Is print reading better than digital reading?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Is print reading better than digital reading?
We read each medium differently, and that affects comprehension.
By CORY ROSENBERG, Mother Nature Network, April 17, 2019,
Reading text in a digital format isn't always the best way to get all the information from a story. (Photo: smokingapples.com /Flickr)
Nowadays, we all read a lot of text digitally — whether it's a book on a tablet or the latest news. It's an unavoidable part of our technology-driven society. There are different processes and behaviors that go into reading on screens as opposed to print, and these processes could have some significant implications for reading comprehension.
In a 2005 study by Ziming Liu of San Jose State University, Liu found that when we read digitally, we do more scanning and jumping around — looking for keywords to get as much information as possible in a short amount of time. In certain ways, digital reading is a less immersive experience than reading printed words.
Charting a course through a story
As reported in Scientific American, Anne Mangen of the University of Stavenger in Norway found a digital text can be an inferior "map" compared to a printed book . Mangen thinks the tactility of a book plays a big role in the way we map out the terrain of the text, giving us a chance to really know and feel comfortable in our textual environment (linear reading) as opposed to just wandering about (nonlinear reading).
Mangen asked 72 10th-graders, who all possessed the same reading abilities, to study one narrative text and one expository text. Half the students read the texts in print, while the other half read the texts in PDF format on a 15-inch LCD screen. After studying the texts, the students were asked to take reading comprehension tests that consisted of short answer and multiple-choice questions, while using the text as an aid. The results showed a discrepancy between the test scores: Those who read the digital version of the text didn't perform as well as those who read the print versions.
In a 2014 joint study , Mangen teamed up with Nice-Sophia Antipolis University and Aix-Marseille University and had 50 adults read a 28-page mystery story. Some read the story in print while others read it digitally. Those who read the digital text had a more difficult time putting the plot events in chronological order, the study found.
Further research emphasizes that point. Virginia Clinton of the University of North Dakota, investigated 33 previous studies that looked at print vs. digital reading, and found that paper readers were more efficient and had a better understanding of what they had read. Interestingly, this was only true of explanatory text and didn’t apply to narrative text, which appeared to even the odds of comprehension. Her 2019 meta-analysis was published in the Journal of Research in Reading .
Why we read differently on paper vs. a screen
Studies have shown that we retain and understand better when we read material in print. (Photo: Atstock Productions/Shutterstock)
Mangen told Scientific American she thinks the discrepancies between comprehension could be due to the navigability of electronic texts. A book offers a more compartmentalized way of moving through the text; in the digital atmosphere, it's harder to put things into place. We can pick up a book and flip through it easily, whereas digital texts require lots of scrolling and clicking, and there aren't many indicators as to what sections you might be searching for. The physicality of the book lets your hands act as a bookmark to help you keep track. A physical book allows you to leave a trail of breadcrumbs so to speak — making sure you comprehend your surroundings and can retrace your steps.
This difficulty of mapping digital texts might also make a reader more vexed and stressed. According to Mangen, the stress related to being a little lost in the digital woods might make for weaker comprehension skills due to the demanding mental efforts required to figure out where you are.
None of these studies make claims that digital reading is bad for your brain; it's just a different process. In an age when digital technology is pervasive, sticking purely to print isn't the right answer. Learning how to balance nonlinear reading with deep reading could be a helpful exercise in maintaining our ability to read certain texts more closely.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with new information since its publication in July 2016.
Tags
Who is online
74 visitors
I certainly prefer reading print on paper, but then I've always been a slow methodical reader.
I too prefer print on paper but most of what I read now is on screen. I now get my newspapers online and have an e-reader. I sometimes can't sleep and like to read in the middle of the night. The e-reader is nice because I don't have to turn on the light and risk the ire of Mrs. Gee.
Yeah, the internal light is a definite advantage.
I was born way too long ago to get addicted to hand held devices. I do have cell phone in my pocket that's turned off most of the time.
