Opinion Pieces

Screen vs. paper: what is the difference for

Caroline Myrberg ,

Ninna Wiberg
Abstract
We have all seen the newspaper headlines: screens make us read slower, learn
less deeply, remember less and sleep worse. Is this why students prefer to print
out their electronic textbooks? We suspected it was habit and attitude rather
than measurable cognitive effort during reading that made people prefer print
texts, but we needed evidence. We decided to find out what recent research had
to say on the subject and read scholarly articles addressing the issues of the
actual reading and/or learning processes involved in reading on screen compared
to on paper. We then considered these results in relation to our own experience
of using tablets and teaching scholars and students how to use their
tablets/smartphones in their work.
Habit and attitude appeared to be important, and a digitally born textbook is by
far the best alternative to a print textbook when it comes to studying. But even
those who prefer to read on screens are originally native paper readers, and as
long as the existing application interfaces cannot address the shortcomings of
screens regarding spatial landmarks, we will keep returning to paper under
certain circumstances.
We would like to see developers make more user-friendly e-readers, and authors
and publishers learn to fully utilize of the potential of the e-book.
Keywords: E-books , learning , reading comprehension , human
computer interaction , digital literacy
How to Cite: Myrberg, Caroline, and Ninna Wiberg. 2015. “Screen Vs.
Paper: What Is the Difference for Reading and Learning?”. Insights 28 (2):
49–54. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.236

170143
Views

5543
Downloads

3
Citations

52
Twitter

128
Facebook

Published on 07 Jul 2015

Peer Reviewed

CC BY 4.0
Introduction
It all started with a project at Uppsala University Library in Sweden called
‘Mobile Academics’, where we held seminars on how to use the library’s e-
resources on a tablet computer and gave tips on different apps to use when
studying. This project led to another seminar about the difference between
reading on screen and on paper. To prepare for it, we read scientific articles and
picked out a few of those as examples. We chose to focus on the articles that
were more current, since studies made on screens from 1985 cannot be
compared with the studies made on today’s screens. It is not only the devices
that have evolved, either: people have, too. Back in the 1980s not many people
owned their own computer, whereas today a great many more people do.
Is it dangerous to read from a screen?
In the early years of the railway, people were seriously concerned about how the
speed (18 mph or 30 kmph) would affect the human body. The Lancet published
a landmark series of articles about the dangers of railway travel to public health
in 1862, and at the same time ‘railway spine’ became a common diagnosis.1
New inventions do make our lives easier in many ways, but they can also cause
worries and troubles – both actual and imaginary. The trains did most certainly
cause distress when they first came along and so does new technology today.
These days, no one is diagnosed with ‘railway spine’, but we do get ‘iPad neck’,
‘computer vision syndrome’ and screen-related sleeplessness.
Computer vision syndrome, a temporary condition with symptoms like
headaches, fatigue and strained and dry eyes, can be prevented by closing your
eyes or looking away from the screen every now and then. Reading on newer
tablets with higher pixel densities spares the eyes, too.2 As with any sedentary
work, it is always good to take regular breaks to prevent strain injuries like iPad
neck.
It can be advisable to shut off your screen a couple of hours before bedtime, even
when you are ‘only reading’, because the blue light of the screen may suppress
the body’s production of melatonin, and this can disturb your sleep. Other ways
to reduce blue light could be switching to ‘night mode’ in your reading app or
installing a programme on your device that makes the colour of the display
warmer at night.3
Is it more difficult to read from a screen?
Kretzschmar et al. did a study in 2013 that compared reading effort on three
different media: a paper page, an e-reader (e-ink) and a tablet computer. They
studied eye movement, brain activity and reading speed. The participants also
answered a few questions to determine reading comprehension. The interesting
thing was that all participants said that they preferred reading on paper, even
though the study found no support for it being more effortful to read on digital
media. On the contrary, the older participants read both faster and with less
effort on the tablet computer, due to the back lighting giving a better contrast,
and because of this being better for older eyes.4
But why did all the participants still prefer to read on paper? The authors suggest
that it is more about people’s attitude towards the digital media than the actual
reading experience: ‘The present findings thereby suggest that the scepticism
towards digital reading media … may reflect a general cultural attitude towards
reading in this manner rather than measurable cognitive effort during reading.’5
A study was undertaken in 2013 with tenth-graders in Norway, where the
students were divided into two groups. One group read two texts (1,400–2,000
words) in print and the other group read the same texts as PDFs on a computer
screen. In the reading comprehension test that was administered, the students
who read on paper scored significantly better than those who read the texts
digitally. It was easier for those who read on paper to remember what they had
read. Mangen et al. say that this is because paper gives spatio-temporal markers
while you read. Touching paper and turning pages aids the memory, making it
easier to remember where you read something. Having to scroll on the computer
screen makes remembering more difficult.6
Do you learn less when reading e-texts?
Studies that control for factors like experience and attitude among respondents
are uncommon. In a study from 20127, the authors Ackerman and Lauterman let
80 undergraduate engineering students read five texts either on paper or
computer screens. After each text they completed a test, but before the test they
had to make a prediction on how well they would perform in the test. They
studied the texts under three different time conditions: for two texts they were
allowed only seven minutes to read (pressured), for two texts they were allowed
as much time as they needed (free) and for one text the participants thought they
could use as much time as they wanted, but were interrupted after seven
minutes (interrupted).
The paper readers generally got better results, but not under the interrupted
time condition, for which the results were similar for both groups (see Figure 1),
which is very interesting because if technology-related factors were what caused
the inferior results for the screen-reading group, the results should have been the
same under all studying conditions.

