Abstract
In this study, we compared the effects of two media (Interactive Whiteboards and Paper) on both expository and narrative texts reading comprehension among 5th grade children of primary school. Two texts were constructed, according to the same controlled hierarchical structure. Comprehension was assessed by a multiple-choice questionnaire including three types of questions (surface, semantics, inferential). Results of the comprehension test revealed no difference between the two supports. Regardless of support, we found better performances for the narrative text, as well as an interaction between Text and Question factors, revealing that children had more difficulties to elaborate inferences when reading the expository text. These results are in line with previous findings underlying that texts with a similar structure, with a single-page presentation elicit similar performances on paper and electronic devices. They also provide interesting perspectives about the use and impact of Interactive Whiteboards during reading activities or lessons in classrooms.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
N/A.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295.
Baayen, R., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). CELEX2 LDC96L14. Web Download. Linguistic Data Consortium.
Baccino, T., & Drai-Zerbib, V. (2015). La lecture numérique. PUG (Presses Universitaires de Grenoble).
Baccino, T., & Drai-Zerbib, V. (2015). La lecture numérique. PUG Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
Bailey, B. (1999). UI Design Update Newsletter (February ed.). Retrieved from http://www.humanfactors.com/library/feb99.asp
Ball, B., & Hourcade, J. P. (2011). Rethinking reading for age from paper and computers. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(11), 1066–1082.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Baye, A., Quittre, V., Monseur, C., & Lafontaine, D. (Eds.). (2011). La lecture électronique à 15 ans. Premiers résultats PISA 2009. Cahiers des Sciences de l'Education (Les).
Beeland, W. D. (2002) Student engagement, visual learning, and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education
Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013). E-readers and visual fatigue. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e83676.
Best, R., Ozuru, Y., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). Children’s text comprehension: Effects of genre, knowledge, and text cohesion. In ICLS 2006: International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Proceedings (pp. 37–42). (ICLS 2006: International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Proceedings; Vol. 1).
Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137–164.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Alliance for Excellent Education.
Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Alliance for Excellent Education.
Black, J. B., & Bern, H. (1981). Causal coherence and memory for events in narratives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 267–275.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 21.
Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.
Creed, A., Dennis, I., & Newstead, S. (1988). Effects of display format on proof-reading with VDUs. Behaviour and Information Technology, 7(4), 467–478.
Daniel, F., & Raney, G. E. (2007). Capturing the effect of a title on multiple levels of com- prehension. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 892–900.
Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297–1326.
Dyson, M. C., & Haselgrove, M. (2001). The influence of reading speed and line length on the effectiveness of reading from screen. International Journal Og Human-Computer Studies, 54, 585–562.
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.
Ghaniabadi, S., Amirian, S. M. R., Khalilabad, M. H., & Nafchi, A. M. (2016). The effect of multimedia texts presented on interactive whiteboards on Iranian High School EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS), 3(1), 430–446.
Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose Comprehension Beyond the Word. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102–117.
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge University Press.
Kaakinen, J. K., Papp-Zipernovszky, O., Werlen, E., Castells, N., Bergamin, P., Baccino, T., & Jacobs, A. M. (2018). Emotional and motivational aspects of digital reading. In J. T. M. Barzillai, S. Schroeder, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Learning to read in a digital world (pp. 141–164). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kamberelis, G., & Bovino, T. D. (1999). Cultural artifacts as scaffolds for genre development. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 138–170.
Keenan, J. M., Baillet, S. D., & Brown, P. (1984). The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 115–126.
Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: Effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 1–19.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1998a). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. (1998b). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 2, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (2002). On the notions of theme and topic in psychological process models of text comprehension. In M. Louwerse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies. Benjamins.
Kintsch, W. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 51–64.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Current issues in reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kintsch, W., Welsch, D. M., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 133–159.
Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018). Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005
Krug, S. (2006). Don’t make me think! A common sense approach to web usability (2nd ed.). New Riders.
