Screens are not books. Reading from a screen is not the same as reading from a book. A recent research paper adds to the evidence that a presentation (or its supportive media) should not be viewed as some form of text on a screen. The transfer of information and its processing are not the same. Screens are not books.
I’m grateful to my colleague @rajacexplains.bsky.social for linking me to this post on Bluesky and for the insight that the education debate IS still alive on social media. Please go to the blogpost itself for a more in-depth review, definitely consider subscribing. The paper measured visual tracking and data retention in comparing students reading from a physical text against a digital text. The results showed that on-screen reading leads to more shallow processing and thus comprehension. Additionally, students were unaware of the differences in their reading behaviour, even preferring the poorer approach.
The educational scientists and learning psychologists will take pleasure and time in dissecting this piece. The discussion speaks to our (false) belief that reading from a screen, whether handheld or in a lecture room, is the same as reading from a book. Reading from the two is not the same. This is perhaps the simplest message, but it should add further weight to the argument against the standard use of a “presentation” as a place to upload information for the audience to read (download).
This is simply another piece in the complex issue of why it is universally accepted that presentations, as they are currently constructed, delivered and received, do not work as presenters and audience believe they do. If screens are not books, then please don’t fill them with text expecting audiences to read them.