Navigating the Impact of Digital Reading Environments and GenAI on

Reading Processes and Comprehension

Amber Schouten

The morning of April 17, 2020, I logged into Zoom—a digital service that was unknown to me just a month prior—for a routine staff meeting. We had been meeting together as staff this way since Governor Kim Reynolds first closed Iowa schools on March 15 due to the COVID-19 virus. During our staff meeting on April 17, the governor announced that schools in Iowa would remain closed for the duration of the school year. Following the announcement, video screens went dark one-by-one as the tears came as each teacher mourned what we had lost and what we would undoubtedly lose in the future. From that moment, it was evident that education would never be the same.

The return to in-person education in the fall of 2020 brought with it many unknowns and a misguided turn to technology to save us all. Physical print books were viewed as dangerous vehicles that spread disease rather than knowledge. As a result, school and classroom library books were required to go through a quarantine process to contain the virus, and in the process quarantined students from reading too. Michael Morpurgo, a middle grade author, contends that “access to books and the encouragement of the habit of reading: these two things are the first and necessary steps in education…It is our children’s right and it is also our best hope and their best hope for the future” (Miller and Sharp 7). And essentially just the opposite of this happened for our students with the removal of book access and the shift to digital reading environments in the classroom.

Digital Reading Environments Impact Reading Comprehension and Processes

Budget numbers and the argument that students will need to use technology in their future professions are common talking points in favor of shifting to fully digital reading environments. But at what cost? The cost is that digital reading environments have a negative impact on reading processes and comprehension. A study conducted by Norwegian psychologist Anne Mangen and her colleagues showed that when it came to reading comprehension performance, high school students “who read the texts on paper performed significantly better than subjects who read the texts on the computer screen” (65). Specifically, students were better able to sequence details and put plot elements in chronological order. I have seen examples of this in my own classroom. Often, students who choose to complete their assignments on paper include more details and reflect a deeper understanding of the reading than their classmates who choose to complete their assignments digitally.

Further studies by Pablo Delgado, an assistant professor and educational researcher at the University of Seville, supported Mangen’s findings and additionally revealed that when there is a time limit imposed on reading, such as in standardized testing, “factors indicated that the advantage of paper-based reading is significantly larger” (34). When the need to scroll is then factored in, reading digitally further puts the student at a disadvantage. Delgado cites a study by Mary Pommerich, Director at the Defense Testing and Assessment Center and a psychometrician, that “found that participants who read non-scrolling digital texts outperformed those who read scrolling texts,” but participants still performed significantly worse than those that read on paper (35). Scrolling adds an unnecessary cognitive load to reading by making spatial orientation more difficult for readers. Gone are the days of remembering that Pony Boy’s pivotal conversation with Johnnycake began about halfway down the page near the end of the chapter. Instead, students find themselves scrolling endlessly in the hope that they will stumble across the conversation in their digital reading environment.

The digital reading environments our students are required to navigate are designed to be “fast, multi-task oriented and well-suited for large volumes of information” (Wolf, “Skim Reading”). According to a series of studies conducted by Ziming Liu from San Jose State University, “the ‘new norm’ in reading is skimming, with word-spotting and browsing through the text” (Wolf, “Skim Reading”). This means that readers use an F or Z pattern where they sample the first line, and then proceed to word-spot for the remainder of the text. Inevitably, this reading style transfers to print reading as the reader develops new reading habits. As a result, the time allocated to deep reading processes is greatly reduced regardless of medium. This is detrimental to students in all educational realms, not just English language arts.

Maryanne Wolf, Director for the Center of Dyslexia, Diverse Learners, and Social Justice in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at UCLA, asserts that through deep reading students develop important intellectual and affective processes such as internalized knowledge, analogical reasoning, inferencing, perspective-taking, empathy, critical analysis, and the generation of insight (“Skim Reading”). Digital reading is putting these critical processes in danger. As UCLA psychologist Patricia Greenfield observes, “the result is less attention and time will be allocated to slower, time-demanding deep reading processes, like inference, critical analysis and empathy, all of which are indispensable to learning at any age” (Wolf, “Skim Reading”). These negative effects of digital reading can appear as early as fourth or fifth grade according to Tami Katzir, a cognitive scientist from Haifa University (Wolf, “Skim Reading”). Digital reading environments work against the very reading processes teachers endeavor to develop in their students.

