Paper reading more effective than reading on the screen

If you want to make sure that you understand this story as completely as possible, you may consider printing the article and reading it on paper. This is one of the conclusions of a recent study on the differences between reading on paper and reading on the screen.

Virginia Clinton did the research examination. She is a professor of education, health and behavior at the University of North Dakota. She found what she called a "small but important"Reading difference text from screen to paper.

Researchers have been studying how screens affect the quality of reading for years. Scientific American magazine has reported that at least 100 studies have been published on the subject since the 1980s.

Until the early 1990s, most studies found that people read more slowly and with less accuracy on screens than on paper.

However, later studies show more mixed results. Some continued to report results similar to previous studies. Others have suggested that the technological improvements made over the years have improved the quality of reading on the screens.

Clinton's goal was to bring together some of the most recent discoveries about reading performance, reading speed, and a skill called metacognition.

Clinton reviewed 33 previous studies of reading on paper versus reading on the screen. All studies were conducted between 2008 and 2018. These studies involved 2,799 subjects, including children and adults. All were native English speakers and had the usual reading skills for their age.

Clinton's review found that reading on paper generally helps to better understand and improve a person's reading performance. And, she found no major difference in the speed of reading between the two. In other words, paper reading turned out to be more effective.

Such differences were noticeable only when the reading material was expository texts– or explanatory and based on facts. Clinton said that she found no major difference with respect to story, fictional texts.

Clinton also found that paper readers generally had better recognition of their understanding of text than screen readers. This skill is called metacognition. The word "cognition" refers to the mental action of increasing knowledge and understanding. "Metacognition" simply means thinking about one's own thinking.

Clinton and other researchers found that screen readers often thought that they understood a text better than they actually did. And, they are more likely than paper readers to overestimate their performance by testing documents that they read.

Clinton said this is common to all readers.

She said, "We think we read the story or the book better than today. We think we understand better what we read than our current reading. "

Yet this feeling of over-understanding, or overconfidence, is especially common among screen readers.

Clinton said that there were many possible reasons for these discoveries. The overconfidence of screen readers, for example, could be the result of a distracted, Less concentrated mind.

Reader preference is also important, she said. Research shows that the majority of people – of all ages – prefer to read on paper.

However, if a person prefers reading on the screen to reading on paper, his understanding of the subject is not likely to suffer.

Clinton said, "If you like the reading process, you'll get more involved. You will be more careful. Preferences are a key problem here. "

Several studies have shown that people often think that paper materials are more important and more serious.

"If you read on paper, your mind thinks," This is something important. I have to be careful, "said Clinton.

Readers can connect computer screens to fun and less serious activities, such as social media verification or Netflix viewing. This, Clinton explained, could explain why most studies find no major difference between screen and paper between narrative and fictional reading materials. Clinton described this type of reading as "a pleasant reading."

Do not stop reading from screens

Although her findings may support paper reading versus on-screen reading, Clinton says she does not believe that screen reading should be avoided.

Instead, it indicates new and developing tools that can be used to improve the understanding and concentration of the screen reader.

"For example, when you're reading on a screen, you can schedule answering questions and solving them correctly before you can continue. The paper can not make you do that.

Other tools being developed will provide students with lower level reading of simpler texts while providing their classmates with more complex versions of the same text.

Clinton said, "I think the answer, or appropriate answer, seeing results like mine, is thinking of "OK, what can a screen do that this paper can not do?"

Clinton's findings were published earlier this year in the Journal of Research in Reading. She also presented her results this month at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Toronto, Canada.

I'm Caty Weaver.

And I am Ashley Thompson.

Ashley Thompson wrote this report for VOA Learning English. Caty Weaver was the publisher.

What do you prefer – reading on screens or reading on paper? Why? Let us know in the section "Comments!

A flawless stay

_____________________________________________________________

Words in this story

important – adj. large enough to be noticed or have an effect

text – not. the original words of a writing or a speech

effective – adj. able to produce the desired results without loss of material, time or energy

distracted – adj. unable to think or pay attention to something: unable to concentrate

concentrated – adj. give attention and effort to a specific task or goal

appropriate – adj. right or adapted to a purpose or situation

reply – not. something that is said or written in response to something