Paper and digital reading: Differences and equivalences

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35765/mjse.2026.1529.22
Keywords: neuroscience, emotions, school, social media, reading, attention, self-regulated learning, metacognitive processes

Abstract

Research objectives (aims) and problem(s): Reading is a skill that Homo sapiens has acquired over the last 10,000 years. Over the past 30 years, digital tools and media have profoundly transformed this exclusively human activity. This scoping review aims to understand how these new media have affected reading processes and whether they have transformed the cognitive and educational outcomes associated with reading.

Research methods: This article analyzes recent literature on reading, focusing on articles and research from the last 15 years. The methodology is based on a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies, meta-analyses, and empirical research examining paper versus digital reading. The point of view is neuroscientific and, based strictly on the most recent experimental data, attempts to offer new analytical tools for educational interventions.

Process of argumentation: For the sake of brevity, the topics of nighttime rest, implications of using smartphones in the evening, and the relationship with gaming have not been addressed. The article explores measurements of oral reading fluency to monitor learning progress; the effects of reading support on visual patterns, reading performance, and attitudes; self-regulated learning and metacognitive processes; and the relationship between digital/paper reading, memory, and attention.

Research findings and their impact on the development of educational sciences: The findings highlight essential aspects that must be taken into consideration in educational processes, particularly how digital versus paper reading modulates memory, attention, and metacognitive self-regulation. These results offer new analytical tools for designing evidence-based educational interventions that account for the cognitive transformations induced by digital media.

Conclusions and/or recommendations: The review concludes that digital media have significantly transformed reading processes, with measurable effects on cognitive and educational outcomes. It recommends that educational practices integrate awareness of these differences, promoting a balanced use of digital and paper-based reading in line with specific learning goals. Underexplored areas, such as the impact of digital reading on sleep and evening device use, warrant further investigation.

References

Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086

Aspiranti, K. B., Henze, E. E. C., & Reynolds, J. L. (2020). Comparing paper and tablet modalities of math assessment for multiplication and addition. School Psychology Review, 49(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1778380

Bennett, R. E., Braswell, J., Oranje, A., Sandene, B., Kaplan, B., & Yan, F. (2008). Does it matter if I take my mathematics test on computer? A second empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(9). https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1639

Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2012). Supporting problem-solving performance in a hypermedia learning environment: The role of students’ prior knowledge and metacognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1162–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.026

Chen, C. M., Chen, L. C., & Horng, W.-J. (2019). A collaborative reading annotation system with formative assessment and feedback mechanisms to promote digital reading performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 848–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636091

Chen, Q.-S. (2009). Metacomprehension monitoring and regulation in reading comprehension. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(8), 676–683. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2009.00676

Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269

Crepaldi, D. (2020). Neuropsicologia della lettura. Carocci.

Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. Penguin.

Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003

Destefano, D., & Lefevre, J.-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012

Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139208967394

Earle, F. S., Del Tufo, S. N., Evans, T. M., Lum, J. A. G., Cutting, L. E., & Ullman, M. T. (2020). Domain-general learning and memory substrates of reading acquisition. Mind, Brain, and Education, 14(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12234

Eijansantos, A. M., Alieto, E. O., Ram, J. D., & Rama, C. D. (2020). Print-based texts or digitized versions: An attitudinal investigation among senior high school students. Asian EFL Journal, 27(1), 56–78.

Follmer, D. J., & Sperling, R. A. (2019). Examining the role of self-regulated learning microanalysis in the assessment of learners’ regulation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(2), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1409184

Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483–517. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998074

Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students’ self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515932

Groß, D. (2021). In the self-control and self-regulation maze: Integration and importance. Personality and Individual Differences, 175, 110728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110728

Hensley, K., Rankin, A., & Hosp, J. (2016). Comparing student performance on paper- and computer-based math curriculum measures. Assistive Technology, 29(3), 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2016.1212129

Hermena, E. W., Sheen, M., AlJassmi, M., AlFalasi, K., AlMatroushi, M., & Jordan, T. R. (2017). Reading rate and comprehension for text presented on tablet and paper: Evidence from Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 257. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00257

Hillesund, T. (2010). Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the web and electronic paper. First Monday, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i4.2762

Hofstadter, D. R., & Dennett, D. C. (1981). The mind’s I: Fantasies and reflections on self and soul. Basic Books.

ISTAT. (2016). Reading in Italy 2015. Italian National Institute of Statistics.

Jeong, Y. J., & Gweon, G. (2021). Advantages of print reading over screen reading: A comparison of visual patterns, reading performance, and reading attitudes across paper, computers, and tablets. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37(17), 1674–1684. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1908668

Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011). Reading engagement: A comparison between e-books and traditional print books in an elementary classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 4(2), 5–22.