Kurniawan, S. H., & Zaphiris, P. (2001). Reading online or on paper: Which is faster? Proceedings of HCI International 2001. Lawrence Erbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~zaphiri/Papers/hcii2001_reading_posterr.pdf
Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Bayesian modeling for cognitive science: A practical course. Cambridge University Press.
Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(1), 156–166.
Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 284–289.
Mangen, A., & van der Weel, A. (2015). Why don’t we read hypertext novels? Convergence, 23(2), 166–181.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68.
Mayes, D., Sims, V., & Koonce, J. (2001). Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 367–378.
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler-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.
Megalakaki, O., Aparicio, X., Porion, A., Pasqualotti, L., & Baccino, T. (2015). Assessing visibility, legibility and comprehension for interactive whiteboards (IWBs) vs. computers. Educational Psychology, 36(9), 1631–1650.
Meyer, B. J. F. (2003). Text coherence and readability. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(3), 204–224.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (1997). Age differences in efficiency of reading comprehension from printed versus computer-displayed text. Educational Gerontology, 23, 789–807.
Meyer, B. J., & Ray, M. N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 127–152.
Nielsen, J. (1998). Electronic books: A bad idea. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980726.html
Noyes, J., & Garland, K. (2003). VDT versus paper-based text: Reply to Mayes, Sims and Koonce. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31, 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00027-1
Noyes, J., & Garland, K. (2008). Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics, 51, 1352–1375.
O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2002). What’s a science student to do? In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 726–731). Erlbaum.
Oborne, D., & Holton, D. (1988). Reading from screen versus paper: There is no difference. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 28(1), 1–9.
Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.1.3
Penttinen, M., Anto, E., & Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2013). Conceptual change, text comprehension and eye movements during reading. Research in Science Education, 43, 1407–1434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9313-2
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.
Porion, A., Aparicio, X., Megalakaki, O., Robert, A., & Baccino, T. (2016). The impact of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization. Computers in Human Behaviour, 54, 569–576.
Ross, B., Pechenkina, E., Aeschliman, C., & Chase, A. M. (2017). Print versus digital texts: understanding the experimental research and challenging the dichotomies. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1976. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1976
Sabri, A., Ball, R., Bhatia, S., Fabian, A., & North, C. (2007). High-resolution gaming: Interfaces, notifications and the user experience. Interacting with Computers, 19, 151–166.
Schmalhofer, F., McDaniel, M. A., & Keefe, D. (2002). A unified model for predictive and bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 33(2), 105–132.
Schurer, T., Opitz, B., & Schubert, T. (2020). Working memory capacity but not prior knowledge impact on readers’ attention and text comprehension. Frontiers in Education, 5, 26. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00026
Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2009). Designing the user interface (5th ed.). AddisonWesley.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443–457.
Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (1981). What’s in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of instruction (Vol. 2, pp. 213–267). Erlbaum.
Strahm, M., & Baccino, T. (2006). Conceptual non analogical schemata impact on expositive texts comprehension: Visual strategies according to the expertise. Psychologie Française, 51, 25–40.
Swan, K., Schenker, J., & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008: World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications (pp. 3290–3297). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Sweller, J. (2006). How the human system deals with complexity. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments (pp. 13–25). Elsevier.
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–187). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Erlbaum.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1990). Automation and schema acquisition in learning elementary computer programming: Implications for the design of practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 6(3), 273–289.
Vanderschantz, N., Timpany, C., & Hill, A. (2012). Children’s Reading of Text on Interactive Whiteboards. OZCHI’12, 624–632.
Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2005). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), 377–394.
Ziefle, M. (1998). Effects of display resolution on visual performance. Human Factors, 40, 554–568.
Funding
This study received no specific funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection were performed by XA, SB and OM. Analysis were performed by TB and XA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by XA and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all the parents of all of the children participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aparicio, X., Belaïd, S., Baccino, T. et al. Reading-comprehension performances of expository and narrative texts on Interactive-Whiteboards and Paper: evidence from 5th grade children. Education Tech Research Dev 70, 1151–1168 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10121-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10121-z