Print has a small, repeatable edge over screens for understanding informational text. It is also narrower than it sounds: it shows up most when people read against the clock or scroll, not at all for stories, and no large review measured course grades.
EdCitation publishes this guide. It reads the main studies in the papers themselves, with each figure, method and limit, then covers library ebook licences, highlighting, citing an ebook page, and cost. Every source was read on 24 September 2026. The studies were found with EdCitation's Find sources, cited in Cite a source and checked in Verify references; the books sit in EdCitation's Library.
What does the research say about ebooks or print for studying?
The research says people understand the same informational text slightly better on paper, which researchers call the screen inferiority effect. The figures are Hedges' g: negative means screen readers scored lower, and about 0.2 is small by Cohen's benchmarks, as Delgado and colleagues say of their own result.
Delgado and colleagues, 2018: 54 studies
Delgado et al. (2018) pooled 54 studies from 2000 to 2017 that gave people the same text on paper or a screen, with no hyperlinks. Paper came out ahead at g = -0.21, and at -0.28 for undergraduates. Under a time limit the gap was -0.26; at the reader's own pace, -0.09, with a confidence interval crossing zero. Informational texts gave -0.27, stories alone 0.01. The gap also grew by about 0.01 a year of publication.
The authors equate the effect to about two thirds of a year's growth in reading comprehension at primary school. Their limits: four large-scale studies supplied 165,778 of the 171,055 participants (without them the effect stayed at -0.22), results varied widely, ten eligible studies lacked usable data, and publication year is a simplistic stand-in for a generation, in their word. We read their accepted manuscript.
Clinton, 2019: 33 randomised experiments
Clinton (2019) kept only randomised experiments from 2008 to 2018: 33 studies and 2,799 readers. Screens came out lower at g = -0.25, expository texts at -0.32 and narrative at -0.04. Reading time did not differ reliably, and readers judged their own performance more accurately on paper (0.20). The full paper is paywalled, so these figures come from its abstract; later papers by Delgado and Salmerón quote the same figures.
Salmerón and colleagues, 2024: tablets and e-readers
Salmerón et al. (2024) pooled 49 studies since 2010 that used a tablet or an e-reader. The gap was smaller, g = -0.11 between groups and -0.10 within, about half the figure for computers; undergraduates showed -0.23, school pupils about zero. Most samples were small and convenient, and with two outlying studies kept the between-group figure fell to -0.07, not significant. We read the authors' preprint.
Clinton-Lisell and Litzinger, 2026: devices and scrolling
Clinton-Lisell and Litzinger (2026) ranked devices in a network meta-analysis of 56 studies of expository text. When text had to be scrolled, paper led by g = 0.35 to 0.48. When pages fitted the screen or turned with a swipe, no device differed reliably from paper (0.03 to 0.12). Paper ranked first, then tablets, e-readers, computers and smartphones. Most studies involved college students reading science in English, only six compared e-readers with paper and three phones, and scrolling was coded yes or no.
| Study | What it pooled | Main figure | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delgado et al., 2018 | 54 studies, any screen | -0.21; timed -0.26, self-paced -0.09 | Wide variation between studies |
| Clinton, 2019 | 33 randomised experiments | -0.25; expository -0.32, narrative -0.04 | Read in its abstract only |
| Salmerón et al., 2024 | 49 tablet or e-reader studies | -0.11 | -0.07, not significant, with outliers |
| Clinton-Lisell and Litzinger, 2026 | 56 studies, by device | Paper ahead by 0.35 to 0.48 with scrolling; no reliable gap without | Mostly students reading science |
| All four | Found in Find sources | Cited by DOI in Cite a source | Checked in Verify references |
Why would paper help, and when does the gap close?
The best-supported explanation is that people read a screen more shallowly when a task seems to allow it, and a deadline gives that permission.
Time pressure and wandering attention
Delgado and Salmerón (2021) gave 140 undergraduates a 3,010-word magazine article in print or as a PDF on a 17-inch desktop screen, with or without a time limit. At their own pace, both groups wandered and understood alike. Under pressure, print readers' attention tightened, screen readers' did not, and the pressured screen group scored below the rest. It was one text, on a desktop, and the attention checks interrupted reading.
Ackerman and Lauterman (2012) had found the same with 80 engineering undergraduates: lower scores on screen under time pressure, none when readers set their own time. Lauterman and Ackerman (2014) then had readers write four keywords per text after a delay, and the screen deficit vanished for the first texts, returning later among those who preferred paper.
Knowing where you are in a book
Mangen et al. (2019) had 50 young adults read a 28-page mystery story on a Kindle DX or in a pocket book. Most measures matched, but print readers were better at ordering events, which the authors link to feeling progress through the pages. Page numbers were stripped from both versions, so the study cannot say whether visible pages would close the gap.
What the studies did not show
- Grades. The studies are mostly single sessions ending in a comprehension test, often multiple choice. None followed students through a module.
