1.
Reading On ScreenA website to support engagement with digital resourceshttp://readingonscreen.wordpress.com/Matt Cornock and Blayn ParkinsonUniversity of York@mattcornock @blaynparkinson

2.
Books vs PDFsPhoto (cc-by) Matt CornockIncrease use of digital resources for teaching.Reducing demand on physical books. Yet need toaddress the subjective apprehension about onscreen reading (Holizinger, et al, 2011).

3.
Device ownershipPhoto (cc-by) Matt CornockOur internal surveys of first years show 93% ownlaptops or tablets, 78% own smartphones and only22% own desktop computers. Leading to moreflexible and ad hoc engagement with resources.

4.
Changing behaviourPhoto (cc-by) Matt CornockConflict in the way that digital resources areprovided to students, yet our expectation is to stillhand out paper. Need to address digitalconsumption in class and overcome fear of laptops.

5.
Mimicking existing methodsPhoto (cc-by) Matt CornockCommon approaches to digital resources mimicpaper-based interaction with highlighting and notes,yet the digital world offers much more:collaboration, connectability, searchability.

6.
Exposing the skills gapPhoto (cc-by) Matt CornockOur students (and us) are trained in the paper-based world. We cannot assume students arecompetent in a digital-only environment so we mustoffer support – hence the Reading On Screen site.

7.
Common problems• You don’t know what you don’t know– Change of font/colours/background/interface– Different devices (strengths/weaknesses)– Annotation– File management– Searchability

8.
New learning opportunitiesPhoto (cc) Matt CornockWith the confidence and knowledge to manage andengage with resources in a digital-only way,students can create rich personal libraries and nolonger be bound by the book request queue.

9.
Development of the site• Focus on the skills and tools to assist inconsumption of digital resources• Devices• File formats• Problem-solving• Commenting and collaborative

10.
Reading On Screenhttp://readingonscreen.wordpress.com/

11.
References• Ackerman, R. and Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitiveanalysis of learning texts under time pressure, Computers and Human Behaviour, 28, 1816-1828.• Darroch, I., Goodman, J., Brewster, S. and Gray, P. (2005). The effect of age and font size on reading text on handheldcomputers, in M.F. Costabile and F. Paternò (eds) INTERACT 2005, IFIP TC13 International Conference, Rome, Italy,September 12-16, 2005. 253-266.• Holzinger, A., Baernthaler, M., Pammer, W., Katz, H., Bjelic-Radisic, V. and Ziefle, M. (2011). Investigating paper vs. screen inreal-life hospital workflows: Performance contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience, InternationalJournal of Human-Computer Studies, 69, 563-570.• Lin, H., Wu, F. and Cheng, Y. (2012). Legibility and visual fatigue affected by text direction screen size and character size,Displays, 34, 49-58.• Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. and Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on readingcomprehension, International Journal of Education Research, 58, 61-68.• Oborne, D. and Holton, D. (1988). Reading from screen versus paper: there is no difference, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 28, 1-9.• Wolfe, J. (2008). Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on studentargumentation and reading strategies, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 141-164.