Foreign Related Studies

Reading speed and comprehension

Over the last century, students have read and learnt from paper-based material, and this is the
medium to which they are used to studying (Grace, 2011). Miller, Blackstock and Miller (1994)
say reading is very necessary since “few skills have such great influence on students’ total
accomplishment in the schooling process”. Furthermore, Jones and Brown (2011) write that
reading abilities are crucial for academic and personal growth. Matthew (1997) and Woody et
al. (2010) argue that the migration from print to electronic text influences the method in which
kids read, as well as their reading comprehension, because pupils may not read the same way on
various mediums.
Although many students are adopting e-books, a lot of studies have indicated that pupils still
favor paper-based educational materials and textbooks (Buzzetto-More, Sweat-Guy & Elobaid,
2007; McGowan, Stephens & West, 2009; Shepperd, Grace & Koch, 2008; Woody et al.,
2010). One of the grounds for this inclination might be because students find it challenging to
read on a screen (Baker, 2010; Jamali et al., 2009; Lam, P, Lam, SL, Lam, J & McNaught,
2009).
There has been much debate around several elements of reading. However, one fact that has
developed is that the aim of reading is understanding (Farr & Carey, 1986). (Farr & Carey,
1986). Alonzo, Basaraba, Tindal, and Carriveau (2009:34) describe comprehension as "the
ability to extract information from [...] text." The current study employed the stages of
understanding theory, which says that there are three separate levels at which humans
comprehend: first, and most fundamental, is the literal level, which affects the comprehension
of words; the second level is the inferential level where the reader obtains background
knowledge; and the third, and highest level, is the evaluative level, where readers critically
analyze literature, while accessing their views and experiences (Alonzo et al., 2009). (Alonzo et
al., 2009).
The following parts will offer a review
Many theories involving reading, reading speed, and understanding, and will analyze how these
theories were implemented into this study.
Reading
Reading is a sophisticated, two-stage process comprising the method in which a text is seen
(text-based procedure), followed by how the reader processes the information (knowledge-
based process) (Church, 2002). When reading digitally, the text-based process deals with
typography and the human-computer interaction, covering concerns such as: contrast,
resolution, typefaces, flicker, brightness, letter case, and eye fatigue; while the knowledge-
based process includes the measure of a reader’s comprehension (Church, 2002). Dillon (1992)
believes that reading is examined from the angles of process and outcome. The procedural part
of reading is concerned with the physical, including eye movement, navigation of the physical
medium, and manipulation of the text. The result element, on the other hand, involves the
mental processing of the reading medium and encompasses proof-reading, accuracy, fatigue,
understanding, preference, and speed (Baker, 2010). Thus, while this study tested reading speed
and understanding, it was concerned with the knowledge-based process and result components
of reading.
General reading theory
According to Just and Carpenter (1980), reading is about processing and encoding words and
related these to earlier statements and expertise. It is also commonly acknowledged that reading
starts with identifying words, advances to integrating and interpreting these, and ultimately to
understanding that takes location at the conclusion of sentences (Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2008).
The general theory underpinning reading was applied in the choosing of the understanding
material used to test students. The substance had must be set at a suitable instructional level at
whereby pupils were able to perceive and comprehend the language used and the information
have to be readable with fluency. If the reading content did not adhere to these two constraints,
it would have been difficult to ascribe low understanding results to the reading medium, as
fundamental word understanding and fluency might have been at blame (Klingner, 2004).
Reading speed
Fry (1963, referenced in Bell, 2001) maintains that good readers read at 350 words per minute,
fair readers reach 250 words in the same time, and sluggish readers accomplish 150 words per
minute. In comparison, Berkoff (1979) believes that a rapid reader is not necessarily an efficient
reader, nor can it be stated that a sluggish reader is an inefficient reader. It is important
remembering that pupils have an incredible amount of reading to contend with as they complete
their studies, and consequently cannot afford to be tardy readers (Berkoff, 1979). (Berkoff,
1979). It is thus vital to judge if a digital media, from which a pupil could select to read and
study, is conducive to a sufficient reading pace.
