Students still prefer print for serious academic reading, and the newest large-scale research suggests they may be right to. Two recent meta-analyses by Lidia Altamura's research team at the University of Valencia, synthesizing 74 studies, found a small but consistent negative relationship between reading on digital devices and reading comprehension. The verdict is nuanced: print appears better for deep study, while digital retains clear advantages for quick searching and portability.
The Enduring Preference for Print in Academic Study
Despite two decades of e-book adoption, the preference for print among students has barely budged. A 2023 study of university students in a Middle Eastern country found that while many spent more time with e-books and appreciated their portability, 54% of them felt studying from digital copies was difficult. The same study concluded that traditional printed copies remain comfortable to use, easy to take notes on, and preferred for studying for exams.
Earlier surveys tell a similar story. Research cited in a review of university student preferences found that a 2008 study of 109 students showed a general preference for printed materials, and a 2010 study of 91 students likewise found students preferred printed textbooks as course material. A 2009 survey found 26% of students preferred print, 11% preferred e-books, and a majority — 56% — wanted both. By 2011, electronic resource use had reached 53% among university students, but print still dominated for certain content: 87% read novels in print, while research books led e-book use at 87% and course materials followed at 75%.
Altamura's synthesis of media preference research offers one explanation: students feel able to concentrate on printed books and read them more attentively. Her team suggests our brains may struggle to engage in deep reading on digital devices simply because we do not normally use them for that purpose.
Digital Reading and its Impact on Comprehension
Preference is one thing; performance is another. Here the evidence is more decisive. Altamura's team analyzed 74 studies across two meta-analyses and found that, on the whole, the use of digital devices shows a small negative relationship with reading outcomes. Evidence on whether the effect is stronger for particular age groups remains, in her words, somewhat mixed.
The most recent of the two meta-analyses, published in 2024, combined 49 studies comparing reading comprehension for print versus digital handheld formats such as tablets and e-readers. Thirty of those studies compared different people — 161,469 participants in total — while 19 compared the same people across formats. Both research designs pointed the same direction: between-participant comparisons yielded an effect size of g=−0.113, and within-participant comparisons yielded g=−0.103, each indicating a small overall negative effect for digital handheld reading compared to paper.
Not every study agrees. The 2008 study of 109 students found no significant differences in learning between the two formats. But the weight of the pooled evidence now favors print for comprehension tasks, and Altamura's own conclusion is direct: for reading comprehension activities, print materials are probably going to be more beneficial.
Understanding the 'Small Negative Effect' on Learning
What does an effect size of −0.113 actually mean for a student? In practical terms, a small effect of this magnitude does not mean digital readers fail comprehensively. It means that, on average across tens of thousands of participants, students reading on handheld digital devices scored slightly lower on comprehension measures than comparable students reading the same material on paper.
For an individual student, the difference on any single quiz may be barely noticeable. But small effects compound across a semester of reading. A consistent slight disadvantage on every expository text, every chapter, and every self-paced reading session can translate into a meaningful gap by exam time — particularly because the effect appears in both between-participant and within-participant designs, meaning it shows up whether researchers compare different students or the same students switching formats.
Two caveats matter. This is a general trend across many studies, and individual students and reading contexts vary. And the finding concerns handheld digital reading for comprehension — it does not indict every use of a screen, a distinction the next section makes concrete.
Print vs. Digital: A Comparison for Academic Tasks
The research does not crown a single winner. It divides the territory. Synthesizing the meta-analyses and student surveys, the table below shows which format the evidence favors for each common academic task.
| Academic factor | Print format | Digital format |
|---|---|---|
| Reading comprehension | Generally better comprehension outcomes; favored by both 2023 and 2024 meta-analyses | Small overall negative effect (g=−0.113 between-participant; g=−0.103 within-participant) |
| Concentration and deep reading | Students report better concentration and more attentive reading | May encourage shallower processing, per the 2024 meta-analysis |
| Quick searching and research | Less suited to rapid fact-finding | Preferred for locating information and accessing supplementary materials |
| Long academic texts | Consistently preferred across multiple studies and surveys | Less preferred for lengthy course content |
| Note-taking and exam study | Comfortable to use, easy to annotate, preferred for exam preparation | Valued mainly for portability and carrying many texts at once |
The pattern is consistent: the deeper the reading task, the more the evidence tilts toward paper. The shallower and faster the task — finding a citation, checking a fact, skimming search results — the more digital tools earn their place. Altamura herself draws this line, noting that using digital screens to locate and read about research for a class project might make sense in some cases, while print is probably more beneficial for comprehension activities.
Making Informed Choices for Effective Learning
Students and educators should strategically choose between print and digital academic materials based on the specific learning task, prioritizing print for deep comprehension and sustained concentration, and digital for quick reference and portability. A student preparing for a comprehension-heavy exam is better served by the printed textbook; the same student mid-research-paper is well served by digital search.
The measurable indicator to watch is performance on comprehension-heavy assessments when print materials are used for primary study, alongside efficiency in research tasks when digital tools are used for information retrieval. The research base here covers university and high school students and reflects published studies rather than product testing — but its direction is clear enough to act on: match the format to the task, and let paper carry the heavy reading.
