by Dr. Julie Van Dyke, Chief Scientist
Recently there has been much attention to what has been termed the screen inferiority effect – the idea that texts that are read on paper are better understood than those read on a digital screen (e.g., AERA Communications, Dec 13, 2023). While a number of studies have attested to this effect, there are studies that have found the opposite effect—for example, when the texts that are read are narratives (i.e., the kind of text that draws a reader into the story), then the screen inferiority effect disappears. In addition, the effect appears to depend on what is measured—the effect is present when measuring memory for details in expository texts, but if measuring understanding of gist, there is no difference when reading on screens or on paper. Studies have also shown that the effect goes away when the material is perceived as being unimportant, or if reading under time pressure, especially for those with lower reading ability.
This pattern of results suggests that reading on screens isn’t intrinsically bad, but that screen-reading for education (as opposed to for entertainment) requires instructional support. Indeed, the cognitive processes of reading are unaffected by media-type: whether on a screen or on a page, reading requires translating printed forms into words from the spoken language, and then using knowledge of meanings and syntactic structures to assemble sentences and paragraphs into a meaningful mental model of what was read. Just as glasses do not change how the eye works, neither does a screen change how the brain fundamentally processes language.
"Just as glasses do not change how the eye works, neither does a screen change how the brain fundamentally processes language."
All New Technologies Require a "User's Manual"
What does change, however, is our relationship to the text. When my prescription is right, I no longer have to squint, move the page closer to read it, or worry that I identified a word incorrectly—all I have to do is read because my eyes are now working properly. So too, with an explicit orientation to using digital text, comprehension can succeed.
Once a reader switches from the ‘learn to read’ stage into the ‘read to learn’ stage (at about 4th grade), this is a great time to provide them with a “users manual” for digital text consumption, which would include explicit instruction about how to read for meaning in the digital modality.
This could include orienting directions such as turning off distracting aspects of a device (e.g., silencing notifications, using reader views that remove advertisements, adjusting brightness, etc.), explanations and/or demonstrations of why pressured reading or skimming is ineffective, and advice for how to best use the affordances of the device to support comprehension rather than hinder it. Once a reader knows how to set themselves up for serious learning on a device, their reading brain will be equipped to succeed. Such instruction would give a digital reader agency over their learning, which is a crucial pre-requisite for deep comprehension.
Moreover, embracing digital technologies in the classroom is one of the most inclusive moves a school could make. Today’s reading devices are poised to offer individualized reading experiences that were unimaginable in the past. The ability to resize fonts at will has revolutionized the accessible print industry, reducing the need to wait for a Large Print edition of the latest NYT best sellers. Education-oriented applications now offer the possibility of hover-over word definitions or pronunciations that support comprehension and equalize access to knowledge. And we are surely on the eve of a new era of AI-powered readers, one of the first of which allows the syntactic structures of a text to be immediately visualized as the reader moves his or her eyes over the page. These features give a reading brain the tools it needs to succeed, even if an individual learner has difficulty acquiring them on his or her own.
Screens are here to stay, and their increasingly low cost makes bringing them into the classroom and incorporating them into personalized instruction a very doable proposition. Hence, although the research pointing to the drawbacks of screen-reading is important to recognize, rather than clinging to our paper books, we should take it as a call-to-action to understand the conditions necessary for screen-reading to succeed and develop ways to teach this to young readers. Elementary instruction should include systematic screen practice, which acknowledges the fact that not every learner will be immediately successful when reading on a device.
Just as we teach “print concepts” that orient readers to titles, paragraphs, and other meta-level basics of reading—now is the time to implement instruction in “digital reading concepts.”
This should include not just mechanics like how to scroll, highlight text, or use features of a particular app, but also training on how to interact with it cognitively. Fourth graders are savvy enough to understand that this device requires different rules-of-engagement in a classroom setting vs. when I’m playing games, and making this an open, active discussion will do more to help them succeed in the real world than warning them to avoid digital reading. Our goal needs to always be to help technology make us better; and in the case of reading—how to best use the affordances of technology to make reading more enjoyable and productive for those that struggle.