Original | PPT
Figure 1
Mean test scores and predictions of performance (POP) for the three time conditions for screen
and paper learning. Error bars represent the standard errors of the mean.8
Small differences between prediction of performance and actual test scores
means the students made an accurate calibration. A good calibration often leads
to better results simply because you do not stop studying too soon. As shown in
Figure 1 paper readers generally make a better calibration than the screen
readers, who tend to be more overconfident.
The results of this study show that the problem with screen reading is more
psychological than technological. But the study also argues that medium
preferences matter, since those who studied on their preferred medium showed
both less overconfidence and got better test scores.
Two years later Lauterman and Ackerman did another study9 to see if it is
possible to overcome screen inferiority in learning and calibration. This time they
let the students read six texts on either a computer screen or paper. The students
were allowed seven minutes to read each text.
In the first pair of tests, the participants who studied on screen performed just as
poorly compared to those who read on paper as in the study from 2012. But in
the third test, already the screen readers who preferred reading from screens
were getting scores similar to the scores of those who had read the texts from
paper. Their calibration – the difference between the actual test scores and their
prediction of performance – also got better and better for each text (see
Figure 2). So, yes, it was possible to overcome screen inferiority in learning and
calibration – but only for those who preferred reading from screens. They
became less overconfident and got higher scores after only a few tests.

