Running Head: READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS.

NON-DIGITAL

Reading Comprehension: Digital Vs. Non-Digital

Brittney N. Thomson
Coastal Carolina University
READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS. NON-DIGITAL 1

Reading Comprehension: Digital Vs. Non-Digital

Introduction

Numerous studies have been conducted to see if the comprehension of books read and

assessed digitally would increase compared to the traditional paper books read and assessments

completed. The purpose of this study was to see if a digital online tool (RAZ Kids) would

increase the reading comprehension scores of students compared to the traditional paper book

and comprehension quiz on paper. The question for this study was: Will the use of an online

reading system (RAZ Kids) increase the comprehension level of students more than a paper-

based text? This paper examines the research behind this topic and the findings of my research in

a kindergarten classroom.

The students chosen for this study came from convenience sampling. They included 23

kindergarten students consisting of 16 girls and 7 boys. Two students have IEPs for Speech. One

of those students also receives pull-out services for resource in ELA and math. This same student

is in kindergarten for the second time this school year. Of the 23 students, nineteen are

Caucasian, two are African-American, two are mixed races, and one is Pakistani. At the

beginning of this study there were many different reading levels. Ten students were reading

below grade level (Text Level A or below), nine students were reading on grade level (Text

Level B), and three students were reading above grade level (Text Level C or above). The main

thing that holds these students back from passing additional levels is the comprehension portion

of the reading assessment. Finding the best method of reading and assessing student’s

comprehension became a very important topic to discuss and research because of this.
READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS. NON-DIGITAL 2

Literature Review

Hypothesis: If an online reading tool (RAZ Kids) is used, then students will increase their

comprehension scores more than students in a traditional paper book reading tool.

In her article, Ciampa (2012) links the enjoyment of reading books online in an e-book

format and answering comprehension questions based off of that book online as well to the

amount that is comprehended. This article included six first grade students. This article found

that all of the participants increased their comprehension scores from their pre-test to their post-

test and found that these students enjoyed reading their e-books at home and in their free time as

well. While my study did not focus necessarily on enjoyment, the prospects of this student

increasing the comprehension scores seemed noteworthy.

In a different study by Dreyer & Nel (2003), there was research done in South Africa to

see if reading comprehension would increase when a specific English course was offered within

a technology-enhanced environment. An online tool called Varsite was used to deliver digital

learning content and to assess students. The results of the study showed that students who

received the strategic reading instruction within the technology-enhanced environment received

higher marks on three reading comprehension measures than did the students in the control

group. This study was promising for my project even though it used a different online tool than I

used. The number of students involved in this project was much higher than the students I had

available to use.

Finally, in an article directly related to the age of the students I teach, Johnson, Perry, and

Shamir (2010) studied the effects of early reading skills on three different ways of presenting

material on electronic based systems. Preschool- and kindergarten-aged children were randomly

assigned to one of the three groups and spent 40 min a week, for 13 weeks, using the software
READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS. NON-DIGITAL 3

program in a computer lab. An additional control group of students received none of the

computer-assisted instruction. This study found that by using a sequencer it became a very

important element in presenting computerized instruction for young children over non-

computerized instruction. Thus creating more support for my hypothesis of if an online reading

tool is used, then students will increase their comprehension scores more than students in a

traditional paper book reading tool.

Methodology

To find a valid tool to assess comprehension, I began using a digital resource that I

already had access to, but had not quite used to its fullest capabilities yet. My students all had

their own iPads with the app “RAZ Kids” pre-loaded on them. While all students could use this

tool to browse and read books on the system, I was able to assign books for students to read and

answer questions about. Since there was very little time to research this and collect data, I split

my class up into two groups: RAZ Kids vs. Traditional Paper Books. Because of the varying

reading levels, I was able to split each group with students of the varying reading levels. The

RAZ Kids group consisted of five students reading below grade level, four students reading on

grade level, and two students reading above grade level. The Traditional Paper Books group

consisted of five students reading below grade level, five students reading on grade level, and

two students reading above grade level.

To control the validity of the research, the books from the online system were printed off

and the questions were also replicated so there would be no discrepancy in the different books,

levels, or questions given. To control how the assessments were given, the same way the RAZ

Kids app delivered the instruction and assessments were replicated in the Traditional Paper

Books group. This meant that each group was read the book first, then read the book out loud by
READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS. NON-DIGITAL 4

themselves, then were given the comprehension quiz at the end. The way the app is set up,

students are able to use the book if they choose to go back and look for answers which is what

we allow for in regular reading assessments as well. Both groups were given the option to use the

book if they would like. At the beginning, students in each group were also assessed on text

levels that they were currently at. This meant some tested out of reading lower leveled books if

they were higher. The Fountas and Pinnell text levels were used in recording the data.

There were some variables in the study that could not be controlled. In the RAZ Kids

group, students are able to see their scores at the end of their assessment. They can then go back

and change their answers to the correct answers. To balance this out for the results, I was able to

look on my teacher interface and see their first attempt scores. Those scores were used in the

recording data process to compare with the Traditional Paper Books group who were not given

their answers immediately at the end of the assessment. A variable that could have impacted

scores in the Traditional Paper Books group is the tone inflections given in my voice when I read

aloud the book and the questions. While I tried to keep my voice similar to the computerized

voice on the app, my tone may have reflected more feeling to certain parts of the book and the

questions asked.

