ. B., The Four Generations of Computerized Educational Measurement, in Educational Measurement (3rd Edition), LinnR. L. (ed.), Macmillan, New York, pp. 367–408, 1989.
20.
GrayS. H.BarberC. B., and ShashaD., Information Search with Dynamic Text vs Paper Text: An Empirical Comparison, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, pp. 575–586, 1991.
21.
GreenB. F., Construct Validity of Computer-Based Tests, in Test Validity, WainerH. and BraunH. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 77–86, 1988.
22.
NielsenJ., The Art of Navigating through Hypertext, Communications of the ACM, 33, pp. 296–310, 1990.
23.
WainerH. and KielyG. L., Item Clusters and Computerized ADaptive Testing: A Case for Testlets, Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, pp. 185–201, 1987.
24.
AndersonT. H.AndersonR. C.DalgaardB. R.BiddleW. B.SurberJ. R., and AlessiS. M., An Experimental Evaluation of a Computer-Based Study Management System, Educational Psychologist, 11, pp. 184–190, 1975.
25.
BlohmP., Computer-Aided Glossing and Facilitated Learning in Prose Recall, in New Inquiries in Reading Research and Instruction, Thirty-First Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, NilesJ. A. and HarrisL. A. (eds.), National Reading Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 24–28, 1982.
26.
ReinkingD., Computer-Mediated Text and Comprehension Differences: The Role of Reading Time, Reader Preference, and Estimation of Learning, Reading Research Quarterly, 23, pp. 484–498, 1988.
27.
ReinkingD. and SchreinerR., The Effect of Computer-Mediated Text on Measures of Reading Comprehension and Reading Behavior, Reading Research Quarterly, 20, pp. 536–552, 1985.
28.
MeyerB. J. F., The Organization of Prose and Its Effects on Memory, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1975.
29.
FillmoreC. J., The Case for Case, in Universals in Linguistic Theory, BachE. and HarmsR. T. (eds.), Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp. 1–88, 1988.
30.
GrimesJ. E., The Thread of Discourse, Mouton, The Hague, 1975.
31.
MeyerB. J. F., Reading Research and the Composition Teacher: The Importance of Plans, College Composition and Communication, 33, pp. 37–49, 1982.
32.
MeyerB. J. F.BrandtD. M., and BluthG. J., Use of Top-Level Structure in Text: Key for Understanding Reading Comprehension of Ninth-Grade Students, Reading Research Quarterly, 16, pp. 72–103, 1980.
33.
MeyerB. J. F.HaringM. J.BrandtD. M., and WalkerC. H., Comprehension of Stories and Expository Text, Poetics, 9, pp. 203–211, 1980.
34.
MeyerB. J. F., Organizational Patterns in Prose and their Use in Reading, in Reading Research: Studies and Applications, KamilM. L. and MoeA. J. (eds.), National Reading Conference, Clemson, South Carolina, pp. 109–117, 1979.
35.
BrittonB. K.MeyerB. J.HodgeM. H., and GlynnS. M., Effects of Organization of Text on Memory: Tests of Retrieval and Response Criterion Hypotheses, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, pp. 620–629, 1980.
36.
MeyerB. J. F. and McConkieG. W., What is Recalled After Hearing a Passage, Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, pp. 101–117, 1973.
37.
MeyerB. J. F. and FreedleR. O., Effects of Discourse Type on Recall, American Educational Research Journal, 21, pp. 121–143, 1984.
38.
BoeshaarD., Computer Readiness Index (CRI), unpublished manuscript, 1986.
39.
AlvermannD., Restructuring Text Facilities Written Recall of Main Ideas, Journal of Reading, 25, pp. 754–758, 1982.
40.
AlvermannD. and MooreD., Secondary School Reading, in Handbook of Reading Research, II, BarrR. (eds.), pp. 951–983, Longman, New York, 1991.
41.
AndersonT. H. and ArmbrusterB. B., Studying, in Handbook of Reading Research, PearsonP. D. (ed.), Longman, New York, pp. 665–666, 1984.
42.
DiVestaF. J. and GrayG. S., Listening and Notetaking, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, pp. 407–428, 1975.
43.
GlynnS. M., Capturing Readers Attention by Means of Typographical Cueing Strategies, Educational Technology, 18, pp. 7–12, 1978.
44.
RickardsJ. P. and AugustG. J., Generative Underlining Strategies in Prose Recall, Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, pp. 860–865, 1975.
45.
BlanchardJ. and MikkelsonV., Underlining Performance Outcomes in Expository Text, Journal of Educational Research, 80, pp. 197–201, 1987.
46.
BartlettB. J., Top-Level Structure as an Organizational Strategy for Recall of Classroom Text (Prose Learning Series Research Report No. 1), Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, 1978.
47.
BobrowD. G. and CollinsA. (eds.), Representation and Understanding, Academic Press, New York, 1975.
48.
CollinsA. M. and LoftusE. F., A Spreading Activation Theory of Semantic Processing, Psychological Review, 82, pp. 407–428, 1975.
49.
RickardsJ. P. and SlifeD. B., Interaction of Dogmatism and Rhetorical Structure in Text Recall, American Educational Research Journal, 24, pp. 635–641, 1987.
50.
BakerF. B., Computer Technology in Text Construction and Processing, in Educational Measurement (3rd Edition), LinnR. L. (ed.), Macmillan, New York, pp. 367–408, 1989.
51.
McGrathD., Hypertext, CAI, Paper or Program Control: Do Learners Benefit from Choices, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24: 4, pp. 513–532, 1992.
52.
MerrillP. F.HammonsK.TolmanM. N.ChristensenL.VincentB. R., and ReynoldP. L., Computers in Education, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 1992.
53.
RubinA., The Computer Confronts Language Arts: Can and Should for Education, in Classroom Computers and Cognitive Science, WilkinsonA. C. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 201–215, 1983.
54.
Software for Schools: 1987–1988, Bowker Company, New York, 1987.
55.
SpilichG. J.VesonderG. T.ChiesiH. L., and VossJ. F., Text Processing of Domain-Related Information for Individuals with High and Low Domain Knowledge, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, pp. 275–290, 1979.
56.
VossJ. F.VesonderG. T., and SpilichG. J., Text Generation and Recall by High-Knowledge and Low-Knowledge Individuals, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, pp. 651–667, 1980.
