Objective and perceived reading performance: an empirical study comparing reading media and methods

Despite the advancements in digital technologies, traditional reading approaches, such as reading on paper or employing oral reading, are often associated with high levels of reading performance (RP). This study aims to investigate potential differences in objective and perceived RP among 67 high-school students based on two factors: reading media (paper versus digital), and methods (silent versus oral). Objective RP captures performance outcomes such as reading comprehension, whereas perceived RP, reflects readers evaluation of reading experience including preference, convenience, and execrated comprehension. Our study shows that perceived RP is significantly higher when reading on paper compared to digital reading. In addition, perceived RP is higher during oral reading than silent reading. However, in terms of objective RP, non-significant difference was observed across reading media and methods. Taken together, these findings indicate that under controlled reading conditions, differences in reading strategies emerge primarily in readers’ subjective evaluations rather than in performance outcomes. These results underscore that evaluations of reading strategies cannot rely solely on performance metrics, highlighting the need to account for readers’ subjective assessments when interpreting reading outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Universal Access in the Information Society
Published
2026-03-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-026-01325-8
Primary Topic
Reading and Literacy Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Objective and perceived reading performance: an empirical study comparing reading media and methods

Gahgene Gweon, Kiyeal Seo, Jungwook Rhim
Universal Access in the Information Society
Reading and Literacy Development
article

Objective and perceived reading performance: an empirical study comparing reading media and methods

Gahgene Gweon, Kiyeal Seo, Jungwook Rhim
article en

Abstract

Despite the advancements in digital technologies, traditional reading approaches, such as reading on paper or employing oral reading, are often associated with high levels of reading performance (RP). This study aims to investigate potential differences in objective and perceived RP among 67 high-school students based on two factors: reading media (paper versus digital), and methods (silent versus oral). Objective RP captures performance outcomes such as reading comprehension, whereas perceived RP, reflects readers evaluation of reading experience including preference, convenience, and execrated comprehension. Our study shows that perceived RP is significantly higher when reading on paper compared to digital reading. In addition, perceived RP is higher during oral reading than silent reading. However, in terms of objective RP, non-significant difference was observed across reading media and methods. Taken together, these findings indicate that under controlled reading conditions, differences in reading strategies emerge primarily in readers’ subjective evaluations rather than in performance outcomes. These results underscore that evaluations of reading strategies cannot rely solely on performance metrics, highlighting the need to account for readers’ subjective assessments when interpreting reading outcomes.

Universal Access in the Information SocietyVol. 25(2)
Seoul National University (KR), Kangwon National University (KR)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Reading and Literacy Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.