This systematic literature review was undertaken primarily to examine the role that print and digitally mediums play in text comprehension. Overall, results suggest that medium plays an influential role under certain text or task conditions or for certain readers. Additional goals were to identify how researchers defined and measured comprehension, and the various trends that have emerged over the past 25 years, since Dillon’s review. Analysis showed that relatively few researchers defined either reading or digital reading, and that the majority of studies relied on researcher-developed measures. Three types of trends were identified in this body of work: incremental (significant increase; e.g., number of studies conducted, variety of digital devices used), stationary (relative stability; e.g., research setting, chose of participants), and iterative (wide fluctuation; e.g., text length, text manipulations). The review concludes by considering the significance of these findings for future empirical research on reading in print or digital mediums.
AckermanR.GoldsmithM. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 19-32. doi:10.1037/a0022086
2.
*AckermanR.LautermanT. (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.
3.
AfflerbachP. (Ed.). (2015). Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
*AkbarR.Al-HashemiA.TaqiH.SadeqT. (2013). Efficacy of learning: Digital sources versus print. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(8), 98–114.
5.
AlexanderP. A.DochyF. J. (1995). Conceptions of knowledge and beliefs: A comparison across varying cultural and educational communities. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 413–442.
6.
AlexanderP. A.KnightS. L. (1993). Dimensions of the interplay between learning and teaching. Educational Forum, 57, 232–245.
7.
AlexanderP. A.MurphyP. K.GreeneJ. A. (2012). Projecting educational psychology’s future from its past and present: A trend analysis. In HarrisK. A.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook: Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 3–32). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
AlexanderP. A.MurphyP. K.WoodsB. S. (1996). Research news and comment: Of squalls and fathoms: Navigating the seas of educational innovation. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 31–39.
9.
AlexanderP. A.SchallertD. L.HareV. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315–343.
10.
AlexanderP. A.SchallertD. L.ReynoldsR. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.
11.
AliA. Z. M.WahidR.SamsudinK.IdrisM. Z. (2013). Reading on the computer screen: Does font type has effects on web text readability?International Education Studies, 6(3), 26–35.
12.
AndersonR. C.PearsonP. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In PearsonP. D.BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP. (Eds.), The handbook of reading research (pp. 255–292). New York, NY: Longman.
13.
*AnnandD. (2008). Learning efficacy and cost-effectiveness of print versus e-book instructional material in an introductory financial accounting course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7, 152–164.
14.
BaggettaP.AlexanderP. A. (2016). Conceptualization and operationalization of executive function. Mind, Brain and Education, 10, 10–33.
15.
BakerL.DreherM.GuthrieJ. T. (Eds.). (2000). Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
16.
*BodmannS. M.RobinsonD. H. (2004). Speed and performance differences among computer-based and paper-pencil tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 51–60.
17.
BraaschJ. L.RouetJ-F.VibertN.BrittM. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450–465.
18.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 111–130.
19.
CakirA.HartD. J.StewartT. F. M. (1980). Visual display terminals: A manual covering ergonomics, workplace design, health and safety, task organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
20.
CastellsM. (2011). The information age: Economy, society, and culture: Vol. 1. The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
21.
CataladoM. G.OakhillJ. (2000). The effect of text organization (original vs. scrambled) on readers’ ability to search for information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791–799.
22.
ChuM. L. L. (1995). Reader response to interactive computer books: Examining literary responses in a non-traditional reading setting. Literacy Research and Instruction, 34, 352–366.
23.
CoiroJ. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 352–392.
24.
College Board. (2009). The Scholastic Aptitude Test. New York, NY: Author.
25.
DaltonB.ProctorC. P.UccelliP.MoE.SnowC. E. (2011). Designing for diversity: The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment for fifth-grade monolingual English and bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 68–100.
26.
*DavisD. S.NeitzelC. (2012). Collaborative sense-making in print and digital text environments. Reading and Writing, 25, 831–856.
27.
*De JongM. T.BusA. G. (2004). The efficacy of electronic books in fostering kindergarten children’s emergent story understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 378–393.
28.
*DeZeeK. J.DurningS.DentonG. D. (2005). Effects of electronic versus print format and different reading resources on knowledge acquisition in the third-year medicine clerkship. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 17, 349–354.
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE. (2001). From the “digital divide” to “digital inequality”: Studying Internet use as penetration increases (University Working Paper No. 15). Princeton, NJ: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies.
31.
DinsmoreD. L.AlexanderP. A.LoughlinS. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.
32.
DreherM. J. (2003). Motivating struggling readers by tapping the potential of information books. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 25–38.
33.
DukeN. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
34.
DukeN. K.PearsonP. D. (2008). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Journal of Education, 189, 107–122.