Comprehension
Farr and Carey (1986) comment that there is widespread study focused upon the understanding
of reading comprehension, but that there is significantly debate over each component of the
reading process. Nevertheless they suggest that one common proposal has evolved from the
disagreement, which is because “the objective of reading is comprehension” (Farr & Carey,
1986:37). Comprehension happens when meaning is acquired as a result of the reader’s contact
with a book (McNeil, 1984, referenced in Matthew, 1997). Various sorts of tasks are utilized to
evaluate reading comprehension, including multiple choice exams, oral reading, memory, true-
false judgments, sentence completion, and open question-answer tasks (Farr & Carey, 1986;
Snowling, Cain, Nation & Oakhill, 2009).
Levels of comprehension hypothesis
Assessing reading comprehension is fairly complicated as there are a lot of cognitive processes
that are involved, many of which are secret and cannot be directly monitored (Snowling et al.,
2009). A relevant notion that can aid is the stages of comprehension theory, which references to
the varied degrees of comprehension, notably literal, inferential, and evaluative. Consequently,
reading assessments have been founded on this hypothesis for many years. The initial level
refers to knowledge that will offer answers for actual questions that can be discovered plainly
mentioned in the text (Alonzo et al., 2009). (Alonzo et al., 2009). Kintsch (2005:53) refers to
this as “superficial, text-level comprehension” and maintains that it is only sufficient if the
objective is to recollect the topic. Secondly, inferential questions “require readers to access their
past knowledge in combination with their knowledge of the text” (Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003,
quoted in Alonzo et al., 2009:35). Finally, the evaluative level asks readers to objectively
analyze the text while taking their own views and experiences into account (Alonzo et al.,
2009). In the current investigation, this hypothesis was employed to choose comprehension
examinations that would gauge students’ comprehension correctly, while questions in the
comprehension exams aimed to evaluate all three levels of understanding.
Reading speed and comprehension
Gates (1921) observed that reading speed and comprehension are two separate, but connected
aspects, and that both should be included in any reading program. Similarly, Bell (2001) notes
that while it’s widely acknowledged that reading speed and comprehension are closely
connected, there is still controversy about the relationship between them. Despite this on-going.
However, it has been realized that an extremely sluggish reader is more likely to have
inadequate grasp of a section of literature, since this person’s memory is under capability to
retain information in bits big enough to develop a comprehensive grasp of the text (Bell, 2001).
This investigation confirmed that the substance utilized was readable with fluency, and that
students participating in the study had an appropriate level of reading affinity. In order to
examine the connection between reading speed and understanding, the study made usage of
Rauding Theory.
Rauding theory
‘Rauding’ is a term created from the words ‘reading’ and ‘auding’, where reading includes
gazing examining words and building their meaning, auding refers to listening to words and
assessing their meaning. ‘Rauding’ stresses the fact that the understanding processes crucial to
typical reading and auding are the same (Carver, 1992). (Carver, 1992). According to Carver
(1992), there are five basic reading processes referred to as "Gears": remembering, learning,
rauding, skimming, and scanning. The most frequent reading gear is said to be Rauding, with
the reading component occurring at roughly 300 words per minute (WPM). The relevance of
Rauding Theory is twofold: firstly, it gives benchmark rates at which students normally read for
each Gear, which makes it beneficial for evaluating the study's reading speed outcomes.
