Search

The scientific literature supports the hypothesis of a disadvantage in students' performances when learning tasks are conducted in the digital mode in comparison to the paper one. Some studies suggest the need of investigating the role of individual cognitive functioning in digital reading and writing with special attention to those cognitive processes, such as Executive Functions (EF), which are acknowledged to control and affect learning and school adaptation. The present study aimed to: 1) investigate the differences in performances between paper and digital modalities in text reading and text writing in primary grade students; 2) analyse whether EF predict performances in paper and digital modalities; 3) explore whether any differences between paper and digital text comprehension or writing can be differently explained by EF depending on the children's learning performances. 175 typically developing Grades 3–5 students performed text comprehension and text writing tasks on computer and on paper and were assessed with EF tasks tapping inhibitory control, working memory and cognitive flexibility. The results showed no performance differences between digital and paper tasks at the group level apart from a higher text length in the digital than paper mode. However, children with low performances at the comprehension and writing tasks benefited more from the digital than the paper mode, in comparison to high performers that showed the opposite pattern. Additionally, low performers scored worse than high performers in most of the EF tasks. Lastly, working memory explained the digital-paper difference in text comprehension among low comprehenders as well as cognitive flexibility explained the difference in level of narrative complexity and number of words among low writers. The results suggest the benefit of the digital mode for low readers and writers and highlight the role of the main components of EF in reading and writing in both paper and digital modes in primary school. • Poor primary readers and writers benefit more from the digital mode • Poor primary readers and writers show low Executive Functions • Executive Functions predict both digital and paper reading and writing • Executive Functions support the digital-paper differences [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This meta-analysis looked at 17 studies which focused on the comparison of reading on screen and reading on paper in terms of reading comprehension and reading speed. The robust variance estimation (RVE)- based meta-analysis models were employed, followed by four different RVE meta-regression models to examine the potential effects of some of the covariates (moderators) on the mean differences in comprehension and reading speed between reading on screen and reading on paper. The RVE meta-analysis showed that reading on paper was better than reading on screen in terms of reading comprehension, and there were no significant differences between reading on paper and reading on screen in terms of reading speed. None of the moderators were significant at the 0.05 level. In the meanwhile, albeit not significant, examination of the p-values for the difference tests prior to 2013 and after 2013 respectively (not shown here) indicated that the magnitude of the difference in reading comprehension between paper and screen followed a diminishing trajectory. It was suggested that future meta-analyses include latest studies, and other potential moderators such as fonts, spacing, age and gender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]