In addition to developing shallower reading processes in digital environments, “readers using digital devices may find it difficult to engage in challenging tasks, such as reading comprehension requiring sustained attention” (Delgado et al. 34). While working on an electronic device such as an iPad, students are at the mercy of one distraction after another. Students observe, “when they read on a screen, they are 90 percent likely to be multitasking and only 1 percent likely to multitask when reading on print media” (Wolf, Reader Come Home 114). By multitasking students “enter an addiction loop as the brain’s novelty centers become rewarded for processing shiny new stimuli” (Wolf, Reader Come Home 109). In my classroom when digital reading is the intended task, it is not uncommon to encounter a student that, in addition to his reading assignment, also has tabs open for his March Madness brackets, the weather, YouTube, and Cookie Clicker. Deep reading processes are clearly not happening for this student and he is not alone. This lack of deep reading processes is not unique to the secondary classroom. Mark Edmundson, an English literature scholar and professor, is observing the effects of distractions and shortened attention spans at the collegiate level too. He has noticed “many college students actively avoid the classic literature of the 19th and 20th centuries because they no longer have the patience to read longer, more difficult texts” (Wolf “Skim Reading”). This may be due in part to the introduction of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and its summary skills.

GenAI Alters Reading Processes

The introduction of GenAI has exacerbated students actively avoiding reading long texts. “Because A.I. can generate abridgments, summaries, and other condensed editions on demand,” struggling, reluctant readers are turning to GenAI to remove reading full length works from the learning process (Rothman). According to Yellowlees Douglas, Ph.D., a consultant on writing and organizations, “the damage will be profound…worsening reading and writing skills and aggravating already-poor performances across science, math, history, and, of course, both reading and writing.” While students may believe they are improving their educational experience, they are instead missing out on benefits such as vocabulary acquisition, reading fluency, and writing style development that are lost by bypassing deeper reading processes.

“An L.L.M. will ‘read’ and ‘understand’ an unimaginably large quantity of text. Later, it will be able to recall the substance of that text instantaneously (if not always perfectly), and to draw connections, make comparisons, and extract insights” (Rothman). By outsourcing the reading and processing to GenAI, the student misses out on developing these critical processes. This is not preparing our students for the future.

How Should Educators Respond to Digital Reading Environments and GenAI Reading?

It’s not a secret that AI and digital reading environments are not good for our students’ reading comprehension and processes. So in light of what we know, what can we as educators do to help our students develop strong reading comprehension and processes in this digitally inundated age? First and foremost, we should advocate for physical print books whenever possible in our classrooms. In a longitudinal study of 27 countries over the course of 20 years, a direct correlation was found between physical book access and the level of education a child will attain. “Children with access to a 500-book library over the course of their childhoods benefited just as much as those growing up in homes with college-educated parents—gaining an additional 3.2 years of education on average” (Miller and Sharp 7-8). Surrounding our students with physical print books through the school library, our classroom libraries, and classroom materials not only alleviates the detrimental effects of digital and GenAI influenced reading, but it sets our students up for future success. As educators, isn’t that what we ultimately want for all students?

        Let’s be honest, though. Even though we teachers are experts in our field, often budget numbers and the allure of students needing to use technology in future professions wins out over teacher knowledge acquired through years of experience and sound research-based pedagogical practices. If we are left with only digital resources, what are we to do? The answer is to teach students digital reading strategies. Students are taught reading strategies starting in elementary school and digital reading environments should be approached in the same way. Strategies such as teaching students to annotate actively, chunking reading, and helping students regain spatial awareness will empower students with the necessary tools to be successful when reading physical print materials is not an option. “Helping Students to Best Learn How to Read on Digital Devices” by Jennifer Wood (https://www.edutopia.org/article/teaching-students-read-digital-devices/) and “Smart Strategies for Reading Digital Texts” by The Core Collaborative Learning Lab (https://thecorecollaborative.com/smart-strategies-for-reading-digital-texts/) provide excellent tips and resources to help teachers get started with teaching how to read in digital reading environments.