According to Carver (1992), the typical scanning speed is 600 WPM, 450 WPM for skimming,
300 WPM for rauding, 200 WPM for learning, and 138 WPM for remembering. These rates
were applied from Rauding Theory to enable the researchers to determine the Gear in which a
kid was reading, i.e., the probable reading speed. Secondly, Rauding is the Gear in which
greatest comprehension takes happen (Carver, 1992). However, Nielsen (1997) maintains that
individuals reading digitally scan instead of read. Scanning (Gear 5) takes place when
individuals just need to discover a given term in a chunk of text and therefore do not grasp all
the notions into each sentence (Carver, 1992). As Scanning does not involve the same degree of
comprehension way Rauding does, it was possible that pupils reading on tablets were
comprehending less and thereby receiving lower exam scores. It's possible that students were
scanning the digital text at 600 WPM instead of reading at the Rauding Gear 3 speed of 300
WPM. This notion is further strengthened by a research undertaken by Dyson and Haselgrove
(2000), in which comprehension after reading from a screen at both regular and rapid reading
rates was measured. They concluded that quicker reading leads in a general reduction in
understanding (Dyson & Haselgrove, 2000).
Paper-based versus digital text
Since the 1980s, academics have examined the distinctions between reading from paper and
from computer displays (Ball & Hourcade, 2011). (Ball & Hourcade, 2011). Dillon (1992)
examined all of the paper versus screen studies to far, and observed that reading from a screen
is generally lot slower than reading from paper (Gould & Grischkowsky, 1984, quoted in
Dillon, 1992; Kak, 1981, quoted in Dillon, 1992; Muter, Latremouille, Treurniet & Beam, 1982,
mentioned in Dillon, 1992; Smedshammar, Frenckner, Nordquist & Romberger, 1989, quoted
in Dillon, 1992; Wright & Lickorish, 1983, quoted in Dillon, 1992). Despite the findings of
poor digital reading speeds in that era, Gould, Alfaro, Finn, Haupt, and Minuto (1987, quoted in
Ball & Hourcade, 2011) claim that the low quality of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) monitor
used at the time, notably due to negative polarity, was due to the low quality of the Cathode Ray
Tube (CRT) monitor used at the time (bright characters on a dark backdrop). McKnight (1996,
quoted ( Schcolnik, 2001) suggests that, as displays nowadays exhibit dark text on a white
backdrop (positive polarity), the digital reading experience is having greater resemblance to that
of reading from paper, and the human eye is able to discern with better ease between letters and
words. Nevertheless, research done following the age of the CRT realized that paper is still the
quickest reading medium (Grimshaw, Dungworth, McKnight & Morris, 2007; Nielsen, 1997,
2010). Nielsen (1997) reported that 79 percent of participants reading websites scan instead of
read, and continuing to provide logical explanations as to why this may be so, instance is that
reading on screens leads to eye weariness. As recently as 2010, Nielsen examined reading
speeds on an iPad, Kindle™, and printed book, and observed that individuals still read quicker
from printed books, despite the fact that display technology has improved. In terms of
comprehension, Dillon’s (1992) survey of the literature shown that understanding is not
impacted by a computerized reading medium (Cushman, 1986, referenced in Dillon, 1992; Kak,
1981, cited in Dillon, 1992; Muter et al., 1982 referenced in Dillon, 1992; Muter & Maurutto,
1991, referenced in Dillon, 1992). Grimshaw et al. (2007) found similar findings He found that
children’s cognition was not badly influenced by the computer screen.
Moreover, a recent research by Grace (2011) also determined that the understanding of third
grade kids reading on an iPad was not favorably or badly influenced by the digital reading
medium. Having reviewed the literature on this study’s research questions, the following
hypotheses were derived:
• H1: Students who read on paper will understand the subject better than those who read on
iPads, as evidenced by their exam scores.
 H2: Students reading from paper will read significantly quicker than those reading on iPads,
which will be reflected in their reading times.
 H3: Reading speed and comprehension will be strongly and adversely linked

E-BOOKS AS LEARNING OBJECTS

Buzetto-More, Sweat-Guy and Elobaid studied how beneficial e-books are as learning object
for students. These researchers point out that a learning object is an item, which is beneficial in
learning, and is self-contained. E-books are one of several electronic solutions currently
available for learning to occur on a computer screen rather than on paper. These researchers
point out that data density, search ability, availability of hyperlinking and nonlinearity of e-
books allow for a multimodal display of information, which is unattainable with traditional
printed material.
