A Comparison of Primary School Children's Attitudes Toward Reading from Print Books, E-Readers, and The Internet

References (121)

1. Ackerman, R., ve 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
2. Alexander, J.E. ve Filler, R.C. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ajzen, I., ve Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, ve M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Allen, D.D. (2013). Attitude toward digital and print-based reading: A survey for elementary students [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. Scholar Commons. 4858. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4858/.
4. Anmarkrud, Ø., ve Bråten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002
5. Askov, E. N., ve Fischbach, T. J. (1973). An Investigation of primary pupils’ attitudes toward reading. The Journal of Experimental Education, 41(3), 1-7. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20150861
6. Aydemir, Z., ¨Öztürk, E., ve Horzum, M. B. (2013). The effect of reading from screen on the 5th grade elementary students’ level of reading comprehension on informative and narrative type of texts. Educational Sciences: Theory ve Practice, 13, 2272–2276. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.4.1294
7. Barnett, J. E., ve Irwin, L. (1994). The effects of classroom activities on elementary students' reading attitudes. Reading Improvement, 31(2), 113.
8. Baron, N. S. (2015). Words onscreen: The fate of reading in a digital world. Oxford University Press.
9. Barron, P. (2011). E-readers in the classroom. Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy, 22(1), 133–138
10. Borokhovski, E., Pickup, D., El Saadi, L., Rabah, J., ve Tamim, R. M. (2018). Gender and ICT: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Commonwealth of Learning.
11. Brandle, S., Katz, S., Hays, A., Beth, A., Cooney, C., DiSanto, J., Miles, L., Morrison, A. (2019). But what do the students think: results of the CUNY cross-campus zero textbook cost student survey. Open Praxis, 11 (1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.1.932.
12. Bresó-Grancha, N., Jorques-Infante, M. J., ve Moret-Tatay, C. (2022). Reading digital- versus print-easy texts: a study with university students who prefer digital sources. Psicol. Refl. Crít. 35, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-022-00212-4
13. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak-Kılıç, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (13. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
14. Cai, Z., Fan, X., ve Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A metaanalysis. Computers ve Education, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2016.11.003.
15. Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16. Chiu, M. M., ve Chow, B. W.-Y. (2015). Classmate characteristics and student achievement in 33 countries: Classmates’ past achievement, family socioeconomic status, educational resources, and attitudes toward reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036897
17. Ciğerci, F. M., Kesik, C., ve Yıldırım, M. (2022). The Attitude toward (digital and print-based) reading scale: An adaptation, validity, and reliability study. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 10(3), 530-546. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1097755
18. 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
19. Clinton-Lisell, V., Taylor, T., Carlson, S.E., Davison, M.L., Seipel, B. (2022). Performance on reading comprehension assessments and college achievement: a meta-analysis. J. College Read. Learn. 52 (3), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10790195.2022.2062626
20. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Erlbaum.
21. Coiro, J. (2012). Understanding dispositions toward reading on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(7), 645–648. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41827751?seq=1
22. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., ve Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, ve D. J. Leu (Eds.), The handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Coles, M., ve Hall, C. (2002). Gendered readings: Learning from children’s reading choices. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00161.
24. Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., Bryant, C., Craft, A., ve McKenna, M. C. (2013). Measuring adolescents' attitudes toward reading A: classroom survey. Journal of Adolescent ve Adult Literacy, 56(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.183
25. Cullinan, B. E. (1987). Children’s literature in the reading program. Newark: International Reading Association.
26. Daniel, D. ve Woody, W. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers ve Education, 62, 18–23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016.
27. Delgado, P., ve Salmerón, L. (2022). Cognitive effort in text processing and reading comprehension in print and on tablet: An eye-tracking study. Discourse Processes, 59(4), 237-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2030157
28. Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., ve 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
29. Eijansantos, A. M., Alieto, E. O., Ram, J. D., ve Rama, C. D. (2020). Print-based texts or digitized versions: An attitudinal investigation among senior high school students. Asian EFL Journal, 27(2–3), 308–339. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3615800
30. Eyre, J., Berg, M., Mazengarb, J., ve Lawes, E. (2017). Mode equivalency in PAT: Reading comprehension. Wellington: NZCER. http://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/ PAT%20Modes_report.pdf.
31. Foasberg, N. M. (2014, September). Student reading practices in print and electronic media. College ve Research Libraries, 75(5),705-723. https://doi.org/10.5860/ crl.75.5.705
32. Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., ve 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
33. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8. ed.). McGraw-Hill Professional.
34. Ghaith, G. M., ve Bouzeineddine, A. R. (2003). Relationship between reading attitudes, achievement, and learners' perceptions of their Jigsaw II cooperative learning experience. Reading Psychology, 24(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710308234
35. Gnambs, T. (2021). The development of gender differences in information and communication technology (ICT) literacy in middle adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106533
36. Golan, D. D., Barzillai, M., ve Katzir, T. (2018). The effect of presentation mode on children's reading preferences, performance, and self-evaluations. Computers ve Education, 126, 346-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.001
37. Gunobgunob-Mirasol, R. (2020). A survey of grade 5 and 6 pupils’ attitudes toward reading. Reading Psychology, 41(3), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1768982
38. Halamish, V., ve Elbaz, E. (2020). Children's reading comprehension and metacomprehension on screen versus on paper. Computers ve Education, 145, 103737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103737
39. Hancock, G., Schmidt-Daly, T., Fanfarelli, J., Wolfe, J. ve Szalma, J. (2016). Is e-reader technology killing or kindling the reading experience? Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications,24(1), 25–30 https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804615611269.
40. He, Z., Shao, S., Zhou, J., Ke, J., Kong, R., Guo, S.,. ve Song, R. (2014). Does long time spending on the electronic devices affect the reading abilities? A cross-sectional study among Chinese school-aged children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(12), 3645-3654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.08.037
41. Hou, J., Rashid, J., ve Lee, K. M. (2017). Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014
42. Huang, Y.-M., Liang, T.-H., Su, Y.-N., ve Chen, N.-S. (2012). Empowering personalized learning with an interactive e-book learning system for elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9237-6
43. Hyman, J., Moser, M. ve Segala, L. (2014). Electronic reading and digital library technologies: Understanding learner expectation and usage intent for mobile learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 35–52 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9330-5.
44. IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 25.0. IBM Corp.
45. Jang, B. G., ve Henretty, D. (2019). Understanding multiple profiles of reading attitudes. Middle School Journal, 50(3), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2019.1603803
46. Jang, B.G., Ryoo, J.H. ve Smith, K.C. (2021). Latent profiles of attitudes toward print and digital reading among adolescents. Reading and Writing, 34, 1115-1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10104-7
47. Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 390–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02640471211241663
48. Jeong, Y. J., ve Gweon, G. (2021). Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(17), 1674-1684.https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1908668
49. Katzir, T., Lesaux, N. K., ve Kim, Y. S. (2009). The role of reading self-concept and home literacy practices in fourth grade reading comprehension. Journal of Reading and Writing, 22(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9112-8
50. Kerr, M. A., ve Symons, S. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: Effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-003-8128-y
51. Kingston, N. M. (2009). Comparability of computer- and paper-administered multiple-choice tests for K-12 populations: A synthesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802558326
52. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
53. Kinzer, C.K. and Leu, D.J. (2016). new literacies, New Literacies. In: Peters, M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_111-1
54. Kirby, J. R., Ball, A., Geier, B. K., Parrila, R., ve Wade-Woolley, L. (2011). The development of reading interest and its relation to reading ability. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9817.2010.01439.x
55. Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing, a practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage Publications.
56. Kolić-Vehovec, S., Zubković, B. R., ve Pahljina-Reinić, R. (2014). Development of metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies and attitudes toward reading in early adolescence: The effect on reading comprehension. Psihologijske Teme, 23(1), 77–98.
57. Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., ve Zhai, L. (2018). Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers ve Education, 123, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005
58. Köpper, M., Mayr, S., ve Buchner, A. (2016). Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: Does it still make a difference? Ergonomics, 59(5), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1100757
59. Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., ve Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PloS One, 8(2), e56178. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056178
60. Kush, J. C., ve Watkins, M. W. (1996). Long-term stability of children’s attitudes toward reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1996.9941333
61. Kush, J. C., Watkins, M. W., ve Brookhart, S. M. (2005). The Temporal-ınteractive influence of reading achievement and reading attitude. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500110141
62. Lankshear, C., ve Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Open University Press
63. Latini, N., ve Bråten, I. (2022). Strategic text processing across mediums: A verbal protocol study. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 493-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.418
64. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., ve Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell ve N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568– 1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association
65. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., ve Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy instruction and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, R. B. Ruddell, ve N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150– 1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
66. Ley, T. C., Schaer, B. B., and Dismukes, B. W. (1994). Longitudinal study of the reading attitudes and behaviors of middle school students. Read. Psychol. 15, 11-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271940150102
67. Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61 (6), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040
68. Logan, S., ve Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x.
69. Loh, C., ve Sun, B. (2019). "I'd still prefer to read the hard copy": Adolescents' print and digital reading habits. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 62(6), 663-672.https://www.jstor.org/stable/48554925
70. Lupo, S., Jang, B.G., ve McKenna, M. (2017). The relationship between reading achievement and attitudes toward print and digital texts in adolescent readers. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66(1), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813 36917 719254
71. Magen, H. (2017). The relations between executive functions, media multitasking and polychronicity. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 1–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.011
72. Mangen, A., ve Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientifc Study of Literature, 4(2), 150–177. https://doi. org/10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man
73. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., ve 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
74. Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., ve Kegler, J. L. (2013). E‐readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2930
75. Marinak, B. A., ve Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementary gender gap. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070902803795
76. Martínez, R., Aricak, O., ve Jewell, J. (2008). Influence of reading attitude on reading achievement: a test of the temporal-interaction model. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 1010–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9245-z
77. McCrea-Andrews, H. J. (2014). A comparison of adolescents’ digital and print reading experiences: Does mode matter? (Doctoral dissertation). http://tigerprints.clemson. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2337vecontext=all_dissertations.
78. McGeown, S. P., Norgate, R., ve Warhurst, A. (2012). Exploring intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation among very good and very poor readers. Educational Research, 54, 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2012.710089
79. McGeown, S., Johnston, R.S., Walker, J., Howatson, K., Stockburn, A., ve Dufton, P. (2015). The relationship between young children’s enjoyment of learning to read, reading attitudes, confidence and attainment. Educational Research, 57(4), 389-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2015.1091234
80. McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B. G., ve Meyer, J. P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U.S. Survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.021
81. McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., ve Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 934–956. https://doi.org/10.2307/748205
82. Miranda, A. M., Nunes-Pereira, E. J., Baskaran, K., ve Macedo, A. F. (2018). Eye movements, convergence distance and pupil-size when reading from smartphone, computer, print and tablet. Scandinavian Journal of Optometry and Visual Science, 11(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5384/sjovs.vol11i1p1-5
83. Mizrachi, D., Salaz, A. M., Kurbanoglu, S., Boustany, J., ve ARFIS Research Group. (2018). Academic reading format preferences and behaviors among university students worldwide: A comparative survey analysis. PLoS ONE, 13(5), Article e0197444. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197444
84. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., ve Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 International Results in Reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/
85. Nevo, E., Vaknin-Nusbaum, V., ve Gambrell, L. (2019). Reading motivation in kindergartners and 1st-graders. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 33(4), 610–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1647316
86. Nonte, S., Hartwich, L. ve Willems, A.S.(2018). Promoting reading attitudes of girls and boys: a new challenge for educational policy? Multi-group analyses across four European countries. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0057-y
87. Nootens, P., Morin, M. F., Alamargot, D., Gonçalves, C., Venet, M., ve Labrecque, A. M. (2019). Differences in attitudes toward reading: A survey of pupils in grades 5 to 8. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2773. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02773
88. O'Brien, D., Beach, R., ve Scharber, C. (2007). “Struggling” middle schoolers: Engagement and literate competence in a reading writing intervention class. Reading Psychology, 28(1), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710601115463
89. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
90. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program (4th ed.). Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen ve Unwin.
91. Petscher, Y. (2010). A meta-analysis of the relationship between student attitudes towards reading and achievement in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(4), 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01418.x.
92. Picton, I. (2014). The impact of e-books on the reading motivation and reading skills of children and young people: A rapid literature review. London: National Literacy Trust https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560635.
93. Porion, A., Aparicio, X., Megalakaki, O., Robert, A., ve Baccino, T. (2016). The impact of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.002.
94. Putman, S. M. (2014). Exploring dispositions toward online reading: Analyzing the survey of online reading attitudes and behaviors. Reading Psychology, 35(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.664250
95. Putro, N. H. P. S., ve Lee, J. (2017). Reading interest in a digital age. Reading Psychology, 38(8), 778–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1341966
96. Quinn, J. M., ve Wagner, R. K. (2015). Gender differences in reading impairment and in the identification of impaired readers: Results from a large-scale study of at-risk readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022219413508323
97. Salmerón, L., Delgado, P., Vargas, C., ve Gil, L. (2021). Tablets for all? Testing the screen inferiority effect with upper primary school students. Learning and Individual Differences, 86, 101975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021. 101975
98. Sang, Y. (2017). Expanded territories of ‘literacy’: New literacies and multiliteracies. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(8), 16–19. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1139059.pdf
99. Shenoy, P., ve Aithal, P. S. (2016). A study on history of paper and possible paper free world. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, 6(1), 337-355. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2779181.
100. Smith, M. C. (1990). A longitudinal ınvestigation of reading attitude development from childhood to adulthood. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(4), 215–219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27540386
101. Spence, C. (2020). The multisensory experience of handling and reading books. Multisensory Research, 33(8), 902–928. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-bja10015
102. Spencer, M., Richmond, M.C., ve Cutting, L.E. (2020). Considering the role of executive function in reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 24, 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1643868
103. Sperling, R. A., ve Head, D. M. (2002). Reading attitudes and literacy skills in prekindergarten and kindergarten children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(4), 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015129623552
104. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1
105. Stiegler-Balfour, J. J., Roberts, Z. S., LaChance, A. S., Sahouria, A. M., ve Newborough, E. D. (2023). Is reading under print and digital conditions really equivalent? Differences in reading and recall of expository text for higher and lower ability comprehenders. International Jurnal of Human-Computer Studies, 176, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103036
106. Støle, H., Mangen, A., ve Schwippert, K. (2020). Assessing children’s reading comprehension on paper and screen: A mode-effect study. Computers ve Education, 151, 103861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103861
107. Strouse, G. A., ve Ganea, P. A. (2017). A print book preference: Caregivers report higher child enjoyment and more adult–child interactions when reading print than electronic books. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 12, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.02.001
108. Sung, Y.Y.C. and Chiu, D.K.W. (2022). E-book or print book: parents' current view in Hong Kong. Library Hi Tech, 40 (5) 289-1304. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-09-2020-0230
109. Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. D. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
110. TUİK (Turkish Statistical Institute) (2021). Research on the use of information technologies in children. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Cocuklarda-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2021-41132
111. Ulvinen, E., Psyridou, M., Lerkkanen, M. K., Poikkeus, A. M., Siekkinen, M., ve Torppa, M. (2024). Developmental leisure reading profiles and their association with reading skills across Grades 1–9. Learning and Individual Differences, 109, 102387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102387
112. van der Sande, L., Dobber, M., van Schaik, J. E., ve van Steensel, R. (2023). Attitudes towards reading amongst kindergarten and Grade 1 children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 31(3), 399-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2108096
113. Vujic, A. (2017). Switching on or switching off? Everyday computer use as a predictor of sustained attention and cognitive reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 152–162. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.040
114. Wallbrown, F. H., Levine, M. A., ve Engin, A. W. (1981). Sex differences in reading attitudes. Reading Improvement, 18(3), 226.
115. West, J. A. (2019). Using new literacies theory as a lens for analyzing technology-mediated literacy classrooms. E-Learning and Digital Media, 16(2), 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753019828355
116. Wigfield, A., ve Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
117. Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J., ve Turci, L. (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 190-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184.
118. Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world. Harper
119. Zambarbieri, D., ve Carniglia, E. (2012). Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 390–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00930.x
120. He, Z., Shao, S., Zhou, J., Ke, J., Kong, R., Guo, S.,. ve Song, R. (2014). Does long time spending on the electronic devices affect the reading abilities? A cross-sectional study among Chinese school-aged children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(12), 3645-3654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.08.037
121. Lupo, S., Jang, B.G., ve McKenna, M. (2017). The relationship between reading achievement and attitudes toward print and digital texts in adolescent readers. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66(1), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813 36917 719254