The Oundelian’s decision to switch from a physical magazine to an online blog does not come as a surprise in an ever-more digital world. With the prevalence of phones, laptops and tablets it has become more convenient to purchase and read a book online than to do the same in person. After all, you don’t run the risk of losing it in a mound of clothes or other untouched books from the store. In its digital form, you can read it anywhere and anytime you want, so long as you keep your phone charged. This doesn’t just apply to books in the traditional form: academic journals, articles and a wealth of knowledge have been made accessible and more convenient for the public at home to access, when it was difficult to do so before the invention of the tablet. Amazon sells 300 million books in print compared to 487 million online ones through Kindle, showing the popularity of online books even when the delivery time or accessibility is roughly the same (in the case of Amazon as one of the world’s biggest distributors). Even in classrooms, digital reading has been favoured over more traditional textbooks. However, it begs the question, does this convenience come at a cost, both to those at home and in the classroom? The short answer is yes.
A study conducted in 2024 found that the total number of correct answers put forward by lower secondary school students was notably higher when reading on paper than on the screen. Whilst some students did perform equally well (and one even did better reading on screen than on paper), the general trend found that processing was more superficial and worse on the screen than on paper. This was further seen when the researchers, by using eye tracking technology (which tracked over 25,000 fixations), found students repeatedly had to go over text again and ‘re-read’ it on screens, further proving that processing is worse on screens than on paper, being both more superficial and time consuming.
Furthermore, the action of scrolling through an article versus reading a whole page can itself impair comprehension by creating spatial challenges. A 2017 study into comprehension found that when participants had to scroll through each panel of a comic versus seeing them all at once, their reading comprehension was significantly worse for the former than the latter. When we read, we produce a cognitive map of each piece of information, e.g. you may have learned about volcanoes at the top of the page but deserts in the middle. Without this holistic overview of a text, our brain lacks this cognitive mapping, causing our comprehension and recall to be worse as our cognitive map of information is constantly changing. On the same thread, without these spatial cues our working memory becomes overloaded, thus causing us to forget information that we just read. Reading provides these cues for recall that scrolling through an article simply couldn’t.
Some could argue that having a Kindle or an e-reader should in theory be just as good as a real book; after all, it does not require scrolling and as a result should in theory allow for better comprehension. Whilst not untrue that it is superior to text that requires you to scroll, the lack of being able to turn the page still impairs comprehension compared to the physical book.
Another study found that by comparing comprehension of an identical text on Kindle versus in print, print readers were more likely to accurately recall the book’s chronological order, as a result of print providing sensorimotor cues that enhance cognitive processing (that is, being able to feel and turn the page gives you better recall in plain English). Research suggests that when you recruit multiple senses you process information more effectively. If you apply this to reading, being able to see the text, feel the weight of the book and smell the page, you are more likely to be able to comprehend information more effectively than by just staring at the glare of the screen.
Applied to the world today, what does this mean? Should we forego the laptops and TVs in favour of more physical means? The short answer is no. Whilst I have just outlined the numerous problems with comprehension on screen compared to paper, digital texts offer one obvious advantage: the lack of a need for paper. According to one source, 1 billion digital books saved over 15.8 million trees, equivalent to saving 158,000 people from premature death (considering respiratory problems etc.). Digital texts give us the ease to access information so long as we have a stable Internet connection, giving millions and potentially hundreds of millions the resources to explore any topic that simply would not have been possible some 50 or so years ago. Even if comprehension can be impaired, that’s not to say that we can learn nothing from reading online. If necessary, we can print out longer and more demanding texts. Digital can be just as beneficial as print text, although it may take some experience and adjustment to make the most of it.
