Do Students Learn Better from Print or Digital Media? - Kara Kennedy

    The COVID-19 pandemic has created a tumultuous last few years for teachers, forcing schools into online learning, where few educators had experience. The result was students, teachers, and administrators learning together. Teachers strived to modify education to fit a virtual environment and brought new lesson designs. Instead of passing out articles or texts on paper in an English class, the texts became digital, or in a Science class, labs became virtual. Teachers came up with new ways of giving information such as flipping their classroom or doing online games to help engage students. Navigating back to hybrid and fully in person learning many teachers now face the question what do we do with all these new lessons?

    Students engage in different forms of online learning, and that requires reading multimodal texts and using different literacies to read, write, listen, and speak (New London Group, 1996). Transitioning back to face to face learning has shown a drop in academic literacies as measured by standardized tests, making stakeholders concerned about students’ literacy skills. For teachers to maximize the impact of instruction on literacy, when is digital best and when is print best in the classroom? For example, if a teacher is attempting to have students synthesize texts for analysis, should the texts be print or digital? What if a teacher wants students to take notes on a text for use later: should students take notes digitally or on paper?

Writing & Taking Notes

    There is no clear answer for any of these questions, but there are conditions that seem to favor one over the other and inform classroom practices. Notetaking and writing has been studied in several conditions. For example, Aragon-Mendisabal and colleagues (2016) gave undergraduate students three tasks: write the ABCs as many times as you can, write as many sentences as you can, and copy 35 words. Students used either paper or their own laptops. The students who took notes on the computer were faster and better at writing sentences, but those who used paper were better at remembering the words. It would seem that if teachers want students to use full sentences, such as composing writing, then digital would be better. However, if memory recall is the goal then paper would be best.

    Notetaking isn’t always in a distraction-free environment. Lin & Bigenho (2011) looked at how well undergraduate students would remember words if there were no distractions, auditory distractions (other words playing), or auditory and visual distractions (other words playing and videos playing). If there were no distractions, paper was better than computer notes. However, when there were both auditory and visual distractions, no notes produced the best memory recall, and students reported feeling overwhelmed. The implication is that distractions matter when trying to learn something, and even taking notes can’t overcome any and all distractions. Most recently, Flanagan and colleagues (2022) measured the completeness of taking notes on the computer vs. on paper and found that when undergraduates took notes on paper they had three times more complete ideas compared to taking notes on the computer, and students included more images, indicating that paper notes still have advantages.

    Although taking notes on the computer appears to be faster and help write complete sentences, there seem to be drawbacks to it as well. In memory recall tasks and completeness of ideas, paper and pencil usually comes out on top. If there are distractions, it doesn’t matter which method is used because memory suffers either way. Thus, if students need to write quickly or need to have complete sentences such as when composing argumentative writing, then computers are probably best. If students need to learn information, write down complete information, and remember it, then paper in a distraction free environment is probably best.

Reading for Comprehension

    When students are reading to learn, factors such as text type, text complexity, digital device, and background knowledge help assess whether digital or print is superior. Reading narrative texts, or texts that tell a story, digitally doesn't have any negative effects on comprehension when compared to print reading according to Schwabe and colleagues (2022) review of thirty-two studies and over 2000 participants total. Further, the device used (computer, laptop, or ereader) to read digitally doesn’t matter when reading narrative texts if the desired outcome is comprehension. However, any kind of digital multimedia features such as images, animations, or dictionaries on the side panels do improve comprehension when present. In the classroom, it shouldn’t make a difference whether narrative texts are presented digitally or in print because comprehension likely won’t suffer, so it makes sense to offer both and let students choose their preference as long as there aren’t other issues like convenience or executive functioning.

    Studies of expository texts are varied in their results. Sage et al (2019) found that comprehension didn’t differ across laptops, print, or tablets when the expository text covered a vaguely familiar topic and comprehension was measured by shallow multiple choice questions. A year later though, Sage et al (2020) reported that students reading on ereaders had significantly lower comprehension. Student familiarity with devices could differ between the studies and both of these studies used shallow multiple choice questions to assess comprehension and didn’t test deeper levels of comprehension. Examining print texts have been shown to be better for deeper comprehension such as making inferences (Park & Lee, 2021). If students are reading a text to get a basic understanding, then it probably doesn’t matter whether it’s digital or print. However, if students need to make inferences, judgements, and evaluations of a text on a deeper level, then print is probably best.

