Rationales

---

A growing body of research suggests student readers comprehend what they read in print books at much greater rates than they do when consuming content digitally (Herold, 2014). Award-winning science journalist Ferris Jabr wrote a comprehensive article synthesizing the recent literature about reading print and screens. Jabr discusses the brain circuitry, described in Wolf’s book Proust and the Squid, and reading as a process in which the brain sees “text [as] a tangible part of the physical world.” Jabr describes the text features that “make text in a paper book easily navigable.” He delineates the distinct attributes of text reading which “digital texts have not satisfyingly replicated” and which may contribute to the fact that many people sample texts on line and purchase paper copies of those they like. He notes the visual discomforts associated with screen reading and the medical recognition of computer vision syndrome as a medical condition. Jabr reflects on a 2005 survey by Dr. Ziming Liu which demonstrates that students approach reading on paper differently from reading on screens and devote less time to reading a piece through. Jabr concludes: “When it comes to intensively reading long pieces of plain text, paper and ink may still have the advantage.”

Tanner (2014), in a review of the relevant research, compared the impact on reading comprehension of reading in three platforms, namely print, e-books, and books digitally downloaded. In assessing the impacts of these platforms on comprehension, Tanner enumerated several conditions pertinent to librarians’ decisions regarding how to allocate their limited resources. Tanner purports that the underlying basis of librarians’ choices “should be made with an understanding of the suitability of each platform for the comprehension needs of the likely reader, and whether a particular book will be read for entertainment or edification.” Citing evidence from Rosenfield (2011), Tanner summarizes that, because the angle of reading related to reading print supports more complete eye blinks than reading on a computer, thus minimizing dry eye, “printed books will continue to be superior to computer screens, especially when one is trying to read longer, more challenging texts.” Tanner further discusses readers’ subjective preferences for print over digital reading, citing studies by Benedetto (2013) and Kretzschmar (2013), which “show an overwhelming preference for print books over both digital media platforms.” Citing the work of Jabr (2013) and Mangen (2012)), Tanner discusses a “thought-landscape where meaning associated with words occupies a specific location,” the cognitive process the reader demonstrates when able to recall and locate the physical location of a passage within a text. This physicality of print is connected to cognitive processes of comprehending and memory. E-books and downloaded materials on screens may likewise be less appealing to readers whose previous reading experiences create certain sensory expectations about reading, expectations such as being able to turn or ear-mark pages, look at the cover, see entire chapters and hold the span in their hands. Tanner credits Gerlach and Buxman (2011) with this concept of “Haptic Dissonance” which explains many readers’ preference for books over other platforms of reading. Tanner also reviewed studies of metacognitive practices of students when reading from print and e-readers, relating Margolin’s study (2013) of findings that students on e-readers (who had scored slightly below print readers on comprehension questions) were less likely to return to previous pages. Since rereading to clarify understanding is a strategy of proficient readers, it is possible that turning physical pages is more conducive to this metacognitive strategy. Tanner also emphasizes the distraction of hyperlinks, “proven to interrupt the seamlessness of the reading process from perception to thought processing,” in e-reading. She summarizes by stating that “print books are still the best suited to the optical, cognitive, and metacognitive requirements of the reading brain.” 

Professor, Executive Director of the Center for Teaching, Research & Learning at American University and author of Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World, Naomi Baron presented, in her article “How E-Reading Threatens Learning in the Humanities,” some of her reservations about the increased reliance of digital platforms for reading. In her surveys of university students regarding their reading of “meaty texts,” Baron investigated student preferences for reading platforms, their use of these platforms, and their metacognition about the impact of digital and print platforms. She concludes “that screens... weren’t designed for focused concentration, reading slowly, pausing... or rereading.”

While screen reading has many appropriate uses, it should supplement rather than supplant paper texts, particularly as librarians and educators address the diversity of student populations whose preferences, learning profiles, and purposes are likewise diverse.

