The effect of the shift to screen-based reading versus print-based reading on comprehension has been raised as a concern. This quasi-experimental study investigated the effect of reading modality on the reading- comprehension performance of 111 intermediate students of Iranian university studying English as a foreign language (EFL). Group homogeneity was achieved by administering the TOEFL junior placement test; the participants were randomly chosen and placed in an instructional condition of screen-based (n = 57) or print-based (n = 54). The two groups were read the same texts and provided with the same comprehension tests in over ten instructional sessions. As shown by independent sample t-test, there was no statistically significant difference between the two modalities, t(109) = 1.97, p =.051, though the print-based group had a slightly higher mean score (M = 58.90, SD = 16.63) as compared to the screen-based group (M = 52.85, SD = 15.65). A small-to-medium effect size (Cohen, d =.37) implied a slight practical benefit of print reading. Conversely, the screen-based group said that they had more positive attitudes towards digital reading. The gap between attitudes and performance reflects that a higher level of interest in using the digital platform is not always accompanied by a better understanding. On the whole, this results in the fact that modality of reading does not have a decisive impact on EFL reading comprehension. The combination of digital resources and print-based resources with explicit teaching of metacognitive reading strategies is thus advisable.
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086
Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
Adeli Jam, Z., Ansarin, A. A., Farrokhi, F., & Mahboudi, H. R. (2017). Attitudes towards smartphones and tablets: Implications for mobile-assisted language learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(4), 138–146. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.4p.138
Al‑Seghayer, K. (2024). Digital reading vs. print reading: A comprehensive review of comparative studies. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 19(1), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v19i01.45871
Ansarin, A. A., Zohrabi, M., & Zeynali, S. (2012). Language learning strategies and vocabulary size of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(9), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.9.1841-1848
Aryadoust, V., Mehran, P., & Alizadeh, M. (2016). Validating a computer-assisted language learning attitude instrument used in Iranian EFL context: An evidence-based approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 561–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.968111
Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269
Clinton, V., Taylor, T., Bajpayee, S., Davison, M. L., Carlson, S. E., & Seipel, B. (2020). Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 33(9), 2223–2248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10044-2
Clinton, V., & van den Broek, P. (2012). Interest, inferences, and learning from texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.004
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
Freihat, S. (2024). Reading comprehension in digital versus print formats: An empirical study among EFL learners. Reading Psychology, 45(2), 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2023.2287654
Fujii, Y., Murakami, M., Nakashima, A., & Nagai, M. (2023). Effects of scrolling on digital reading: A cognitive load perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(2), 401–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221109936
Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children's reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483–517. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998074
Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 371–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01081.x
Huang, S. (2022). Effects of digital versus print reading on comprehension: An empirical synthesis. Computers & Education, 180, Article 104437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104437
Kasper, L. F. (2022). The impact of digital reading environments on L2 comprehension performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(3), 589–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1774611
Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018). Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005
Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2020). Effects of screen reading on comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1775–1799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09786-5
Lakens, D. (2021). The practical alternative to the p-value is the correctly used p-value. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(3), 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620958012
Mahboudi, H. R., & Javdani, F. (2010). An anthology of colloquial readings. Zand Institute of Higher Education.
Mahboudi, H. R., Farrokhi, F., & Ansarin, A. A. (2017). A review on application of computers in education inside and outside of Iran. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(4), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.4p.193
Mangen, A. (2010). Point and click: Theoretical and phenomenological reflections on the digitization of early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010.11.4.415
Mangen, A., & Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(2), 150–177. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J. (2021). Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics, 51(9), 1352–1375. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130802170387
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 45(3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295
Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017a). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794
Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017b). Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1007–1041. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317722961
Singer Trakhman, L. M., Alexander, P. A., & Berkowitz, L. E. (2019). Effects of processing time on comprehension and calibration in print and digital mediums. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1411877
Støle, H., Mangen, A., & Schwippert, K. (2020). Assessing children's reading comprehension on paper and screen: A mode-effect study. Computers & Education, 151, Article 103861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103861
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
Zhang, M., & Zhao, N. (2021). Digital reading and metacognitive strategies among EFL learners: A mixed-methods study. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(2), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.325
Mahboudi,H , Sadighi,S and Kazemi,Z . (2026). Screen Reading vs. Paper Reading: Effects on EFL Students' Reading Comprehension. Language, Identity and the Digital Realm, 2(2), 83-95. doi: 10.22034/lidr.2026.2080840.1032
MLA
Mahboudi,H , , Sadighi,S , and Kazemi,Z . "Screen Reading vs. Paper Reading: Effects on EFL Students' Reading Comprehension", Language, Identity and the Digital Realm, 2, 2, 2026, 83-95. doi: 10.22034/lidr.2026.2080840.1032
HARVARD
Mahboudi H, Sadighi S, Kazemi Z. (2026). 'Screen Reading vs. Paper Reading: Effects on EFL Students' Reading Comprehension', Language, Identity and the Digital Realm, 2(2), pp. 83-95. doi: 10.22034/lidr.2026.2080840.1032
CHICAGO
H Mahboudi, S Sadighi and Z Kazemi, "Screen Reading vs. Paper Reading: Effects on EFL Students' Reading Comprehension," Language, Identity and the Digital Realm, 2 2 (2026): 83-95, doi: 10.22034/lidr.2026.2080840.1032
VANCOUVER
Mahboudi H, Sadighi S, Kazemi Z. Screen Reading vs. Paper Reading: Effects on EFL Students' Reading Comprehension. LIDR. 2026;2(2):83-95. doi: 10.22034/lidr.2026.2080840.1032