    Could students interacting with text, such as highlighting, improve a student’s comprehension on digital devices? When students were asked to read and highlight a text, only their comprehension on printed texts went up, not digital. When they didn’t highlight the text, digital comprehension decreased. Thus, highlighting doesn't help comprehend digital text but it does help with print. So, it’s possible that students use different strategies to comprehend digital texts as suggested by Leu et al (2019). It’s important to remember background knowledge will have more impact than whether the text is read digitally or in print because poor readers with more background knowledge will comprehend better than good readers without background knowledge (Recht & Leslie, 1988). Thus, there are other factors that influence comprehension outside of the reading medium.

Conclusion

    Looking across contexts, there isn’t a clear winner of either digital or print. It depends on the situation. In most cases, print is better or doesn’t hurt learning. However, in many cases digital learning is about the same as print. Students should be allowed to pick digital or print based on their preference in order to maximize learning (Sage et al, 2019). Further, if students have other needs such as struggling with executive functioning, digital may be advantageous because it’s harder to lose the information. Digital may also create advantages for special populations such as English Learners because words can be defined within a text instead of having to stop and look elsewhere. For students with disabilities, digital allows for easier manipulation of texts such as enlarged fonts for students with dyslexia and visual impairments. Many of the studies mentioned here used undergraduate students at four year colleges and universities. Consequently, there aren’t many participants who are struggling readers, and these findings may be different in that population. Whether print or digital, it is important for educators to keep their end goal in mind.

About the author: Kara Kennedy is a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction specializing in Literacy Education and a CISLL affiliate.

References

Aragon-Mendisabal, E., Delgado-Casas, C., Navarro-Guzman, J., Menacho-Jimenez, I., & Romero-Oliva, M. (2016). A comparative study of handwriting and computer typing in note-taking by university students. Comunicar, 24(48), 101-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-10

Flanigan, A.E., Kiewra, K.A., Lu, J., & Dzhuraev, D. (2022). Computer versus longhand notetaking: Influence of revision. Instructional Science, 51, 251-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09605-5

Leu, D., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. (2019). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Literacy (7th ed., pp. 319-346). Routledge.

Lin, L. & Bigenho, C. (2011). Notetaking and memory in different media environments. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 200-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2011.594989

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u

Park, J. & Lee, J. (2021). Effects of e-books and printed books on EFL learners’ reading comprehension and grammatical knowledge. English Teaching, 76(3), 35-61. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.76.3.202109.35

Recht, D.R. & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16-20. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16

Sage, K., Augustine, H., Shand, H., Bakner, K., & Rayne, S. (2019). Reading from print, computer, and tablet: Equivalent learning in the digital age. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2477-2502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09887-2

Sage, K., Piazzini, M., Charles Downey IV, J., & Masilela, L. (2020). Reading from print, laptop computer, and e-reader: Differences and similarities for college students’ learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(4), 441-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1713264

Schwabe, A., Lind, F., Kosch, L., & Boomgaarden, H.G. (2022). No negative effects of reading on a screen on comprehension of narrative texts compared to print: A metaanalysis. Media Psychology, 25(6), 779-796. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2022.2070216

Book Review: The Distracted Mind - Nicole Scheuermann

Adam Gazzaley and Larry D. Rosen. The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High-Tech World. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2017. 304 pages. $23.95 (audiobook), ISBN 978-0-26253-443-7.

In The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High-Tech World, authors Adam Gazzaley and Larry D. Rosen elucidate the effects of intrusion and distraction, primarily via modern technology, on the human brain. The authors posit that the humans are information-seeking animals with brains optimized to forage for novel information, and that the rapid advancement of modern technology has outpaced our ability to regulate our own information-seeking behavior, leading to reduced performance and distress. Gazzaley and Rosen support their claims by drawing on evidence from biological and psychological research, including some studies from their own research labs. Essentially, they claim, the survival of our ancestors depended not only on the ability to respond to external stimuli in a “bottom-up” way (i.e., moving towards food; reacting quickly and appropriately to life-threatening events), but the true success of our species is due to the evolution of the prefrontal cortex and “top-down” processes: setting goals; taking in information but also processing and synthesizing it; selectively focusing on goal-relevant information; and disregarding information irrelevant to goals. Modern technology (e.g., the internet, social media, and smartphones) has developed at such a rapid pace that humans have not had the opportunity to gradually co-evolve our cognitive control with it; although it contributes to life dissatisfaction, harms our health, and decreases our productivity, we seem unable to stop ourselves from giving in to the temptation of technological distraction. True to the title, the authors clearly lay out that we are, indeed, ancient brains living in a high-tech world.

