Abstract
We compared college students’ learning from, and perceptions of, print and digital readings, with the goal of providing an informed recommendation for students and educators regarding best approaches for reading assignments. To add to the literature, we focused on a common experience in college – reading an educational article – in addition to investigating numerous dependent measures and taking a mixed methods approach overall. Undergraduate students read an article in print or digitally on a computer or tablet. Students then completed a comprehension quiz with the article accessible or not, and answered self-report questions regarding cognitive load, perceived control, satisfaction, confidence, knowledge gain, and general preferences for paper versus digital educational resources. Results indicated that students spent equivalent time with, and learned equally well from, all versions. Perceptions of their learning experiences were also strikingly similar. Students generally described a preference for print over digital resources, but the number of students utilizing digital resources outside of the study was notable. This research supports that print and digital readings are equally viable options for students to use while reading, and that digital materials may be becoming more commonplace in college students’ studying.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A secondary analysis comparing users with e-book experience to non-users showed that experience with e-books did not affect performance in our study.
A secondary analysis comparing digital study aid users to non-users showed that experience with such aids did not affect performance in our study.
A series of t-tests suggested that perceived purpose did not influence students’ reading times or comprehension.
References
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086.
Agarwal, P., Karpicke, J., Kang, S., Roediger, H., III, & McDermott, K. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391.
Aragón-Mendizábal, E., Delgado-Casas, C., Navarro-Guzmán, J., Menacho-Jiménez, I., & Romero-Oliva, M. (2016). A comparative study of handwriting and computer typing in note-taking by university students. Comunicar, 24, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-10.
Arthanat, S., Curtin, C., & Knotak, D. (2013). Comparative observations of learning engagement by students with developmental disabilities using an ipad and a computer: A pilot study. The Official Journal of RESNA, 25(4), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2012.761293.
Baron, N., Calixte, R., & Havewala, M. (2017). The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008.
Berg, S., Hoffmann, K., & Dawson, D. (2010). Not on the same page: Undergraduates’ information retrieval in electronic and print books. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(6), 518–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.08.008.
Block, R. (2011). A discussion of the effect of open-book and closed-book exams on student achievement in an introductory statistics courses. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 22(3), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2011.565402.
Bluestein, S., & Kim, T. (2017). Expectations and fulfillment of course engagement, gained skills, and non-academic usage of college students utilizing tablets in an undergraduate skills courses. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1757–1770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9515-8.
Butcher, J. (2014). Can tablet computers enhance learning in further education? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2014.938267.
Chang, S., & Ley, K. (2006). A learning strategy to compensate for cognitive overload in online learning: Learner use of printed online materials. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(1), 104–117.
Chen, G., Cheng, W., Chang, T., Zheng, X., & Huang, R. (2014a). A comparison of reading comprehension across paper, computer screens, and tablets: Does tablet familiarity matter? Journal of Computers in Education, 1(2–3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0012-z.
Chen, B., Seilhamer, R., Bennett, L., & Bauer, S. (2014b). Students’ mobile learning practices in higher education: A multi-year study. Educause Review. Retrieved from: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/students-mobile-learning-practices-in-higher-education-a-multiyear-study. Accessed Dec 2017.
Connell, C., Bayliss, L., & Farmer, W. (2012). Effects of ebook readers and tablet computers on reading comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 131–140.
Dahlstrom, E. & Bichsel, J. (2014). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Research report. EDUCAUSE. Louisville: ECAR.
Daniel, D., & Woody, W. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. Print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003.
Devaraj, S., Easley, R., & Crant, J. (2008). How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research, 19(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0153.
Dobler, E. (2015). E-Textbooks: A personalized learning experience or a digital distraction? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(6), 482–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.391.
Fischer, N., Smolnik, S., & Galletta, D. (2013). Examining the potential for tablet use in a higher education context. In Proceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Leipzig, Germany (p. 9–22).
Garland, K., & Noyes, J. (2004). CRT monitors: Do they interfere with learning? Behavior and Information Technology, 23(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001638504.
Golding, J., Wasarhaley, N., & Fletcher, B. (2012). The use of flashcards in an introduction to psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450436.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00317.x.
Ismail, R., & Zainab, A. (2005). The pattern of e-book use amongst undergraduates in Malaysia: A case of to know is to use. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 10(2), 1–23.
Jang, D., Yi, P., & Shin, I. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of digital textbook use on students’ learning outcomes in South Korea: A meta-analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0232-7.
Ji, S., Michaels, S., & Waterman, D. (2014). Print vs. electronic readings in college courses: Cost-efficiency and perceived learning. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.004.
Jian, H., Sandnes, F., Law, K., Huang, Y., & Huang, Y. (2009). The role of electronic pocket dictionaries as an English learning tool among Chinese students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00325.x.
Johnston, D., Berg, S., Pillon, K., & Williams, M. (2015). Ease of use and usefulness as measures of student experience in a multi-platform e-textbook pilot. Library Hi Tech, 33(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-11-2014-0107.
Kablan, Z., & Erden, M. (2008). Instructional efficiency of integrated and separated text with animated presentations in computer-based science instruction. Computers and Education, 51, 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.07.002.
Kang, Y., Wang, M., & Lin, R. (2009). Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2008.12.002.
Kaznowska, E., Rogers, J., & Usher, A. (2011). The state of e-learning in Canadian universities, 2011: If students are digital natives, why don’t they like e-learning? Toronto: Higher Education Strategy Associates.
