• Blog Home
  • About Us
  • “Spotlight”
  • Non-Public Schools
    • Charter Schools
    • Private Schools
    • Home Schooling
  • SWW School Districts
    • School Boards
      • Evergreen
      • Vancouver
      • Battle Ground
        • BG School Board
      • Ridgefield
      • LaCenter
      • Camas
      • Green Mountain
      • Hockinson
      • Washougal
  • Legislation
    • WA State Legislation
    • Federal Legislation
    • Other Legislation
  • General
    • Common Core
      • ELA
      • Math
      • Testing
      • Opt-Out
      • References
      • CC Groups & Organizations
    • WAKids
    • ESSA/ESEA
    • Privacy & Data
    • Social Emotional Learning (S.E.L.)
    • PBIS
  • Archives
    • 2020 OSPI Election Archive
      • 2020 OSPI Race
        • Maia Espinoza
        • Chris Reykdal
      • Ron Higgins
      • David Spring – Superintendent of Public School Candidate 2020
    • Washington State School Funding – Post McCleary
    • 2018 Elections
      • 3rd Congressional
      • 17th Legislative
      • 18th Legislative
      • 49th Legislative
    • 2017 School Board Elections – SWW
      • Woodland School Board
      • Washougal School Board
      • Camas School Board
      • Evergreen School Board
      • Vancouver School Board
      • Hockinson School Board
      • Battle Ground School Board
      • Green Mountain School Board
      • LaCenter School Board
      • Ridgefield School Board
    • WA 2016 Elections
      • Education Questions for 2016 Election
      • WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction
      • Governor
      • WA State Lt. Governor
      • WA State House – District 17
      • WA State Senate – District 17
      • WA State House – District 18
      • WA State Senate – District 18
      • WA State House – District 49
      • WA State Senate – District 49
      • US House – 3rd District
      • US Senate – Washington
    • Battle Ground Bond – April 24, 2018
    • Feb 2018 Battle Ground Capital Bond
    • Evergreen Feb 2018 Capital Bond
  • Resources
  • Polls
  • Contact

Southwest Washington Education (K-12)

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." - George Orwell

You are here: Home / Comparisons / The enduring power of print for learning in a digital world

October 21, 2017 By Admin1 Leave a Comment

The enduring power of print for learning in a digital world

In our ongoing effort to share information about ways to improve learning we offer the following article. We’ve shared information in the past that has suggested paper based learning and hand written notes (vs. using a computer or tablet) is superior. The information in the following article can be found at The Conversation.com and was written by Patricia Alexander and Lauren Singer.


Today’s students see themselves as digital natives, the first generation to grow up surrounded by technology like smartphones, tablets and e-readers.

Teachers, parents and policymakers certainly acknowledge the growing influence of technology and have responded in kind. We’ve seen more investment in classroom technologies, with students now equipped with school-issued iPads and access to e-textbooks. In 2009, California passed a law requiring that all college textbooks be available in electronic form by 2020; in 2011, Florida lawmakers passed legislation requiring public schools to convert their textbooks to digital versions.

Given this trend, teachers, students, parents and policymakers might assume that students’ familiarity and preference for technology translates into better learning outcomes. But we’ve found that’s not necessarily true.

As researchers in learning and text comprehension, our recent work has focused on the differences between reading print and digital media. While new forms of classroom technology like digital textbooks are more accessible and portable, it would be wrong to assume that students will automatically be better served by digital reading simply because they prefer it.

Speed – at a cost

Our work has revealed a significant discrepancy. Students said they preferred and performed better when reading on screens. But their actual performance tended to suffer.

For example, from our review of research done since 1992, we found that students were able to better comprehend information in print for texts that were more than a page in length. This appears to be related to the disruptive effect that scrolling has on comprehension. We were also surprised to learn that few researchers tested different levels of comprehension or documented reading time in their studies of printed and digital texts.

To explore these patterns further, we conducted three studies that explored college students’ ability to comprehend information on paper and from screens.

Students first rated their medium preferences. After reading two passages, one online and one in print, these students then completed three tasks: Describe the main idea of the texts, list key points covered in the readings and provide any other relevant content they could recall. When they were done, we asked them to judge their comprehension performance.

Across the studies, the texts differed in length, and we collected varying data (e.g., reading time). Nonetheless, some key findings emerged that shed new light on the differences between reading printed and digital content:

  • Students overwhelming preferred to read digitally.
  • Reading was significantly faster online than in print.
  • Students judged their comprehension as better online than in print.
  • Paradoxically, overall comprehension was better for print versus digital reading.
  • The medium didn’t matter for general questions (like understanding the main idea of the text).
  • But when it came to specific questions, comprehension was significantly better when participants read printed texts.

Placing print in perspective

From these findings, there are some lessons that can be conveyed to policymakers, teachers, parents and students about print’s place in an increasingly digital world.

1. Consider the purpose

We all read for many reasons. Sometimes we’re looking for an answer to a very specific question. Other times, we want to browse a newspaper for today’s headlines.

As we’re about to pick up an article or text in a printed or digital format, we should keep in mind why we’re reading. There’s likely to be a difference in which medium works best for which purpose.

In other words, there’s no “one medium fits all” approach.