Analysis

I analyzed the comprehension scores by placing them into a table to see the correlation

between the two groups and how many questions they answered correctly (Table 1). Each book

had five questions at the end of it. As the books increased, the amount of answer choices for each

question would increase, but the number of questions would remain the same. After each score

total was recorded, another table was created to see the mean, median and mode of the RAZ Kids

comprehension scores and the Traditional Paper Books comprehension scores (Table 2).
READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS. NON-DIGITAL 5

Table 1

Student RAZ Kids comprehension scores versus Traditional Paper Books comprehension scores

RAZ A B C D E Paper A B C D E

SP 5 5 4 JG 4 5 4

BC 4 5 4 IK 4 5 5

LO 5 4 5 AJ 5 5 5

PS 5 5 4 PM 5 5 4

ZS 5 4 5 KW 4 4 5

DD 5 4 3 AW 5 5 5

EJ 3 5 5

EO 3 3 5 KB 5 3 3

CS 5 5 4 AS 4 3 4

KC 5 3 4 DM 5 5 5

MB 3 2 4 GH 3 2 2

KS 1 3 1 IW 3 1 4

Data Key

Read above grade level at beginning of study Tested out/Not tested

Read on grade level at beginning of study _ Most current text level

Read below grade level at beginning of study

Table 1

Table 2

RAZ Kids Data vs. Traditional Paper Books Data

READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS. NON-DIGITAL 6

RAZ Kids

Comprehension A B C D E
Score (# of students) (# of students) (# of students) (# of students) (# of students)

1 1 0 1 0 0

2 0 1 0 0 0

3 2 3 0 1 0

4 0 0 7 1 2

5 2 5 3 4 0

Total 5 9 11 6 2

Mean 3.4 4 4 4.5 4

Median 3 5 4 5 4

Mode 3 and 5 5 4 5 4

Traditional Paper Books

Comprehension A B C D E
Score (# of students) (# of students) (# of students) (# of students) (# of students)

1 0 1 0 0 0

2 0 1 1 0 0

3 2 3 1 0 0

4 1 1 5 1 1

5 2 4 5 6 1

Total 5 10 12 7 2

Mean 4 3.6 4.2 4.9 4.5

Median 4 3.5 4 5 4.5

Mode 3 and 5 5 4 and 5 5 none

Table 2
When looking at the mean of the scores in each category, the Traditional Paper Books

group scored higher in text levels A, C, D, and E while the RAZ Kids groups scored higher in

text level B. When looking at the median of the scores in each category, the Traditional Paper

Books group scored higher in text levels A and E while the RAZ Kids group scored higher in
READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS. NON-DIGITAL 7

text level B. Both groups scored the same median scores in text levels C and D. Finally, when

looking at the mode of the scores in each category, the Traditional Paper Books group scored

higher in text level C where the other text levels had the same mode as the RAZ Kids group. At

the end of this study, students were also assessed on their Fountas and Pinnell reading

assessments to evaluate their reading text level. Seven students were reading below grade level

(Text Level B or below), twelve students were reading on grade level (Text Level C), and four

students were reading above grade level (Text Level D or above).

Conclusions and Findings

To summarize the findings of this study, when looking at the average of the scores given

in each text level, the Traditional Paper Books group scored the highest in four of the five text

levels assessed while the RAZ Kids group only scored the highest in one of the give text levels

assessed. To refer back to the question: Will the use of an online reading system (RAZ Kids)

increase the comprehension level of students more than a paper-based text? The answer was

clear from this particular study that the online reading system, RAZ Kids, did not increase the

comprehension level of students more than the traditional paper based method. While the

research mentioned earlier in this paper contradicts my findings, because the scores were so

close to each other I have to think ahead of a new research study. For future studies, a higher

sample population could benefit the results of the study. Also, using students that I do not

currently teach could take away from some of the bias. Ideally, conducting this study across the

grade level would supply the research with a much bigger population to study from and could

help the findings become more reliable and valid. Finally, in the future I would like to create a

digital assessment tool using the Fountas and Pinnell books and assessments. This would allow

for more meaningful instruction to see what would benefit students.

READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS. NON-DIGITAL 8
READING COMPREHENSION: DIGITAL VS. NON-DIGITAL 9

References

Ciampa, K. (2012). ICANREAD: The Effects of an Online Reading Program on Grade 1

Students’ Engagement and Comprehension Strategy Use. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 45(1), 27–59. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.login.library.coastal.edu:2048/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ991838&site=ehost-live

Constantinescu, A. I. (2007). Using Technology to Assist in Vocabulary Acquisition and

Reading Comprehension. The Internet TESL Journal, 13(2). Retrieved from

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Constantinescu-Vocabulary

Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching Reading Strategies and Reading Comprehension Within

a Technology-Enhanced Learning Environment. System, 31(3), 349–65. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.login.library.coastal.edu:2048/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ673161&site=ehost-live

Johnson, E. P., Perry, J., & Shamir, H. (2010). Variability in Reading Ability Gains as a Function

of Computer-Assisted Instruction Method of Presentation. Computers & Education,

55(1), 209–217. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.login.library.coastal.edu:2048/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ878017&site=ehost-live

Wright, S., Fugett, A., & Caputa, F. (2013). Using E-Readers and Internet Resources to Support

Comprehension. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 367–379. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.login.library.coastal.edu:2048/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1016347&site=ehost-live