Fast and Slow: Using Spritz for Academic Study?

In an age of increasing digital reading it is interesting that University students’ are not adapting innovative technologies for academic study. This is even more surprising because today’s university students are purportedly digitally native keen to use new technologies in comfortable personal spaces but adhere to traditional paper when studying. There is a distinct paucity of research with respect to how students use technology for academic purposes, particularly independent study. This small-scale qualitative evaluation investigates how undergraduate students respond to a refined Rapid Serial Visual Presentation speed reading application called Spritz, which claims to significantly increase users’ ability to skim read and comprehend content effectively. We evaluated the tool and asked students to express which affordances they would forego to make the technology acceptable. The sample of students focused on those enrolled on a module about academic reading were introduced to Spritz (N = 55). Nine students agreed to take part in the trials. Participants used the Sprtizlet App which enables a reading speed of up to four hundred words a minute to perform reading tasks. The findings suggest the technology is acceptable for certain types of skim reading and scanning, but Spritz did not meet the varied requirements of the participants’’ academic study practices.

[1]  M. Anne Britt,et al.  RESOLV: Readers' Representation of Reading Contexts and Tasks , 2017 .

[2]  L. Salmerón,et al.  Strategic Decisions in Task-Oriented Reading , 2015, The Spanish Journal of Psychology.

[3]  Sue Bennett,et al.  The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[4]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[5]  Sharon Lauricella,et al.  Exploring the Benefits and Challenges of Using Laptop Computers in Higher Education Classrooms: A Formative Analysis , 2011 .

[6]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Undergraduate Students’ Justifications for Source Selection in a Digital Academic Context , 2016 .

[7]  Charlotte P. Lee,et al.  The imposition and superimposition of digital reading technology: the academic potential of e-readers , 2011, CHI.

[8]  K. Rayner The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  Rupert Ward,et al.  Developing a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  Anne D. Crosby,et al.  Pushing the Speed of Assistive Technologies for Reading , 2018, Mind, Brain, and Education.

[11]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[12]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Reading Ability: Lexical Quality to Comprehension , 2007 .

[13]  Juliet Hinrichsen,et al.  The five resources of critical digital literacy: a framework for curriculum integration , 2014 .

[14]  Lisa Gibbs,et al.  Generating best evidence from qualitative research: the role of data analysis , 2007, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health.

[15]  Francesco Di Nocera,et al.  Not so fast: A reply to Benedetto et al. (2015) , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[16]  Giuseppe Chiazzese,et al.  A Reflection on Some Critical Aspects of Online Reading Comprehension , 2010, Informatica.

[17]  Amanda J. Rockinson-Szapkiw,et al.  Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students' learning , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[18]  Jane Vincent Students’ use of paper and pen versus digital media in university environments for writing and reading – a cross-cultural exploration , 2016 .

[19]  E. Rose The phenomenology of on‐screen reading: University students' lived experience of digitised text , 2011 .

[20]  I-Chia Chou,et al.  Understanding on-screen reading behaviors in academic contexts: a case study of five graduate English-as-a-second-language students , 2012 .

[21]  Thierry Baccino,et al.  Rapid serial visual presentation in reading: The case of Spritz , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Don’t Believe What You Read (Only Once) , 2014, Psychological science.

[23]  Julie Alonzo,et al.  Examining the structure of reading comprehension: do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist? , 2013 .

[24]  Douglas R. Vogel,et al.  Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[25]  Derek R. Smith,et al.  Occupational therapy students' technological skills: Are 'generation Y' ready for 21st century practice? , 2016, Australian occupational therapy journal.

[26]  Sarah J. Stein,et al.  Student preparedness for university e-learning environments , 2015, Internet High. Educ..

[27]  Tanja Stevns,et al.  The Use of Assistive Technologies as Learning Technologies to Facilitate Flexible Learning in Higher Education , 2014, ICCHP.

[28]  Naomi S. Baron Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World , 2015 .

[29]  J. Juola,et al.  Rapid serial visual presentation: degradation of inferential reading comprehension as a function of speed , 2018 .

[30]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  So Much to Read, So Little Time , 2016, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[31]  Craig Anderson,et al.  Practical overlap: The possibility of replacing print books with e-books , 2013 .

[32]  BenedettoSimone,et al.  Rapid serial visual presentation in reading , 2015 .

[33]  Lotta C. Larson Digital Readers: The Next Chapter in E‐Book Reading and Response , 2010 .

[34]  Ellen Irén Brinchmann,et al.  Lexical Quality Matters: Effects of Word Knowledge Instruction on the Language and Literacy Skills of Third‐ and Fourth‐Grade Poor Readers , 2016 .

[35]  M. Julee Tanner,et al.  Digital vs. Print: Reading Comprehension and the Future of the Book , 2014 .

[36]  Liang-Yi Li,et al.  Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book reading and navigation , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[37]  A. K. Pugh Silent Reading: An Introduction to Its Study and Teaching , 1979 .

[38]  Mark Pegrum,et al.  Application of Spritz to the Dynamic Presentation of Text in Project Documentation , 2015 .

[39]  Christopher R. Jones,et al.  Net generation students: agency and choice and the new technologies , 2010, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[40]  Chien-Hsiung Chen,et al.  Effects of dynamic display, presentation method, speed, and task type on reading comprehension of wristwatch screens , 2008, Displays.

[41]  L. C. Gilbert Speed of processing visual stimuli and its relation to reading. , 1959 .

[42]  Chen Chen,et al.  E-Readers Are More Effective than Paper for Some with Dyslexia , 2013, PloS one.

[43]  Kara D. Sage,et al.  Flip, Slide, or Swipe? Learning Outcomes from Paper, Computer, and Tablet Flashcards , 2019, Technol. Knowl. Learn..

[44]  Jan Elen,et al.  Adults’ Self-Regulatory Behaviour Profiles in Blended Learning Environments and Their Implications for Design , 2018, Technology, Knowledge and Learning.