According to Naomi Baron, university students sampled in the United States, Germany, and Japan said that if cost were the same, about 90 percent prefer hard copy or print for schoolwork.  For a long text, 92 percent would choose hard copy. Baron also asserts that digital reading makes it easier for students to become distracted and multitask. Of the American and Japanese subjects sampled by Baron, 92 percent reported they found it easiest to concentrate when reading in hard copy (98 percent in Germany). Of the American students, 26 percent said they were likely to multitask while reading in print, compared with 85 percent reading on-screen.

David Daniel and William Woody urge caution in rushing to e-textbooks and call for further investigation. Their study compared college student performance between electronic and paper textbooks. While the results suggested that student scores were similar between the formats, they noted that reading time was significantly higher in the electronic version. In addition, students revealed significantly higher multitasking behaviors with electronic devices in home conditions. These findings uphold recent results involving multitasking habits while using e-textbooks in Baron's survey. Likewise, L. D. Rosen et al. found that during a 15-minute study period, students switched tasks, on average, three times while using electronic devices. Taken together, these studies point to adaptive habits and cognitive shortcuts while using technology even though learning is the primary objective.

A 2013 UK survey conducted by the National Literacy Trust with 34,910 students ranging in age from 8 to 16 reported that over 52 percent preferred to read on electronic devices compared to 32 percent who preferred print. The data points to possible influences of technology on reading ability: compared to print readers, those who read digital screens are almost twice less likely to be above-average readers. Furthermore, the number of children reading from e-books doubled in the prior two years to 12 percent. According to John Douglas, the National Literacy Trust Director, those who read only on-screen are also three times less likely to enjoy reading. Those who read using technological devices said they really enjoyed reading less (12 percent) compared to those who preferred books (51 percent).

Survey results from the Joan Ganz Cooney Center suggest that parents who read to their three- to six-year-olds with tablets recalled significantly fewer details compared to the same story read using print. Together, data from these studies raise concern about overall literacy development in young people.

"Because we literally and physiologically can read in multiple ways, how we read — and what we absorb from our reading — will be influenced by both the content of our reading and the medium we use."

—Maryanne Wolf

Natalie Phillips conducted fMRI studies to examine brain activity of graduate students while reading Jane Austen (deep reading for literary analysis and reading for pleasure).According to Phillips, the research team saw dramatic increases in blood flow to diverse cognitive regions of the brain far beyond those responsible for executive function, regions associated with tasks requiring close attention, suggesting that how people read may be as important as what they read. Phillips concluded, "It's not only the books we read, but also the act of thinking rigorously about them that's of value, exercising the brain in critical ways."

For example, Ackerman and Goldsmith sought to understand differences in university students' metacognition skills and the effect on the learning process between digital and paper reading modes. Compared to digital readers, Ackerman and Goldsmith purported that paper readers manifested greater self-regulation that resulted in better performance. Mangen, Walgermo, and Bronnick conducted an experiment investigating comprehension with high school students to determine differences between paper and digital forms. Students completed an open-book test (hour-long) while they reviewed and navigated either a digital or paper reading. According to the researchers, paper readers showed significantly higher comprehension scores compared to digital readers.

Individual differences of higher scores of paper readers from this study and Johnson’s may reflect factors related to working memory. Studies of reading from computers conducted by Wastlund, Norlander, and Archer highlighted the influence of page layout and scrolling on cognitive demand and individual working memory capacity. Likewise, experimental results by Noyes and Garland suggested that reading from screens might interfere with cognitive processing of long-term memory.

Inconsistencies in cognitive load, reading complexity, study notes, and environment (i.e., classroom, home, and workplace) present contributing factors that influence performance results. Baron asserted that 92 percent of students find it easier to concentrate while reading from paper compared to electronic texts. According to Mangen, Walgermo, and Bronnick’s study, students who used hard-copy texts performed better in comprehension scores compared to those with computers for an open-book assessment. Moreover, as reported by Muller and Oppenheimer, students showed higher recall and conceptual scores when studying handwritten notes compared to electronic note taking. All together, several design qualities point to variables that contribute to contradictory results.