2. Analyze the task

One of the most consistent findings from our research is that, for some tasks, medium doesn’t seem to matter. If all students are being asked to do is to understand and remember the big idea or gist of what they’re reading, there’s no benefit in selecting one medium over another.

But when the reading assignment demands more engagement or deeper comprehension, students may be better off reading print. Teachers could make students aware that their ability to comprehend the assignment may be influenced by the medium they choose. This awareness could lessen the discrepancy we witnessed in students’ judgments of their performance vis-à-vis how they actually performed.

3. Slow it down

In our third experiment, we were able to create meaningful profiles of college students based on the way they read and comprehended from printed and digital texts.

Among those profiles, we found a select group of undergraduates who actually comprehended better when they moved from print to digital. What distinguished this atypical group was that they actually read slower when the text was on the computer than when it was in a book. In other words, they didn’t take the ease of engaging with the digital text for granted. Using this select group as a model, students could possibly be taught or directed to fight the tendency to glide through online texts.

4. Something that can’t be measured

There may be economic and environmental reasons to go paperless. But there’s clearly something important that would be lost with print’s demise.

In our academic lives, we have books and articles that we regularly return to. The dog-eared pages of these treasured readings contain lines of text etched with questions or reflections. It’s difficult to imagine a similar level of engagement with a digital text. There should probably always be a place for print in students’ academic lives – no matter how technologically savvy they become.

Of course, we realize that the march toward online reading will continue unabated. And we don’t want to downplay the many conveniences of online texts, which include breadth and speed of access.

Rather, our goal is simply to remind today’s digital natives – and those who shape their educational experiences – that there are significant costs and consequences to discounting the printed word’s value for learning and academic development.

Filed Under: Comparisons, Education, Learning, Technology Tagged With: digital, digital natives, leaerning, paper, students, technology, textbooks

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Categories

  • 4 Day School Week (1)
  • Abuse (1)
  • Addiction (4)
  • AI (3)
  • Battle Ground (24)
  • Bonds (47)
  • Book Review (4)
  • Camas School District (18)
  • Cartoons (11)
  • Censorship (1)
  • Charter Schools (18)
  • ChatGPT (2)
  • Classrooms (9)
  • Climate Change (1)
  • College (1)
  • Common Core (223)
  • Comparisons (51)
  • Competency Based Education (4)
  • Computers (24)
  • Control of Education (196)
  • Covid (9)
  • Creativity (6)
  • Critical Race Theory (10)
  • CSE (2)
  • Data (63)
  • DEI (3)
  • Deniers (2)
  • Disabilities (1)
  • Discipline (6)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • District (25)
  • DoE (1)
  • Education (199)
  • Elections (7)
  • Enrollment (1)
  • Equity and Equality (14)
  • Equity/Equality (16)
  • ESEA (7)
  • ESSA (32)
  • Evergreen SD (13)
  • Federal (17)
  • FLASH (9)
  • Funding (71)
  • Games (2)
  • Gender (25)
  • General (29)
  • Gifted (3)
  • Grading (3)
  • Grit (4)
  • Hand Writing (1)
  • Health (21)
  • Hockinson (12)
  • Homeschooling (38)
  • Humor (1)
  • Individuality (27)
  • Indoctrination (2)
  • Jobs (9)
  • Kindergarten (23)
  • KNOW (3)
  • LaCenter SD (5)
  • Laws (7)
  • Learning (86)
  • Learning Pods (1)
  • Legal (4)
  • Legislation (35)
  • Levys (55)
  • LGBTQ (5)
  • Local (16)
  • Math (35)
  • McCleary (3)
  • Mental Health (27)
  • Micro Schools (1)
  • Money (37)
  • Music (1)
  • NEA (2)
  • Nutrition (1)
  • OBE (1)
  • Opt-Out (15)
  • OSPI (38)
  • Parents (23)
  • PBIS (2)
  • PDC (1)
  • Personal Pronouns (2)
  • Phonics (1)
  • Play (2)
  • Policy (18)
  • Politics (22)
  • Poverty (1)
  • Pre-School (19)
  • Privacy (16)
  • Private Schools (6)
  • Project Based Learning (PBL) (1)
  • Pronouns (1)
  • Public Schools (50)
  • Puzzles (2)
  • Quiz (1)
  • Reading (14)
  • Recess (2)
  • Resources (2)
  • Ridgefield (29)
  • Safety (9)
  • SBAC (44)
  • School Boards (50)
  • School Budgets (3)
  • school choice (20)
  • School Data Project (1)
  • Security (7)
  • Self identity (7)
  • Sexuality (30)
  • Social Emotional (27)
  • Social Justice (10)
  • Social Warriors (4)
  • Special Ed (2)
  • State (19)
  • Students (5)
  • Survey's (3)
  • Taxes (30)
  • Teachers (78)
  • Teaching (46)
  • Technology (51)
  • Testing (132)
  • U.S.P.I.E. (1)
  • Unions (18)
  • Unschooling (2)
  • USDOE (12)
  • VanSD (15)
  • Video (9)
  • Vocational (3)
  • Vouchers (11)
  • WAKids (4)
  • Washougal (11)
  • WEA (4)
  • Wokeness (4)
  • WoodlandSD (12)
  • Writing (1)
  • WSSDA (5)

Copyright © 2026 · Education Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in