There's just something pleasing and peaceful about goiing to the library, a bookstore, or just sitting, or lying in bed with a good paper book. Slowly working my through the fifth book by Sir Winston Churchill, about WW2...."Closing the Ring". Sure learning a lot I never knew about that conflict.
Of course, in the libraries of some cities these days, you have to be careful where you sit, or sit close to....nuff said.
I don't think I've been to a library for about half a century - sit close to what? A homeless person who hasn't bathed for 2 years?
How compassionate of you. No need to be near the unclean eh?
All your comments are so fucking ignorant and nasty I think we need to start that restriction again.
My wife and I only started to take advantage of the Yuma County Public Library's services a few months ago. (Yes, yes... we're stupid...)
It's pretty good. Spanish language lessons, audiobooks, ...
I routinely per her on ignore.
I think it's better to be aware of her nasty ignorant comments, but for a long time I required Perrie to restrict her comments responding to or concerning me. Looks like I'm going to have to repeat that.
My guess is that with a few exceptions, you could guess which one people prefer...how?
By knowing their age!
Why?
Because younger people grew up reading things on digital media. They're used to that and prefer it.(in most cases..theyre are probably exceptions).
OTOH, older people who grew up reading books and newspapers (hard copies) prefer that.
Probably true.
I typed that comment before I saw the comments lower down this page...
From experience, I'm wondering if it might make it even more difficult for older people (those who grew up reading actual physical books) to read things on digital media if they are the sorts of folks who always read a lot of books-- because they are so used to them.
I fall into that category. When I first started reading things online, I found it difficult. In fact, initially if it was something important (or relatively long)-- I didn't read it online. Rather, I used to printed it out and read the printed copy!
That was long ago-- now of course when something's online I read it directly online.
(However I enjoy reading more when its hard copy).
I am always involved in reading a book at the end of a day...I've always loved reading.
I'm an "on paper" person myself.
Of course, I deal with "Computer" screens all day long, so Paper is a nice "GET-A-WAY" from work. Had to get my glasses redone to filter out "Blue Light" ! It was really starting to mess up my eyes.
It would be interesting to determine if more older guys like myself prefer print on paper to digital, as opposed to younger people who are more involved in the digital age.
I think that has a lot to do with it. I will turn 81 next month. The first President I voted for was Eisenhower. Hadn't planned to live this long and there are minor physical issues, but most days I learn new things and enjoy the old ones. Books are big help, but being able to go online or YouTube and research practically any subject has been a blessing. You tend to count your blessings more and more as you age. My interests are wide and deep, but I know a lot more about cabbages than kings.
There has been some research that seems to indicate that exposure to bright light-- or even relatively dim light if its blue-- excites the nervous system in a way that makes it difficult to fall asleep.
Some people suggest not using any electronic screen (TV, Computer, cell phone) within 2-3 hrs before going to sleep.
I've seen articles... but no serious research ..
I wouldn't be surprised if the effect was different for different people.
I almost always read for an hour or more before going to sleep. A real book. using an old-fashioned incandescent lamp. That never keeps me up when I decide to go to sleep. In fact reading quiets my usually overactive mind and makes sleep easier.
BTW the theory behind this is that is was passed down through evolution. the theory is that daylight is more blue, so it woke people up. OTOH light toward the more red-orange part of the spectrum signaled the ending of the day and that's when the first humans went to sleep:
The reason blue light hurts is purely biological. Sleep is a part of the circadian rhythm, the cycle of biological processes that is determined in part by the amount of light and dark to which our bodies are exposed. In the most natural setting, which is one where we’re only exposed to sunlight, our retinas sense when the sun is going down and the environment is getting darker. That induces our hypothalamus to tell the body to produce melatonin and other sleep hormones and to reduce our body temperature.
When we use artificial lighting to extend our day, however, our bodies get confused and the various sleep signals are disrupted. Even worse is the blue light that’s emitted by fluorescent and LED lights — like those on our various device displays — and that actually causes us to be more alert and to produce even less melatonin.
I don't know if there's any validity to this theory-- although several medical professionals I've spoken too claim its true.
