Thesis-Chapters-1-5(FINAL)

Digital vs Print: Scrutinizing Students’
Reading Comprehension in
Literature Across
Formats
A Thesis Paper
Presented to
The Faculty of the College of Teacher Education
QUIRINO STATE UNIVERSITY
Diffun, Quirino
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
Major in English
ALJO SANTIAGO
PRECIOUS BITUEN
PAULINE VIRAY
JOAN SALES
May 2024
1
Chapter I
THE PROBLEMS AND ITS BACKGROUND
Rationale
"Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body." This famous
quote by Joseph Addison encapsulates the essence of why reading
comprehension is vital in school across diverse domains. In academic
settings, proficient comprehension skills serve as the cornerstone for
learning, enabling students to engage deeply with course materials and
extract meaning from texts across disciplines. Whether analyzing scientific
articles, historical documents, or literary works, strong comprehension skills
empower students to synthesize information, draw connections, and form
well-informed opinions. Moreover, in subjects like mathematics, reading
comprehension is crucial for understanding word problems and interpreting
instructions, facilitating problem-solving and critical thinking abilities.
Beyond academic success, reading comprehension plays a pivotal role
in nurturing essential life skills. In an era inundated with information,
individuals must possess the ability to navigate and evaluate written
material effectively. Strong comprehension skills enable students to discern
between reliable sources and misinformation, fostering media literacy and
critical literacy. Furthermore, in the professional sphere, adept
comprehension skills are indispensable for tasks ranging from interpreting
business reports to understanding legal documents. By honing reading
2
comprehension in school, students are equipped with the tools necessary to
thrive academically, professionally, and personally, ensuring they can
navigate the complexities of the modern world with confidence and
competence.
The nature of literacy is rapidly changing as new technologies enter
people’s lives and their learning environments (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, &
Leu, 2008; diSessa, 2000; Dresang & McClelland, 1999; Spiro, DeSchryver,
Hagerman, Morsink, & Thompson, 2015; Tyner, 2014). In the last 10 years,
a variety of novel text forms (e.g., multimedia books and tweets) and
mediums for presenting such texts (e.g., iPad and Kindle) have emerged,
which may present new possibilities and new challenges for readers
(Alexander & Fox, 2004); that is, features of digital literacy, such as the
ability to read and acquire information from graphic representations (i.e.,
photovisual literacy; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004) and the ability to navigate in the
nonlinear medium of digital space successfully (i.e., branching literacy;
Eshet-Alkalai & Chajut, 2010) may afford new opportunities for text-based
learning. Concomitantly, such digital texts may place unique demands on
readers’ skillful and strategic processing not typically associated with the
processing of printed text (Afflerbach & Cho, 2009; Hartman, Morsink, &
Zheng, 2010; Kingsley, 2011; Kuiper, 2007; Spires & Estes, 2002).
In today’s networked world, students have grown up surrounded by
computers, smartphones, and the internet as part and parcel of daily living,
and even more so in Singapore, which is the most connected nation in the
world (“Singapore the Most Connected,” 2016). An oft-heard rhetoric is that
3
students as digital natives (Prensky, 2001) are experts immersed in digital
worlds and at ease with various media and technology, including reading
digitally. Yet, others have argued that this myth of the digital native has
been overstated and exaggerated (Selwyn, 2009), and more nuanced
understandings of how young people relate to technology depending on age,
culture, and socioeconomic status are required.
As technology continues to expand our definitions of what constitutes
reading and literacy, interest in reading digital texts has skyrocketed,
evidenced by retailers selling more e-books than printed books (Miller &
Bosman, 2011). Few investigations, though, have measured the effectiveness
of integrating technology on reading comprehension. Theoretical frameworks
of reading comprehension have not progressed as rapidly as technological
advances in digital media and texts (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004)
and as a result, the usefulness of digital reading environments to advance
student reading comprehension remains in question.
Schools adopt computer-based reading programs to supplement their
reading curriculums. These multimodal digital environments are
programmed to allow students opportunities to refine their reading skills; yet
limited research efforts have been aimed at investigating their viability to
improve student reading comprehension proficiencies and fulfill federal
efforts to reduce the achievement gap between majority and minority
factions (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Students use the Internet
and other technologies to seek, learn, and transmit information as part of
their everyday lives; therefore, educators must bridge the gap between
4
childhood literacy practices in and out of school (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, &
Zickuhr, 2010). Best practices of reading instruction must extend beyond
print and into digital reading environments if students are to flourish in
second decade of the 21st century.
Digital reading environments provide multimodal learning experiences
not available in printed mediums (Dalton & Proctor, 2007, 2008; Dalton,
Proctor, Uccelli, Mo, & Snow, 2011; Proctor, Uccelli, Dalton, & Snow, 2009).
Their application was explored in this study within a university-affiliated
reading clinic, where substantial breakthroughs in reading research and
instruction have occurred for the last century (Morris, 2003). Investigators
tested the effectiveness of using a digital reading environment to develop
struggling elementary students’ reading comprehension skills. The primary
purpose of this study was to examine what effect, if any, a digital reading
environment had on struggling fourth-grade students’ reading
comprehension.
Although this may come as a surprise to Proulx (1994), it would
appear that the world is digitally at one’s fingertips. Open 24 hours a day,
365 days a year, the digital world has become a one-stop text source, be it
for news, recreational reading, or information sharing via Facebook, blogs, or
tweets (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001). Humans live in a society that is
constantly plugged into the Internet whether by computer or by handheld
device. Although it goes without saying that the digital age has come with
many benefits, including rapid and expanded access to information and
untold networking capabilities (Castells, 2011; Labrecque, vor dem Esche,
5
Mathwick, Novak, & Hofacker, 2013; Usluel, 2016), questions remain about
the implications of such digital access and the many digital devices (e.g.,
computers, tablets, and smartphones) that allow for that access for reading
and learning from text (Underwood, Underwood, & Farrington-Flint, 2015).
More specifically, the use of digital devices as reading tools has
garnered increased importance as schools move to paperless classrooms
across the globe (Giebelhausen, 2015; Shishkovskaya, Sokolova, &
Chernaya, 2015). These paperless classrooms allow the reader to alter the
size of the text, highlight important passages, and search related terms
outside of the text with the click of a button. Not surprisingly in light of
these developments, 97% of students by 2009 had access to a computer in
their classroom (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Moreover,
even outside the classroom context, more and more individuals are engaged
in online reading. For instance, and contrary to Proulx’s (1994)
prognostication, Zickuhr, Rainie, Purcell, Madden, and Brenner (2012) found
that 43% of Americans and 48% of those between the ages of 18 and 29 read
lengthy texts, such as newspapers or books, digitally—a number expected to
increase exponentially (Stephens, 2014). These figures raise the fundamental
question of how the use of such digital reading materials might potentially
alter perceptions of what it means to read and the comprehension that
results, for better or for worse.
In fact, such a fundamental question has been posed in years past.
For example, in 1992, Dillon conducted a review of the literature intended to
examine differences that might exist when reading from a printed source
6
versus an electronic source. To our knowledge, this was one of the only
reviews that examined print reading vis-à-vis digital reading. However,
although that review can serve as a starting point in the conversation about
print and digital reading, a more contemporary analysis of the extant
literature is clearly warranted. We see this review as warranted not solely
because of any shortcomings that might be ascribed to Dillon’s review but
also because much has changed technologically since the early 1990s.
In this age of gigabytes and technological innovation, many
individuals have almost unlimited access to information and books through
the internet. However, despite earlier doomsday predictions about the
demise of books with the growth of online reading and technology, the death
of the book is nowhere in sight, with book sales increasing (Cocozza, 2017)
and print books still more popular than books in digital formats (Perrin,
2016). Readers enjoy the tactile feel of books and feel a sense of progression
as they thumb their way through a book (Evans, 2017). Readers also
remember a story better when reading a book compared with reading the
same story in an ebook (Mangen, Walgermo, & Bronnick, 2013). Readers
who want to focus on the reading may feel that the multiple screens on a
computer distract them from undisturbed reading (Rose, 2011).
In a Pew Research Center report, Perrin (2016) highlighted that
reading habits are influenced by educational levels rather than age or
gender: College graduates in the United States are 4 times more likely to
read e-books and twice as likely to read print and audio books as compared
with non-college graduates. College graduates are also more likely to read
7
books in general. This suggests that individuals who read print books are
also likely to read digital books, seeing both as sources of reading material.
However, high- and low-proficiency students may be differently
motivated and thus need different forms of encouragement to read (Klauda &
Guthrie, 2015). In a study of 10th-grade students’ preferred devices, Tveit
and Mangen (2014) found that boys and low-proficiency readers preferred e-
books and that avid readers preferred print. The authors suggested that the
e-book platform might be a way to motivate otherwise reluctant readers to
read.
The view of reading comprehension that frames this study conveys the
nature of comprehension as an active, constructive, meaning-making
process (Goldman, 2015; Graesser, 2007; Kintsch & Kintsch, 2005;
McNamara, 2012) in which the reader, the text, and the activity play a
central role (Alexander & Jetton, 2002; Pearson, 2001). Moreover, consistent
with Kintsch’s (1988) construction-integration model of comprehension,
readers are expected to form connections between their own prior knowledge
and the ideas expressed in or inferred by the text per se. Within this
theoretical framework, there is also an acknowledgment that the medium
and type of text could well translate into differences in text processing and
comprehension performance.
For the purpose of this study, reading is framed as the meaningful
decoding and comprehension of text, in print and digital formats. Reading in
print refers to reading on paper, whereas reading in digital formats refers to
online reading, whether on a smartphone, tablet, or computer. We limit our
8
focus to the reading of continuously linear texts, whether in the form of
fiction or nonfiction, as the reading of these text correlates to academic
achievement (Moje, Overby, Tysvaer, & Morris, 2008). More importantly, we
are interested in engaged reading because it correlates with improved
reading proficiency, academic achievement, and learning, this is because
engaged readers are motivated to read independently, spend more time
reading for pleasure, and are diversified in their reading, whether in print or
online (Kirsch et al., 2002).
The study of reading comprehension is imperative, particularly in the
context of comparing digital and print formats, as it offers invaluable
insights into how students engage with literature across different mediums.
By scrutinizing students' reading comprehension in literature across
formats, we gain a deeper understanding of the cognitive processes involved
in accessing, interpreting, and synthesizing textual information. This
research not only sheds light on the potential advantages and limitations of
digital and print mediums but also informs educators and curriculum
developers on how best to support students in developing robust
comprehension skills in an increasingly digitized world. Ultimately, studying
reading comprehension is not just about academic achievement; it's about
equipping students with the critical thinking skills and literacy competencies
necessary for success in both their academic endeavors and their future
professional and personal lives.
Statement of the Problem
9
Knowing students' reading comprehension levels is essential in the
Philippine educational setting, where literacy and comprehension are
essential for both lifelong learning and academic performance. This study
aimed to investigate students' level of reading comprehension under the
utilization these formats: digital (soft copy) and printed (hard copy).
1. What is the profile of the participants in terms of:
1.1 sex,
1.2 age, and
1.3 ethnicity?
2. What is the level of reading comprehension of the participants in
terms of:
2.1 Digital Genre and
2.2 Printed Literary Genre?
3. What are the significant differences of scores of the pre-test and post-
test from both experimental and control group?
4. What are the significant differences when grouped by profile?
Objectives of the Study
The overall purpose of this study is to determine the reading
comprehension of the students when it comes to digital and printed format
in reading literature. Particularly, it aimed to:
1. determine the profile of the participants in terms of:
1.1. sex,
1.2. age, and
1.3. ethnicity;
10
2. determine the level of reading comprehension of the participants in
terms of:
2.1 Digital Genre and
2.2 Printed Literary Genre;
3. determine the significant differences of scores of the pre-test and
post-test for both experimental and control group; and
4. determine the significant differences when grouped by profile.
Hypotheses
In the conduct of this study, the following assumptions were
instructed in order to provide direction and additional insights.
1. There is no significant difference of the pre-test and post-test scores
between experimental and control groups.
2. There is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores
of both experimental and control groups.
3. There is no significant difference in the pre-test and post-test scores of
both experimental group and control group when grouped by profile.
Significance of the study
This study is beneficial not only to the researchers but also to the
following:
Students. At the end of the study, the students will be able to
determine their preferred format in comprehending literature.
11
Teachers. By knowing the preferred format of the students, this study
will help teachers to determine if there is a need for them to modify or
change their pedagogical strategies or techniques that is suitable to the
proficiency and/or comprehension skills of the students and to give them
ideas for them to develop differentiated instruction.
Curriculum Developers. This study will benefit the curriculum
developers as they help educators determine what type of curriculum design
is appropriate for their students and their learning goals. This study will
serve as one of their bases to plan, design and/or develop a purposeful and
progressive curriculum for the students that can create a positive change.
Future Researchers. This study will serve as an instrument that will
give them reliable and credible data for better understanding on the topic.
This research is going to be the chief source of enlightenment that they will
surely need in their future studies.
Scope and Delimitation of the study
The study dealt only on the reading comprehension of the students
when it comes to digital and printed format prior in grasping a certain
reading material of the BSED 1B students from the College of Teacher
Education of Quirino State University (QSU) - Diffun Campus during the
Second Semester, S.Y. 2023-2024. There were 24 participants from the
BSED 1B students. BSED 1B was combined with two different majors:
mathematics and science. These 24 freshmen students were divided into two
groups, the control and the experimental group.
12
Conceptual Framework
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
- Student Profile: - Administering pre-test - Proposed enhancement

