The Case for Paper: What Research Says About Screen Free Learning
I was homeschooled, and I struggled with online math programs. I could click through them, but no one could see where I was actually stuck. Years later, as a psychology student, I went looking for what the research says about paper, screens, and how kids learn. This is what I found. Some of it is less solid than the headlines make it sound, and I've said so below.
Short version: the research on paper and screens is real, but it is mostly about reading and handwriting. None of it tests math worksheets directly. Below is what it does show, and what that means for screen free math practice at home.
People understand more when they read on paper
Across studies from 2000 to 2017, readers understood comparable texts better on paper than on screens. The effect was small, but it was consistent. The advantage held for informational texts, or a mix of informational and narrative texts, but not for narrative texts alone. It grew when readers were under time pressure. Most of the comparisons involved college students, not children.
The authors also describe earlier experiments in which, under time pressure, people reading on screens were more overconfident about how much they had understood than people reading on paper. That is a finding they discuss from earlier work, not something this meta-analysis measured itself.
Delgado, Vargas, Ackerman & Salmerón (2018). Don't throw away your printed books. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. Delgado et al. 2018 on the publisher site
When a print book and a digital book differed only in being digital, children ages 1 to 8 scored lower on story comprehension with the digital one. The picture changed with design. Digital books with enhancements that matched the story outperformed paper books, while an embedded dictionary helped children learn vocabulary but had no effect, or a negative one, on story comprehension. Adults reading along on paper helped more than enhancements did for children reading alone.
Furenes, Kucirkova & Bus (2021). A comparison of children's reading on paper versus screen. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483–517. Furenes et al. 2021 on the publisher site
Writing by hand activates brain areas tied to reading and memory
Children who could not yet read printed, typed, or traced letters and shapes. Afterward, while in an fMRI scanner, they looked at images of those letters. The brain's reading network was recruited only after handwriting, not after typing or tracing. The authors suggest handwriting may help children learn to read.
James & Engelhardt (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 32–42. James & Engelhardt 2012 on the publisher site
In 36 university students in their early twenties, writing by hand produced more widespread connectivity (theta and alpha activity) in brain regions tied to learning and memory than typing did. The researchers say children should be exposed to handwriting from an early age in school.
Van der Weel & Van der Meer (2024). Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1219945. Van der Weel & Van der Meer on the publisher site
Where the evidence is weaker
The well known "pen is mightier than the keyboard" note taking study from 2014 did not fully hold up when other researchers repeated it with college students. Across the replications, the longhand advantage was small and not statistically significant, and the authors say it is premature to conclude which method is better.
The brain connectivity study above tested young adults, not children. Other researchers have commented that it did not measure learning, and that more of this kind of brain activity has not been clearly shown to mean better learning. And, as noted above, the reading advantage for paper was found for informational text, not for narrative text alone.
Morehead, Dunlosky & Rawson (2019). How much mightier is the pen than the keyboard for note-taking? A replication and extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014). Educational Psychology Review, 31, 753–780. Morehead et al. 2019 on the publisher site · Pinet & Longcamp (2025). Commentary on Van der Weel & Van der Meer. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1517235. Pinet & Longcamp 2025 on the publisher site
So what about math?
None of these studies tested math worksheets, so I can't tell you paper is better for math. What the research supports is narrower: reading and handwriting seem to go better on paper. What I can tell you from my own experience is that with online math, nobody could see where I was stuck.
That's why we built LOOP. Kids do their math on paper. A parent or teacher scans the finished page, and LOOP shows which skill the child is stuck on and prints the next worksheet. If you homeschool, here is more on LOOP's screen free math practice for homeschool families.
Want to try screen free math practice at home?
See how LOOP works for homeschoolers