Teaching and Learning in a Net-Centric World

The Great Paper vs Screen debate – two new studies

At our University (Athabasca) we are in continuous debate about the role of print versus nonprint format for our learning materials. A typical Athabasca course in our undergraduate, continuous enrollment programs consists of 1-3 texts, a study guide, a supporting web site and perhaps a lightly used discussion board (remember these are not fixed date, cohort courses)
I’ve long argued that the study guide (with links to net resources) as well as texts if available should be made available online. The rebuttal is that “students hate to read materials on line” or that I am just trying to rip students off by making them pay for (low quality) printing. I fear most rebuttals come from producers and editors who have a life long love affair with the aesthetics of paper verging on bibliophilia. Arguments that paper is inaccessible to the blind or the consequent destruction of trees do little to sway the paper proponents. I should note that I have nothing against paper, but don’t think that it should be the default means of disseminating learning materials.

Two recent studies (citations and abstracts below) have given arguments to both sides of this debate. As expected most students prefer to read materials on paper rather than on the screen. Of course the questions were not framed in an economic context such as “would you pay an extra $20 to have the course guide produced on paper”?

The Cheng and Ley (2006) study shows that printing of materials is correlated with age and with negative computer experience, but of most interest is that printing of content was not associated with higher performance. In fact those who preferred onscreen had higher performance levels. I am not implying that their reading on screen caused the higher scores, probably these learners are more efficient and age was a confounding variable.
But, the studies show growing (though yet small) interest by Net generation learners in studying from the screen. The recent announcements of yet another generation of ebook readers, give faint hope that the resolution, look and feel and access issues have finally narrowed the aesthetic gap between paper and screen.

In any case I still contend that we should not be subsidizing the forest indutry, limiting access to the visually impaired and most importantly reducing our ability to tag, search and retrieve our materials by retaining and defending the print supremancy. Let’s deliver in electronic format and allow this data to be presented in whatever formats the users choose.

The two articles are:

1. Chang S. & Ley, K. (2006) A Learning Strategy to Compensate for Cognitive Overload in Online Learning: Learner Use of Printed Online Materials.Journal of Interactive Online Learning Volume 5, Number 1,
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between achievement and the quantity of online course materials that students printed and the frequency with which they reported using them. One hundred thirty-two graduate students from one of 11 hybrid or online classes voluntarily completed a self-report survey asking how much they printed (0%, 25%, 50%,75%, 100%), how often they used printed materials (almost never, rarely, sometimes, often, almost always), and preference for either print, onscreen, or none. Neither quantity printed nor frequency used was related to achievement. But learner preference was associated with achievement; onscreen preference learners had higher mean rank scores than print and no preference learners. There were no achievement differences between the online and hybrid learner groups. Learners, who printed more, used more and preferred print online materials and experienced more onscreen reading difficulty than learners who printed less. Learners who used print materials more preferred reading printed materials, had difficulty reading onscreen, and were older.

Unfortunately the second study was printed in a restricted access subscription journal so all I can do is provide the reference and abstract.

2. Norman Temple, Wendy Kemp, Wendy Benson. (2006) Computer technology and student preferences in a nutrition course. Open Learning, Volume 21, Number 1, pp. 71-77

Abstract: This study assessed learner preferences for using computer-based technology in a distance education course. A questionnaire was posted to students who had taken an undergraduate nutrition course at Athabasca University, Canada. The response rate was 57.1% (176 returned out of 308). Subjects were predominately female (93.7%) and nursing students (61.7%). Most students favoured having a web page with frequently asked questions (FAQ) and emailing their tutor rather than using a telephone (76.0% and 58.2%, respectively). Support for having a chat room was weaker (45.7% in favour, 41.1% neutral). Students had generally negative opinions on receiving course materials via a computer, with only 4.0% favouring this for the textbook. Students who were younger or had previously taken a computer-based course were generally more likely to favour emailing their tutor and using computer-based course materials.

Similar posts
  • New Book from AUPress – An Onli... I was pleased to receive in the post a hard copy of a new book in the Issues in Distance Education book series, for which I continue to serve as the series editor. Now of course you can read all of the books in this series as they are available for download  under Creative Commons [...]
  • Qualitative Research Rebooted 2018 For the past two months, I’ve been occupied with a qualitative study of teachers’ use of digital technology in Alberta Schools. The study is sponsored by the Alberta Teachers’ Association.  It has been very useful for me to get down to actually doing a full scale qualitative study after years of teaching grad students research [...]
  • More on Distance Education Journal Ra... Both academics and administrators love to argue about the value (impact) of their academic work.  The old adage of “Publish or Perish” still has currency. Despite the many distribution opportunities besides and beyond publishing in scholarly journals, the bean counters (myself included) love citation indexes. The basic idea is that the more your work is [...]
  • What the FOLC is new in this article? Sorry, but I couldn’t resist spoofing, in the post title,  the unfortunate sound of the acronym for the “new” model proposed in this article. Now,  I’ve got it out of the way and can only suggest that if this “divergent fork of the Community of Inquiry model” is to survive, it needs a new English [...]
  • Quality in Online Learning Presentati... I was asked to do a video conferencing talk to a meeting of three Mexican Universities yesterday. They are attempting to come up with a common set of criteria to define and measure the quality of their online courses. Perhaps I was not the best person to ask, as I have very mixed feelings about [...]

Subscribe to Virtual Canuck via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 332 other subscribers

My posts by Category

My Blog Archives


  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • SlideShare
  • RSS Feed for Posts
  • Email

Follow me on Twitter