Interactive features of E-texts’ effects on learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
E-texts afford interactive features that are not feasible with paper texts. Several studies have been conducted examining interactive features of E-texts, but it is uncertain what the overall effect is or what features may be most useful. The purpose of this study is to systematically review and meta-analysis of the findings comparing reading performance and/or reading times between E-texts with interactive features and control texts (paper or static E-texts). The systematic search of the literature identified 26 independent studies on reading performance. Based on the meta-analysis, interactive features benefited reading performance (g = .66, p < .001). Individual studies with positive effects involved multiple interactive features; however, potential contributions of three types of features (questions with feedback, digital glossaries, and collaborative tools) are discussed. Future directions for examining interactive features experimentally to better understand what features are most helpful for whom are described.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Interactive features of digital devices, such as questions with feedback, digital glossaries, and collaborative tools, could benefit reading comprehension performance, as shown by Clinton-Lisell et al. (2021) meta-analysis (g = .66).
“Interactive features of digital devices, such as questions with feedback, digital glossaries, and collaborative tools could benefit reading comprehension performance, as a recent meta-analysis developed by Clinton-Lisell et al. (2021) has shown ( g = .66).”
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 Clinton-Lisell et al. (2021)
Cites
Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · Cited by 26,092 · see citing works
Learning Vocabulary in Another Language
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524759 · Cited by 6,608 · see citing works
Wohlin, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268 · Cited by 4,234 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A forwards search of work that had cited each of these relevant reports was conducted using Google Scholar (this search engine was chosen to avoid possible publisher bias, Wohlin, 2014), which yielded seven more reports.”
MethodNagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.2307/747758 · Cited by 1,249 · see citing works
Cognitive load theory and educational technology
Sweller, J. (2020) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3 · Cited by 911 · see citing works
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
Handling Complex Meta-analytic Data Structures Using Robust Variance Estimates: a Tutorial in R
Tanner-Smith, E. E., Tipton, E., & Polanin, J. R. (2016) · Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology · doi:10.1007/s40865-016-0026-5 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Tipton, E., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2015) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/1076998615606099 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Comparison 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
Flagged first, then by citations
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
- Authors
- Clinton-Lisell, V., Seipel, B., Gilpin, S., & Litzinger, C.
- Affiliations
- Education, Health, and Behavior Studies, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA
- California State University, Chico (US)
- College of St. Scholastica (US)
- University of North Dakota (US)
- Venue
- Interactive Learning Environments
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-06-23
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3728-3743
- ISSN
- 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-5191
- OpenAlex
- W3173379344
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 0.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion)
- UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Collection Development and Digital Resources
- Keywords
- digital texts, interactive features, digital reading, reading achievement, reading time, groupware, online learning
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
