Children's reading comprehension and metacomprehension on screen versus on paper

On-screen reading is becoming increasingly prevalent in educational settings, and children are now are expected to comprehend texts that they read on screens. However, research suggests that reading on screen impairs comprehension compared to reading on paper. Furthermore, this medium effect is not reflected in adults' metacomprehension judgments, which often reflect greater overconfidence when reading on screen. Adults are therefore usually metacognitively unaware of the detrimental effect that on-screen reading has on their comprehension. Whether and how the medium affects children's metacomprehension has not been examined before. The main purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of the medium used for reading (screen vs. paper) on children's reading comprehension and metacomprehension. Fifth grade children (N = 38) read short texts, estimated their comprehension of each text, and answered a reading comprehension test. They completed this task on paper for two texts and on screen for two other texts. Results suggested that the children's reading comprehension was better when reading on paper than on screen, although initial reading time was equivalent. This paper advantage was independent of medium preferences, computer usage habits, or reading skills. Children's metacomprehension judgments were insensitive to the effect of medium, and their medium preferences further suggested that they were indifferent to the medium used for reading, both before and after experiencing the task on both media. These results suggest that children, like adults, are metacognitively unaware of the detrimental effect that on-screen reading has on their comprehension, and they are likely to make ineffective medium choices for their reading tasks.