“Differences in Print and Screen Reading in Graduate Students”
by Lauren J. Short | Xchanges 14.1, Spring 2019
Discussion
My participants’ reasoning for preferring print reading to reading on a screen, citing the “clunkiness” of annotating digitally, suggests that explicit instruction with digital interfaces could benefit students making use of these technologies. Instructors may assume that their students, especially their graduate students, already know how to read and effectively understand texts regardless of medium. However, as my study suggests, students may not feel as comfortable reading digital texts as they do print ones because they lack instruction.
Seventy-five percent of Vandenhoek’s (2013) respondents preferred reading in print, though they chose to do their course readings online if that was the format in which they were posted by their instructors. The same is true of all of my participants. Phil noted that he would “at most take comments” when reading digitally, which differs from his print reading practices. He goes on to say that he would only take notes or highlight on screen if “I absolutely need to know what I’m talking about, I have to be in a discussion, [or] I have to really engage in the text.”
Vandenhoek speaks to student uncertainty and unfamiliarity with digital interfaces. Phil comments that we haven’t yet been trained as a population to use e-readers, and as Gertrude reflected on her own literacy practices, she realized she is better able to read academic articles in digital format because that is the first format in which they appeared to her and were, in a way, “taught” to her. These findings suggest that not only does a lack of technology cause hurdles for students to overcome when reading online, but a lack of explicit instruction in how to best utilize reading strategies on various interfaces causes hurdles, as well.
Courtney’s lack of confidence in whether her highlighting is effective further ties in with Ben-Yehudah and Eshet-Alkalai’s (2018) understanding that a lack of experience can lead to an augmented cognitive load. Confidence in one’s ability to effectively learn comes from experience and training. The links between reading and writing “fit naturally together” (Elbow, 1993, p. 5). So my conclusion is that it would be an organic move to teach a lesson(s) on how to read, especially before assigning texts that are genre and discipline specific. Instructors could simply show students how they read as a sample—not as a mandate, but as an example of how one accomplished reader successfully navigates the field. Instruction of this type could lead students to develop a greater set of reading preferences beyond print.
Perhaps the most significant limitation of this study is size. Gaining insight from a greater number of students could only validate my claims further or, paradoxically, reveal that reading preference is more deeply complicated than I originally imagined. In the future, I would like to open this study to undergraduates and faculty, as well as have participants perform reading tasks in print and on screen while I observe. Further research could also inquire if discipline has any influence on preferred method of reading.