Original | PPT
Figure 2
Mean test scores and predictions of performance (POP) for the three text pairs by their study
order for on-screen learners (OSL) preferring screen.10
What is the point of e-books?
There are many benefits of e-books, such as being able to access many books
without carrying a heavy load. But as studies have shown, people still choose
paper over screen. One big problem is that e-books are made to be read like a
linear text, so the possibilities of the digital medium are not being utilized. The e-
book just turns into a copy of the printed version, and why would anyone want to
read a digital version if they are more comfortable reading a printed version?
In one study, a comparison was made between how well students learnt by using
course material in paper format and the same material made into seven web
pages, with no scrolling being needed. The paper format had a dictionary and
study questions at the back, while the web pages had implemented a dictionary
that was enabled by a mouse-over function, and the questions were placed next
to the text where the answers could be found. The participants completed a
knowledge test of 24 questions after reading their texts, and the web page group
scored better on 18 of those questions, and significantly better (90% or higher)
on six. So enhancing the electronic text instead of just turning it into a copy of
the printed version seems to have helped the students to score higher on the
test.11
These students also had a brainstorming session on the future of study material.
Most of the students said they preferred a web page or a computer programme
over books, but they still thought that the written word was the best way to gain
knowledge. The students wanted a total experience from their course material,
with the texts being shorter and including a better overview, and being enhanced
with video, sound, interactive tests and games. They also wanted their course
material to be integrated with social media so they could stay connected with
their peers and teachers, and they wanted their teachers to be able to update the
material.12
Are the users ready?
Last year, graduate students and faculty in science and engineering at the
University of Kansas were asked about their e-book usage and preferences.13
Within the whole population, students and faculty, almost 40% preferred e-
books. But among those of the respondents who primarily read on
e-readers/tablets, 52% preferred reading on screens. Discomfort or difficulty in
reading e-books on a screen was stated as the main reason they did not like
reading e-books. Except for a preference for reading print books, 43% of the
respondents said they were discouraged from using e-books because there are
no relevant e-books available, 30% had difficulties in finding e-books and 15%
were not aware that e-books were available at all. Interestingly, preferences
were quite different between the departments. Physics & Astronomy had the
highest preference for print books (80%), while the departments within the
School of Pharmacy had the highest preference for e-books (59%). The authors
suggest that the reason for this ‘may be the curricular requirement to use the e-
book collection, e.g. AccessPharmacy.’14
Does this mean that when our patrons have to read e-books, they get used to
them, discover their benefits and start to like them? Since most libraries cannot
afford to purchase all books in each format some users will have to read books on
a medium other than their preferred one. So, while tablets are rapidly becoming
everyman’s property, perhaps libraries should purchase more e-books instead of
print books. Then, if we manage to make them accessible to our users, perhaps
there will eventually be no problem?
Is the technology ready?
Many e-books at academic libraries have digital rights management (DRM)
systems that restrict and complicate the downloading to tablets so much that
some users avoid reading the e-books at all. On some e-book platforms, you have
to use Bluefire Reader for downloading books, even if you’re an Android user,
which is not ideal. Then if you do manage to download and locate the PDF file on
your device, you can only use it for a few days and then you have to go through
the whole downloading procedure again. But then all your notes and bookmarks
will be gone. Then you try to read the e-book online, where you have to create
another personal account to be able to save your notes and bookmarks. The
online ebrary reader, for example, is by no means suitable for tablet browsers in
any case: the text can appear rather blurry and you cannot highlight or underline
any text at all, because when you try, you just move the whole text sideways.
Generally, the apps for e-reading lack the ability to present essential spatial
landmarks, they give poor feedback on your progress as you read, and make it
difficult for you to plan your reading since they do not show how much is left of
the chapter/book in a direct and transparent way. Other drawbacks are that
usually, the reading applications do not sync between devices and it is not always
possible to adjust the text to the screen. Granted, you can reflow PDFs in most
PDF readers, but then you cannot make any notes and all tables and pictures will
disappear from the text.
There are exceptions, but the more user-friendly apps we have tried do not
support DRM and can therefore not be used to read library e-books.
How will we read in the future?
You need to get used to a new type of medium before you can use it to its full
potential, and feel comfortable doing so. Today, 57% of all two-year-olds in
Sweden are using the internet – most of them on a tablet computer.15 Those
children are used to the technology, but that is not enough to master the art of