P.S: Apologies for the long comment. (If its too difficult to read on the screen you can always print it out and read the hardcopy,
Of course, like most things now-a-days, "there's an app for that":
WINDOWS 10
Microsoft added a blue light limiting feature to Windows 10 in the Creators Update that was released in April 2017 . Called “ Night light ,” this feature shifts the Windows 10 display to show warmer colors that reduce the amount of blue light that’s emitted.
[...]
To configure the Night light feature, click on Night light settings . Configuration options include the ability to turn the Night light on immediately, adjust the color temperature while the feature is enabled, and schedule when the Night light will turn on and off.
To set the schedule, toggle the Schedule night light option to on. Then, you can either choose to let Night light turn itself on at sunset and off at sunrise — automatically determined by your location — or you can set the time manually by clicking Set hours and choosing when the feature should turn on and off.
(More info)
Sounds reasonable.
There are Android apps fod the same effect.
I found out likewise. If I have trouble getting to sleep or in the middle of the night wake up and have trouble getting back to sleep I discovered that I don't have to read too many pages before I doze off. I wonder if it's because my mind is too active about something that keeps me awake, and then when I get into some story I'm reading it sort of "takes over" my thoughts and I relax to the extent that falling asleep is easier.
My normal sleep time has been 5 ...maybe 6 hours a night. They tell me that's not a good thing. Maybe "This" change in my glasses will help !
Yep prefer paper all the way but when traveling, digital is SO much easier to use and lug around.
so absolutely true. With the weight of one kindle device (which is my cell phone) will hold 20 books, try carrying an extra suitcase for those 20 paper books...
Absolutely, I'm in a big city and a long subway or car ride is made a lot less tedious by using my KOBO reader - 240 books on it when it was sent to me loaded by a very old and good friend a few years ago - only about half way through them now.
Interesting article.
I rarely actually "read" any more. I listen. So I'd like to see a similar comparison, but with audiobooks, too. In fact, I have two rather different sorts of "spoken books": Professionally-read, such as Audible, and machine-read, that I "make", myself.
I'm not sure that I prefer the Audible. The reader imposes her vision of events and characters, unlike a text which requires a great deal of participation in that creation, from the reader. Machine-reading requires far more attention from the listener than Audible.
(For info: I use a text-to-speech app called TextAloud. It opens epub files natively. I do a bit of clean-up of stuff that I don't want read - Table of contents and such, and the the app does the rest, splitting the book into however many mp3 files I wish. Speed and pitch are variable, and various "voices" are available, such as American male, UK female, etc.)
It would be interesting to know which voice people prefer to hear read books aloud to them - male or female, British accent or American...
I like to have a book in my hand. I do use my Kindle when I am on the shuttle to and from my employee parking lot. I do that because I love books and I don't want to chance any of my "babies" on the bus.
My husband prefers a paper newspaper rather than spending time on his laptop reading news.
I prefer print, but also read books on my tablet. I tend to use my tablet when I travel, as it takes up less space. I also read from my tablet when I'm on the treadmill, as a book won't fit on the built-in reading rack.
I'm in agreement with what most of you have said - I really prefer print, but when I'm traveling, a Kindle is so much smaller and lighter than lugging around several books. And when I was at my friend's remote cabin this past weekend, the kindle's backlighting made it much easier to read; there's no electricity other than a marine battery which powers a few LED lights.
Our library book sale is coming up - I can't wait!
My favourite place to shop for books used to be a used book store - I recall finding some real treasures there.
A while back I wanted to look at two books (non-fiction) I had read the 1980s. When I googled them, I was surprised to see them listed on Amazon.com. There were quite a few independent bookstores that listed them there-- they had used copies in various conditions ("new condition", "used -like new", "Used- fair condition" etc--dmost at very low prices both hardcover and paperback versions.
I think these bookstores have lots of old books they can't sell, so they list them on Amazon at low prices. One hardcover was printed in 1981. The price listed on the flap was $7.99-- I bought it on Amazon for $2.99 plus $3.99 shipping. Other bookstores listed it there in various other conditions with a wide range of prices and shipping costs.