E-books offer a means to deliver knowledge to young children before they are able to read.
There are now a range of children's toys and DVDs which offer read along capabilities for
young children. Many of these toys are believed to help young children learn to read.
Organizations such as the Children's Digital Library urge e-books to be disseminated to children
around the world.
The research by Buzetto-More, Sweat-Guy and Elobaid questioned 261 students at the
University of Maryland Eastern Shore. 203 of these pupils were African-Americans, 29 were
native Africans, 11 were Caucasian Americans, 4 were Hispanic, 4 were of Caribbean heritage
and 2 were Asian Americans. 60 percent of the responses were female. 74 percent of the
responses were between 17 and 19 years old, while 22 percent were between the ages of 20 and
25 years old. Students older than 26 years old represented fewer than 3 percent of the responses.
37 percent of the respondents were business, management, or accounting majors. Less than 1
percent of the students were computer science majors.
The survey indicated that 86.9 percent of the students who answered to the questionnaire
possessed computers. Approximately, 40.3 percent of the respondents indicated they had some
experience with computers, while 47.8 percent stated they were intermediate in their skills with
computers. 6.3 percent identified themselves as experts with computers. Only 5.5 percent
claimed they were amateurs with computers. 92.7 percent of the respondents have Internet
connection at their house. High-speed Internet connectivity was accessible to 69 percent of the
respondents. More than 87 percent of the respondents claimed they accessed the Internet every
day.
The study done by Buzetto-More, Sweat-Guy and Elobaid discovered that 98 percent of the
respondents claimed they were comfortable reading material off of a computer screen. 22
percent of the respondents reported that they have read an e-book and 44 percent indicated they
would purchase one rather than a traditional book. 58.6 percent of the respondents stated they
would print a copy of text if there was a long portion which they were compelled to read. 54.8
percent said that they would prefer have a paper copy of a book rather than a digital one. Only
25 percent of the respondents responded that they felt e-books were more inexpensive than
traditional text.
The research by Buzetto-More, Sweat-Guy and Elobaid in general demonstrated that even
young kids who are accustomed with computers still prefer printed text. Only a tiny proportion
of them claimed they would purchase an e-book as a text for a class rather than a traditional
book. Only a tiny fraction of the participants routinely read online publications or newspapers.
These conclusions are comparable to those of other studies researching students' use of e-books.
A research by Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington studied the attitude toward e-books
of both students and professors in the United Kingdom. It should be recalled that it is not only
the students who are attempting to learn how to properly utilize e-books, but employees as well.
Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington performed a large-scale survey and received 1818
answers from employees and students of University College London. The research is interesting
in that it incorporated current technologies as part of its technique. An e-mail invitation was
extended to roughly 27,000 personnel and students of the University College London. 1818
answers were collected, which represents a response rate of around 6.7 percent . This rate is
approximate as there is no way of knowing how many of the invites were received as spam and
remained unopened.
It should be mentioned that the study by Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington is likely to
include data, which is skewed owing to the self-chosen response rate of individuals who are
already interested in e-books. However, 1818 replies is a sufficient quantity for satisfactory
reliability and validity. A complicated routing mechanism was devised so that persons who had
not utilized e-books were not solicited for their feedback.
The study by Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington indicated that roughly 44 percent of
the University College London staff and students utilized e-books. The respondents who
utilized e-books were more likely to depend on online based search engines, report unfavorable
experiences with university library services, depend upon searching other library catalogs, be
male, be graduate students, and were less likely to be staff members. Age was shown to be a
major determinant in the adoption of e-books. The biggest proportion of e-book users were in
the 17 to the 21-year-old group constituting 29 percent of the overall e-book users.
Interestingly, the 22 to 25-year-old age group formed 20.6 percent of e-book readers while the
26 to 35-year-old age range made up 27.9 percent of the e-book users. The 36 to 45-year-old
age category comprised of 12.9 percent of e-book consumers. E-book users who were 46 years
old or over constituted of fewer than 10 percent of the total e-book consumers.
Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington obtained information regarding the source utilized
for e-books. The e-book users who answered to the study at the University College London
were somewhat independent of the library service with 61 percent discovering their own
sources for e-books. Men demonstrated a larger degree of autonomy from the library than
women. Approximately 65 percent of the PhD students reported that they get e-books for
themselves rather than use the university library as a resource.
Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington observed that the e-book users at University
College London preferred reading from computer displays rather than paper and this was
typically irrespective of their age. Other findings were that men were more likely to prefer
reading via a screen. Also, undergraduates were more likely to prefer reading via a screen. The
statistical study of the population after the age of 65 may not be reliable owing to the limited
number of respondents.
Most librarians are concerned with the use for which books are accessed. A research by
Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington answered some of these use questions. Most of the
respondents to the poll who regularly used e-books chose them for work and study rather than
enjoyment. No significant variations were detected in this regard according to gender or age.
The library was utilized more commonly for e-books, which were connected to learning or
work. Outside sources were more commonly used for e-books linked to leisure reading.
More than half of the respondents, 59.9 percent, who used e-books at University College
London had textbooks, which were in the electronic version. 52.4 percent of these respondents
had reference books, which were in electronic form and 46 percent had research monographs,
which were electronic. 30 percent of the sample possessed popular nonfiction works in
electronic form and 28.3 percent had fiction in the form of e-books. Popular electronic
nonfiction was held by 16.5 percent of the respondents and 6.5 percent of these persons had e-
books which did not fall into any of these categories. These data suggest that there is a
preference for e-books which are textbooks, reference volumes, or research monographs.
The study by Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington indicated that there are perceived
advantages and downsides of e-books by their consumers. The majority of e-book users favor e-
books owing to their ease of producing copies, being more up to date compared to print
material, taking up less space, being available while the library is closed, convenience, and ease
of navigation. A frequent concern by the responders was that electronic content can frequently
be more difficult to read than printed text.
Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington discovered that 41 percent of Masters' level
students, 34 percent of undergraduate students, 24 percent of academic staff and just 21 percent
of research personnel were aware that University College London Library Services provided e-
books. The professors and students who were most aware of the e-books were the social and
historical sciences at 38 percent and the engineering sciences at 41 percent. The least
knowledgeable of the e-book choice were the mathematics and physical sciences at 20 percent
and the biological sciences at 22 percent. No substantial changes were detected between part-
time and full-time members at University College London.
Rowlands, Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington also discovered that men were more likely to find
the choice of e-books through the library catalog or website. Women were more likely to find
the choice of the e-book during staff briefings or via course instructors. Course instructors
accounted for 60 percent of the undergraduate students who were aware of e-books. The
respondents answered that they considered the most effective marketing technique for e-books
would be the library website and e-mail user manuals. The university personnel thought they
would benefit from a user guide on the library website. The undergraduates stated they would
benefit most from e-books, which are featured on their reading lists. The graduate students
preferred a printed information guide in the library.
Its relevance to our research
Fluency is defined as the capacity to read quickly, accurately, and with suitable expression. It's
a crucial ability to develop since it builds a link between reading and understanding. Students
who lack basic comprehension abilities are unable to comprehend what they read. It is critical to
have great reading comprehension abilities. It improves the excitement and effectiveness of
reading, as well as intellectually, professionally, and in one's personal life. Comprehension is a
major factor in the effectiveness of a student's learning, whether it's from learning from an
online resource or from a printed book.
According to the research of Buzetto-More, Sweat-Guy, and Elobaid, the majority of e-book
users prefer e-books because they are easier to produce copies of, they are more up-to-date than
print material, they take up less space, they are available when the library is closed, they are
convenient, and they are easy to navigate. One of the most common concerns expressed by
respondents was that electronic material is sometimes more difficult to comprehend than written
text. It's significant to our research since the ease of reading is needed for learning from an
eBook or printed book to be successful.

This will assist us in gaining a better understanding of our current knowledge of our subject.