and post-test program on reading with
 Age digital resources.
- Assessing the profile of
 Sex
the participants.
 Ethnicity
- Interpretation of the
- Results or the mean statistical data.
score of the pre-test and
post-test. - Draw conclusions and
recommendations.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of the study using the

FEEDBACK
Students’
IPO format, otherwise known as Input, Leveland
Process of Output. For the input, it
Reading Comprehension
in Literature
was composed of the students’ profile as well as the results or the mean
score of the pre-test and post-test. For the process, it includes the
administering of the pre-test and post-test, assessing the profile of the
participants, the interpretation of the statistical data and drawing
conclusions and recommendations. Meanwhile, the output was to propose
an enhancement program for reading with digital resources. Lastly, for the
feedback, it focuses on the students’ level of reading comprehension in
literature.
Definition of Terms
The terms here were substantially and functionally defined for better
understanding by the readers. It provides and frames the necessary
background for this study. Each statement explains what the study intends
to accomplish.
13
Academic Achievement. Refers to the successful completion of
educational goals and the demonstration of knowledge and skills in various
academic subjects. It is often measured through grades, test scores, and
other assessments. (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (n.d.).
Glossary of Education Reform).
Acquire. To gain or obtain something through effort, action, or
experience. (Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d).
Book. Typically refers to a physical or digital publication that
contains written or printed material. A book is a collection of pages that may
contain a variety of content, such as fiction or non-fiction narratives,
information, poetry, or illustrations. Books are often organized into chapters
and are bound together, making them a common format for presenting and
preserving information. (Merriam-Webster. (n.d).
Comprehension. The ability to understand and grasp the meaning of
information, ideas, or concepts. (Reading Rockets. (n.d).
Digital Format. It refers to representing information in a format that
can be processed and stored electronically. In contrast to analog formats,
which represent information as continuous signals, digital formats use
discrete elements, typically in the form of binary code. (Techopedia. (n.d).
Education. A broad and multifaceted topic that encompasses the
process of acquiring knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes. (UNESCO.
(n.d).
14
Learning Environment. The physical, social, and psychological
context in which learning occurs. It includes both the external surroundings
and the internal factors that can influence a learner's experience and
outcomes. The learning environment plays a crucial role in shaping the
learning process and can have a significant impact on a person's ability to
acquire knowledge and skills effectively. (EdGlossary. (n.d).
Literacy. The ability to read, write, and understand information. It
goes beyond basic reading and writing skills and includes the ability to
comprehend, analyze, and apply information in various contexts.
(EdGlossary. (n.d).
Literature. Encompasses written works, especially those considered
to have artistic or intellectual value. This includes a wide range of written or
spoken material, such as novels, poems, plays, essays, and other forms of
creative and intellectual expression. (Oxford Reference. (n.d).
Low Proficiency. This indicates a level of skill or competence that is
below a certain standard or expectation. In the context of language or other
skills, low proficiency suggests a limited ability or skill level. (Business
Dictionary. (n.d).
Perceptions. Perceptions refer to the way individuals interpret and
make sense of information or stimuli from their environment. It involves the
mental processes of recognizing, organizing, and interpreting sensory input.
(Psychology Today. (n.d).
15
Printed Format. The information that is presented in a physical,
tangible form, such as on paper or other print media. This is in contrast to
digital or electronic formats. (Techopedia. (n.d).
Proficiency. This indicates a high level of competence, skill, or
expertise in a particular area. It reflects the ability to perform tasks or
activities effectively and with a high degree of mastery. (Oxford Learner's
Dictionaries. (n.d).
Reading. Reading is the process of interpreting and understanding
written or printed information. It involves decoding symbols (such as letters
or characters) to comprehend the meaning of written words and sentences.
(American Psychological Association (APA). (n.d.).
Reading Comprehension. This is the ability to understand, interpret,
and make meaning from written text. It involves various cognitive processes,
including understanding the main idea, identifying supporting details,
making inferences, and drawing conclusions. Effective reading
comprehension is crucial for academic success, professional development,
and overall communication skills. (National Reading Panel. (2000).
Technology. The application of scientific knowledge and tools for
practical purposes. It includes a wide range of devices, systems, and
techniques used to solve problems, achieve goals, or facilitate various
activities in different fields. (Techopedia. (n.d.).
16
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Related Literature
Reading as a Process
Reading is a complex process in which symbols and signs are decoded
for constructing meaning. As a receptive process, different readers decode
reading differently, and as a consequence, they create different meanings or
understanding from the same text. In this process, information from the text
and the readers’ knowledge act together to produce meaning. Reading, which
is a complex interaction between the text and the reader, is shaped by the
reader’s prior knowledge, experiences, attitude, and language community
which is culturally and socially situated. The reading process requires
17
continuous practice, development, and refinement. Cooper, Edna and
Dorothy (1988) define comprehension as “a process of constructing meaning
from clues in the text and information in the readers’ background of
experience” (p.27). Reading is normally an individual activity, although a
person tends to read out loud for the benefit of other listeners. Reading
aloud for one’s own use, for better comprehension, is a form of intrapersonal
communication.
Reading Print and Digital Books
In this age of gigabytes and technological innovation, many
individuals have almost unlimited access to information and books through
the internet. However, despite earlier doomsday predictions about the
demise of books with the growth of online reading and technology, the death
of the book is nowhere in sight, with book sales increasing (Cocozza, 2017)
and print books still more popular than books in digital formats (Perrin,
2016). Readers enjoy the tactile feel of books and feel a sense of progression
as they thumb their way through a book (Evans, 2017). Readers also
remember a story better when reading a book compared with reading the
same story in an e-book (Mangen, Walgermo, & Bronnick, 2013). Readers
who want to focus on the reading may feel that the multiple screens on a
computer distract them from undisturbed reading (Rose, 2011).
Reading Comprehension
Reading comprehension is the process of making meaning from text.
The goal, therefore, is to gain an overall understanding of what is described
in the text rather than to obtain meaning from isolated words or sentences.
18
In understanding read text information children develop mental models, or
representations of meaning of the text ideas during the reading process.
There are two classes of mental models: a text-based model, which is a
mental representation of the propositions of the text and a situation model
consisting of what the text is perceived to be about (Kintsch 1998; van Dijk
and Kintsch 1983).
Reading comprehension (understanding, gaining meaning and
interpreting the text) depends on a variety of reader-related, text-related, and
situational factors (De Corte et al. 2001). Meaning is formed in the reader’s
head, that is, a person’s prior knowledge affects the kinds of meanings
constructed from the text information (Fukkink and de Glopper 1998; Lipson
1983). From this perspective an individual’s existing knowledge is a major
determinant in acquiring new information (Ausubel 1968; Cain and Oakhill
1999; Griffin et al. 1995). Furthermore, the reader’s comprehension of the
text is considered to be linked to the reader’s ability to construct hypotheses,
rules, schemas, and mental models (Vipond 1980).
Comprehension Difficulties
There may be a multiplicity of factors that contribute to reading
difficulties for many students with special needs and the underlying causes
of their reading problems may be largely unknown (Lewis and Doorlag 1999).
It has been found that the prevalence of children with reading difficulties is
often linked with the economic and social circumstances of the home. For
example, many children identified as having reading difficulties experience
significant language and cultural differences between home and school
19
(Elkins 2002a, b; McNaughton et al. 2004; Rohl and Rivalland 2002). This
finding is supported by studies conducted in the mid-1970s where variables,
such as social class, educational background of the parents, family income
and the number of books in the home were consistently related to school
reading achievement (Romeo 2002). The claim is that the respect for
education, community standards and the value placed on education also
influenced whether or not students have mastered basic literacy skills
(Samuels 1978).
Cognition: Digital vs Print
Although researchers studying the effectiveness of different reading
platforms are primarily concerned with objective measures of optical
challenge and reading comprehension, both Benedetto (2013) and
Kretzschmar (2013) do also consider participants’ subjective preferences,
and here the results are consistent. Both studies show an overwhelming
preference for print books over both digital media platforms. Even older
adults, who in Kretzschmar’s experiment read from LCDs with the greatest
ease and comprehension, identified print books as the most “pleasant” to
read, by a factor of nearly three to one (Kretzschmar et al., fig. 2). Likewise,
the current generation of young people, the digital natives who should have
no cultural bias for the printed word, report in survey after survey that they
prefer learning from books to learning from screens; many reports that if
they do discover an important text on the internet they are likely to print it
out before attempting in-depth reading (Jabr, 2013, “Navigating,” para. 10).
It must be concluded that the general preference for print- over screen-
20
reading goes beyond optical issues and force of habit to cognition, or the way
texts are processed and stored in our minds.
Essential to understanding how uniquely well-suited printed texts are
for the reading brain is the fact that there are no genetic or biological
structures dedicated solely to reading. Instead, we read by connecting neural
structures originally developed for vision, object recognition, and spoken
language to the processes of letter and word recognition and the short-term
memory storage necessary for sustained thought. The same cognitive
structures that evolved for navigation and communication in the physical
world have been adapted to accomplish the learned behavior of reading
(Wolf, 2007). To the reading brain, therefore, letters and words exist as
physical objects, and the text they compose forms a kind of thought-
landscape where meaning associated with words occupies a specific location.
This is why, when people are trying to locate a particular piece of
information they have read, they often can remember where in a printed
book they came across it—high or low on a page, verso or recto, and at a
certain depth in the page stack. Paging back through a text to find a
particular passage remembered by its location is the cognitive equivalent of
retracing one’s steps through a forest, searching for familiar landmarks
along the way (Jabr, 2013, “Navigating,” para. 3; Mangen, 2012, p. 65).
Obviously, when trying to study from a virtual text, the reader is deprived of
this ability to associate thoughts with real-world locations.
Digital Reading Materials
21
Digital media are encoded in machine readable formats. Digital media
can be created, viewed, distributed, modified and preserved on digital
electronics devices. The media can be pictures, sound, motion video,
animation, and/or text items combined in a product whose purpose is to
deliver information. Digital media include software, digital images, digital
video, video game, web pages and websites, including social media, data and
databases, digital audio, such as MP3 and electronic books. Digital media
often contrasts with print media, such as print books, newspapers and
magazines, and other traditional media, such as images, movies or audio
tapes. In short, digital reading materials can be explained as reading
materials that are presented in digital / electronic form using devices.
Kindle, mobile phone, tablet, lap top and desk top are common media of the
academic reading texts.
Printed Reading Materials
Print medium includes all types of magazines, newspapers, books,
newsletters, banners, graphics, posters and other print artifacts. The
flourishing of the new media with all its adjunct services seems to mark the
beginning of the end of conventional reading. The term conventional means
traditional and ordinary. In this study, conventional reading materials mean
reading materials that are in the conventional form using the print media.
Print media is one of the oldest and basic forms of communication. The
contribution of print media in providing information and transfer of
knowledge is remarkable. Even after the advent of electronic media, the print
media has not lost its charm or relevance. In this study, print reading texts
22
refer to the conventional reading materials that are provided for the readers
using print paper such as print text books, newspapers, books, etc.
Effect of Digital Reading to Comprehension
Studies comparing the effect of reading digital texts versus printed
texts to reading speed, accuracy, and comprehension have been carried out
since the emergence of computers. These studies showed inconsistent
results. The majority of early studies showed that printed text reading tasks
were superior to digital text reading tasks in terms of speed, accuracy, and
comprehension, while the other studies reported insignificant differences.
Dillon (1994), for instance, found that reading performance on the computer
screen was about 20% to 30% slower than a paper. Other studies (Creed et
al., 1987; Ziefle, 1998) showed printed texts reading tasks accuracy is higher
than computer-based texts reading. Keenan (1984) found paper-based
reading outperformed computer-based reading, although the gaps were not
highly significant. However, some other studies (Askwall, 1985; Gould et al.,
1987; Oborne & Holton, 1988) showed no significant accuracy difference
between the two formats.
Related Studies
Reading is the most vital skill every English as a foreign language
(EFL) learner must master due to several reasons. First, EFL learners study
English in an environment where English is not the primary language of the
society. Their lack of inputs from their daily interaction could be overcome
best through reading. Secondly, several studies (Anderson & Pearson, 1984;
Decant, 1991; Mullis et.al., 2009) have shown reading significant
23
contribution to one's personal and intellectual development, further studies,
job success, and career development, and the capability to meet changes.
Next, reading skills boost a learner's mastery of other areas of language
learning (Anderson, 2003). It provides the learners with various good
sentence structures so many times that they become accustomed to them. It
also develops the learners' vocabulary by letting them get the most
frequently used and useful words and learn them in context. Also, reading
improves writing skills for it enables the learners to figure out how to
express ideas through words, how to use punctuation correctly, and so on.
According to Elley (1991), there was a "spread of effect from reading
competence to other language skills - writing, speaking and control over
syntax" (p. 404). Mikulecky (2008) accentuated that reading is the
instruction basis in all language learning aspects, including textbooks use
for language courses, writing, revising, editing vocabulary development,
acquiring grammar acquisition.
Meanwhile, Spencer (2006) carried out a study on the preferences of
university students for their reading on-line course-related materials. The
results showed that many learners prefer the paper version of course
materials and even those who prefer reading from screen indicated their
desire to have the option for print version due to its portability, reliability,
annotation, highlighting and ergonomic features.
Additionally, a research was conducted to investigate college
students’ perception, preferences and use of print or electronic resources. It
was found out that digital libraries and traditional libraries have their
24
unique advantages and limitations (Liu, 2006). Meanwhile, Buzzetto-More,
Sweat-Guy and Elobaid (2006) studied the awareness of university students
about e-books. They found that, although university students were very
comfortable about reading from the screen, they hardly had any interaction
with e-books. In another study with university students in the UAE by
Alghazo (2006), it was concluded that web-enhanced instruction is positively
viewed by students and it seems to enrich the conventional faceto-face
classroom environment.
Moreover, Kazanci (2015) carried out the research by involving 792
randomly selected students from eight different departments of Faculty of
Education at Çukurova University in Turkey. Her study showed that the
majority of the students preferred traditional print paper instead of digital
screen for their reading activities. Davy (2007) found that e-textbooks had
several good qualities over their traditional print copy counterparts. He
found they were ubiquitous items, interactive, provided multi6 media,
enabled printing on demand, thus saving paper, and could cater to
individual learning styles. E-textbooks offer greater flexibility and
accessibility than print copies, and e-textbooks proved increased visual
appeal. Neither of these researchers cited any disadvantages of e-textbooks.
In an examination of college student’s preferences, Rowlands,
Nicholas, Jamali and Huntington (2007) discovered etextbooks to be up-to-
date, space savers, accessible around the clock, convenient, and they
perceived e-textbooks to make it easier to create copies of the text. However,
contrary to these advantages, the students also believed that etextbooks
25
were difficult to read, annotate, and bookmark a page/place in the book.
Portability and flexibility in searching/browsing were advantages of e-
textbooks, in addition to full-text searching and reference linking. The
disadvantages were that the technology may still be somewhat in its infancy
and there may also be a lack of awareness of the software/hardware that is
available for e-textbooks.
Rao (2001) found electronic reading texts to be convenient, less
expensive than print copies, portable, and instantly available. Shrimplin,
Revelle, Hurst and Messner (2011) find four distinct groups of readers, all of
whom approached print and electronic texts in different ways: Book Lovers,
who preferred print; Technophiles, who preferred electronic 208 Journal of
NELTA, Vol 24 No. 1-2, November 2019 NELTA formats; Pragmatists, who
use whatever format best suits their needs at the time; and Printers, who
print out electronic texts to read them. Chelin, Briddon, Williams, Redman,
Sleat and Ince (2009) point out that students used e-books if they were
easier to access or if the print edition was not available, rather than because
of any preference for them. Caporn, Bryant, Foster and Ransley (2011) affirm
that the younger students in their study, who were between the ages of
eighteen and twenty-one, were more attracted to e-books than older students
were.
Broadhurst and Watson (2012) speculate that students will demand
additional printing credits if many materials are made available
electronically. Shelburne (2009) mentions that faculty and students
appreciated computerbased e-books for the speed and convenience with
26
which they can be accessed, but many readers prefer to print out sections
rather than rely on a computer and an Internet connection for access. Berg,
Hoffmann and Dawson (2010) remark students doing a simple lookup task
used more effective strategies to navigate the print encyclopedias than the
electronic ones. Trakhman and Alexander (2017) verify their results
demonstrated a clear preference for digital texts, and students typically
predicted better comprehension when reading digitally.
Jeong (2012) clarifies that higher quiz scores indicating better
comprehension in print-based texts, while eye fatigue and strain reported by
students was greater when reading e-texts. Singer and Alexander (2016)
assert that although students could recall the main ideas regardless of the
text type, they were better able to recall key points linked to the main idea
and other relevant concepts when reading print.Dobler (2015), Falc (2013),
Mizrachi (2015), and Singer and Alexander (2016) affirm that students may
declare their preference for print-based texts over etexts, but they can also
appreciate using a combination of the two. Jeong (2012) remarks students
overall appear to prefer print books, but they are also satisfied with e-texts.
Dobler (2015) points out that the reason for a preference for print-
based texts is that students may feel more easily distracted when reading e-
texts. Muir and Hawes (2013) consider that students perceive e-texts’ page-
topage navigation tools as poor and the speed of page loading as slow. Falc
(2013) points out that students encounter various technical difficulties when
learning with e-texts, leading to frustration.
27
Baek and Monaghan (2013) highlight the importance of print text by
stating that print-based texts are considered superior for studying large
sections of text. On the contrary, for Muir and Hawes (2013), student
preferences for e-texts are centred on searchability; and for Mizrachi (2015),
cost and accessibility. Hsiao, Tang, and Lin (2015) enunciate that attitudes
towards e-texts are affected by their (perceived) usefulness, ease of use,
whether they were enjoyable and pleasant to use. Stone and Baker-Eveleth
(2013) view that the continuation of using a certain medium of text depends
on a student’s resultant intention.
Stoop, Kreutzer and Kircz (2015) state that “enhancing the electronic
text instead of just turning it into a copy of the printed version seems to
have helped the Journal of NELTA, Vol 24 No. 1-2, November 2019 209
NELTA students to score higher on the test”. Myrberg and Wiberg (2015)
articulate the apps for e-reading lack the ability to present essential spatial
landmarks, they give poor feedback on your progress as you read, and make
it difficult for you to plan your reading since they do not show how much is
left of the chapter/ book in a direct and transparent way.
Yoram Eden and Eshet-Alkalai (2013) and Young (2014) pinpoint that
speed and recall differences between media are insignificant. Rockinson-
Szapkiw, Courduff, Carter, and Bennett (2013), Stoop, Kreutzer and Kircz
(2013b); and Sun, Chich-Jen and Kai-Ping (2013) affirm that electronic
documents that optimize hypertext and multimedia to engage students can
lead to improved learning outcomes. Stoop, Kreutzer and Kircz (2013a)
remark that many students prefer to print out academic documents.
28
Qayyum and Williamson (2014) consider information from the printed page
to be more trustworthy. According to Herman (2014), Lam, Lamand and
McNaught (2009), electronic resources have grown as a cost-effective
alternative to print resources, with a range of multi-borrower licensing and
purchase packages available.
Daniel and Woody (2013), Durant and Horava (2015), Yoram Eden
and EshetAlkalai, (2013), Herman (2014) and Young (2014) describe that
many researchers who have explored the effect of format on reading and
comprehension, ask whether electronic documents are an improvement on
their print predecessors within education. Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2013)
and Stoop et al. (2013b) write that electronic documents have the potential
to provide an engaging, interactive learning environment via hyperlinks and
multimedia. Rose (2011) and Stoop et al. (2013a) mention that the ability to
easily markup paper documents may be one reason why students express a
preference for print versions of lengthy academic texts. Stoop et al (2013b)
and Rockinson Szapkiw et al. (2013) assert that students liked the idea of
utilizing electronic documents for interactive learning.
Tuncer and Bahadir (2014), and Martin and Platt (2001) explain that
many studies found that participants preferred to print out documents that
contained complex information for reading. Jabr (2013) explicates that
reading from the screen can be difficult to ascertain how far one is through a
multi-page article, and difficult to contextualize the passages within the
document. Noyes and Garland (2003) and Stoop et al. (2013a) conclude that
29
participants gain a better understanding of the content when reading from
paper.
Daniel and Woody (2013) and Qayyum and Williamson (2014) note
the distractive nature of advertisements and pop-ups within electronic
material. Stoop et al. (2013b) and Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2013) find that
the interactive capabilities of electronic documents had the potential to
actively engage students in learning. These results suggest that each
medium may have a role to play in education, particularly as students
become more accustomed to reading and editing electronic documents.
Several factors play great roles in shaping the learners’ preference for
the medium of reading texts: familiarity with and comfort levels of the
medium or platform (Baek and Monaghan 2013; Chen et al. 2014; Weisberg
2011), the cultural attitudes of learners (Kretzschmar et al. 2013), the
subject matter (John 2014), the length of text (Abdullah and Gibb 2008;
Baek and Monaghan 2013; Gibson and Gibb 2011; Muir and Hawes 2013)
and whether the text needs to be understood thoroughly or merely skimmed
and scanned (Buzzetto-More, Sweat-Guy and Elobaid 2007; Dilevko and
Gottlieb 2002; Dundar and Akcayir 2012; Jamali, Nicholas, Rowlands 2009;
and Spencer 2006). These previous research studies reveal the students’
mixed preferences for electronic and print media of reading texts. It is
obvious that both electronic and print media of academic reading media
retain some merits and some demerits.
30
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research was conducted in order to determine what certain format the
students will be excellent across the two different formats of reading: digital
and printed formats. To garner the data necessary for this study, the
researchers opted to obtain the performance of the participants in line with
31
this topic. Specifically, a total of 24 participants from the first-year BSED
Major in Mathematics and Major in Science students from the College of
Teacher Education were systematically selected. A pre-test and a post-test
were completed by the chosen participants. The data gathered from this
research instrument was computed for interpretation.
Research Design
The researchers used quasi-experimental design. The prefix quasi
means “resembling.” Thus, quasi-experimental research is research that
resembles experimental research but is not true experimental research.
Although the independent variable is manipulated, participants are not
randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (Cook & Campbell,
1979). Quasi-experimental methods are research designs that that aim to
identify the impact of a particular intervention, program, or event (a
"treatment") by comparing treated units (households, groups, villages,
schools, firms, etc.) to control units. While quasi-experimental methods use
a control group, they differ from experimental methods in that they do not
use randomization to select the control group. Quasi-experimental methods
are useful for estimating the impact of a program or event for which it is not
ethically or logistically feasible to randomize.
By comparing the scores between the pre-test and post-test of
experimental group and control group, quasi-experiments aim to
demonstrate causality between an intervention and an outcome. Quasi-
experimental studies can use both preintervention and postintervention
measurements as well as nonrandomly selected control groups.
32
With those options, the researchers were opted to integrate the
quantitative approach in this study due to its significant advantages.
Quantitative approach is useful as it helps the researcher to prevent bias in
gathering and presenting research data. Daquiz stated that quantitative data
collection procedures create epistemological postulations that reality is
objective and unitary, which can only be realized by means of transcending
individual perspective. Thus, the researchers will use an objective type of
pre-test and post-test to gather the perspective of every individual or
respondents in line with the study. By using this approach, the study will be
discussed or explained by means of data analysis gathered through objective
forms of measurement.
Locale of the Respondents
In order to determine the level of reading comprehension of the
participants in various formats like; digital and printed format, a total of 24
participants were encouraged to participate. The participants were
systematically selected from the Department of College of Teacher
Education. Specifically, the first-year students taking up Bachelor of
Secondary Education Major in Mathematics and Major in Science at Quirino
State University - Main Campus located in Andres Bonifacio, Diffun,
Quirino.
Research Instrument
The researchers employed the pre-test and post-test or formative
assessments in multiple choice type containing 25 items with one
corresponding point for each item as one of the means in collecting data
33
from the participants. The questionnaire for the pre-test and post-test was a
self-made test by the researchers, which was then subjected to pilot testing
to assess its reliability. After passing the reliability test, the self-made
questionnaire was used to get the needed data. The questionnaire measures
the level of reading comprehension of the students in literature across two
various formats of reading, namely, digital and printed.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers submitted a letter to the Dean, requesting permission
and approval to conduct the study. Upon approval, the researchers retrieved
the letter. In administering the objective type of test, the researchers used
the time allotted for vacant to avoid distraction of class discussion. The
participants were given enough time to answer the questions. The
researchers collected the answered research instrument from the
participants. After the researchers collected all the data, with the
statistician’s help, the researchers tabulated and tallied the results to
analyze and interpret the data.
The result was the basis for researchers to answer the following
questions in the Statement of the Problem. Based on the collected data
analysis, the researchers came up with conclusions and recommendations
for this study.
Statistical Treatment of Data
Statistical tools are significant in finding numerical data to accurately
answer the objectives of the study for quantitative research. Hence, together,
34
these data were fine to each other to produce the intended information. The
following are the statistical tools that were utilized for the study:
Descriptive Statistics
1. Frequency & Percentage – these were applied to determine the profile of
the participants.
a. sex;
b. age, and
c. ethnicity.
2. Mean – this was applied to identify the level of reading comprehension of
the participants when grouped according to profile.
Qualitative Description
Score Range Description

