Literature review

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 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.
Digital reading material
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 refer to the
conventional reading materials that are provided for the readers using print paper
such as print text books, newspapers, books, etc.
Research Studies

Previous research on reading materials

Spencer (2006) carried out a study on the preferences of university students for their
reading on-line course-related materials. Her 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. Another research on
university students was done by Liu (2006) in order to investigate their perception,
preferences and use of print or electronic resources. He concluded that digital libraries
and traditional libraries have their unique advantages and limitations. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 RockinsonSzapkiw 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 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.
References:

Chen, G., et al. (2014). A comparison of reading comprehension across paper, computer screens, and
tablets: does tablet familiarity matter? Journal of Computers in Education, 1, 213–225.

Spencer, C. (2006). ‘Research on learners’ preferences for reading from a printed text or from a
computer screen’. Journal of Distance Education, 21, 33–50.

Dundar, H. & Akcayir, M. (2012). Tablet vs. paper: the effect on learners’ reading performance.
International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 441– 450

Liu, Z. (2006). Print vs. electronic resources: A study of user perceptions, preferences, and use.
Information Processing & Management, 42(2), 583- 592.

Mizrachi, D. (2015). Undergraduates’ academic reading format preferences and behaviors. The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 41, 301–311.
Shrimplin, A. K. , Revelle ,A., Hurst, S. & Messner ,K. (2011). Contradictions and Consensus—Clusters of
Opinions on Ebooks. College and Research Libraries , 72(2), 181-190. Retrieved August 24, 2019, from
http://crl.acrl.org/ content/72/2/181.

Stoop, J., Kreutzer, P., & Kircz, J. (2013 b). Reading and learning from screen versus print: A study in
changing habits; Part 1. New Library World, 114, 284–300. . doi:10.1108/NLW-01-2013- 0012