A new study finds that students who read printed texts understand content better than those who read the same text on a portable digital device, such as a tablet. The findings could have implications for how digital devices are used in schools, says Ladislao Salmerón, lead author of the study.
Salmerón, a professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Valencia in Spain, says the research arose from concerns that the mass digitization of reading in schools could create difficulties that need to be properly understood and addressed.
The study that compares printed texts with texts read on portable digital devices was recently published in The Journal of Educational Psychology. Here’s what you need to know about it.
What is the importance of research on print devices versus digital devices?
The advantage of printed texts over digital ones has been seen in many previous studies, and educational psychologists even have a name for the phenomenon: the “screen inferiority effect.” However, in general, previous studies have compared printed readings with reading on a computer screen, not with the handheld devices that modern students use for most of their reading.
Salmerón and his colleagues wanted to see if the screen inferiority effect occurs if we focus on portable devices versus printed ones. To answer that, they searched for existing studies and conducted an analysis focused solely on data sets comparing print reading with handheld devices.
In the end, they analyzed dozens of studies and combined the results of more than 100,000 students. As in previous research, they found that students who consistently read print texts performed slightly better.
Although small, Salmerón points out, the observed effect is statistically significant and could have great implications. “When interpreting this we must consider that children in schools read every day, so this effect could accumulate over time,” he says.
Why is it more effective to read printed texts?
The reasons for the screen inferiority effect are not fully understood.
One possibility is called the surface hypothesis, which assumes that when reading on digital devices people generally do so for short periods of time and read short chunks of text. This, the hypothesis holds, favors a browsing state of mind and makes people less cognitively efficient when reading on devices.
Another theory holds That the tactile nature of reading, feeling each page and remembering whether you were at the beginning or the end of the book helps provide more clues of information to connect with your memory.
Neither theory has been proven. “We still don’t know what causes the screen inferiority effect,” says Salmerón. He adds that research is needed to understand it. “This is essential if we want to prevent this inferiority from occurring.”
What are the most important implications of the research?
This study has direct implications for educators, says Salmerón. “First of all, printed texts should not be abandoned. Second, educators should consider task objectives when deciding which reading medium to use.” He adds: “Tablets may be suitable for Internet reference tasks, but paper should be preferred to promote comprehension of long texts.”
Salmerón says he is not against the technology and is working with other researchers to try to better understand the screen inferiority effect. “We’re trying to imagine ways to improve understanding through digital tools,” he says.
Still, he says it’s harder for him and his colleagues to get funded because it’s often work that doesn’t show any benefit to the technology. Additionally, he is often criticized by educational technology enthusiasts who claim that he has an outdated perspective on literacy.
“My response is that we should not ignore the evidence and we should not dismiss practices that have been shown to be helpful, such as reading print,” he says.
