Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fast and Slow: Using Spritz for Academic Study?

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In an age of increasing digital reading it is interesting that University students’ are not adapting innovative technologies for academic study. This is even more surprising because today’s university students are purportedly digitally native keen to use new technologies in comfortable personal spaces but adhere to traditional paper when studying. There is a distinct paucity of research with respect to how students use technology for academic purposes, particularly independent study. This small-scale qualitative evaluation investigates how undergraduate students respond to a refined Rapid Serial Visual Presentation speed reading application called Spritz, which claims to significantly increase users’ ability to skim read and comprehend content effectively. We evaluated the tool and asked students to express which affordances they would forego to make the technology acceptable. The sample of students focused on those enrolled on a module about academic reading were introduced to Spritz (N = 55). Nine students agreed to take part in the trials. Participants used the Sprtizlet App which enables a reading speed of up to four hundred words a minute to perform reading tasks. The findings suggest the technology is acceptable for certain types of skim reading and scanning, but Spritz did not meet the varied requirements of the participants’’ academic study practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The project was sponsored by the University’s Disruptive Media Learning Lab and supported by a senior lecturer—Module Leader, English for scientific purposes.

References

  • Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for E-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Pham, J. (2013). Practical overlap: The possibility of replacing print books with E-books. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 44(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2013.773866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, N. S. (2015). Words onscreen: The fate of reading in a digital world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basaraba, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). Examining the structure of reading comprehension: Do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist? Reading and Writing, 26(3), 349–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedetto, S., Carbone, A., Pedrotti, M., Le Fevre, L., Amel, L., Bey, Y., et al. (2015). Rapid serial visual presentation in reading: The case of spritz. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 352–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinchmann, E. I., Hjetland, H. N., & Lyster, S. H. (2015). Lexical quality matters: Effects of word knowledge on the language and literacy skills of third and fourth-grade poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. (2017). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for E-learning. Computers & Education, 63, 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chien, Y., Chen, C., & Wei, W. (2008). Effects of dynamic display, presentation method, speed and task type on reading comprehension of wristwatch screens. Displays, 29(2008), 471–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chifari, A., Chiazzese, G., Seta, L., Merlo, G., Ottaviano, S., & Allegra, M. (2010). A reflection on some critical aspects of online reading comprehension. Informatica, 34, 491–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou, I. C. (2011). Understanding on-screen reading behaviors in academic contexts: A case study of five graduate English-as-a second-language students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5), 411–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Nocera, F., Ricciardi, O., & Juola, J. F. (2018). Rapid serial visual presentation: Degradation of inferential reading comprehension as a function of speed. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 5(4), 293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, L. C. (1959). Speed of processing visual stimuli and its relation to reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldrick, M., Stevns, T., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). The use of assistive technologies as learning technologies to facilitate flexible learning in higher education. In K. Miesenberger et al. (Eds.), ICCHP 2014, Part II, LNCS 8548 (pp. 342–349).

  • Green, J., Willis, K., Hughes, E., Small, R., Welch, N., Gibbs, L., et al. (2007). Generating best evidence from qualitative research: The role of data analysis. Journal of Theoretical Psychology., 31(6), 545–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00141.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills, C., Ryan, S., Levett-Jones, T., Warren-Forward, H., & Lapkin, S. (2016). Occupational therapy students’ technological skills: Are ‘generation Y’ ready for 21st century practice? Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 63, 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichsen, J., & Coombs, A. (2013). The five resources of critical digital literacy: A framework for curriculum integration. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 21334. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jabr, F. (2013). The reading brain in the digital age: The science of paper versus screen scientific american. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/. Accessed 14 Nov 2016

  • Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation students: Agency and choice and new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26, 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2729.2010.00370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Exploring the benefits and challenges of using laptop computers in higher education classrooms: A formative analysis. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, G. E., & Judd, T. S. (2011). Beyond Google and the ‘Satisficing’ searching of digital natives. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives (pp. 119–136). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, L. C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading and response. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leman, M., Griffin, M., Pegrum, M., Leggoe, J., Titley, M., & Thomson, S. (2015). Application of spritz to the dynamic presentation of text in project documentation. In Cooperative education for enterprise development (CEED) seminar proceedings.

  • Li, L., Chen, G., & Yang, S. (2013). Construction of cognitive maps to improve E-book reading and navigation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A., Grossnickle, E. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Undergraduate students’ justifications for source selection in a digital academic context. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54, 22–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115606659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2015). Student preparedness for university E-learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 25(2015), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, A. K. (1978). Silent reading: An introduction to its study and teaching. London: Heinemann Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., Masson, M. E., Potter, M. C. R., & Treiman, R. (2016). So much to read, so little time how do we read, and can speed reading help? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615623267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi, O., & Di Nocera, F. (2015). Not so fast: A reply to Benedetto el al. (2015). Computers in Human Behaviour, 69, 381–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, E. (2011). The phenomenology of on-screen reading: University students’ lived experience of digitised text. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J. F., Britt, M., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sage, K., Krebs, B., & Grove, R. (2017). Flip, slide, or swipe? Learning outcomes from paper, computer, and tablet flashcards. Technology Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9345-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmerón, L., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Manàa, A., Gil, L., & Naumann, J. (2015). Strategic decisions in task-oriented reading. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, E102. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneps, M. H., Chen, C., Pomplun, M., Wang, J., Crosby, A. D., & Kent, K. (2019). Pushing the speed of assistive technologies for reading. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(1), 14–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneps, M. H., Thomson, J. M., Chen, C., Sonnert, G., & Pomplun, M. (2013). E-readers are more effective than paper for some with dyslexia. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e75634. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075634.t003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): Comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25, 1218–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614531148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spritz. (2016). Spritz website. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from http://Spritzinc.com/.

  • Tanner, M. J. (2014). Digital vs. print: Reading comprehension and the future of the book. SLIS Student Research Journal, 4(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, A., Lee, C., Hwang, L., Sales, H., Sen, P., & Dalal, N. (2011). The imposition and superimposition of digital reading technology. In Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2917–2926). Canada: Vancouver.

  • Van Laer, S., & Elen, J. (2018). Adults’ self-regulatory behaviour profiles in blended learning environments and their implications for design. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9351-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, J. (2016). Students’ use of paper and pen versus digital media in university environments for writing and reading—A cross-cultural exploration. Journal of Print Media and Media Technology Research, 5(2), 97–106. (ISSN 2223-8905).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ashok Patel

    Present address: Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Excellence in Learning Enhancement, Coventry University, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

    Arinola Adefila & Sean Graham

  2. School of Life Sciences, Coventry University Coventry, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

    Ashok Patel

Authors
  1. Arinola Adefila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sean Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashok Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arinola Adefila.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adefila, A., Graham, S. & Patel, A. Fast and Slow: Using Spritz for Academic Study?. Tech Know Learn 25, 1007–1027 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09442-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09442-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation