COMPARATIVE STUDY ON PERCEPTION OF PAPER AND DIGITAL

TEXTS WHEN WORKING WITH HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS

E. Ponomarenko1, Y. Krasavina1, O. Zhuykova1, Y. Serebryakova2
1
Kalashnikov Izhevsk State Technical University (RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
2
The All-Russian State University of Justice (RLA of the Ministry of Justice of Russia)
(RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

Abstract
Performance evaluation of paper and digital platforms for educational purposes has become one of
the highly topical issues for scientific research over the past decades. The studies can be divided into
two stages related to the process of computerization in education: at the first stage, computer
technology was introduced, and at the second stage, it became widely used in the educational
process. Both earlier and later studies were primarily aimed at studying the equivalence of paper and
digital tasks, including performance outcomes. Today, with the enhancement of hardware and
software, there is a need for further studies of changes in processing of data provided both on paper
and digital platforms in the educational process.
New studies are especially important for hearing impaired students characterized mainly by visual
perception of information. At technical universities, hearing impaired students operate not only with
textual information, but also work with graphic data (graphs, drawings, diagrams, charts and tables). It
is crucial to correctly combine both different forms of information and existing platforms to organize a
productive learning process.
The study is aimed at identifying the features of perception by hearing impaired students of a technical
text presented on an interactive whiteboard and printed on paper. During the study, the respondents
were offered technical texts of similar complexity on two platforms. The following parameters were
compared: number of times the text was read to perform specially designed tasks; number and
accuracy of keywords; completeness and correctness of the key points and summaries of the text;
results of a test completed a week after reading the text. The students also filled out a reflection
questionnaire.
The study showed that students needed to reread the text more often on an interactive whiteboard
compared to the paper version. The students coped better with selecting keywords when working with
a paper text. There were no significant differences between the key points of paper and digital texts.
The text summaries turned out to be more complete and correct when working with the paper text.
The results of the questionnaire indicate that hearing impaired students are not able to objectively
assess their capabilities.
Keywords: Hearing impaired students, paper versus digital platforms, reading comprehension, visual
perception, inclusive education.

1 INTRODUCTION
New research initiatives have been launched after a great contribution and a considerable impact of
technological advances on the whole system of education. Existing studies can be divided into two
basic stages related to the implementation of computer technology in the field of education. At the first
stage computer and information systems were introduced into the educational process, whereas at the
second stage they became widely and actively used due to their improved and expanded functions.
Effectiveness and usefulness of non-digital and digital platforms have been studied and compared; the
obtained findings are of significant value for improving teaching practice. There has been a lot of
research on reading on a screen or in print ([1]-[11]). Initially reading speed, accuracy and
comprehension were studied [2], and then cognitive indicators were considered to find out how
different platforms affect perception and information processing ([5], [12]). The results of early studies
were mostly in favor of paper, as first computer machines had serious flaws, such as a lack of
interactivity, low productivity and reliability, and a computer vision syndrome. However, more recent
studies show more mixed outcomes and inconsistent results ([7], [8], [9]). It can be concluded that
digital-based reading has become an integral and dominated part of education, even though paper-

Proceedings of EDULEARN20 Conference ISBN: 978-84-09-17979-4

7141
6th-7th July 2020
based reading benefits on some parameters [7]. Today, with the enhancement of hardware and
software capabilities, the evolution of multimedia and virtual technologies, the use of high-tech
gadgets as irreplaceable tools for solving a wide range of problems, there is a need for further studies
of changes in processing of data provided on various media in education.

2 BACKGROUND
Studied differences of cognitive processes depending on the form of information representation are
useful and applicable for people without disabilities. There have not been special studies on
perception of information by hearing impaired students depending on its platform until now [13].
People with hearing impairments primarily perceive information presented in a visual way as their
visual system compensates for the loss of auditory sensation. Special studies could reveal whether
there are any important differences from the results of having already conducted research or not.
Besides they would contribute to the currently available methodological guidelines for working with
hearing impaired students. These guidelines present main psychophysiological and socio-
psychological features of students, among which there is slow and limited perception, deficiencies of
mental activity and defects of speech. The recommendations come down to visualization and
individualization in learning, as well as to the active use of adapted teaching aids, including electronic
ones. There is a deficit of well-developed approaches and well-adapted courses satisfying learning
needs of students with hearing impairments ([14], [15]). In addition, students studying at technical
universities are bound to deal with not only textual information, but also with graphic data (graphs,
drawings, diagrams, charts and tables). In teaching engineering students with hearing impairments it
is crucial to correctly apply and adequately mix different forms of information as well as digital and
printed platforms. It must provide a more productive learning process and improve the quality of
inclusive education.
It is almost the undisputed view that reading is essential in achieving academic excellence, as it
boosts learners’ cognitive skills and provides their thought stimulation ([16], [17], [18]). Success of
interaction with written texts depends on many factors, including background and vocabulary
knowledge ([19], [20]). Vision is a critical element of written language and visual perception plays a
vital role in the cognitive process while reading [21]. Students who are deaf and hard of hearing use
their visual resources, but they do not exploit them strategically to aid their reading comprehension
[22]. It is for this reason that special strategies are developed to support learners with hearing
impairments [23].

3 THE STUDY
The main objective of our pilot study was to analyze and compare hearing impaired students’ reading
comprehension of technical texts presented on two various platforms – an interactive whiteboard and
on paper. It is planned to continue our research and have a series of similar studies to collect more
data.
The participants of the study were hearing impaired students (N=12) getting a degree in mechanical
engineering at M.T. Kalashnikov Izhevsk State Technical University (Russia). Two groups of students
(freshman and sophomore years) were involved in the study.
The study was organized as follows. One week students were given a technical text to read from the
interactive whiteboard and do three exercises after to test their understanding. The reading
comprehension exercises were 1) finding key words; 2) selecting key details; 3) writing text
summaries. To examine the retained information from the text in a week the students were asked to
do the test that includes the four reading comprehension exercises: 1) listing key words from the text;
2) recreating key details from the text; 3) five true/false statements and 4) two multiple choice
questions. The next two weeks reading comprehension exercises were the same but the students had
to read a printed technical text.
At both stages, after reading digital and printed texts, the respondents were asked to complete an
evaluation form for reflection and feedback to analyze their perception toward their level of
understanding the text and their ability of processing the received information.
Both source texts were identical in terms of their length (228 and 221 words) and the level of
complexity (number of technical terms and information density). The first one was about metals and
their properties, while the second one was about nonmetals and their properties. Those texts were

7142
selected for our study because they can be classified as typical of students’ course programs. It
should be noted that hearing impaired students’ curriculum does not differ from students without
disabilities and includes a great number of engineering disciplines. It is supposed that students are
able to comprehend non-specific texts about science including physics and chemistry. Physics is one
of the university entrance exams and chemistry is taught in the first year at the university.

4 RESULTS
The following preliminary results were obtained:
1 It was measured how many times the respondents had to read the text displayed on the
interactive board and printed on a paper. The simple average of the reading text number is 3
and 2.6, correspondingly. The difference was expected as while reading from the board and
doing some exercise (not just listening to a lecturer and glancing at the electronic presentations
used as visual-aids) an individual needs to raise and lower his eyes while reading and tracking
the words on the board. It must take less time to do exercises printed out on paper than
projected on the screen.
2 The analysis of the selected key words revealed that the students experienced difficulties in
finding the words, terms and word groups describing the text content. On average, students
wrote and identified 2.2 key words when reading from the board and 2.6 – from the text on the
paper. However, some selected words were random and after checking students’ answers the
number of the correct key words was reduced to 1.3 and 2.4, respectively. One third of
respondents instead of listing key words wrote some sentences with basic information from the
text. These initial results are in favour of paper texts.
3 According to the respondents’ text plans with key points there is no significant difference
between the used platforms. The equal number of students could perform the task (80%) and
could not do it (it was left blank) (20%). After reviewing students’ plans it was found that
students’ written works were not well-elaborated and presented in a logical manner as they
should be done. About 40% of the plan volume can be considered as right and correct and the
rest is wrong and irrelevant. It is noteworthy that at school level students are supposed to be
taught how to draw plans of texts.
4 The comprehension exercise, writing a summary, was performed by the majority of students:
90% managed to summarize the digital text and 100% managed to summarize the printed text.
Interestingly, some students didn’t write summaries, they just copied some parts of the given
text and in this case the work was accepted as done but with zero value. In studying students’
work in detail, it was found that when working with the paper text students were able to write
more complete summaries compared to the digital text.
5 The results of testing indicated that most of the information of texts was forgotten by the
students in a week. The respondents could write only one key word regardless of the platforms.
As to key points, about half of the respondents could not remember anything from the previous
text. The plans were shorter than they were before. Only those (25%) who had been able to
draw a good plan managed to remember much of their plans (up to 50-70%). As to false/true
statements, the students answered 60% of them correctly about the digital texts and 40% about
the paper text. Students’ answers to multiple choice questions are scattered (it was assumed
that the students hadn’t known the right answers and just guessed; the truth came out after the
interview with the respondents who confirmed it) and it can be said that the number of errors are
the same (about 50%). In fact, both tests were failed by the students.
6 Few hearing impaired students (10%) demonstrated results comparable to students without
disabilities.
7 Finally, students’ choices in the evaluation form led to some results (Table 1). To begin with, the
printed text was perceived by the study participants as easier to read and discuss. Then, both
texts were seen identical from the view of the content comprehension and relation to other
phenomena as the students responded in the affirmative with almost same proportions.
There seems little doubt about students’ honest perception. There is a strong reason to question it.
The level of performance of comprehension reading exercises is low. In fact, the majority of students
had great difficulty with the exercises. And in spite the fact that the texts were perceived by the
participants as easier to read and understand their works do not reflect it.

7143
Table 1. Hearing impaired students’ perception toward the reading of the digital and printed technical texts.

Digital text, % Printed text, %

N Statements
Yes Not Not sure Yes Not Not sure
1 I can easily retell the text 70 10 20 100 0 0
2 I can easily discuss the text 60 10 30 86 0 14
3 I can relate what I have read about to other phenomena 50 30 20 57 43 0
4 I can read and understand the text content 80 10 10 86 14 0

5 CONCLUSIONS
The process of tracking (following the words across the line) while reading from the interactive
whiteboard is more time-demanding than from the printed text for hearing impaired students. It should
be taken into account by university staff who use without exception electronic presentations (often
overloaded with information on the slide) in lectures. Any presented texts should be comfortable to see
and read for these students in order to process learning materials without additional visual efforts on
identification regardless of used platforms.
Hearing impaired students could read technical texts delivered in an encyclopedic manner but they
were able to understand only few main ideas of texts. Deaf and hard of hearing students, applying for
technical universities, will face engineering texts of different levels of difficulty and sophistication. They
must be prepared to read and comprehend them both in the classroom and outside it. Comprehension
strategies should be presented to students in every subject. Practical experience has shown us that it
takes students about two years to adapt to the university system of education and become more
autonomous. Some of them not without help of teachers’ competent approaches can compete with
students with a health standard. It can be concluded that reading should be a significant part of the
learning process of hearing impaired students at technical universities.
Poor results of tests of retained knowledge given in a week indicate that the students could memorize
only text profiles (the first text – about metals and the second text – about nonmetals). Teachers
working with this group of students should be aware of the necessity to monitor understanding the
written texts (digital and paper) by learners and revise previous materials regularly showing logical
links with new ones. Otherwise, students’ knowledge might be shallow.
According to hearing impaired students’ perception the printed text advantages the digital one. When
students need to do exercises or tests on the base of written texts (literally to be actively engaged with
a text), it is recommended to use printed handouts. Not only will it take less time but students will give
more carefully considered answers.
Outstanding results by few students with hearing impairments prove that, although academic
achievements depend on the degree of hearing loss, the social environment and personality qualities
can be determining factors in academic achievements. One of respondents was a deaf student whose
works done in the course of our study can be marked as good.
This initial study will be continued and further elaborated with data. To ensure data validation and
quality, the difference of learning outcomes when using digital and paper platforms should be tested
carefully and clarified.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge that this work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic
Research under Grant No. 19-013-00701 ‘The analysis of visual information processing triggered by
digital and non-digital platforms and its effect on mental models development when teaching hearing
impaired students’.

7144
REFERENCES
[1] A. Dillon, “Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature,”
Ergonomics, 35(10), pp.1297–1326. 1992. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228707100_Reading_from_paper_versus_screens_A_c
ritical_review_of_the_empirical_literature
[2] J.M. Noyes, K.J. Garland, “Computer-versus paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent?,”
Ergonomics, vol. 51. pp. 1352 – 1375, 2008. Retrieved from
https://www.princeton.edu/~sswang/Noyesa_Garland_computer_vs_paper.pdf
[3] C. Myrberg, N. Wiberg.“Screen Vs. Paper: What Is the Difference for Reading and Learning?”
Insights, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 49–54. 2015.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281482281_Screen_vs_paper_What_is_the_difference_
for_reading_and_learning
[4] D.-W. Chen, R. Catrambone, “Paper vs. Screen: Effects on Reading Comprehension,
Metacognition, and Reader Behavior,” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society Annual Meeting, vol. 59, no, 1, pp. 332–336, 2016.
[5] S. Seok, B. DaCosta, “Perceptions and Preferences of Digital and Printed Text and Their Role in
Predicting Digital Literacy,” Asian Social Science, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 14-23, 2016. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/56721
[6] L. M. Singer, P. A. Alexander, “Reading on Paper and Digitally: What the Past Decades of
Empirical Research Reveal,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 1007–1041,
2017.
[7] P. Delgado, C.L. Vargas, R. Ackerman, L. Salmerón, “Don't throw away your printed books: A
meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension,” Educational Research
Review, 2018.
[8] Y. Kong, Y.S. Seo, L. Zhai, “Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A
meta-analysis,” Computers & Education, Elsevier Ltd., vol. 123, no. 1, pp.138-149, 2018.
[9] V. Clinton, “Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis,”
Journal of Research in Reading, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 288-325, 2019.
[10] A.P. Goodwin, S.-J. Cho, D. Reynolds, K. Brady, J. Salas, “Digital Versus Paper Reading
Processes and Links to Comprehension for Middle School Students,” American Educational
Research, 2019.
[11] I. Ivić, “Printed and Digital Media: Printed and Digital Textbooks,” Center for Educational Policy
Studies Journal, vol. 9, no, 3, pp. 25-49, 2019 Retrieved from
https://ojs.cepsj.si/index.php/cepsj/article/view/694/358
[12] G. Kaufman, M. Flanagan, “High-Low Split: Divergent Cognitive Construal Levels Triggered by
Digital and Non-digital Platforms,” CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2773-2777, 2016. Retrieved from https://tiltfactor.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/2016-tiltfactor-chi-digital-nondigital.pdf
[13] Yu. Krasavina, Yu. Serebryakova, E. Ponomarenko, O. Zhuykova, “Research-Based Teaching of
Hearing-Impaired Students,” ARPHA Proceedings 1: V International Forum on Teacher
Education: Part III: Educational Psychology, pp. 1387-1394, 2019. Retrieved from:
https://ap.pensoft.net/article/22221
[14] M. Hilzensauer, K. Krammer, Klaudia, L. Volpato, M. Chan, “”Deaf Learning”: Using A Visual
Method To Teach Written Language To The Deaf,” International Conference on Education and
New Developments, At Budapest, 2018. Retrieved from
https://iris.unive.it/retrieve/handle/10278/3719327/177114/END%20Pubblicazione.pdf
[15] C.A. Bisol, C.B. Valentini, J.L Simioni, J. Zanchin, “Deaf students in higher education: reflections
on inclusion”, Cadernos de Pesquisa, vol.40, no.139, pp.147-172, 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0100-15742010000100008&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
[16] S. Bax, “The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye
tracking”, Language Testing, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 441–465, 2013. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0265532212473244

7145
[17] R. Millrood, I. Maksimova, “Cognitive skills in education: typology and development,” Language
and Culture, no. 42, pp. 137–151, 2018. Retrieved from:
http://journals.tsu.ru/language/en/&journal_page=archive&id=1744&article_id=38878
[18] I. Suyitno, “Cognitive Strategies Use in Reading Comprehension and Its Contributions to Students'
Achievement,” IAFOR Journal of Education, vol.5, no. 3, pp.107-121, 2017. Retrieved from:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1162686.pdf
[19] S.H. Moghadama, Z. Zainalb, M. Ghaderpour,“A Review on the Important Role of Vocabulary
Knowledge in Reading Comprehension Performance,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
no. 66, pp. 555–563, 2012. Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812052858
[20] S.H. Eason, L.F. Goldberg, K.M. Young, M.C. Geist, L.E. Cutting “Reader-Text Interactions: How
Differential Text and Question Types Influence Cognitive Skills Needed for Reading
Comprehension,” Journal of educational psychology, vol. 104, no.3, pp. 515-528, 2012.
[21] K.B. Grant, S.E. Golden, N.S. Wilson, “Literacy Assessment and Instructional Strategies:
Connecting to the Common Core,” SAGE, 2014.
[22] M. Nikolaraizi, I. Vekiri, S.R. Easterbrooks, “Investigating deaf students' use of visual multimedia
resources in reading comprehension,” American annals of the deaf, vol. 157, no. 5, pp. 458-473,
2013.
[23] S. Sullivan, J. Oakhill, “Components of Story Comprehension and Strategies to Support Them in
Hearing and Deaf or Hard of Hearing Readers,” Topics in Language Disorders, vol. 35, no. 2 p.
133-143, 2015. Retrieved from: https://alliedhealth.ceconnection.com/files/ComponentsofStory
ComprehensionandStrategiestoSupportTheminHearingandDeaforHardofHearingReaders-
1431367199610.pdf

7146