The Distracted Mind contributes to our understanding of our own brain’s evolution, and the role modern technology plays in how we function. It reveals the obvious and subtle ways distractions (both technological and otherwise) initiate different processes in our brain, which influence how we respond to stimuli and where we direct our attention. Not all interruptions are created equal; technological distractions (i.e., email, cell phone alerts, digital notifications) are both highly rewarding and highly detrimental to our productivity. The authors’ research sources are primarily peer-reviewed studies from the fields of biology and psychology (although no bibliography was included in the audiobook), and they have certainly covered a broad range of literature that is highly relevant, if slightly dated (although the book itself was published in 2017, so this is to be expected). While the book does not seem to be groundbreaking in terms of novel research findings, it hooks the reader by synthesizing the many existing studies in cognitive control and the intersection of health and technology, producing a coherent narrative with evidence-based theories and recommendations. Indeed, in the prologue, the book claims to be the “first of its kind” (pp. xiii) to explore the challenges of the highly distracting, highly demanding, but also highly rewarding modern technological landscape. It’s difficult to verify the veracity of the “first of its kind” sort of claims, but Gazzaley and Rosen certainly do a thorough literature review on the detrimental effects of technology.

Gazzaley and Rosen do not simply decry technology, nor do they advocate that we attempt to return to the ways of life that existed before the internet. In fact, they state, we are largely incapable of doing so; for better or for worse, technology has changed the way we interact with one another, and the way our brains interact with the world around us. While most of the research studies presented in the book highlight the negative effects of social media, smartphone use, and multitasking or task-switching, it’s hard to fault the authors on this: the evidence seems to overwhelmingly show that these things have negative influences on the human brain and thus behavior. The authors do, however, include some positive findings. There is some evidence that so-called “brain games” and video game use can improve cognitive control (i.e., goal-setting, attentional focus, working memory) in children and adults, but are particularly beneficial for elderly adults. For depressed individuals, social media can provide a sense of

social connection and thus improve some symptoms. Overall, the reader gets the sense that while the authors may not be decrying modern technology itself, they are certainly decrying the self-destructive ways in which we use it. To this effect, the authors end the book with a substantial list of recommendations to regain cognitive control. The authors discuss strategies to reduce limiting influences on cognitive control, but this is primarily an area of ongoing research; rather, the bulk of their recommendations rely on behavior modification that will effectively reduce the opportunity for technological distractions to intrude on times of productivity or social connection.

The book seems to be written for someone with an academic background. Those with at least a foundational background in scientific knowledge, primarily biology or psychology, may still find the book palatable. A layperson with little to no real scientific understanding would likely struggle to stay engaged with The Distracted Mind, as it delves into brain anatomy and physiology and study designs in a way that seems to assume the reader has at least passing knowledge of brain structure/function, and how scientific research is conducted. This does make for some occasionally dry reading (or listening, in the case of the audiobook) as the authors (and thus the narrator) list the results of multiple related studies, leading to rather droll lists of statistics and percentages. Certain chapters felt more like academic review papers, which jarred with the popular press nature of the book itself: a bright cover (regardless of format) and quotes that declare it as must-read.

The Distracted Mind does exactly what it sets out to do: it describes the evolution of cognitive control in the human brain and lays out the effects the intersection of modern technology (i.e., the internet, social media, and smartphones) has on cognitive control processes. The evidence, and the literature, seem to support that modern technology is potentially harming our health, our productivity, and life satisfaction. The authors are kind enough to leave the reader with recommendations for regaining some sense of cognitive control. Readers without a scientific background find some explanations insufficient, although the authors try to lay out information for those without a science background as well. Readers with background in psychology or neurobiology will find it an easy read, if not necessarily enthralling throughout. Readers will walk away with an understanding of the effects of constant distraction, an inevitable result of the constant connectedness afforded by modern technology. Everyone stands to benefit from the authors’ recommendations for reducing technological interferences.

About the author: Nicole L. Scheuermann is a doctoral student in Biological Sciences and a CISLL affiliate.

Re-cap of March Show-and-Share Event - Lindsay Kojich

 Overview

The CISLL show and share event took place virtually and had over 30 attendees. Three dynamic speakers discussed their research as it relates to language and literacy. It was a fun and educational event which even included a raffle for a CISLL prize! Keep reading to find out more on each individual presentation.

