TEXTBOOKS
Informational text
A 2018 meta-analysis of 54 studies with 171,055 participants found better comprehension on paper for informational texts, but not for narrative-only texts.
Check a taskWHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS
Paper still
has an edge.
For textbooks, the medium can matter.
SMALL GAP bigger when time is short
171,055 Participants across 54 studies, 2000 to 2017
- Facts favour paper
- Stories show no gap
- Rushing widens it
- Choose the medium for the task
Researchers have compared reading the same text on paper and on screens in dozens of experiments. Two large reviews found a small but steady advantage for paper with informational texts, and almost none for stories.
THE SHORT ANSWER
A small gap,
in particular places.
Screens are not bad for reading.
But for dense, factual texts the research leans towards print.
SCROLLING
Time pressure and scrolling
The paper advantage was larger under time limits than in self-paced reading. Studies that needed scrolling also showed a gap, though this was not a significant moderator.
See the numbers
STORIES
Fiction travels well
A 2019 meta-analysis found no difference with narrative texts, while expository texts favoured paper. Reading time was about the same on both.
What to tryA QUICK TASK CHECK
What are you
reading, and how?
Pick a reading task to see what the meta-analyses found. The bar shows how strongly the evidence leans towards paper for that kind of task.
Based on Delgado and colleagues (2018) and Clinton (2019). These are averages across many studies, not predictions for any one reader.
FOUR THINGS TO TRY
Match the medium
to the job.
The research does not say never read on a screen. It suggests where print is worth reaching for, and how to read better when a screen is all you have.
Print the hard parts
For dense, factual chapters you need to understand, paper had the clearest advantage in the reviews.
Give yourself time
The screen gap was largest under time pressure. Slow, self-paced reading narrowed it.
Cut down scrolling
In the 2018 review, studies on hand-held devices and studies without scrolling showed smaller gaps than computers and scrolling text.
Test yourself, not your feelings
Clinton found readers judged their own understanding less accurately on screens, so check with questions rather than confidence.
TWO NUMBERS WORTH KNOWING
Small on paper,
big in a classroom.
How much evidence there is,
and how much the gap is worth.
171,055
Participants across 54 studies, 2000 to 2017
Both kinds of study design gave the same result: an advantage for paper over digital reading, with an effect size of 0.21.
SCALE · DELGADO ET AL. 2018
≈ ⅔ of a year
The gap compared with a year of primary-school progress
The authors note the effect is small by usual standards, but equals about two thirds of the yearly growth in comprehension in elementary school.
SIZE · DELGADO ET AL. 2018
The 2018 review also found the paper advantage grew between 2000 and 2017 and did not differ between age groups, so it has not faded as people use screens more.
WHY THE GAP MIGHT EXIST
Skimming habits
and overconfidence.
The reviews do not prove a cause, but researchers point to a shallower, skimming style of reading on screens, sometimes called the shallowing hypothesis, shaped by quick everyday digital tasks.
A second idea is metacognitive: people tend to overestimate how well they have understood a text on screen. Clinton's 2019 review found readers' judgements of their own performance were better calibrated on paper.
Questions
Questions people ask
Is reading on a screen worse than on paper?
For informational texts, two meta-analyses found slightly lower comprehension on screens. For stories, they found little or no difference.
How big is the difference?
Small. Delgado and colleagues report an effect size of 0.21 and Clinton 0.25. The 2018 authors note that is still about two thirds of a year's growth in reading comprehension in elementary school.
Does reading on a screen take longer?
Clinton's 2019 review found no reliable difference in reading time between paper and screens.
Are younger people better at reading on screens?
The 2018 review found no difference in the media effect between age groups, and the paper advantage grew rather than shrank between 2000 and 2017.
Does the device matter?
Possibly. The paper advantage was significant with computers but not with hand-held devices, and with texts that needed scrolling, though neither was a significant moderator.
Where the facts come from
Updated
- Delgado, Vargas, Ackerman and Salmerón (2018): Don't throw away your printed books, author manuscript (University of Valencia)
- University of Haifa research record: Don't throw away your printed books (Educational Research Review, 2018)
- ERIC: Clinton (2019), Reading from paper compared to screens, a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Anne Mangen, Norwegian Reading Centre: Perspectives on reading in a digitized world (keynote, 2019)