Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring
Primary school (grades 1–6) Paper vs screen Reading and writing Analog vs digital
Links to claims
Limits (1)
| Claim | Basis |
|---|---|
| C3 | Grade-1 within-subjects: no screen-inferiority main effect; tablet ≥ paper on some superficial descriptive measures. Narrows average paper advantage away from beginner readers. |
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.
Source note (Swedish, verbatim from the Kunskapsbank)
Syntes: Florit et al. (2025) — first-grade paper vs computer vs tablet
Källa: Florit, E., De Carli, P., Rodà, A., Cain, K., & Mason, L. (2025). Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring. Computers and Education Open, 8, 100243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100243
Metadata
- ID:
MEDIA-009 - Tier: RCT (within-subjects experiment)
- N / design: N=58 Italian first graders; each read narrative and descriptive short linear texts on paper, laptop, and tablet; main-point, literal, and inferential MC questions
- Population: grundskola-lag (beginner independent readers)
- Subject: medium effect on comprehension + role of comprehension monitoring
Finding
- No screen-inferiority main effect of medium on main-point, literal, or inferential comprehension (ps > .15).
- For descriptive texts, tablet > paper on main-point questions (p = .01, d = −0.57 favouring tablet) and on literal questions (p = .01, d = −0.59); tablet also beat computer on main-point.
- For narrative texts, paper beat computer on literal questions (p = .02, d = 0.51); other narrative medium contrasts ns.
- Inferential comprehension: narrative > descriptive independent of medium; no medium × genre interaction at the inferential level.
- Comprehension monitoring related to comprehension across media; relation not moderated by medium.
Mechanism
Authors argue shallowing / screen-inferiority accounts do not hold for beginner readers with short linear static texts; familiarity with handhelds and lower accumulated leisure-screen habits may matter.
Limits
Small single-school sample; short grade-1 texts (~100 words); individual quiet sessions; linear static digital texts (not hypertext); calibration-as-overconfidence not the metacognitive measure (inconsistency detection instead).
This claim dies if …
(For C3) Meta/RCT in the relevant older age band where screen ≥ paper for deep comprehension with equal time and the calibration gap disappears — Florit alone does not kill the university/older average.
Swedish implication
Do not export the adult paper-advantage average unchanged to year-1 classrooms; for short linear texts with beginners, medium is not the lever Delgado/Clinton describe for undergraduates.
Links
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100243
- Related: delgado-etal-2018-paper-vs-screen, clinton-2019-paper-vs-screens, salmeron-etal-2024-handheld-meta, furenes-kucirkova-bus-2021-children-paper-screen
Metadata as recorded
- ID
- MEDIA-009
- Tier
- RCT
- Closed-book follow-up
- n/a (comprehension assessed on same medium as reading; no GenAI)
- Titel
- Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring
- Författare
- Florit, E.; De Carli, P.; Rodà, A.; Cain, K.; Mason, L.
- År
- 2025 (online 16 Jan 2025)
- Källa/DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100243
- URL
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557325000023
- Typ
- within-subjects experiment (N=58 first graders; paper vs laptop vs tablet; narrative + descriptive)
- Åldersgrupp
- grundskola-lag (grade 1, Mage ≈ 6.8)
- Teman
- papper-vs-skarm; lasning-och-skrivande; analogt-vs-digitalt
- Sparade fil
- Florit-etal-2025-first-grade-paper-screen.pdf (OA CC BY-NC-ND)
- Hämtad
- 2026-09-27
- Paywall
- OA (Computers and Education Open)
Original files held in the project (not published): Florit-etal-2025-first-grade-paper-screen.pdf