21.876 – 25 Excellent
18.76 – 21.875 Good
15.626 – 18.75 Satisfactory
12.6 – 15.625 Needs Improvement
12.5 Unsatisfactory
Inferential Statistics
3. The Paired sample t-test – this statistical tool was employed to determine
the significant difference on the participants’ gained scores from their pre-
test and post-test results in both experimental and control group.
35
4. Independent sample t-test – this statistical tool was employed to
determine the significant difference between two groups in pre-test and post-
test results.
5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) – this statistical tool was conducted to
determine the significant difference for more than two groups in the pre-test
and post-test results.
Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
36
This chapter presents the results and discussion based from the
mentioned objectives of the study.
Profile of the Participants
Table 1: Distribution of the Participants’ Profile (n = 24)
Participants Profile Frequency Percent (%)
Sex
Male 3 12.50
Female 21 87.50
Age
18 years old 12 50
19 years old 12 50
Ethnicity
Ilocano 20 83.3
Tagalog and others 4 16.7
The Table 1 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of the
participants’ profile in terms of sex, age, and ethnicity. It can be gleaned on
the above table that there is a total of 24 participants (n=24) who
participated in the study. It is prominent on the preceding table that
majority of the participants are 21 or 87.50 percent female while 3 or 12.50
percent male counterparts. It can be noted on the table above that there is
equal number of participants in terms of age, wherein 12 or 50 percent are
18 years old and 12 or 50 percent are 19 years old. Moreover, the ethnicity
profile of the participants is mainly dominated by the 20 or 83.3 percent
Ilocano, whereas there are 4 or 16.7 percent Tagalog and other ethnic
37
groups.
Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores in Reading Comprehension of the Control