digital reading. We think that the way children are taught to read and study in
school is vital. If schools were able to integrate digital learning better, it would
probably make it easier for those students to use e-books, and make them want
to use them instead of print. Digital literacy will be an essential skill as more tests
(such as Sweden’s nationwide school tests and exams) become available only in
 digital form – and if tests are only available in digital form, it might be more
difficult for some just because they are not comfortable with the format.
In 2013 the medical student Joshua Harding spoke at the UKSG Conference in
Bournemouth.16 He was completely paperless – he had all his notes and his
books on his iPad – but most students are not there yet, and we believe there will
be a mixed behaviour for many years to come. As long as we are not all native
digital readers, there will be occasions when most of us will be more comfortable
reading printed text, for example, when proofreading.
More native paper readers will choose e-books when the online reading
platforms and reading applications for tablets and smartphones are more user
friendly and compensate for the lack of spatial landmarks that many native paper
readers experience when they try to read e-texts.
When you can easily find and download a suitable e-book, that also utilizes all the
possibilities that the electronic medium offers and is not just a direct translation
from print, that may be the day when all students will prefer e-books.
Competing interests
The authors have declared no competing interests.
References
1. Milne-Smith, A (2013). Madmen on the Railways: Careering Towards
Disaster. Western Conference on British
Studies.http://www.academia.edu/4755351/Madmen_onthe_Railways_Careering_
Towards_Disaster(accessed 10 April 2015).
2. Barthakur, R (2013). Computer Vision Syndrome. Internet Journal of Medical
Update 8(2): 1–2.
3. Kresser, C (2013). How Artificial Light Is Wrecking Your Sleep, and What to Do
About It. February 22 2013 Chris Kresser – Let’s Take Back Your Health –
Starting Now:http://chriskresser.com/how-artificial-light-is-wrecking-your-sleep-
and-what-to-do-about-it (accessed 26 March 2015).
4. Kretzschmar, F, Pleimling, D, Hosemann, J, Füssel, S, Bornkessel-
Schlesewsky, I andSchlesewsky, M (2013). Subjective Impressions Do Not
Mirror Online Reading Effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking Evidence From the
Reading of Books and Digital Media. PLOS ONE 8(2):
e56178.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056178(accessed 5 June
2015).
5. Kretzschmar, F, Pleimling, D, Hosemann, J, Füssel, S, Bornkessel-
Schlesewsky, I andSchlesewsky, M (2013). Subjective Impressions Do Not
Mirror Online Reading Effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking Evidence From the
Reading of Books and Digital Media. PLOS ONE 8(2):
8.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056178 (accessed 5 June 2015).
6. Mangen, A, Walgermo, B R and Brønnick, K (2013). Reading Linear Texts
on Paper Versus Computer Screen: Effects on Reading
Comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research 58: 61–68,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
7. Ackerman, R and Lauterman, T (2012). Taking Reading Comprehension
Exams on Screen or on Paper? A Metacognitive Analysis of Learning Texts under
Time Pressure. Computers in Human Behavior 28(5): 1816–1828,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
8. Ackerman, R and Lauterman, T (2012). Taking Reading Comprehension
Exams on Screen or on Paper? A Metacognitive Analysis of Learning Texts under
Time Pressure. Computers in Human Behavior 28(5): 1816–1823,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
9. Lauterman, T and Ackerman, R (2014). Overcoming Screen Inferiority in
Learning and Calibration. Computers in Human Behavior 35: 455–463,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046
10. Lauterman, T and Ackerman, R (2014). Overcoming Screen Inferiority
in Learning and Calibration. Computers in Human Behavior 35:
461.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046
11. Stoop, J, Kreutzer, P and Kircz, J G (2013). Reading and Learning from
Screens Versus Print: A Study in Changing Habits: Part 2 – Comparing Different
Text Structures on Paper and on Screen. New Library World 114(9/10): 371–383,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-04-2013-0034
12. Stoop, J, Kreutzer, P and Kircz, J G (2013). Reading and Learning from
Screens Versus Print: A Study in Changing Habits: Part 2 – Comparing Different
Text Structures on Paper and on Screen. New Library World 114(9/10): 371–383,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-04-2013-0034
13. Waters, J, Roach, J, Emde, J, McEathron, S and Russell, K (2014). A
Comparison of E-book and Print Book Discovery, Preferences, and Usage by
Science and Engineering Faculty and Graduate Students at the University of
Kansas. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5062/F48G8HN5 (Winter).
14. Waters, J, Roach, J, Emde, J, McEathron, S and Russell, K (2014). A
Comparison of E-book and Print Book Discovery, Preferences, and Usage by
Science and Engineering Faculty and Graduate Students at the University of
Kansas. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5062/F48G8HN5 (Winter).
15. Findahl, O (). The Swedes and the Internet 2014. A yearly report
from .SE (Internet Infrastructure Foundation) that maps change and
development in internet use among the Swedish
population, http://en.soi2014.se/ (accessed 10 April 2015).
16. Harding, J (). The Student-Information Relationship, UKSG Conference
2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.104 UKSGLIVE: https://youtu.be/j-
QmslBH7NY (accessed 5 June 2015).