35.
DumasD.AlexanderP. A.SingerL. M. (2015). Analyzing historical patterns, examining current trends, and forecasting change in the field of educational psychology: A cross-cultural perspective. Knowledge Cultures, 3(2), 7–18.
36.
*DundarH.AkcayirM. (2012). Tablet vs. paper: The effect on learners’ reading performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 441–450.
37.
*EdenS.Eshet-AlkalaiY. (2013). The effect of format on performance: Editing text in print versus digital formats. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 846–856.
38.
Educational Testing Service. (2013). The Graduate Record Examination. Princeton, NJ: Author
39.
Eshet-AlkalaiY.GeriE. (2007). Does the medium affect the message? The influence of text representation format on critical thinking. Human Systems Management, 26, 269–279.
40.
*Eshet-AlkalaiY.GeriE. (2009). Changes over time in digital literacy. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 713–715.
41.
*FoasbergN. M. (2014). Student reading practices in print and electronic media. College & Research Libraries, 75, 705–723.
42.
FranzeJ.MarriottJ.WybrowM. (2014, September). What academics want when reading digitally. In Proceedings of the 2014 Symposium on Document Engineering (pp. 199–202). New York, NY: ACM.
43.
GagnéR. M.GlaserR. (1987). Foundations in learning research. In GagnéR. M. (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 49–83). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
GiebelhausenR. (2015). The paperless music classroom. General Music Today, 29(2), 45–49.
45.
*GillK.MaoA.PowellA. M.SheidowT. (2013). Digital reader vs. print media: The role of digital technology in reading accuracy in age-related macular degeneration. Eye, 27, 639–643.
46.
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S.LouwerseM. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In SweetA. P.SnowC. E. (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York, NY: Guilford.
47.
HackerD. J.BolL.BahbahaniK. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: the effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 101–121.
48.
HartasC.MoseleyD. (1993). “Say that again, please”: A scheme to boost reading skills using a computer with digitized speech. Support for Learning, 8, 16–21.
49.
JenkinsJ. J. (1974). Remember that old theory of memory? Well, forget it. American Psychologist, 29, 785–795.
50.
JonesA. (2011). Seeing the messiness of academic practice: Exploring the work of academics through narrative. International Journal for Academic Development, 16, 109–118.
51.
KellnerD. (2000). New technologies/new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. Teaching Education, 11, 245–265.
52.
KendeouP.MuisK. R.FultonS. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365–383.
53.
*KerrM. A.SymonsS. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: Effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and Writing, 19, 1–19.
54.
*KimJ. E.AndersonJ. (2008). Mother-child shared reading with print and digital texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8, 213–245.
55.
KimberlinC. L.WintersteinA. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65, 2276–2284.
56.
KintschW. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87–98.
57.
KintschW. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
LabrecqueL. I.vor dem EscheJ.MathwickC.NovakT. P.HofackerC. F. (2013). Consumer power: Evolution in the digital age. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 257–269.
60.
LankshearC.BigumC. (1999). Literacies and new technologies in school settings. Curriculum Studies, 7, 445–465.
61.
*LeeH. K. (2004). A comparative study of ESL writers’ performance in a paper-based and a computer-delivered writing test. Assessing Writing, 9, 4–26.
62.
*LenhardW.SchroedersU.LenhardA. (2017). Equivalence of screen versus print reading comprehension depends on task complexity and proficiency. Discourses Processes. Advance online publication.
63.
LeuD. J.Jr.KinzerC. K.CoiroJ.CammackD. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In RuddellR. B.UnrauN. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
64.
LeuD. J.Jr.KinzerC. K.CoiroJ.CastekJ.HenryL. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In AlvermannD.UrauN. J.RuddellR. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1182). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
65.
LeuD. J.Jr.LeuD. D.LeuK. R. (1999). Teaching with the Internet: Lessons from the classroom (3rd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
66.
ListA.AlexanderP. A. (2017). The cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52, 182–199.
67.
LukeS. G.HendersonJ. M.FerreiraF. (2015). Children’s eye-movements during reading reflect the quality of lexical representations: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 1675–1683.
68.
*Macedo-RouetM.RouetJ. F.EpsteinI.FayardP. (2003). Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension. Science Communication, 25, 99–128.
69.
*MangenA.WalgermoB. R.BronnickJ. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68.
70.
*MargolinS. J.DriscollC.TolandM. J.KeglerJ. L. (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512–519.
71.
MayerR. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.
72.
MayerR. E. (2011). Does styles research have useful implications for education practice?Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 319–320.
73.
*MayesD. K.SimsV. K.KoonceJ. M. (2001). Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 367–378.
74.
