Relation between digital tool practices in the language arts classroom and reading comprehension scores
Open accessAbstract
Concerns about the negative effects of digitalization on students’ reading comprehension, empirically backed by recent meta-analyses, question the efficacy of digital tools in the language arts classroom. By analyzing data from 4 and 8th grade US students from NAEP 2017, we aimed to test the generalization of the negative association between screens use and reading comprehension test scores within language arts classrooms, and to identify teachers’ practices to support comprehension, which could reduce such a negative relationship. We used data from 149,400 4th grade and 144,900 8th grade students to predict their reading comprehension scores based on their frequency of use of digital devices in the language arts class, as well as on the specific learning activities performed with such devices. Results revealed that amount of daily use of digital devices was negatively related to scores on a reading comprehension test. In addition, teachers’ uses of digital tools to support students’ reading comprehension showed positive relations for student use of digital devices for reading projects, and negative relations for activities addressing specific reading skills, such as building and practicing vocabulary. We discuss these results in light of our current understanding of the effects of digitalization on reading.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Salmerón et al. (2023) analyzed NAEP data from 2017 and found stronger negative relationships between frequency of use of digital devices in the classroom and reading comprehension in fourth grade compared to eighth grade (unstandardized estimates = -4.03 vs -2.07).
“Salmerón et al. (2023), analyzed NAEP data from 2017 (National Assessment of Educational Progress, n.d.), and found stronger negative relationships between the frequency of use of digital devices in the classroom and reading comprehension in fourth grade, compared to eighth grade (unstandardized estimates = -4.03 vs -2.07).”
From Do New Forms of Reading Pay Off? A Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Leisure Digital Reading Habits and Text Comprehension (2025) · cites this paper as Salmerón et al. (2023)
This pattern concurs with recent evidence showing a stronger negative association between the frequency of use of digital devices in the classroom and reading comprehension in US representative samples of fourth grade, as compared to eighth grade.
“This pattern concurs with recent evidence showing a stronger negative association between the frequency of use of digital devices in the classroom and reading comprehension in US representative samples of fourth grade, as compared to eighth grade (Salmerón et al., 2023).”
From Do New Forms of Reading Pay Off? A Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Leisure Digital Reading Habits and Text Comprehension (2025) · cites this paper as Salmerón et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003 · Cited by 664 · see citing works
Self-citation21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills in a Digital World
OECD (2021) · PISA · doi:10.1787/a83d84cb-en · Cited by 337 · cited 7× · see citing works
“…classroom and reading comprehension scores, the existence of null findings as well as positive patterns for specific purposes (Judge et al., 2006; OECD, 2015, 2021), offers the possibility that different teachers’ practices as well as instructional media to support reading comprehension might…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialComparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis
Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time”
K. Kaye, L., Orben, A., A. Ellis, D., C. Hunter, S., & Houghton, S. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17103661 · Cited by 304 · see citing works
Social media, texting, and personality: A test of the shallowing hypothesis
Annisette, L. E., & Lafreniere, K. D. (2017) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.043 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Baron NS Words onscreen: The fate of reading in a digital world 2015 New York, NY Oxford University Press
- Bransford JD Brown AL Cocking RR How people learn 2000 Washington, DC National Academy Press
- Cacioppo JT Petty RE The need for cognition Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982 42 116 131 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 7131245 · DOI · Paper page
- Clinton V Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis Journal of Research in Reading 2019 42 288 325 10.1111/1467-9817.12269 · DOI
- Delgado P Salmerón L The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure Learning and Instruction 2021 71 101396 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101396 32905085 PMC7463273 · DOI
- Furenes MI Kucirkova N Bus AG A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis Review of Educational Research 2021 91 483 517 10.3102/0034654321998074 · DOI · Paper page
- Goodwin AP Cho SJ Reynolds D Brady K Salas J Digital versus paper reading processes and links to comprehension for middle school students American Educational Research Journal 2020 57 1837 1867 10.3102/0002831219890300 · DOI
- Guthrie J Wigfield A Humenick N Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension The Journal of Educational Research 2006 99 232 245 10.3200/JOER.99.4.232-246 · DOI
- Harpe SE How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 2015 7 6 836 850 10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001 · DOI
- Judge S Puckett K Bell SM Closing the digital divide: Update from the early childhood longitudinal study The Journal of Educational Research 2006 100 52 60 10.3200/JOER.100.1.52-60 · DOI
- Kavale KA Reese JH The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile Learning Disability Quarterly 1992 15 74 94 10.2307/1511010 · DOI
- Kim J-S Anderson CJ Keller B Rutkowski L von Davier M Rutkowski D Multilevel analysis of assessment data Handbook of international large-scale assessment background, technical issues, and methods of data analysis 2014 CRC Press 389 424
- Latini N Bråten I Anmarkrud Ø Salmerón L Investigating effects of reading medium and reading purpose on behavioral engagement and textual integration in a multiple text context Contemporary Educational Psychology 2019 59 101797 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101797 · DOI
- Lim CS Tang KN Kor LK Sell NM Drill and practice in learning (and beyond) Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning 2012 New York Springer 1040 1043
- Norman G Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics Advances in Health Sciences Education 2010 15 5 625 632 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y 20146096 · DOI · Paper page
- Orman, J. P., & Padgett, R. M. (2017). 1: 1 iPad implementation: A study on efficacy and achievement in reading (Doctoral dissertation, Lipscomb University).
- Polman JL Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments Cognition and Instruction 2004 22 431 466 10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_3 · DOI
- Rouet JF Britt MA Durik AM RESOLV: Readers' representation of reading contexts and tasks Educational Psychologist 2017 52 200 215 10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015 · DOI
- Salmerón L Delgado P Critical analysis of the effects of the digital technologies on reading and learning Cultureand Education 2019 31 465 480 10.1080/11356405.2019.1630958 · DOI
- Salmerón L Delgado P Vargas C Gil L Tablets for all? Testing the screen inferiority effect with upper primaryschool students Learning and Individual Differences 2021 86 101975 10.1016/j.lindif.2021.101975 · DOI
- Shao J Tu D The Jackknife and the Bootstrap 1995 Springer
- Vaughn S Klingner JK Swanson EA Boardman AG Roberts G Mohammed SS Stillman-Spisak SJ Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students American Educational Research Journal 2011 48 938 964 10.3102/0002831211410305 · DOI
- Wenglinsky H Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools 2005 Teachers College Press
- Yang X Kuo LJ Ji X McTigue E A critical examination of the relationship among research, theory, and practice: Technology and reading instruction Computers and Education 2018 125 62 73 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.009 · DOI
- Zimmerman BJ Martinez-Pons M Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use Journal of Educational Psychology 1990 82 51 59 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Altamura, L., Vargas, C., & Salmerón, L. (2025) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543231216463 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Salmerón, L., Vargas, C., Delgado, P., & Baron, N.
- Affiliations
- Universitat de València (ES)
- American University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Salmerón, Ladislao
- Venue
- Reading and Writing
- Published
- 2022-05-07
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 175-194
- ISSN
- 0922-4777 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0905
- PMC
- PMC9076497
- OpenAlex
- W4229016136
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 11.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Reading and Writing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository of Digital Objects for Teaching Research and Culture (University of Valencia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- ministerio de ciencia, innovación y universidades (PID2020-118512GB-I00)
- Universitat de Valencia
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
- Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
- Keywords
- digital tools, reading comprehension, screen time, digital devices, teacher practices, vocabulary teaching, reading project, primary and secondary school students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
