Do you remember the last time you got lost in a book? Not the digital kind, but an actual book with pages you could flip and a spine that creaked just a little when you opened it. There’s something about paper that just feels… right. But does it actually help us understand what we’re reading better than a screen? That’s what a new study set out to investigate, and the findings are pretty interesting.

With more and more reading happening on digital devices—especially in schools—it’s essential to know whether reading on a screen affects comprehension. Researchers from the University of Oslo decided to investigate this question. I admit, again. But they took a slightly different angle. They asked (only) ten eighth-grade students with varying reading abilities. They used eye-tracking technology to analyze how they processed and understood texts on paper versus on a screen.

The students read two comparable texts, one on paper and one on a screen, and then answered comprehension questions. The researchers tracked their eye movements, observed how often they returned to reread certain parts, and even asked them about their reading experience afterward.

The Key Findings

• Paper leads to better comprehension. Students scored significantly higher on comprehension tests when reading on paper than on a screen. (this is not so surprising)
• Screen reading is more shallow. The eye-tracking data showed that students tended to skim more and reread less efficiently when reading on a screen. (also not so surprising)
• Students don’t realize the difference. Despite the apparent differences in how they processed the texts, students didn’t seem aware that their reading behaviour changed based on the medium. (depressing)

Why Does This Matter?

Many schools are moving towards digital learning, assuming that reading on a screen is just as effective as reading on paper. But this study suggests that’s not the case. If students process information differently (and less effectively) on screens, educators must think carefully about how digital tools are used in the classroom.

There’s also a metacognitive aspect—students don’t seem to notice that they’re reading differently on screens. If they’re unaware of this, they won’t naturally adjust their reading strategies. That means teachers need to help students develop better digital reading habits, like slowing down, taking notes, and actively reflecting on what they’re reading.

So, What’s the Takeaway?

Screens aren’t going anywhere, and digital reading has its advantages—convenience, accessibility, and interactive features, to name a few. But when deep comprehension is needed, paper still seems to have the upper hand. Maybe it’s time to bring back more printed books in the classroom or at least teach students how to read digitally in a way that mimics deep reading on paper.

And if you ever feel like you’re skimming too much online, maybe it’s not just you. Maybe it’s the screen.

With the increasing prevalence of digital devices such as smartphones, tablets, and e-readers, more and more reading is happening in digital formats – also in classrooms across the world. The present study focuses on lower secondary school students and their reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading on paper and screens. The study uses an innovative methodological approach where eye-tracking technology is used to observe ten carefully sampled eighth-grade students with different reading levels. The students read a selection of texts and answered questions from the Norwegian national reading assessment on comparable versions on paper and on screen. By analyzing eye movement data (reading transitions), including more than 25,000 fixations, in combination with text reading comprehension outcomes, students’ cued retrospective reporting from reading, and interview data, we have obtained detailed and comprehensive data on students’ reading comprehension, reading behavior, and reading experiences across different media. A key result is that reading on screen leads to more shallow processing and can hinder reading comprehension. Importantly, our results from the students’ cued retrospective reporting of their eye tracking showed that they were unaware of their reading behavior and didn’t reflect much on reading in different media. These findings have implications for the increasing shift to digital learning environments in the educational context. It is important to recognize the difference between reading processes, and policymakers and practitioners cannot assume that these processes are the same across individuals and different delivery modes.