Kettanurak, V., Ramamurthy, K., & Haseman, W. (2001). User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: An empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 541–583. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0457.
Kim, D., & Kim, D. (2010). Effect of screen size on multimedia vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01145.x.
Kiriakova, M., Okamoto, K., Zubarev, M., & Gross, G. (2010). Target: Pilot testing ebook readers in an urban academic library. Computers in Libraries, 20-24.
Kong, Y., Seo, Y., & Zhai, L. (2018). Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 123, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005.
Kothaneth, S., Robinson, A., & Amelink, C. (2012). Tablet PC support of students’ learning styles. Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, 10(6), 60–63.
Lam, P., Lam, S., Lam, J., & McNaught, C. (2009). Usability and usefulness of eBooks on PPCs: How students’ opinions vary over time. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 30–44.
Lamothe, A. (2010). Electronic book usage patterns as observed at an academic library: Searches and viewings. The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v5i1.1071.
Lim, E., & Hew, K. (2014). Students’ perceptions of the usefulness of an e-book with annotative and sharing capabilities as a tool for learning: A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.771969.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B., & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects of reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.
Margolin, S., Driscoll, C., Toland, M., & Kegler, J. (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2930.
Mathew, N. (2012). Student preferences and performance: A comparison of open-book, closed book, and cheat sheet exam types. Proceedings of the National Conference on Undergraduate Research, Weber State University.
McCombs, B., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00534.x.
Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02504796.
Murray, M., & Perez, J. (2011). E-textbooks are coming: Are we ready? Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8.
National School Boards Association. (2013). Understanding the common core standards: What they are – what they are not. Retrieved from www.centerforpubliceducation.org/commoncore. Accessed Dec 2017.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_8.
Pearson. (2015). Student mobile device survey 2015, Conducted by Harris poll.
Polonen, M., Jarvenpaa, T., & Hakkinen, J. (2012). Reading e-books on a near-to-eye display: Comparison between a small-sized multimedia display and a hard copy. Displays, 33, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2012.06.002.
Potnis, D., Deosthali, K., Zhu, X., & McCusker, R. (2018). Factors influencing undergraduate use of e-books: A mixed methods study. Library and Information Science Research, 40(2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.06.001.
Price, F., & Kadi-Hanifi, K. (2010). E-motivation! The role of popular technology in student motivation and retention. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 16(2), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2011.575278.
Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). The rise of e-reading. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of-e-reading/. Accessed Dec 2017.
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., Lim, S., Lapinski, S., Robinson, K. H., & Johnson, M. (2013). Universal design for learning and elementary school science: Exploring the efficacy, use, and perceptions of a web-based science notebook. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1210–1225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033217.
Reeves, B., Lang, A., Kim, E., & Tatar, D. (1999). The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psychology, 1(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_4.
Rikala, J., Vesisenaho, M., & Myllari, J. (2013). Actual and potential pedagogical use of tablets in schools. Human Technology, 9(2), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201312042736.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022.
Rowe, D., & Miller, M. (2015). Designing for diverse classrooms: Using iPads and digital cameras to compose eBooks with emergent bilingual/biliterate four-year-olds. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(4), 425–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798415593622.
Sage, K., Rausch, J., Quirk, A., & Halladay, L. (2016). Pacing, pixels and paper: Flexibility in learning words from flashcards. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 431–456.
Sage, K., Krebs, B., & Grove, R. (2017). Flip, slide, or swipe? Learning outcomes from paper, computer, and tablet flashcards. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9345-9.
Shen, D., Laffey, J., Lin, Y., & Huang, X. (2006). Social influence for perceived usefulness and ease-of-use of course delivery systems. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(3), 270–282.
Singer, L., & Alexander, P. (2017). Reading across mediums: Effects of digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794.
Skiba, D. (2011). On the horizon mobile devices: Are they a distraction or another learning tool? Nursing Education Perspectives, 32, 195–197.
Smyth, S., & Carlin, A. (2012). Use and perception of ebooks in the University of Ulster: A case study. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 18(2), 176–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2012.719851.
Soffer, T., & Yaron, E. (2017). Perceived learning and students’ perceptions toward using tablets for learning: The mediating role of perceived engagement among high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(7), 951–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117689892.
Talbott, N., Bhattacharya, A., Davis, K., Shukla, R., & Levin, L. (2009). School backpacks: It’s more than just a weight problem. Work, 34, 481–494.
Teo, H., Oh, L., Liu, C., & Wei, K. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00008-9.
Vandewaetere, M., & Clarebout, G. (2013). Cognitive load of learner control: Extraneous or germane load? Education Research International, 2013, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/902809.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
Young, J. (2014). A study of print and computer-based reading to measure and compare rates of comprehension and retention. New Library World, 115(7/8), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1108/nlw-05-2014-0051.
Zeng, Y., Bai, X., Xu, J., & He, C. (2016). The influence of e-book format and reading device on users’ reading experience: A case study of graduate students. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9472-5.
Zickuhr, K. (2013). Tablet ownership 2013. Pew Research Center, 1–11. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Tablet%20ownership%202013.pdf. Accessed Dec 2017.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Downey, Hunter Tipton, and Hailee Kiser for their contributions to data collection and discussion of ideas relevant to this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No competing interests to declare.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sage, K., Augustine, H., Shand, H. et al. Reading from print, computer, and tablet: Equivalent learning in the digital age. Educ Inf Technol 24, 2477–2502 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09887-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09887-2