<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>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></item><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>nabla9</author><text>My hypothesis is that the difference is related to how memory works by associations and spatial cognition.&lt;p&gt;I read lots of research papers and books. I have tried to switch to e-readers several times, but it never works. I learn the subject slower and I remember much less of what I read from e-reader. I use computers and e-readers to skim or check some details, but never to thoroughly study.&lt;p&gt;If I read physical book or printed article and underline it, leave coffee stains on the paper etc. I&amp;#x27;m working with actual physical object. When I achieve the paper in a map, I can often recall where the book is stored physically and even the coffee stains and notes in the paper.&lt;p&gt;I think physical book or paper works the same way as memory palace technique. You remember stuff by working with them physically better than in abstract. Physical library might be mirrored in our mind. Ancient augmented memory technology we did not know we have and might lose. E-reader or computer associates everything to the same object.</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>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></item><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>Moru</author><text>I find it personally important how fast the device is and how easy it is to use, if I can quickly look up things in the document and find my way back. If chapter references are clickable and so on.</text></comment>