Advertisement

Paper or Electronic: Preferences of Slovenian Students

  • Vlasta Zabukovec
  • Polona Vilar
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 552)

Abstract

This paper presents Slovenia’s results as part of an international study investigating student preferences of class readings regarding format (print or electronic) and factors impacting these preferences and behaviours. Common beliefs are that digital media is about to prevail over print materials, but several studies have found the contrary: most students still prefer print format over digital for their academic readings. They feel their comprehension and retention is better in print, but they like the convenience and accessibility of electronic. This issue is relevant to both libraries and teachers and instructors. The main research question of this study is: What are students’ format preferences when engaging with their academic readings? Secondary questions ask about the factors that impact their behaviors. An online survey of 25 questions was distributed in spring 2015 to students in different disciplines and levels at three public universities. Results were obtained using descriptive statistical analysis.

Keywords

Academic reading Students Preferences Paper materials Electronic materials Slovenia 

References

  1. 1.
    Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T., Archer, T.: Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: psychological and physiological factors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 21(2), 377–394 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mangen, A., Bente, R.W., Kolbjørn, B.: Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: effects on reading comprehension. Int. J. Educ. Res. 58, 61–68 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, G., Cheng, W., Chang, T., Zheng, X., Huang, R.: A comparison of reading comprehension across aaper, computer screens, and tablets: does tablet familiarity matter? J. Comput. Educ. 1(2–3), 213–225 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ackerman, R., Goldsmith, M.: Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper. J. Exper. Psych. Applied 17(1), 18–32 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ji, S.W., Michaels, S., Waterman, D.: Print vs. electronic readings in college courses: cost-efficiency and perceived learning. Internet High. Educ. 21, 17–24 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mizrachi, D.: Undergraduates’ academic information and library behaviors: preliminary results. Ref. Serv. Rev. 38(4), 571–580 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mizrachi, D.: Online or print: which do students prefer? In: Kurbanoğlu, S., Špiranec, S., Grassian, E., Mizrachi, D., Catts, R. (eds.) ECIL 2014. CCIS, vol. 492, pp. 733–742. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mizrachi, D.: Undergraduates’ academic reading format preferences and behaviors. J. Acad. Librarianship 41(3), 301–311 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thayer, D., Lee, C.P., Hwang, L.H., Sales, H., Sen,P., Dalal, N.: The Imposition and Superimposition of Digital Reading Technology: The Academic Potential of E-readers. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2917–2926. Association for Computing Machinery, Vancouver (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979375
  10. 10.
    Noyes, J.M., Garland, K.J.: VDT versus paper-based text: reply to Mayes, Sims and Koonce. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 31(6), 411–423 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zambarbieri, D., Carniglia, E.: Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, ereaders and printed books. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 32(5), 390–396 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strouse, R.: The changing face of content users and the impact on information providers. Online 28(5), 27–31 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eshet-Alkalai, Y., Geri, N.: Does the medium affect the message? the influence of text representation format on critical thinking. Hum. Syst. Manage. 26(4), 269–279 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li, C., Poe, F., Potter, M., Quigley, B., Wilson, J.: UC Libraries Academic e-Book Usage Survey (2011). http://www.cdlib.org/services/uxdesign/docs/2011/academic_ebook_usage_survey.pdf
  15. 15.
    Dilevko, J., Gottlieb, L.: Print sources in an electronic age: a vital part of the research process for undergraduate students. J. Acad. Librarianship 28(6), 381–392 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Case, D.O.: Principle of least effort. In: Fisher, K.E., Erdelez, S., McKechnie, L. (eds.) Theories of Information Behavior, pp. 289–297. Information Today Inc, Medford, NJ (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liew, C.L., Foo, S., Chennupati, K.R.: a study of graduate student end-users; use and perception of electronic journals. Online Inf. Rev. 24(4), 302–315 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sathe, N.A., Grady, J.L., Giuse, N.B.: Print versus electronic journals: a preliminary investigation into the effect of journal format on research processes. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 90(2), 235–243 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Corlett-Rivera, K., Hackman, T.: E-Book usage and attitudes in the humanities, social sciences, and education. Portal Libr. Acad. 14(2), 255–286 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Foasberg, N.: Student reading practices in print and electronic media. Coll. Res. Libr. 75(5), 705–723 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu, Z.: Print vs. electronic resources: a study of user perceptions, preferences, and use. Inf. Process. Manage. 42(2), 583–592 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tenopir, C.: Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources: An Overview and Analysis of Recent Research Studies (2003). http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/pub120.pdf
  23. 23.
    Mizrachi, D., Bates, M.J.: Undergraduates’ personal academic information management and the consideration of time and task-urgency. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 64(8), 1590–1607 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quayyum, M.A.: Capturing the online academic reading process. Inf. Process. Manage. 44(2), 581–595 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.05.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LIS&BS, Faculty of ArtsUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations