Why Does Adolescent Preference Matter?
2.1.2. Search Strategy
3. Results and Discussion
|Reference||Participants||Description of Study||Key Attitudinal Findings|
|Dierking, 2015 ||52 high school students aged 15–17 years from the US Midwest region. 50 of these students were self-classified as reluctant readers, with 3 students having special educational needs.||Concerned with Sustained Silent reading occurring in school. Data sources were qualitative, comprising of “introductory and concluding interviews, several brief assignments, and the teacher’s observation journal” . |
No control group. All students read for 50 min per week using a Nook device over two years, from October to May, apart from the final quarter of the year where this reading did not occur. Students were also allowed to use the Nook during class when work was finished across content areas.
|While “most” participants “liked reading more on the Nooks”, others “admitted their overall attitude toward reading in general remained unchanged” .|
|Dundar & Akcayir, 2012 ||20 5th grade students aged 11–12 year from Turkey. 10 students in the treatment group, 10 in the control group.||Both groups read 3 books from the 5th grade Turkish course. Normal printed texts were used by the control group, and tablet PCs were used by the treatment group. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. Quantitative data investigated the effects of tablet PCs for reading. Qualitative scales investigated students’ behaviours with tablet PCs and the effects of tablet PCs on the reading process. The research aimed to determine if the tablet PC affected academic performance and behaviour.||The treatment group students felt that reading texts on the tablet PC “was entertaining when compared to reading from books”  30% wanted to read all of their books on the tablet PC.|
|Jeong, 2010 ||56 Korean sixth-year public school students. 29 male, and 27 female, aged 10–12 years.||Students participated in a survey measuring perceived satisfaction and usefulness of eBooks as well a future behavioral intent, including preference indicators.||While students were relatively satisfied with eBooks, paper books were preferred to eBooks. The study found that “only 7.98% of the students agreed with the statement ‘if given a choice between an electronic or print version of a particular book, I would choose the electronic version, whereas around 50% disagreed with this statement” .|
|Tveit & Mangen, 2014 ||143 students aged 15 from Norway, with 71 boys and 72 girls. Schools are from diverse contexts but all are in or close to Oslo.||A multiple choice questionnaire collecting demographic information, questions about students’ “views and experiences concerning their fresh reading from paper book and e-book” and open field items designed to capture qualitative responses about what students’ “considered best and worst concerning their reading experience both in print and in digital form” .||Only 13% of respondents felt that there was no difference between modes. “Devoted readers” (students who read more than 5 books per month) were more likely to prefer reading paper books (5 out of 7). In the remainder of respondents, eBooks were preferred, with 56% of students reading 1–3 books per month preferring eReaders and 83% of students “who do not read in their leisure time” preferring eReaders .|
- Include a quantitative component or be entirely quantitative in nature.
- Avoid subjectivity and anticipating results in design and reporting.
- Draw responses from a robust and ideally representative sample size.
- Distinguish between reading for pleasure and reading for information.
- Utilize a sample recruitment process that avoids bias toward a positive finding in either direction, and acknowledges any limitations encountered when enacting the recruitment mechanism.
- Be multi-contextual, ideally drawing findings from multiple nations.
- Clearly outline the features of the device model selected, so that the impact of device on preference, when it relates to advantages and disadvantages of device features, can be better understood by subsequent researchers.
Conflicts of Interest
- Sieche, S.; Krey, B.; Bastiaens, T. Investigating students’ usage and acceptance of electronic books. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermed. 2013, 22, 465–487. [Google Scholar]
- MacFadyen, H. The reader’s devices: The affordances of ebook readers. Dalhous. J. Interdiscip. Manag. 2011, 7, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanner, M.J. Digital vs. Print: Reading Comprehension and the Future of the Book. SLIS Stud. Res. J. 2014, 4, 6. [Google Scholar]
- Rainie, L.; Zickuhr, K.; Purcell, K.; Madden, K.; Brenner, J. The Rise of e-Reading; Pew Research Centre: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Camardese, A.; Peled, Y.; Kirkpatrick, M.; Teacher, S.G. Using E-Readers to Improve Reading for Students with Mild Disabilities. J. Am. Acad. Special Educ. Prof. 2012, Spring-Summer, 7–24. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, J.; Chang, C. User attitudes toward dedicated e-book readers for reading. Online Inf. Rev. 2011, 35, 558–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merga, M.K. Are teenagers really keen digital readers?: Adolescent engagement in ebook reading and the relevance of paper books today. Engl. Aust. 2014, 49, 27–37. [Google Scholar]
- Slater, R. Why aren’t e-books gaining more ground in academic libraries? E-book use and perceptions: A review of published literature and research. J. Web Librariansh. 2010, 4, 305–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schugar, J.T.; Schugar, H.; Penny, C. A nook or a book: Comparing college students’ reading comprehension level, critical reading, and study skills. Int. J. Technol. Teach. Learn. 2011, 7, 174–192. [Google Scholar]
- Allender, B. Weighing the Environmental Costs: Buy an eReader, or a Shelf of Books? 2012. Available online: https://theconversation.com/weighing-the-environmental-costs-buy-an-ereader-or-a-shelf-of-books-8331 (accessed on 5 May 2015).