Jungjohann, J., DeVries, J. M., & Gebhardt, M. (2023). Measuring oral reading fluency (ORF) computer-based and paper-based: Examining the mode effect in reading accuracy and reading fluency. Education Sciences, 13(6), 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060624

Keller, A. (2012). In print or on screen? Investigating the reading habits of undergraduate students using photo-diaries and photo-interviews. Libri, 62(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2012-0001

Köpper, M., Mayr, S., & Buchner, A. (2016). Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: Does it still make a difference? Ergonomics, 59(5), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1100757

Koutsouraki, S. (2020). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Recent trends in theory, research and practice. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 16(3), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.23815

Kuisma, M., & Nokelainen, P. (2018). Effects of progressive inquiry on cognitive and affective learning outcomes in adolescents’ geography education. Frontline Learning Research, 6(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i2.309

Latini, N., & Bråten, I. (2022). Strategic text processing across mediums: A verbal protocol study. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(3), 895–914. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.445

Lenhard, W., Schroeders, U., & Lenhard, A. (2017). Equivalence of screen versus print reading comprehension depends on task complexity and proficiency. Discourse Processes, 54(5–6), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1319653

Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behaviour in the digital environment: Changes in reading behaviour over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040

Lurija, A. (1975). Verbal communication: Fundamental problems of neurolinguistics. Moscow University Press.

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002

Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y

McLaughlin, M. (2012). Reading comprehension: What every teacher needs to know. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01064

Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Di Leo, I., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 898–909. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000096

Muis, K. R., Ranellucci, J., Trevors, G., & Duffy, M. C. (2015). The effects of technology-mediated immediate feedback on kindergarten students’ attitudes, emotions, engagement and learning outcomes during literacy skills development. Learning and Instruction, 38, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.02.001

Neijens, P. C., & Voorveld, H. A. M. (2016). Digital replica editions versus printed newspapers: Different reading styles? Different recall? New Media & Society, 20(2), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816670326

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Qi, X. (2021). Effects of self-regulated learning on student’s reading literacy: Evidence from Shanghai. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 555849. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.555849

Roussel, S. (2011). A computer assisted method to track listening strategies in second language learning. ReCALL, 23(2), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000036

Sage, K., Augustine, H., Shand, H., Bakner, K., & Rayne, S. (2019). Reading from print, computer, and tablet: Equivalent learning in the digital age. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 2477–2502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09887-2

Schaffer Seits, T. (2013). Elementary school student reading fluency: Evaluating the differences between the application of computer and print text presentations [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Nova Southeastern University.

Seifert, S., & Paleczek, L. (2022). Comparing tablet and print mode of a German reading comprehension test in grade 3: Influence of test order, gender and language. International Journal of Educational Research, 113, 101948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101948

Sergi, K., Elder, A., Wei, T., Javorsky, K., & Xu, J. (2023). Self-regulatory metacognitive skill use in elementary students during computer and paper reading assignments: A qualitative study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 15(3), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2023.291

Serrano, M.-Á., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Ferrer, A. (2018). Teaching self-regulation strategies via an intelligent tutoring system (TuinLECweb): Effects for low-skilled comprehenders. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12256

Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011). Comparing reading processes on e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32(5), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2011.05.005

Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794

Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745

Støle, H., Mangen, A., & Schwippert, K. (2020). Assessing children’s reading comprehension on paper and screen: A mode-effect study. Computers & Education, 151, 103861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103861

Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020062

Zambarbieri, D., & Carniglia, E. (2012). Eye movement analysis of reading from computer displays, eReaders and printed books. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32(5), 390–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00930.x

Published
2026-06-30
How to Cite
Di Salvo, M. (2026). Paper and digital reading: Differences and equivalences. Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education, 15(1 (29), 391-408. https://doi.org/10.35765/mjse.2026.1529.22
Issue
Vol. 15 No. 1 (29) (2026): Stress and Success Among Teachers
Section
Miscellaneous Articles

Copyright (c) 2026 Michele Di Salvo

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

  1. The Author/Authors declares/declare that their publication is original has not been published before and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere and does not include borrowings from other works which might cause Publisher's responsibility, does not infringe the rights of the third party and that their copyright on this publication is not limited. The Author/Authors will incur all the costs and will pay compensations which might result from the mendacity of the following statement.

  2. The Author/Authors declares/declare that issues about publication ethics, have been appropriately considered.

  3. The Author/Authors agrees/agree to publish the article free of charge in Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education in English or Spanish. The Editorial Board reserves the right to shorten the texts and change the titles.

  4. As part of free publication mentioned in § 1, the Author/Authors agrees/agree to make the full electronic version of their article available in the Internet.

  5. The Author/Authors agrees/agree to index their article in databases at home and abroad, including abstracts and keywords as well as Authors’ affiliation in English and in other languages. The Author/Authors agrees/agree to pass on the information mentioned above to the owners of these databases.

  6. The Author/Authors declares/declare that the article is free of plagiarism.

  7. The Author/Authors declares/declare that funding and conflict of interest information has been included in the article.

  8. The Author/Authors accepts/accept that the author is aware of the consequences of scientific dishonesty, which, once detected, will be documented and disclosed to the public, and information about it will be communicated to the relevant institutions (universities employing the authors, scientific societies, publishing houses, etc.).

  9. The Author/Authors declares/declare to publish the text in the Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-ND 4.0).

  10. For one Author. Please complete the Author Statement and send it to the editorial office. Please download, complete, scan and attach the file in the system during the submission process.
    Download: Author Statement

  11. For more than one Author. The Authors declare to bear complete responsibility for the scientific reliability of the article submitted. The detailed contribution of all co-authors is defined. Please complete the Authors Statement-Authorship Contributions and send it to the editorial office. Please indicate the specific contributions made by each author (list the authors’ initials, e.g., JKH).  Please download, complete, scan and attach the file in the system during the submission process. 
    Download: Authors Statement - Authorship Contributions