        While we may not be able to stop a student from choosing to use GenAI, we can combat its use through our pedagogical decisions such as requirements for how students respond to their reading. Teachers need to ask students to complete higher order thinking tasks in response to their reading that GenAI simply can’t do. An example of this would be requiring students to use at least two direct quotes to support each claim. An instance of GenAI generated quotes could be “easily spotted because the AI typically attributes an off-topic quote from the wrong character to provide a second or third quote” (Yellowlees). Another example of a task that AI could not complete would be asking students to take an unusual perspective in their writing response assignment such as what might happen if Mrs. Luella Washington Bates Jones from Langston Hughes’s short story “Thank You, Ma’am” came upon the school children from Ray Bradbury’s short story “All Summer in a Day” shoving Margot in the closet. How would Mrs. Luella Washington Bates Jones react in this situation and how would the children respond? Write this event from Mrs. Luella Washington Bates Jones’s point of view, utilizing her speech style and quotes from both short stories. GenAI would be incapable of effectively developing this idea. My personal favorite approach is to use class discussions as the basis for writing assignments. I have students select a point or topic raised in class to prove or disprove. Students must specifically reference the discussion and let’s face it, GenAI just can’t.

        While digital reading platforms and GenAI might be here to stay, that doesn’t mean that we as educators need to fully embrace and endorse them. After all, they are hindering student reading comprehension and processes. We know that physical print books are what is best for student learning. “Ignoring the evidence of a robust screen inferiority effect may mislead…educational decisions, and even worse, it could prevent readers from fully benefiting from their reading comprehension abilities and keep children from developing these skills in the first place” (Delgado et al. 36). Teachers, let’s continue to advocate for our students and endeavor to make choices that benefit all students.

Teacher Resources

“Helping Students to Best Learn How to Read on Digital Devices” by Jennifer Wood. https://www.edutopia.org/article/teaching-students-read-digital-devices/

“Smart Strategies for Reading Digital Texts” by The Core Collaborative Learning Lab. https://thecorecollaborative.com/smart-strategies-for-reading-digital-texts/

“How AI Could Damage Your Child’s Reading and Writing Skills” by Yellowlees Douglas. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-writing-works/202408/how-ai-could-damage-your-childs-reading-and-writing-skills

Game Changer!: Book Access for All Kids by Donalyn Miller and Colby Sharp.

Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World by Maryanne Wolf.

Works Cited

Delgado, Pablo, et al. “Don’t Throw Away Your Printed Books: A Meta-Analysis on the Effects
        of Reading Media on Reading Comprehension.” Educational Research Review, vol. 25,
        no. 25, Nov. 2018, pp. 23-38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003.

Douglas, Yellowlees. “How AI Could Damage Your Child’s Reading and Writing Skills.”
Psychology Today, 2024, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-writing-works/202408/how-ai-could-damage-your-childs-reading-and-writing-skills. 

Mangen, Anne, et al. “Reading Linear Texts on Paper versus Computer Screen: Effects on
        Reading Comprehension.” International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 58, no.
        58, Jan. 2013, pp. 61-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.

Miller, Donalyn, and Colby Sharp. Game Changer! : Book Access for All Kids. New York, NY,
        Scholastic Inc, 2018.

Rothman, Joshua. “What’s Happening to Reading?” The New Yorker, 17 June 2025,
        http://www.newyorker.com/culture/open-questions/whats-happening-to-reading.

Wolf, Maryanne. Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World. New York,
        Harper, 2018.

Wolf, Maryanne. “Skim Reading Is the New Normal. The Effect on Society Is Profound.” The
        Guardian, 20 Dec. 2018,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/skim-reading-new-normal-maryanne-wolf. 

Licensing

Copyright Amber Schouten, 2025. Licensed CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.