Why those in the medical and allied health professions should read graphic novels

The first speaker, Dr. Knudson-Vilaseca PhD, is a speech language pathologist (SLP) student who presented about the utility of graphic novels in medical and allied health professions. Dr. Knudson-Vilaseca has a unique educational background which led her to find her passion at the intersection of health and humanities. Dr. Knudson-Vilaseca has a PhD in Spanish literature and Portuguese and after personal experiences with speech therapy, she decided to return to school to become an SLP. With her roots in the humanities, she researched ways to combine her interest areas and found resources to help individuals learn what it is like to live with a disease or disorder through fiction, movies, and more specifically, graphic novels.

In Dr. Knudson-Vilaseca’s show and share, she discussed the concept of narrative medicine, a term coined by Rita Charon, a pioneer in the medical humanities who paved the way for graphic medicine (Charon, 2001). Narrative medicine is described as a “fundamental tool to acquire, comprehend and integrate the different points of view of all the participants having a role in the illness experience” (Fioretti et al., 2016, p. 8). It shifts the focus away from the medical provider and places the emphasis on the story of the patient. Narrative medicine can give health care providers a deeper understanding of what the patient is experiencing, and while there is still much more research to be done, existing studies suggest that narrative medicine, particularly with art or visual images, can enhance diagnostic skills (Dolev et al., 2001; Naghshineh et al., 2008).

Dr. Knudson-Vilaseca’s talk specifically focused on the use of graphic novels. She explained that graphic novels have the advantages of incorporating both visual and narrative elements and have less time investment than a movie or novel. Additionally, graphic novels can be used in a variety of ways from helping students learn more about the patient’s perspective, to being used as a therapy tool. Dr. Knudson-Vilaseca referenced the website graphicmedicine.org, as a database of graphic novels she uses to find content written on a variety of topics. Some specific graphic novels mentioned in her talk included Aliceheimers and Tangles, graphic novels on dementia. Maria and Me, a graphic novel about a father and daughter with autism, and Us Two Together, a graphic novel about primary progressive aphasia. Dr. Knudson-Vilaseca ’s show and share was an eye-opening moment for attendees to learn about the important and growing field of narrative medicine and medical humanities.

Stakeholders’ Language Management and Ideologies

The second speaker at the show and share event was Dr. Mariana Alvayero Ricklefs PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at NIU. Dr. Alavayero Ricklefs presented her research “Politics at its finest”: language management and ideologies affecting the education of minoritized students”, published in the journal SN Social Sciences in 2022. Dr. Alavayero Ricklefs began by discussing the sociolinguistic model of language policy and the three main components in language policy analysis which include: practices, management, and ideologies. Dr. Alavayero Ricklefs focused specifically on language management and language ideologies of administrators and teachers in her study. Language management involves the use of policies, procedures, behaviors, and decisions to influence the use of language (Nekvapil & Sherman, 2015). Language ideology is the concept that our language is shaped by the society we live in and the people we surround ourselves by (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994). Language management and language ideologies can impact our interactions with others whether we are aware of it or not.

In the qualitative study, a group of Latinx emergent bilingual children were followed as they were moved between two K-5 public schools in the same school district. Both schools were predominately white, middle class, and the Latinx emergent bilingual children were bused into the schools. The stakeholders of the study were identified as female, white, and included teachers and superintendents. The language management and ideologies of the stakeholders were explored. Interviews, district reports, school board documents, and news articles were analyzed over a ten-year period (Alavayero Ricklefs, 2022).

Dr. Alavayero Ricklefs explained that during the study, the Latinx emergent bilingual students were removed from one school and sent to another school due to ‘overcrowding’. Dr. Alavayero Ricklefs found that two years later, at the new school, the teachers weren’t adequately trained to teach the Latinx emergent bilingual students. Furthermore, there were power struggles among the teachers, and the students were always excluded and perceived as “immigrants” who did not belong. The study ultimately found that there was a lot of injustice in place due to the stakeholders’ language management and language ideologies. Based on the findings of the study, Dr. Alavayero Ricklefs discussed recommendations for improving the problem. Dr. Alavayero Ricklefs shared that “ideologies are pervasive” and that advocacy is critical to help expose language ideologies. Additionally, minoritized parents and children need to be placed at the center of research and that there needs to be more teacher advocates to help support and educate other teachers in best practices for emergent bilingual students and education. Dr. Alavayero Ricklefs passion was evident in her show and share and the audience greatly enjoyed her talk.

