I think ”effectiveness” depends not on the medium a learner is using, but on the literacy for this medium of the learner/user. We are very accustomed to the use of books of papers and pages, but this kind of medium was also new and very awkward once, and not fully natural at all. Young people today read not books as much as the look on video material, etc.

I want to recommend a very well done Norwegian TV comedy sketch about the medieval transition from text rolls to our kind of books. Hilarious, very recommended.

The title is ”Norwegian support” and it can be found here https://youtu.be/pQHX-SjgQvQ . Use the ordinary English subtitles, disable the autogenerated texting (it hides the subtitles) Do not miss this one!

I would agree with Anders Norberg that it depends not so much on the medium but more on other factors. Some of these might include:

- The learner, including their prior knowledge and motivation

- The nature of the task in the textbook, e.g. does it promote transfer, knowledge integration, dual coding.

- How the learner accesses the textbook, e.g. active versus passive study approaches, and do they space out their learning over time.

If all of those factors were equal, it's probably fair to say that digital sources are more flexible as they can integrate videos etc, and perhaps more stimulating. Paper texts might be more portable and easier to use in some circumstances (e.g. when travelling). But if you are talking about memory, the medium is not the key factor.

Yes, Jonathan William Firth , there are many variables here. Thanks!

It has been pointed out that actually, the linear text (as in a book, article or classic lecture) is does not go so naturally along with human associative thinking and oral conversation. The linear text is a construction, as almost anything else within human culture. The Internet hypertext format with links between different documents etc may be better adapted to how the human brain works.

Walter Ong, a cultural philosopher in the 1980ies identified the rise of a ”second orality” rising with electronic media, snf Tom Pettitt, a Danish researcher, talks about the time of the linear text and the book as ”the Gutenberg parenthesis”. Read about both of these thinkers in this intro https://campustechnology.com/articles/2008/03/web-20-secondary-orality-and-the-gutenberg-parenthesis.aspx

In general I also agree with Luciano Floridi, Oxford information philosophy professor, that we should try to see all ICT development in the same overall context, beginning with the invention of writing or even language itself? it is also all mainly about the decreasing of information friction, bit by bit, innovation by innovation, through history. But even with the Internet, it is still the same information decreasing project - although more characteristic digital technology, also give the opportunity to process information outside biological brains - which is radically new. It has hardly arrived in education yet, but coming with new ICTs as learning analytics and adaptive learning. These ICTs can for example make possible to adapt teaching after an individuals learning capacity, previous knowledge and ambitions - by analyzing learner behaviour and predict what can be the best level of next learning challenge, etc.

Many thanks, Anders Norberg and Jonathan William Firth . Your input is really informative.

According to the research I can recommend, the discrepancies between print and digital results are partly related to paper’s physical properties. With paper, there is a literal laying on of hands, along with the visual geography of distinct pages. People often link their memory of what they’ve read to how far into the book it was or where it was on the page.

But equally important is mental perspective, and what reading researchers call a “shallowing hypothesis.” According to this theory, people approach digital texts with a mindset suited to casual social media, and devote less mental effort than when they are reading print.

https://theconversation.com/why-we-remember-more-by-reading-especially-print-than-from-audio-or-video-159522

Judging by my own experience, I`d say whenever I edit students` course projects or Master`s theses, I prefer to read print copies. The reason is that I tend to spot multiple errors this way, while digital copies normally seem flawless to me. Did you ever have the same experience?

printed books better.

reading experience which connects the reader to the book.

E-books on the other hand are the opposite of these reasons which made it difficult for them to read also they cause eye strain.