Tablet vs. paper: The effect on learners' reading performance

Main Article Content

Hakan Dündar Murat Akçayır


The purpose of this study is to compare primary school 5th-class students’ electronic text reading
performance, reading speed and reading comprehension with tablet PCs and printed books. This
study examined a sample of 20 students. The students were randomly divided into two groups, a
control group and a treatment group. The control group students read ordinary printed books, and
the students in the treatment group read the same text on an electronic tablet PC display. Both
qualitative and quantitative data collection tools were used for the study. Qualitative data were
collected on the reading speed and reading comprehension skills for both groups of students.
Statistically, there was no significant difference between the groups in reading speed or the level of
reading comprehension. Students’ opinions on tablet PCs and recommendations for future studies are
also discussed.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
DÜNDAR, Hakan; AKÇAYIR, Murat. Tablet vs. paper: The effect on learners' reading performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 3, p. 441-450, aug. 2017. ISSN 1307-9298. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 18 june 2019.


Akyol, H. (2003). Türkçe İlkokuma Yazma Öğretimi. Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
Apple (2012). IPad 2. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from.
Belmore, S. M. (1985). Reading computer-presented text. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 12-14.
Blanco, M. J. & Leirøs, L. I. (2000). Temporal variation in the luminance level of stimuli displayed on a
cathode-ray tube monitor: Effects on performance on a visual vigilance task. Ergonomics, 43, 239-
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL:
Carlson, S. (2002). Students complain about devices for reading e-book, Study Finds, The Chronicle of
Higher Education.
Deikelmann, N., (1989). The Nursing Curriculum: Lived Experiences of Students. Curriculum
Reconceptualising Nursing Education. National League for Nursing Press, New York.
Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical. Ergonomics,
35(10), 1297-1326.
Dockrell, S., Earle, D., & Galvin, R. (2010). Computer-related posture and discomfort in primary school
children: The effects of a school-based ergonomic intervention. Computers & Education, 55(1), 276-
Dyson, M. C., & Haselgrove, M. (2000). The effects of reading speed and reading patterns on the
understanding of text read from screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 210-223.
Dyson, M. C., & Haselgrove, M. (2001). The influence of reading speed and line length on the
effectiveness of reading from screen. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 54, 585-612.
Erden, G., Kurdoğlu, F., & Uslu, R. (2002). İlköğretim okullarına devam eden türk çocuklarının sınıf
düzeylerine göre okuma hızı ve yazım hataları normlarının gelistirilmesi. Türk Psikiyatri
Dergisi, 13(1), 5-13.
Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2004). CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning? Behaviour &
Information Technology, 23(1), 43-52.
Gören, N., Yener, Z., İldeniz, A., Aksal, H.S., & Sarıöz, N. (2007). Türkçe 5 Ders Kitabı. İstanbul: Milsan Basın
San A.S.
Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Finn, R., Haupt, B., Minuto, A., and Salaun, J. (1986). Why is reading slower from
CRT displays than from paper? In Proceedings of the Annual Human Factors Society Meeting,
Dayton, Ohio, October, 834-836.
Gould, J. D., Grischkowsky, N. (1984). Doing the same work with hard copy and with cathode ray tube
(CRT) computer terminals. Hum. Factors, 26, 323-337.
Hanson, C. (2008, November). E-books go to college. Quill & Quire, 75, 9, p. 25.
Hezroni, O. E. (2004). Literacy and assistive technology for children with special needs. Script, 7-8, 195-
218, (Hebrew).
Kammer, T., Lehr, L., & Kirschfeld, K. (1999). Cortical visual processing is temporally dispersed by
luminance in human subjects. Neuroscience Letters, 263, 133-136.
Kropman, M., Schoch, H. P., & Yeoh, H. Y. (2004). An experience in e-learning: Using an electronic
textbook. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone:
Proceedings of the 21 st ASCILITE conference (pp. 512-515). Perth: Western Australia, 5-8 December.
Retrieved December 20, 2009 from.
Levine-Clark, M. (2006). Electronic book usage: A survey at the University of Denver. Libraries and the
Academy, 6(3), 285-299.
Littman, J. (2002). A preliminary comparison of electronic book and print book usage in Colorado.
Colorado Libraries, 28(3), 39-41.
Mayes, D. K., Sims, V. K., & Koonce, J. M. (2001). Comprehension and workload differences VDT and
paperbased reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(6), 367-378.
McGrail, E. (2007). Laptop technology and pedagogy in the English Language arts classroom. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 59-85.
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2010). Akıllı tahta toplantısı. Retrieved September 22, 2010 from.
Mills, C. B., & Weldon, L. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(4),
Muter, P., & Maurutto, P. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: The
paperless office revisited? Behaviour & Information Technology, 10, 257-266.
Muter, P., Latremouille, A., Treurniet, W. C., & Beam, P. (1982). Extended reading continuous text on
television screens. Hum. Factors 24, 501-508.
Nielson, J. (1997). Why web users scan instead of reading. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from.
Nishiyama, K. (1990). Ergonomic aspect of the health and safety of VDT work in Japan: a review.
Ergonomics, 33, 659-685.
Peek, R. (2005). The e-books redux. Information Today, 22(7), 17-18.
Reinking, D. (1997). Me and my hypertext: a multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy
(sic). The Reading Teacher, 50, 626-643.
Rho, Y. J., & Gedeon, T. D. (2000). Academic articles on the web: reading patterns and formats.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 219–240.
Rose, E. (2011). The phenomenology of on-screen reading: University students’ lived experience of
digitized text. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 515-526.
Shamir, A., & Shlafer, I. (2011). E-books effectiveness in prompting phonological awareness and
concept about print: A comparison between children at risk for learning disabilities and typically
developing kindergarteners. Computers & Education, 57, 1989-1997.
Shepperd, J. A., Grace, J. L., & Koch, E. J. (2008). Evaluating the electronic textbook: is it time to
dispense with the paper text? Teaching of Psychology, 35, 2-5.
Slater, R. (2009). E-books or print books, ‘Big deals’ or local selections: What gets more use? Library
Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 33(1), 31-41.
Snyder, I. (2002). Silicon literacies: Communication, innovation and education in the electronic age.
London: Routledge.
Spencer, C. (2006). Research on learners’ preferences for reading from a printed text or from a
computer screen. Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 33-50.
Turbil, J. (2001). A researcher goes to school: Using technology in the kindergarten literacy curriculum.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1, 255-279.
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Executive control in reading comprehension. In B. K. Brinon & S.
M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 1-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Woo, H. (2005). The 2004 user survey at the University of Hong Kong libraries. College and Research
Libraries, 66(2), 115-135.
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks.
Computers & Education, 55, 945-948.
Wu, H. C., Lee, C. L., & Lin, C. T. (2007). Ergonomic evaluation of three popular Chinese e-book displays
for prolonged reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37, 761-770.
Young, B. J. (2000). Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 33, 204-216.