McCruddenM. T. (2011). Do specific relevance instructions promote transfer appropriate processing?Instructional Science, 39, 865–879.
75.
McCruddenM. T.MaglianoJ. P.SchrawG. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 229–241.
76.
MurphyP. K.AlexanderP. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53.
77.
MuterP.MauruttoP. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: The paperless office revisited?Behaviour & Information Technology, 10, 257–266.
78.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.
79.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The Nation’s Report Card: A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading (NCES 2014-451). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
80.
*NoyesJ.GarlandK.RobbinsL. (2004). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: Is workload another test mode effect?British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 111–113.
81.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Programme for International Student Assessment PISA 2015 Reading Framework. Paris, France: Author.
82.
*OrtliebE.SargentS.MorelandM. (2014). Evaluating the efficacy of using a digital reading environment to improve reading comprehension within a reading clinic. Reading Psychology, 35, 397–421.
83.
PearsonP. D.HammD. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices—past, present and future. In Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13–79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
84.
ProapsA. B.BlissJ. P. (2014). The effects of text presentation format on reading comprehension and video game performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 41–47.
*Rockinson-SzapkiwA. J.CourduffJ.CarterK.BennettD. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259–266.
89.
RothS. P.TuchA. N.MeklerE. D.Bargas-AvilaJ. A.OpwisK. (2013). Location matters, especially for non-salient features: An eye-tracking study on the effects of web object placement on different types of websites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71, 228–235.
90.
RouetJ.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
91.
RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A. (2011). Relevance processing in multiple document comprehension. In: McCruddenM. T.MaglianoJ. P.SchrawG. (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
92.
SarroubL.PearsonP. D. (1998). Two steps forward, three steps back: The storm history of reading comprehension assessment. The Clearing House, 72, 97–105.
93.
ShishkovskayaJ.SokolovaE.ChernayaA. (2015). “Paperless” foreign languages teaching. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 232–235.
94.
*SiegenthalerE.WurtzP.BergaminP.GronerR. (2011). Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32, 268–273.
95.
*SingerL. M.AlexanderP. A. (2017). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 155–172.
96.
SingerL. M.AlexanderP. A.BerkowitzL. E. (2017). Effects of processing time on comprehension and calibration in print and digital mediums. Manuscript submitted for publication.
97.
SlavinR. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 5–11.
98.
SoeK.KokiS.ChangJ. M. (2000). Effect of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) on reading achievement: A meta-analysis. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
99.
SpencerC. (2006). Research on learners’ preferences for reading from a printed text or from a computer screen. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 21, 33–50.
100.
StadtlerM.BrommeR. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191–210.
101.
StakhnevichJ. (2002). Reading on the Web: Implications for ESL professionals. The Reading Matrix, 2(2), 7–19.
102.
StephensM. (2014). Beyond news: The future of journalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
103.
*SternP.ShalevL. (2013). The role of sustained attention and display medium in reading comprehension among adolescents with ADHD and without it. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 431–439.
104.
*StoopJ.KreutzerP.KirczJ. (2013). Reading and learning from screens versus print: A study in changing habits: Part 1-reading long information rich texts. New Library World, 114, 284–300.
105.
TannerM. J. (2014). Digital vs. print: Reading comprehension and the future of the book. iSchool Student Research Journal, 4(2), 6–13.
106.
TinkerM. A. (1958). Recent studies of eye movements in reading. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 215.
107.
ToppingK. (1997). Electronic literacy in school and home: A look into the future. Reading Online, 1, 1–27.
108.
TynerK. (2014). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. New York, NY: Routledge.
109.
UnderwoodG.UnderwoodJ. D.Farrington-FlintL. (2015). Learning and the eGeneration. Chichester, England: John Wiley.
110.
UsluelY. K. (2016). Social network usage. In Social Networking and Education (pp. 213–222). Springer International Publishing.
111.
*VerdiM. P.CrooksS. M.WhiteD. R. (2014). Learning effects of print and digital geographic maps. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 35, 290–302.
112.
WästlundE. (2007). Experimental studies of human-computer interaction: Working memory and mental workload in complex cognition. Goteborg, Sweden: Gothenburg University, Department of Psychology.
113.
*WästlundE.ReinikkaH.NorlanderT.ArcherT. (2005). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 377–394.
114.
*YoungJ. (2014). A study of print and computer-based reading to measure and compare rates of comprehension and retention. New Library World, 115, 376–393.
115.
*ZambarbieriD.CarnigliaE. (2012). Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders, and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32, 390–396.
ZickuhrK.RainieL.PurcellK.MaddenM.BrennerJ. (2012). Younger Americans’ reading and library habits. Washington, DC: Pew Research Centers Internet & American Life Project.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