Group and Experimental Group
Table 2: Mean Distribution of the Pre-test and Post-test of Control and

Experimental Group in Reading Comprehension of the Participants.
Pre-test Post test Mean Difference
Printed Literary Genre

10.50 14.33 3.83
(Control Group)
Digital Genre
10.42 15.92 5.50
(Experimental Group)
Legend: 21.876-25 (Excellent), 18.76-21.875 (Good), 15.626-18.75 (Satisfactory), 12.6-15.626

(Needs Improvement), 12.5 and below (Unsatisfactory)
Table 2 shows mean distribution of the pre-test and post-test of
control and experimental group in reading comprehension of the
participants. It reveals that the control group started with a lower pre-test
mark (M = 10.50) which describes as Unsatisfactory, whereas after the
treatment (printed literary genre) was applied - the reading comprehension of
the group improves as seen in their post-test mark (M=14.33) though it
describes as Needs Improvement. It can also be noted on the preceding table
that the experimental group started with a lower pre-test mark (M = 10.42)
which describes as Unsatisfactory, however after the treatment (digital
genre) was applied - the reading comprehension of the group leaps up to
Satisfactory level as shown in their post-test mark (M=15.92).
38
Moreover, experimental group’s improvement on the level of their
reading comprehension, as seen from their pre-test to post-test after the
treatment (digital genre), did better as shown with a mean difference of 5.50
compared with control group who received treatment (printed literary genre)
with a mean difference of 3.83.
This indicates that the language activity such as reading based on the
mobile devices or using softcopy of reading material did help to increase the
performance of the experimental group in their reading comprehension. This
finding is aligned with other researchers such as Barrs (2011. Norris et al.
(2011) and Ng et al. (2017), who assert that facilitating the use of mobile
devices with guided learning activities enhance the reading comprehension
of the students.
Table 3: Independent sample t-test Result of the Difference of Pre-test

and Post-test in Reading Comprehension of the Participants When
Grouped by Experimental and Control Group.
Control-Experimental Group
t-comp p-value
PRE-TEST 0.82 0.935
POST-TEST -2.121 0.045*
*Significant at 0.05 significance level
In the Table 3, the independent sample t-test was carried out to gauge
the significant difference of the pre-test and post-test scores in reading
comprehension between the two groups as stated in Hypothesis 1. The table
connotes that there is no significant difference of the pre-test scores in the
39
reading comprehension between the two groups with a p-value of 0.935 (t-
comp=0.82).
However, the result shows that there is a significant difference in the
post-test scores in the reading comprehension between experimental group
(under digital genre treatment) and control group (under printed literary
genre treatment) with a p-value of 0.045 (t-comp=-2.121)
Therefore, the hypothesis which states that there is no significant
difference of the pre-test and post-test scores between experimental and
control groups is rejected.
Based on the Table 3.1 below, the result reflects that the mark for
both groups at the starting point revealed no significant difference in terms
of mean score. On the other hand, the mean difference between the
experimental and control group post-test marks were significant at below
0.05 p-value. The results reflect that, both groups’ means in the post-tests
and the difference in means between the experimental and control is
significant. The result suggests that the treatment (digital genre) is more
effective than printed literary genre as seen in the mean distribution in table
3.1 the experimental group obtained 15.92 mean score which is 1.59 higher
than control group mean score of 14.33 in post-test.
Similar findings were revealed, wherein there was significant
difference in the post-test scores of the participants grouped by experimental
who received digital text reading medium and control which is mere printed
medium (Ng et. al, 2020).
40
Table 3.1: Mean Distribution of the Pre-test and Post-test Result of
Control and Experimental Group in Reading Comprehension of the
Participants
Printed Literary Digital Genre
Genre (Control (Experimental Mean Difference
Group) Group)
PRE-TEST 10.50 10.41 0.09
POST-TEST 14.33 15.92 1.59