Systematic differences in teacher perceptions of student social-emotional competencies

The third speaker was Dr. Kara Styck, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Northern Illinois University. Dr. Styck presented on her research about the use of direct behavior rating scales (with focus on disruptive behavior) and how teacher’s perceptions and rating effects can impact scoring. Direct behavior rating scales are commonly used to assess students in the classroom environment and scales can evaluate engagement, compliance, or disruptive behavior (Harrison et al., 2014). At the beginning of the talk, Dr. Styck showed the audience a video of “disruptive Dan”, a young boy who appears to have difficulty controlling his behavior in class. During the 2–3-minute clip, Dan is seen moving around, kicking his feet in his chair, getting up to talk to another classmate, hitting his head with his binder, and displaying some general disruption. The teacher in the video redirects Dan back to his chair to sit quietly, but ultimately Dan repeats the behavior throughout the clip.

After watching the video, Dr. Styck then had the audience rate Dan’s observed behaviors on the direct behavior rating scale (Volpe & Briesch, 2012). Behaviors that are considered disruptive on this scale include a student “calls out,” “noisy”, “clowns around,” “talks to classmates when inappropriate,” and “out of seat/area” (Volpe & Briesch, 2012, p. 249). After rating Dan on the single item scale, the audience then shared and explained the reasoning behind their evaluation score. The exercise revealed that audience members rated Dan’s behavior differently, even though everyone in the audience watched the same video clip of Dan’s behavior and used the same direct behavior rating scale.

Dr. Styck proposed some ideas for why the differences occurred. She explained that some audience members may have focused more on the frequency of Dan’s disruption, while other audience members may have concentrated on how severely Dan’s peers were impacted by his behavior. Dr. Styck identified that rater effects are a big consideration with behavior rating scales and that the schema of the rater is important to how students are scored. Dr. Styck explained that the most common rater effects that are seen on behavior rating scales include generosity error, halo/horns effects, and restriction of range effects. Generosity error occurs when a teacher is too generous in their rating of a student, causing scores to be inflated. The halo/horns effect occurs when one specific characteristic of an individual positively or negatively influences other ratings of behavior or performance. Restriction of range effects occurs when the sample is limited, restricting the possible range of scores. Dr. Styck continued emphasizing that the research in this area is important as socio-emotional behavioral ratings are the most common assessment instrument performed in the classroom and the rating is typically performed by the teacher.

The talk was concluded with Dr. Styck discussing the top five lessons learned from her research. She commented that the way raters use a scale is variable across raters and that raters significantly differ in their severity / leniency. Furthermore, raters’ levels of severity/leniency in scoring were not stable over time and were not stable across domains that were rated. Finally, training to help reduce rater effects may be one way to diminish the extreme differences in raters’ severity / leniency. Dr. Styck did a great job engaging the audience and displaying the impact of rater effects on behavioral rating scales in her show and share talk.

About the author: Lindsey Kojich is a doctoral student in Health Sciences and a CISLL affiliate.

References

Alvayero Ricklefs, M. (2022). “politics at its finest”: Language Management and Ideologies Affecting the Education of Minoritized Students. SN Social Sciences, 2(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00359-y

Charon, R. (2001). Narrative medicine. JAMA, 286(15), 1897. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.15.1897

Dolev, J. C. (2001). Use of fine art to enhance visual diagnostic skills. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(9), 1020–1021. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.9.1020

Fioretti, C., Mazzocco, K., Riva, S., Oliveri, S., Masiero, M., & Pravettoni, G. (2016). Research studies on patients' illness experience using the Narrative Medicine Approach: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011220

Harrison, S. E., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2014). Direct behavior rating. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573513515424

Naghshineh, S., Hafler, J. P., Miller, A. R., Blanco, M. A., Lipsitz, S. R., Dubroff, R. P., Khoshbin, S., & Katz, J. T. (2008). Formal art observation training improves medical students’ visual diagnostic skills. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(7), 991–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0667-0

Nekvapil, J., & Sherman, T. (2015). An introduction: Language management theory in language policy and planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2015(232), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2014-0039

Volpe, R. J., & Briesch, A. M. (2012). Generalizability and dependability of single-item and multiple-item direct behavior rating scales for engagement and disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(3), 246–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087506

Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415