(The books were listed on Amazon, actually purchased from and shipped by a bookstore-- but I filled out the purchase form on Amazon)
Of course this was not the same as browsing in a real bookstore to see what you could find-- but if you're looking for some specific books you read decades ago, you can find them. Sometimes at very low prices. on the web-- on Amazon or even on the websites of bookstores around the world
I prefer paper, yet, recently just as caught up with an ebook written by someone I know. Fun, Fear, Frivolity; A Tale of the Viwtnam War by an Aussie Grunt.
Ian is not a professional writer or even blessed with charismatic prose. I had a hard time "putting it down".
I am late to the discussion as usual, BUT.... I prefer to read BOOKS, however on the shuttle I take every day to work & back I read my Kindle. With the close quarters on the bus books have a tendency to get damaged & I cannot stand when books get damaged.
I do the same thing - it's better for books to remain at home.
So, I volunteered the other weekend at the library book sale I had mentioned above. The first night, there's a $10 entry fee - and that's when all the book dealers show up. It was sad, in a way. Several of them had apps and scanners on their phones, and they just ran around frantically scanning the UPC codes. If their phone went "kaching" they threw the book in their cart.
I much preferred working the next day, when people who actually love books showed up and spent a lot of time browsing through everything. I got a special kick out of it when I cashed out someone who bought something I had donated! And even better, I found an Orson Scott Card book I'd never heard of before (The Gate Thief) and also found a Carl Hiaisson I'd never read.
I agree. My books are precious to me.
I love to browse through the library. I miss old time bookstores. The ones that sold books, books, and more books. The big ones today sell too many non-book items that crowd the aisles.
I miss old fashioned book stores too, especially ones that sell used books.
It's sad for the people who come on the next day when the dealers have already picked up all the treasures.
There were still a lot of good finds. I found a pamphlet from the 1930s called "Bundling In The New World" and it is hilarious. It claims that couples are better off "courting in bed" than they are sitting by the fire and courting - apparently it was quite a controversial subject. And then of course I had to go find some poems about bundling:
Loved used book stores. I could spend hours sifting through trying to find "a find". Treasure hunting is what I used to call it.
Occasionally I go downtown and visit the main branch of the Chicago Public Library. As you can imagine it is a very large building . On the 5th and 6th floors there are endless shelves of books about "the humanities" and science. Many of these books look fairly old and well used. But when you walk down these rows of paper books one thing stands out more than anything else - there is no one there. Hundreds of thousands of books and very few people. Down on the third floor there is a section of tables with desk top computers, maybe 200 computers for public use. They are so busy you have to make a reservation to use one for an hour. All of these computers are in use every minute the library is open.
This is the future of libraries.
Sad, but true.
It is sad, but I am glad they have computers for the public to use for free. Although we take it for granted that every one has a computer , desktop or laptop, there are still a lot of people who don't because they cannot afford one. I assume these are mainly the people who need to use public computers.
Not always. There was a small library branch around the corner from the last house I had in Toronto, and when my computer went on the blink and I couldn't get my repair guy to come right away, I used the library computer. But what I was really thinking when I made my comment above was that the day will come when there will be no more books, only computers.
I think we may have one left in Rochester, NY, but I think it is downtown and parking is atrocious.
Paper books are definitely more comfortable (for me). The digital format still lacks the reading convenience of a book - especially a textbook where one naturally navigates in a non-linear fashion.
That said, I only buy e-books nowadays to be read using the Kindle app on my iPhone and iPad. The reason is simple. It is extremely convenient. My iPad is light and does not get heavier even as I add books to read to my queue. I can get the book from Amazon in an convenient flash. Finally, if I find myself wanting to kill time waiting for something and I left my iPad at home, I can always use my iPhone which will synchronize to the page I last read on my iPad (and vice-versa).
Now if only I could cause my current e-book to reify on demand as a physical book (or at least the current chapter) ...