Table 3.1 exhibits the mean distribution of the pre-test and post-test
of control and experimental group in reading comprehension of the
participants. Similar findings in Table 2, however this table presents the
level of reading comprehension between the two groups based on their pre-
test and post-test mean score. It can be noted on the result that the Control
group scores higher with a mean score of 10.50 than Experimental group
which is 10.41 mean score which both can be described as Unsatisfactory
with slight discrepancy from each other as the mean difference of the two
groups for pre-test is 0.09.
Meanwhile, after each group received different treatment as the post-
test mark of the experimental and control group obtained 1.59 mean
difference. The result presents that the level of reading comprehension of the
two groups differs from each other - the experimental group who utilized
digital genre marked a 15.92 mean score which can be described as
Satisfactory compared with the qualitative description for control group who
41
received printed literary genre which obtained 14.33 which suggests that the
reading comprehension of the participants “Needs Improvement.”
This reiterates the same findings conducted on language activity such
as reading based on the mobile devices or using softcopy of reading material
did help to increase the performance of the experimental group in their
reading comprehension. This finding is aligned with other researchers such
as Barrs (2011. Norris et al. (2011) and Ng et al. (2017), who assert that
facilitating the use of mobile devices with guided learning activities enhance
the reading comprehension of the students.
Table 4. Paired-sample t-test Result in the Pre-test and Post-test in

Reading Comprehension of the Participants in Experimental and
Control Group.
Pretest-Posttest
t-comp p-value
Printed Literary Genre (Control

0.617 0.551
Group)
Digital Genre
0.366 0.722
(Experimental Group)
In the Table 4, the Paired sample t-test was conducted to test the
Hypothesis 2 which is to determine the significant difference between the
pre-posttest scores in reading comprehension of the two groups. The table
displays that there is no significant difference between pre-test and post-test
42
scores in the reading comprehension of the control group (under printed
literary genre treatment) with p-value of 0.551 (t-comp=0.617).
Likewise, the result reveals that there is no significant difference
between pre-test and post-test scores in the reading comprehension of the
experimental group (under digital genre treatment) with a p-value of 0.722
(t-comp=0.366).
Therefore, the current study failed to reject the hypothesis which
states that there is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-
test scores of both experimental and control groups.
Pre-test and Post-test Scores in Reading Comprehension of the

Participants When Grouped by Profile
Table 5: Independent Sample t-test Result of the Difference of Pre-test

Grouped by Sex Along Experimental and Control Group
Control Group Experimental Group
t-comp p-value t-comp p-value
PRE-TEST 0.617 0.551 0.346 0.736
POST-TEST 0.366 0.722 -0.760 0.465
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to test the significant
difference of pre-test and post-test in reading comprehension of the
participants when they were grouped according to their sex along
experimental and control group. The result shows that there is no significant
difference of pre-test scores in terms of sex of the participants along
43
experimental group (t-comp=0.346, p-value=0.736) and control group (t-
comp=0.617, p = 0.551). On the side note, the result also reveals that there
is no significant difference of post-test scores in terms of sex of the
participants along experimental group (t-comp=-0.760, p-value=0.465) and
control group (t-comp=0.366, p-value=0.722).
Therefore, the study failed to reject the hypothesis which states that
there is no significant difference in the pre-test and post-test scores of both
experimental group and control group when grouped by sex.
These results suggest that sex does not influence the reading
comprehension of the participants in both experimental and control group.
Specifically, the results suggest that sex is not a determining factor on the
level of reading comprehension of the participants regardless of reading
medium or treatment being used. This is in contrast with the study of Guz
(2010) who pointed out that female learners have better comprehension
towards English than the male students.
Table 5.1: Mean Distribution of the Pre-test and Post-test Result of

Participants When Grouped by Sex
MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE
PRE-TEST 12.00 10.36 11.00 10.30
POST-TEST 15.00 14.27 15.00 16.10
Mean Difference 3 3.91 4 5.8

44
The Table 5.1 presents mean distribution of the pre-test and post-test
result of control and experimental group in reading comprehension of the
respondents when grouped by sex. It can be gleaned from the table under
control group that the female participants obtained the mean difference of
3.91 higher than male participants who obtained 3 mean difference between
pre-test and post-test scores. While under experimental group the female
participants obtained the mean difference of 5.8 higher than male
participants who obtained 4 mean difference between pre-test and post-test
scores.
It is prominent to note that females of two groups performed better in
their post-test score than males, however it is evident on the table that male
post-test mean score for both groups is 15.00 which can be described as
Satisfactory, this implies that male improves for both reading medium or
genre. On the female counterparts, female participants of experimental
group perform better as seen in their post-test mean score 16.10 which
describes as Satisfactory than female participants of control group as shown
in their post-test mean score 14.27 which describes as Needs Improvement.
These findings imply that males who both Satisfactory in both
medium feels more self-assured in the area of technology than females do.
According to Broos (2004), boys are more likely to pick up and try new
technology gadgets over females. If this is the case, the boys might have been
able to devote more cognitive resources to comprehension strategies than
girls were able to. But other studies are in contrast with the findings of
Broos (2004) where females in experimental group were able to improve their
45
reading comprehension. Based on Broos (2004), it is also possible that the
more tactile printed text was more consistent with females’ preferences.
Table 6: Independent Sample t-test Result of the Difference of Pre-test

Grouped by Age Along Experimental and Control Group
PRETEST -0.113 0.912 1.767 0.108
POST-TEST 0.516 0.617 2.488 0.032*
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to test the significant
difference of pre-test and post-test in reading comprehension of the
participants when they were grouped according to their age along
experimental and control group. The result shows that there is no significant
difference of pre-test scores in terms of age of the participants along
comp=-0.113, p = 0.912). On the side note, the result also reveals that there
is no significant difference of post-test scores in terms of age of the
participants along control group (t-comp=0.526, p-value=0.617).
However, after the treatment digital genre as reading medium for
experimental group, the result reveals that there is a significant difference in
the post-test scores of experimental groups (t-comp=0.366, p-value=0.722).
46
This implies that the study failed to reject the hypothesis which states
that there is no significant difference in the pre-test and post-test scores of
control group and pre-test scores of experimental groups when grouped by
age, except the post-test scores of the experimental group wherein the
stated hypothesis is rejected.
The resulting significance reflect that the experimental group ages 18
years-old and 19 years-old mean score of post-tests in their reading
comprehension as seen in the Table 6.1 and mean difference between pre-
test and post-test of the said group who utilized digital genre as reading
medium is significant.
These results suggest that age does not influence the reading
comprehension of the participants for control group rather the age had an
impact or influence to their reading comprehension of the experimental
group who utilized digital genre as reading medium. Specifically, the results
suggest that age is a determining factor of the reading comprehension of the
participants of the experimental group when treatment is being used.
18 YEARS 19 YEARS 18 YEARS 19 YEARS
OLD OLD OLD OLD
PRE-TEST 10.43 10.60 11.80 9.43
POST-TEST 14.57 14.00 17.20 15.00
Mean Difference 4.14 3.4 5.4 5.57