- Stories. Neither Delgado nor Clinton found a gap for narrative text.
- Harm for everyone. An average of -0.2 hides wide variation, and self-paced or paged reading showed no reliable gap.
- That preference is proof. Mizrachi et al. (2018) found 78.44% of 10,293 students in 21 countries preferred print for course readings, but these were self-reports gathered through the team's partner universities, and the authors warn self-reports do not always match behaviour.
How do you study well from an ebook?
Study from an ebook by paging rather than scrolling, leaving time, and doing something active after each section.
- Turn pages, do not scroll. Set the reader or PDF viewer to one page at a time.
- Prefer a larger screen for long reading. Tablets ranked above phones, on thin phone evidence.
- Leave time. If a deadline forces a fast read, print the chapter within the licence's allowance.
- Write keywords after each section without looking back, the remedy Lauterman and Ackerman tested.
- Highlight little. Dunlosky et al. (2013) rated highlighting and underlining of low utility, and practice testing and spaced practice of high utility.
- Search what paper cannot. Mizrachi and colleagues count searchability among the lasting benefits of e-formats.
- Record the page and the reference as you go. Note the page of every point, and build the reference on day one in EdCitation's Cite a source from the ISBN or DOI; reading a book for an essay shows the notes.
What does a library ebook licence mean for you?
A library ebook is lent on the publisher's terms, which decide how many people read at once, for how long, and how much you can print.
The University of Manchester Library (n.d.) lists unlimited access, a set number of simultaneous readers, single-user and three-user licences, credits that each buy one reader 24 hours, and DRM-free books with no copying or printing limits. The University of St Andrews Library (n.d.-a) adds that ebooks sold to individuals, on Kindle or Kobo for instance, cannot be lent by any library, and that e-textbooks are often priced per student, typically around £35 a title for about a year. Temple could offer only 31% of course texts as ebooks in 2024-25, and says Pearson and Cengage usually do not license ebooks to libraries (Open Education Group at Temple University Libraries, 2025).
Searching, highlighting and printing on a library platform
On Ebook Central, St Andrews says you can highlight, add notes and bookmark in the online reader, print or download up to about 40% and copy up to 20% as the publisher allows, and download the whole book for 24 hours, a copy you cannot print or annotate (University of St Andrews Library, n.d.-b). The University of Lincoln Library (2024) says highlights cannot be exported, but notes export as a text file with their page numbers. Keep what matters in a note.
When every copy is in use
Close the book when you finish, as Temple asks, download the chapter you need, ask the library for more access, or find a print copy: find a book in a library near you.
How do you cite a page from an ebook?
Cite the page number when the ebook shows one; when it does not, APA 7 asks for a heading or section name, a paragraph number, or both, and never a Kindle location number (American Psychological Association, 2020). The reference is the same for print and ebook, with a DOI when there is one; every style is in how to cite a book or ebook. The pattern for a section, not a quotation: (Baron, 2021, Strategies for Effective Reading Onscreen section, para. 2).
One book, three identifiers
Naomi Baron's How We Read Now, a book on this very question, comes three ways: hardback ISBN 9780190084097, ebook ISBN 9780190084127, and the DOI 10.1093/oso/9780190084097.001.0001. Oxford University Press (n.d.) lists the hardback at £26.99 on its UK site, with a paperback, an ebook sold through Amazon's UK store, and access at subscribing libraries. From the hardback's ISBN, Cite a source returned:
Baron, N. S. (2021). How we read now: Strategic choices for print, screen, and audio. Oxford University Press.
The title comes back in sentence case, as APA 7 asks. From the ebook ISBN or the DOI it found the same book and added the DOI, giving the finished entry:
Baron, N. S. (2021). How we read now: Strategic choices for print, screen, and audio. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190084097.001.0001
What do ebooks and print cost a student?
The cheapest copy is usually the library's, in either format; a bought ebook is a licence tied to your account. Temple's library ebooks saved its students an estimated $659,000 in 2024-25.
| Route | What it costs you | The catch |
|---|---|---|
| Library print copy | Nothing | Loan periods and recalls |
| Library ebook | Nothing | Reader limits, credits, print caps |
| Bought print book | The price: £26.99 for Baron's hardback | Weight; one edition |
| Bought ebook | The seller's price | Licensed to you; St Andrews says it cannot be shared |
| Printing a library ebook | Your allowance or a charge | Many universities charge, Mizrachi and colleagues note |
| Keeping track of them all | An EdCitation account, for My Books in the Library | Reading in the Library needs Max |
Openly licensed textbooks cost nothing to read: see free textbooks you can use legally. Which books deserve money is in building a personal library for your degree.
How does EdCitation help, on paper or on screen?
EdCitation is the best place to keep a reading list that mixes print and ebooks, because it looks each book up in its record and never writes a reference, and one book can arrive under three identifiers, as Baron's did: Cite a source matched all three to the same book. A chatbot composes a reference; it cannot look the edition up.
