Reading: Why We Still Read Print

A Does it matter whether we read a text on paper or on a screen? In 2013 the question was put to the test in Norway. Anne Mangen, Bjørg Walgermo and Kolbjørn Brønnick studied 72 tenth-grade students from two Norwegian schools, and their report appeared in the International Journal of Educational Research, volume 58. Two groups of students read the same two texts. Each text was between 1,400 and 2,000 words long, and one was a story while the other was a factual text. One group read the texts in print, and the other group read them as PDF files on a computer. Before the test, the researchers measured the students' word-reading skills and vocabulary, so that differences between individual readers could be taken into account.

B The result was clear. The students who read in print scored significantly better on the comprehension test, and this was true for both the story and the factual text. The authors suggested an explanation that has to do with the physical nature of paper. Its tactile cues, they said, may help readers build a mental map of a text. On paper, a reader can feel how thick the text is and see where it begins and ends. On a screen, a reader sees only a page or two at a time and has to rely on abstract signals such as scroll bars and page numbers. Put simply, the page gives the reader something to hold on to, while the screen shows a window onto the text.

C I would argue that one study is a thin basis for a firm conclusion, so it helps to look at a wider picture. In 2018 Delgado and colleagues published a review of 54 studies from 2000 to 2017 in Educational Research Review. Its title was "Don't throw away your printed books". The 54 studies included 171,055 participants in total, and the review reported a small advantage for reading on paper. That advantage was larger when readers had limited time. It appeared for informational or mixed texts, but not for texts that were only narrative, which is not quite what the Norwegian students showed, since they also did better with the story in print. The Norwegian study was small: just 72 students from two schools in one country. Its result cannot tell us about every kind of reader or every kind of text.

D It seems to me that neither format wins every time. I would argue that print is the better choice when a reader has little time or needs to understand a long, informational text, because the evidence points in that direction. Screens, on the other hand, are practical for a quick search or a short message, and nothing in these studies shows that reading on a screen is harmful for every purpose. In my view, the sensible conclusion is that print and screens suit different tasks. Readers should choose the medium that fits the job in front of them, instead of defending one of the two for every situation.