47
The Table 6.1 exhibits the mean distribution of the pre-test and post-
test result of control and experimental group in reading comprehension of
the respondents when grouped by their age. It can be gleaned from the table
under control group that the mean difference of participants age 18 (4.14)
and age 19 (3.4) is much lower than the mean difference of the experimental
group age 18 (5.4) and 19 (5.57).
These results reflect hat the participants ages 18 and 19 of the
experimental group started their mark with Unsatisfactory level up to
Satisfactory level of reading comprehension when digital genre was used as
reading medium as gleaned in their post-test mean score where 18-year-old
participants got 17.20 and 19-year-old participants got 15. Whereas, both
age of the control group made a slight positive change in their post-test score
with 14.57 for participants age 18 and 14 for participants age 19 but still
needs improvement.
Therefore, based on significance level as seen in Table 6, the mean
scores, and mean differences in the post-test indicates that the participants
of experimental group ages 18 and 19 made a significant improvement when
digital genre as reading medium was used in improving their reading
comprehension.
48
Table 7: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the Difference of Pre-test and
Post-test in Reading Comprehension of the participants When Grouped
by Ethnicity Along Experimental and Control Group
PRETEST 0.301 0.770 -0.049 0.962
POST-TEST -0.547 0.596 1.771 0.107
Analysis of Variance was conducted to test the significant difference of
pre-test and post-test in reading comprehension of the participants when
they were grouped according to their ethnicity along experimental and
control group. The result shows that there is no significant difference of pre-
test scores in terms of ethnicity of the participants along experimental group
(t-comp=-0.049, p-value=0.962) and control group (t-comp=0.301, p =
0.770). On the side note, the result also reveals that there is no significant
difference of post-test scores in terms of ethnicity of the participants along
comp=-0.547, p-value=0.596).
Therefore, the study failed to reject the hypothesis which states that
there is no significant difference in the pre-test and post-test scores of both
experimental group and control group when grouped by ethnicity.
These results suggest that ethnicity does not influence the reading
comprehension of the participants in both experimental and control group.
49
Specifically, the results suggest that ethnicity is not a determining factor on
the level of reading comprehension of the participants regardless of reading
medium or treatment being used.
Table 7.1: Mean Distribution of the Pre-test and Post-test Pesult of

Participants When Grouped by Ethnicity
TAGALOG
TAGALOG
ILOCANO AND ILOCANO
AND OTHERS
OTHERS
PRE-TEST 10.60 10.00 10.40 10.50
POST-TEST 14.20 15.00 16.30 14.00
Mean Difference 3.6 5 5.9 3.5

The Table 7.1 presents mean distribution of the pre-test and post-test
result of control and experimental group in reading comprehension of the
participants when grouped by ethnicity. It can be seen from the table under
control group that the Tagalog and other ethnic affiliated participants
obtained the mean difference of 5 higher than the Ilocano participants who
obtained 3.6 mean difference between in their pre-test and post-test scores.
However, under experimental group the Ilocano participants obtained the
mean difference of 5.9 higher than Tagalog and other ethnic affiliated
participants who obtained 3.5 mean difference in their pre-test and post-test
scores.
50
Similar pattern of result can be gleaned from their mean score. All
ethnic groups in both experimental and control group started with 10 –
10.60 mean scores which can be described as Unsatisfactory. However, the
Tagalog and other ethnic groups affiliated participants under control group
who utilized printed literary genre, improves a good mark with 15 mean
score which can be described as Satisfactory in their post-test than Ilocano
participants which still needs improvement. But, it is the other way around
under experimental group who used digital genre, as the result shows that
Ilocano participants improves a good mark with a mean score of 16.30 which
can be described as Satisfactory, while Tagalog and other ethnic group
affiliated participants settles in a description that their reading
comprehension still needs improvement.
51
Chapter V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was conducted to investigate the reading comprehension of
the participants in literature across two different mediums or formats of
reading: digital literary genre and printed literary genre.
This study utilized a two-group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental
design. There were two groups involved in this study: control group who
used printed literary genre and experimental group who used digital genre.
Both tests were administered to the two groups of respondents to gauge their
reading comprehension before and after applying the two different formats.
The participants were the 24 first-year students composed of Science and
Math majors of the Bachelor of Secondary Education program at Quirino
State University – College of Teacher Education for the S.Y. 2023-2024. They
were purposively selected for the conduct of the study.
Descriptive Statistics was used to determine the mean scores of the
participants comparing pretests and posttests scores of the experimental
and control group, establishing their level of reading comprehension when
grouped according to their profile. Inferential Statistics was also used in the
study specifically, Paired-sample t-test, Independent sample t-test, and
Analysis of variance (ANOVA). The Paired sample t-test was employed to
determine the significant difference on the participants’ gained scores from
their pre-test and post-test results in both experimental and control group.
52
Meanwhile, Independent sample t-test was employed to determine the
significant difference between two groups in pre-test and post-test results.
Lastly, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the
significant difference for more than two groups in the pre-test and post-test
results.
Based on the results, the summary of findings is given below:
1. there are 24 purposively selected participants. Majority of the participants
are female, with an 87.50 percentage score, and 12.50 percentage for their
male counterparts, for the age group there are 50 percentage score for both
18 years old and 19 years old, and for the ethnicity of the participants there
are Ilocano with 83.3 percentage score, Tagalog and other ethnic groups with
16.7 percentage score;
2. the mean distribution in comparing the level of qualitative description
based on the post-test scores of two separate groups, experimental group
(digital genre) improved in reading comprehension into Satisfactory level with
15.92 mean score than control group (printed literary genre) with 14.33
mean score which in the level that Needs Improvement;
3. there is significant difference in the post-test scores in reading
comprehension between experimental and control groups after undergoing
digital genre and printed literary genre, respectively;
4. the mean distribution in comparing the two groups based on there post-
test scores shows that experimental group improves the level of reading
comprehension with 15.92 mean score which can be qualitatively described
53
as Satisfactory after utilizing digital genre as reading format which is higher
than the mean score 14.33 of control group which describes as Needs
Improvement after using the printed literary genre as reading format;
5. there is no significant difference between pre-test and post-test score of
each group, experimental and control group;
6. when grouped by sex, there is no significant difference in the pre-test and
post-test scores of both groups;
7. when grouped by sex, mean distribution shows that female in
experimental group performs better in reading comprehension with 16.10
mean score in post-test after using digital genre which describes as
Satisfactory with a 5.8 mean difference than the control group with 14.27
mean score which describes Needs Improvement; while male participants for
both groups are the same 15 mean score in post-test which is Satisfactory
level;
8. When group by age, there is a significant difference in the post-test scores
of the experimental group;
9. When group by age, experimental group mean difference for 18 years old
with 5.4 and 19 years old 5.57 implies significant improvement from their
Unsatisfactory level into Satisfactory with mean scores of 17.20 for 18 years
old and 15 for 19 years old much higher than age counterparts in control
group which is Unsatisfactory;
10. when grouped by ethnicity, there is no significant difference in the pre-
test and post-test scores of both groups; and
54
11. when grouped by ethnicity, Tagalog and other ethnic group improves to
Satisfactory level based on their post-test score with 15 mean score higher
than Ilocano group with 14.20 that needs improvement under control group,
while under experimental group Ilocano improves to Satisfactory level based
on their post-test score with 16.30 higher than control group and higher
than Tagalog and other ethnic groups of experimental group participants.
Conclusions
The following conclusions were realized based on the results and
discussion:
1. there are 24 total participants: 3 male and 21 female respondents; there
are equal number of respondents twelve 18 years-old and twelve 19 years-
old; and there are 20 Ilocano and 4 Tagalog and other ethnic groups;
2. the use of digital genre as reading format is more effective than printed
literary genre in leveling up the reading comprehension in literature of the
participants as seen in the 15.92 mean score of the post-test of experimental
group and 5.50 mean difference that shows the improvement of reading
comprehension from qualitative description of Unsatisfactory to Satisfactory,
though it is not significant when tested under Paired sample t-test;
3. Using Independent sample t-test, it reveals that there is a significant
difference in the post-test score (p=0.045) of the experimental group and
control group, this means that the mean difference of 1.59 showing higher
gap between the post-test mean score of experimental groups which is 15.92
(Satisfactory) than 14.33 (Needs Improvement) is significant, therefore the
55
use of digital genre as reading format is more effective than printed literary
genre in leveling up the reading comprehension of the participants in
literature; and
4. there is no significant difference in the pre-test and post-test scores in
reading comprehension of the participants when group by sex, age, and
ethnicity along experimental and control group, except the age along
experimental group which reveals that there is significant difference in the
post-test of the age group along experimental group. This implies that age of
the participants does influence their reading comprehension when digital
genre is being used.
Recommendations
The recommendations and suggestions given below were traced from
identifies research gaps and the groups of people who benefited on this
research study:
1. using digital genre as reading format may be used in enhancing and
leveraging the reading comprehension of the students and teachers as
teaching and learning strategy, particularly in literature.
2. students ages 18 and 19 years-old may opt to switch in digital genre as
their reading format, this format may help them to navigate and enhance
their reading comprehension, and the result suggests that students’ age may
also be considered a factor in future studies in determining their
comprehension skills.
56
3. the mean difference of between two groups revealed in the results and
discussion still close enough to each other which may suggests to future
studies further investigation on the underlying factors, addition of guided
language activities such as vocabulary enhancement, attitudes and
motivation towards reading formats, and determining the advantages and
disadvantages of reading formats.
4. the study may aid future researchers on the studies relevant to the topic,
digital versus printed literary genre in enhancing the reading comprehension
in the literature.
5. The administration may initiate the installation of internet in the
classroom to aid the students in the digital approach in reading literary.
57
LITERATURE CITED
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively
responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of
reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading
comprehension research (pp. 69– 90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum
Alexander, P. A., & Fox, E. (2004). Historical perspectives on reading
research and practice. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 33–59). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2002). Learning from text: A
multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P.
B. Mosentha, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research, 3, 285–310. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
American Psychological Association (APA). (n.d.). Reading. In APA Dictionary
of Psychology. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/reading
Barrs, K. (2011). Mobility in learning: The feasibility of encouraging language
learning on smartphones. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal,
2(3), 228–233 https://sisaljournal.org/archives/sep11/barrs/
58
Business Dictionary. (n.d.). Proficiency. Retrieved from
https://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/proficiency.html
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Acquire. Retrieved from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/acquire
Castells, M. (2011). The information age: Economy, society, and culture: Vol.
1. The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Chichester, England:
John Wiley.
Cocozza, P. (2017, April 27). How eBooks lost their shine: ‘Kindles now look
clunky and unhip.’ The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/27/howebooks-lost
their-shine-kindles-look-clunky-unhip
Coiro, J. (2009). Rethinking online reading assessment. Educational
Leadership, 66(6), 59–63.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the comprehension strategies used
by sixth-grade skilled readers as they search for and locate
information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook
of research in new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2007). Reading as thinking: Integrating strategy
instruction in a universally designed digital literacy environment. In
D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories,
interventions, and technologies (pp. 423–442). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
59
Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and
comprehension in the age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knoble, C.
Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies
(pp. 297–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dalton, B., Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Mo. E., & Snow, C. E. (2011). Designing
for diversity: The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary
in a digital reading environment for fifth-grade monolingual English
and bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 68–100.
Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the
empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35, 1297–1326. Retrieved from
https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Reading.htm
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the “digital divide” to
“digitalinequality”: Studying Internet use as penetration increases
(University Working Paper No. 15). Princeton, NJ: Center for Arts
and Cultural Policy Studies.
EdGlossary. (n.d.). Learning Environment. Retrieved from
https://www.edglossary.org/learning-environment/
Evans, E. (2017). Learning from high school students’ experiences of reading
e books and printed books. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
61(3),311–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.685
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival
skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 13(1), 93 106.
60
Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2010). You can teach old dogs new tricks:
The factors that affect changes over time in digital literacy. Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, 9(1), 173–181.
Goldman, S. R. (2015). Reading and the Web: Broadening the need for
complex comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, M. DeSchryver, P. Morsink, M.
S. Hagerman, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Reading at a crossroads?
Disjuncture and continuities in current conceptions and practices
(pp. 89–103). New York, NY: Routledge.
International Literacy Association (ILA). (n.d.). What is Literacy? Retrieved
from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/about-us/what-is-literacy
Klauda, S.L., & Guthrie, J.T. (2015). Comparing relations of motivation,
engagement, and achievement among struggling and adolescent
readers. Reading and Writing, 28(2), 239–269.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145014-9523-2
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A
construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., &
Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change: Performance and
engagement across countries—Results from PISA 2000. Paris, France:
OECD.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and
mobileInternet use among teens and young adults. Washington, DC:
Pew Internet and American Life Project.
61
Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward
a theory of new literacies: Emerging from the Internet and other
information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell &
Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward
a theory of new literacies: Emerging from the Internet and other
information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N.
J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5 th
ed., pp. 1570–1613).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on
paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension.
International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Book. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary.
Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/book
Miller, C. C., & Bosman, J. (2011, May 20). E-books outsell print books at
Amazon. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/ 05/20/technology/20amazon.html?
r=1
Moje, E.B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world
of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard
Educational Review, 78(1), 107–154.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.54468j6204x24157
62
Morris, D. (2003). Of Studebakers and reading clinicians. Proceedings from
the 2003 American Reading Forum Yearbook. Retrieved from
http://www.american readingforum.org/yearbook//yearbooks/03
yearbook/volume03toc.Htm
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (n.d.). Glossary of
Education Reform. Retrieved from https://www.edglossary.org/academic
achievement/
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence
Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature. Retrieved
from https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/re
ort.pdf
Ng, S. F., Nor Syamimi, C. H., Nor Hairunnis, M. N., & Nur Ain, A. M. (2017).
Smartphone usage and reading comprehension: A study of a
Malaysian tertiary institution. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 5(4), 58–70 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1156718.
Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. (n.d.). Proficiency. Retrieved from
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/prof
ciency
Oxford Reference. (n.d.). Literature. In A Dictionary of Literary Terms and
Literary Theory. Retrieved from
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198715
43.001.0001/acref-9780198715443-e-2794
63
Perrin, A. (2016). Book reading 2016. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/01/book
reading 2016/
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants’ part 1. On the
Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Proulx, E. A. (1994, May 26). Books on top. New York Times. Retrieved from
http:// www.nytimes.com/books/99/05/23/specials/proulx-
top.html
Psychology Today. (n.d.). Perception. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/perception
Reading Rockets. (n.d.). What is Comprehension? Retrieved from
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/what-comprehension
Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native—myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings,
61(4), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/0001253 0910973776
Stephens, M. (2014). Beyond news: The future of journalism. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Techopedia. (n.d.). Digital Format. Retrieved from
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/4460/digital-format
Techopedia. (n.d.). Print. Retrieved from
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/4794/print
Techopedia. (n.d.). Technology. Retrieved from
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27006/technology
64
Tveit, K., & Mangen, A. (2014). A joker in the class: Teenage readers’
attitudes and preferences to reading on different devices. Library &
Information Science Research, 36(3/4), 179–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2014.08.001
UNESCO. (n.d.). Education. Retrieved from
https://en.unesco.org/themes/education
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
65