- Chang, A.M.; Aeschbach, D.; Duffy, J.F.; Czeisler, C.A. Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 1232–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Halpern, S. The iPad revolution; The New York Review of Books: New York, NY, USA, 2011. 10. Available online: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/ipad-revolution/ (accessed on 9 November 2015).
- Thomson, S.; de Bortoli, L. Preparing Australian Students for the Digital World: Results from the PISA 2009 Digital Reading Literacy Assessment; Australian Council for Educational Research: Camberwell, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Frailon, J.; Schulz, W.; Ainley, J. The International Computer and Information Literacy Study Assessment Framework; IEA: Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 1. Horizon 2001, 9, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, S.; Maton, K.; Kervin, L. The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2008, 39, 775–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenhart, A.; Duggan, M.; Perrin, A.; Stepler, R.; Rainie, L.; Parker, K. Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015; Pew Research Centre: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hargittai, E. Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation”. Sociol. Inq. 2010, 80, 92–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merga, M.K. Are Western Australian adolescents keen book readers? Aust. J. Lang. Lit. 2014, 37, 161–170. [Google Scholar]
- Kelley, M.J.; Decker, E.O. The current state of motivation to read among middle school students. Read. Psychol. 2009, 30, 466–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Education at a Glance; OECD: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Berns, G.S.; Blaine, K.; Prietula, M.J.; Pye, B.E. Short-and long-term effects of a novel on connectivity in the brain. Brain Connect. 2013, 3, 590–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mol, S.E.; Bus, A.G. To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 137, 267–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stanovich, K.E. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Read. Res. Q. 1986, 21, 360–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermuri, P.; Mormino, E.C. Cognitively stimulating activities to keep dementia at bay. Neurology 2013, 81, 308–309. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, R.S.; Boyle, P.A.; Yu, L.; Barnes, L.L.; Schneider, J.A.; Bennett, D.A. Life-span cognitive activity, neuropathologic burden, and cognitive aging. Neurology 2013, 81, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kidd, D.C.; Castano, E. Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science 2013, 342, 377–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mar, R.A.; Oatley, K. The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 3, 173–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mar, R.A.; Oatley, K.; Peterson, J.B. Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. Communications 2009, 34, 407–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, J.; Chan-Olmsted, S.; Park, B.; Kim, Y. Factors affecting e-book reader awareness, interest, and intention to use. New Media Soc. 2011, 14, 204–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rainie, L.; Duggan, M. eBook Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading Declines; Pew Research Centre: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Revelle, A.; Messner, K.; Shrimplin, A.; Hurst, S. Book Lovers, Technophiles, Pragmatists, and Printers: The social and demographic structure of user attitudes toward e-books. Coll. Res. Libr. 2012, 73, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merga, M.K. Access to Books in the Home and Adolescent Engagement in Recreational Book Reading: Considerations for Secondary School Educators. English in Education. 2015. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eie.12071/abstract (accessed on 29 July 2015).
- Scholastic Inc. Kids and Family Reading Report, 5th ed.; Scholastic Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, K.S.; Kunz, R.; Kleijnen, J.; Antes, G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2003, 96, 118–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organisation (WHO). Adolescent Development. Available online: http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/adolescence/dev/en/ (accessed on 6 June 2015).
- Dierking, R. Using Nooks to hook reluctant readers. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 2015, 58, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dundar, H.; Akcayir, M. Tablet vs. paper: The effect on learners’ reading performance. Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ. 2012, 4, 441–450. [Google Scholar]
- Jeong, H. A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. Electron. Libr. 2010, 30, 390–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tveit, A.K.; Mangen, A. A joker in the class: Teenage readers’ attitudes and preferences to reading on different devices. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 2014, 36, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoop, J.; Kreutzer, P.; Kircz, J. Reading and learning from screens versus print: A study in changing habits: Part 1-reading long information rich texts. New Libr. World 2013, 114, 284–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staiger, J. How e-books are used. Ref. User Serv. Q. 2012, 51, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, L.C. Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading and response. Read. Teach. 2010, 64, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, J.V., Jr.; Mahmood, K. eBook readers: User satisfaction and usability issues. Libr. Hi Tech 2011, 30, 170–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).