The Library
The Library is a catalogue of textbooks and scholarly books, searched by title, author or ISBN and narrowed by discipline, kind, language and year. Each card shows the cover, authors, publisher and year, and whether the book can be read or borrowed in the Library or is one to buy. On 24 September 2026, "How We Read Now" brought up Baron's 2021 and 2022 editions, both ones to buy. "Reading comprehension" in the Education discipline returned 1,297 books; of those that open in the Library, 346 were to borrow and 6 to read in full.
From a card you can buy a paid book, find libraries near you that hold it, or keep it in My Books. Max adds the reading itself: more than 5 million books to read or borrow, in one place, in a collection EdCitation built for students and readers.
Find, cite and verify
Find sources searches about 300 million published works. "Reading comprehension paper versus screen meta-analysis" returned 18,086, led by a 2021 meta-analysis of children's reading, Delgado and colleagues' review and Salmerón's, listed under 2023 though the journal dates it 2024; a narrower search found Clinton-Lisell's first. Cite a source builds references in six styles, APA 7 to Vancouver, from a DOI, ISBN, title, PubMed ID or web address, and screens for retraction. Verify references checked this guide's 18 references: 16 verified, and two could not be checked, APA's page and the publisher's page for Baron's book, as neither gave a title to compare; neither was called "not found".
What it costs
None of Find sources, Cite a source and Verify references asks for an account. The Library's catalogue, My Books, buying links and library finder come with an account, which costs nothing; reading and borrowing books there is part of Max, $24 a month or $216 a year. See Pricing.
Quick questions
Is it better to study from a textbook on paper or on screen?
For informational text, paper has a small average edge: g = -0.21 and -0.25 in two meta-analyses. It was not reliable in self-paced reading or on screens that turn pages.
Do ebooks lower your grades?
No study reviewed here measured grades. The evidence is comprehension tests, mostly in single sessions, showing a small gap that depends on time pressure and scrolling.
Is a tablet or an e-reader as good as a book?
Nearly. Salmerón and colleagues found about half the gap seen with computers, and without scrolling no device differed reliably from paper.
How do I cite a page number from an ebook with no pages?
In APA 7, point to the heading or section, a paragraph number, or the two together; a Kindle location is never used. Whenever the ebook shows a page number, use that.
Where can I find, keep and cite my course books in one place?
In EdCitation's Library: search by discipline, see whether each book opens there or is one to buy, and keep it in My Books. Max adds more than 5 million books to read or borrow there.
References
- Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
- American Psychological Association. (2020). Direct quotation of material without page numbers. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/quotations/no-page-numbers
- Baron, N. S. (2021). How we read now: Strategic choices for print, screen, and audio. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190084097.001.0001
- 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
- Clinton-Lisell, V., & Litzinger, C. (2026). Decoding digital reading: A network meta-analysis of comprehension across devices. Education and Information Technologies, 31(6), 1611–1643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13843-8
- Delgado, P., & Salmerón, L. (2021). The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure. Learning and Instruction, 71, Article 101396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101396
- 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
- Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
- Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046
- Mangen, A., Olivier, G., & Velay, J.-L. (2019). Comparing comprehension of a long text read in print book and on Kindle: Where in the text and when in the story? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00038
- Mizrachi, D., Salaz, A. M., Kurbanoglu, S., Boustany, J., & ARFIS Research Group. (2018). Academic reading format preferences and behaviors among university students worldwide: A comparative survey analysis. PLOS ONE, 13(5), Article e0197444. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197444
- Open Education Group at Temple University Libraries. (2025, October 8). Does the library have your textbook? Temple University Libraries News. https://sites.temple.edu/librarynews/2025/10/08/does-the-library-have-your-textbook/
- Oxford University Press. (n.d.). How we read now: Strategic choices for print, screen, and audio [Hardback]. Retrieved September 24, 2026, from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/how-we-read-now-9780190084097
- Salmerón, L., Altamura, L., Delgado, P., Karagiorgi, A., & Vargas, C. (2024). Reading comprehension on handheld devices versus on paper: A narrative review and meta-analysis of the medium effect and its moderators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000830
- University of Lincoln Library. (2024, June 3). Can I download notes and highlights I made on an ebook on the Ebook Central platform? Just Ask. https://ask.library.lincoln.ac.uk/faq/265834
- University of Manchester Library. (n.d.). Maximum number of users per licence. https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/resources/search-resources/ebooks/how-to/issues/maximum-users/
- University of St Andrews Library. (n.d.-a). Ebook availability. Ebook Collections. https://libguides.st-andrews.ac.uk/ebook_collections/availability
- University of St Andrews Library. (n.d.-b). Proquest Ebook Central. Ebook Collections. https://libguides.st-andrews.ac.uk/ebook_collections/proquestebookcentral