Thesis-Chapters-1-5(FINAL)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis-Chapters-1-5(FINAL)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital vs Print: Scrutinizing Students’

The Faculty of the College of Teacher Education

QUIRINO STATE UNIVERSITY

of the Requirements for the Degree

BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

THE PROBLEMS AND ITS BACKGROUND

"Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body." This famous

quote by Joseph Addison encapsulates the essence of why reading

comprehension is vital in school across diverse domains. In academic

settings, proficient comprehension skills serve as the cornerstone for

learning, enabling students to engage deeply with course materials and

extract meaning from texts across disciplines. Whether analyzing scientific

articles, historical documents, or literary works, strong comprehension skills

empower students to synthesize information, draw connections, and form

well-informed opinions. Moreover, in subjects like mathematics, reading

comprehension is crucial for understanding word problems and interpreting

instructions, facilitating problem-solving and critical thinking abilities.

Beyond academic success, reading comprehension plays a pivotal role

in nurturing essential life skills. In an era inundated with information,

individuals must possess the ability to navigate and evaluate written

material effectively. Strong comprehension skills enable students to discern

between reliable sources and misinformation, fostering media literacy and

critical literacy. Furthermore, in the professional sphere, adept

comprehension skills are indispensable for tasks ranging from interpreting

business reports to understanding legal documents. By honing reading

thrive academically, professionally, and personally, ensuring they can

navigate the complexities of the modern world with confidence and

The nature of literacy is rapidly changing as new technologies enter

ability to read and acquire information from graphic representations (i.e.,

photovisual literacy; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004) and the ability to navigate in the

nonlinear medium of digital space successfully (i.e., branching literacy;

learning. Concomitantly, such digital texts may place unique demands on

In today’s networked world, students have grown up surrounded by

world (“Singapore the Most Connected,” 2016). An oft-heard rhetoric is that

been overstated and exaggerated (Selwyn, 2009), and more nuanced

understandings of how young people relate to technology depending on age,

culture, and socioeconomic status are required.

As technology continues to expand our definitions of what constitutes

reading and literacy, interest in reading digital texts has skyrocketed,

Bosman, 2011). Few investigations, though, have measured the effectiveness

of integrating technology on reading comprehension. Theoretical frameworks

of reading comprehension have not progressed as rapidly as technological

and as a result, the usefulness of digital reading environments to advance

student reading comprehension remains in question.

Schools adopt computer-based reading programs to supplement their

reading curriculums. These multimodal digital environments are

programmed to allow students opportunities to refine their reading skills; yet

limited research efforts have been aimed at investigating their viability to

improve student reading comprehension proficiencies and fulfill federal

efforts to reduce the achievement gap between majority and minority

factions (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Students use the Internet

and other technologies to seek, learn, and transmit information as part of

Zickuhr, 2010). Best practices of reading instruction must extend beyond

print and into digital reading environments if students are to flourish in

second decade of the 21st century.

Digital reading environments provide multimodal learning experiences

Their application was explored in this study within a university-affiliated

reading clinic, where substantial breakthroughs in reading research and

tested the effectiveness of using a digital reading environment to develop

struggling elementary students’ reading comprehension skills. The primary

environment had on struggling fourth-grade students’ reading

Although this may come as a surprise to Proulx (1994), it would

for news, recreational reading, or information sharing via Facebook, blogs, or

tweets (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001). Humans live in a society that is