<story><title>Students learn more effectively from print textbooks than screens, study says</title><url>http://www.businessinsider.com/students-learning-education-print-textbooks-screens-study-2017-10</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Adutude</author><text>Interesting tidbit, in the sentence in the article &amp;quot; To explore these patterns further, we conducted three studies that explored college students&amp;#x27; ability to comprehend information on paper and from screens.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Three studies&amp;quot; is linked to a single study, not three.  The  study is on the site tandfonline.com (Taylor and Francis), where you have to pay to read the study.&lt;p&gt;Also interesting is that Taylor and Francis, on their website taylorandfrancis.com, says &amp;quot;Taylor &amp;amp; Francis Group publishes books for all levels of academic study and professional development, across a wide range of subjects and disciplines.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;So long story short, this is a study saying that books are better, that&amp;#x27;s on a site who&amp;#x27;s main business is publishing books.  Not saying the study is inaccurate, but I find an article,  about how books are better, on a book publishers site, somewhat suspect.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>slg</author><text>I did an in depth review of the research for a Human Computer Interaction class in college a couple years back before the Taylor and Francis study and the research then generally agreed with the idea that reading a print book was the best for comprehension (I tried quickly searching for the paper to pull sources, but no luck).  However that difference appeared to be mostly related to form factor and not necessarily from the screen itself.  Studies that used tablets showed smaller gaps in performance than studies that used computers.  Studies that used e-ink e-readers showed almost no difference in comprehension.  I was not able to find a single study that compared more than 2 or 3 different devices using the same methodology.  If I were to design a study I would want to see a full range of tests including print books, e-ink e-readers, tablets with full color screens, traditional computer monitors, and e-ink monitors.  Hopefully then you could better isolate the cause of the lower comprehension.&lt;p&gt;My own hypothesis (I have a comp sci degree, so take this psychology explanation with a grain of salt) is that comprehension is more dependent on the person&amp;#x27;s approach to the technology rather than the technology itself.  Books are single purpose devices.  When you have a book in your hand your brain knows it is time to focus on reading.  When you sit down at a computer, the brain doesn&amp;#x27;t know what to expect or to focus on.  It is similar to other advice about training your brain to expect certain activities such as reserving your bedroom only for sleeping or to have a dedicated home office if you work remotely.</text></comment>
<story><title>Students learn more effectively from print textbooks than screens, study says</title><url>http://www.businessinsider.com/students-learning-education-print-textbooks-screens-study-2017-10</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Adutude</author><text>Interesting tidbit, in the sentence in the article &amp;quot; To explore these patterns further, we conducted three studies that explored college students&amp;#x27; ability to comprehend information on paper and from screens.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Three studies&amp;quot; is linked to a single study, not three.  The  study is on the site tandfonline.com (Taylor and Francis), where you have to pay to read the study.&lt;p&gt;Also interesting is that Taylor and Francis, on their website taylorandfrancis.com, says &amp;quot;Taylor &amp;amp; Francis Group publishes books for all levels of academic study and professional development, across a wide range of subjects and disciplines.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;So long story short, this is a study saying that books are better, that&amp;#x27;s on a site who&amp;#x27;s main business is publishing books.  Not saying the study is inaccurate, but I find an article,  about how books are better, on a book publishers site, somewhat suspect.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>scw</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, written by academics in the field, not by T&amp;amp;F itself, nor funded by them. While there are problems with the peer reviewed system, publisher interference with research results isn&amp;#x27;t typically one of them.</text></comment>