en quoi est-ce différent ?

/lire-sur-papier-lire-sur-ecran-en-quoi-

  • Lire sur papier, lire sur écran : en quoi est-ce différent ?
    https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/lire-sur-papier-lire-sur-ecran-en-quoi-est-ce-different-811656.html

    IDEE. Selon le support de lecture, le niveau de compréhension et la mémorisation des textes varient, montrent des études récentes. Par Frédéric Bernard, Université de Strasbourg
    Les écrans de téléphones mobiles, de tablettes et d’ordinateurs envahissent notre quotidien, et voilà dictionnaires, fiches de cours ou même classiques de la littérature à portée de clic. Faut-il inciter les élèves à profiter à 100% de ces facilités d’accès inédites au savoir, et renvoyer le papier au passé ? Rien n’est moins sûr si l’on se penche sur les derniers résultats de la recherche.

    Depuis le début de ce siècle, plusieurs dizaines d’études ont été menées pour évaluer les effets du support de lecture sur les performances de compréhension de textes qui pouvaient être soit documentaires - manuels scolaires, ouvrages universitaires - soit narratifs - fictions, romans...

    Les résultats de ces études ont été repris dans deux méta-analyses publiées en 2018 ; celle de Kong, Seo et Zhai, portant sur 17 études, publiée dans le journal Computers & Education, et celle de Delgado et de ses collègues, portant sur 54 études effectuées auprès d’un total d’environ 170 000 lecteurs, et publiée dans Educational Research Review. Il en ressort que la compréhension de textes est significativement meilleure lorsque la lecture s’effectue sur papier que sur écran.

    (reprise d’un article de The Conversation : https://theconversation.com/lire-sur-papier-lire-sur-ecran-en-quoi-est-ce-different-112493 )

    • Les méta-analyses citées :

      Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis - ScienceDirect
      (article payant)
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131518301052

      Highlights
      • Reading on paper is better than reading on screen in terms of reading comprehension.
      • Reading on paper is not significantly different from reading on screen in terms of reading speed.
      • The magnitude of the difference in reading comprehension between media types followed a diminishing trajectory.

      Abstract
      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.

      et

      Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension - ScienceDirect
      (article payant)
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X18300101

      Highlights
      • Paper-based reading yields better comprehension outcomes than digital-based reading.
      • Reading time frame and text genre moderate the medium effect on comprehension.
      • The advantage of paper-based comprehension has increased over the years since 2000.

      Abstract
      With the increasing dominance of digital reading over paper reading, gaining understanding of the effects of the medium on reading comprehension has become critical. However, results from research comparing learning outcomes across printed and digital media are mixed, making conclusions difficult to reach. In the current meta-analysis, we examined research in recent years (2000–2017), comparing the reading of comparable texts on paper and on digital devices. We included studies with between-participants (n = 38) and within-participants designs (n = 16) involving 171,055 participants. Both designs yielded the same advantage of paper over digital reading (Hedge’s g = −0.21; dc = −0.21). Analyses revealed three significant moderators: (1) time frame: the paper-based reading advantage increased in time-constrained reading compared to self-paced reading; (2) text genre: the paper-based reading advantage was consistent across studies using informational texts, or a mix of informational and narrative texts, but not on those using only narrative texts; (3) publication year: the advantage of paper-based reading increased over the years. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.