Students and teachers alike have debated it in every classroom since the dawn of time—or at least ever since the internet and digital databases were created. Which is better: PDFs or paper?
What at first seems to be a trivial question impacts both the education of students and the world around them. As climate change continues to threaten the state of the environment, the environmental cost of books and computers remains under scrutiny.
Studies have looked at the impact of digital reading versus physical reading, however, there is no overwhelming support for one form or another. One study done by the United Kingdom Literacy Association found that, relative to paper, reading from screens had a negative impact on reading performance. In contrast, a study of undergraduates, performed by the University of Maryland, found that students prefer digital texts and described their performance as better.
There is not a vastly superior method or medium. According to the NCBI, there are individual, family, and school factors that go into determining which way works better for a student’s learning.
Many of the learning benefits from paper comes from hands-on engagement with the text.
Anjali Tremblay ‘26 said that they “generally prefer to have [text] printed out because then I can annotate it.”
However, reading online also provides access to books that students can not find in person.
Tremblay said that “sometimes I’ll read on [their kindle] if [they] can’t find books at the library.”
This seems to be a pattern.
Math teacher Nathan Bridge said that “Canvas, Blackbaud, and Google Classroom are so ubiquitously used in classrooms…it’s much easier to find things.”
Bridge also said “there’s something about having a piece of paper in front of you… I actually still do like a physical copy of things.”
Teachers and students seem to reflect that there is a time and a place for both electronic and physical copies of text.
Environmental Action and Justice (EAJ) co-clerk Vivian deGuzman ‘25 said that “there is a good balance between paper and electronics that a class can strike.”
For many years, people have assumed that printing and reading books is more damaging to the environment, mainly because of deforestation. Around 35% of all harvested trees go to paper production, and the removal of so many trees causes mass environmental distress. In addition, there is an environmental cost of ink and discarded ink cartridges.
However, more recently, people are being made aware of the harmful effects of their electronics on the environment. In 2010, the New York Times put out an article looking at the costs of e-readers.
The fossil fuels produced by manufacturing e-readers are 100 times more than the fossil fuels produced by manufacturing books. It takes 40-50 books read on an e-reader to offset the amount of carbon emissions caused by the manufacturing process.
Despite the environmental impact of manufacturing, reading online for 10 minutes is more environmentally friendly, in regard to carbon emissions. A study published by the KTC Center for Sustainable Communications looked at exactly this.
They found that print would be more efficient if one were to spend 30 minutes or more reading. Any less than this, and reading digitally would be the greener option.
Toni Vahlsing, Director of Libraries, said “We have to have a balance, because we are an educational institution, our first job is to educate. But also as a Quaker school, we are all stewards to the environment.”
This is an issue that Abington Friends is still learning to navigate, and it is up to each and every member of the community to make a conscious choice about which is best for their education, while keeping sustainability in mind.
Perhaps instead of buying an e-reader, using a device you already have to download Kindle or other digital libraries. For the realm of printed media, mindfulness for the amount of paper we consume will help keep our forests intact.
