Regarding learning via paper vs electronic devices and age of the individual, here's an abstract from Ergonomics in 2011, an article by Robert Ball & Juan Pablo Hourcade (the underlined part is my emphasis):
"The human–computer interaction research community has long been interested in the role of age in the use of computing devices. The current availability of large high-resolution displays and a growing community of older adults who use computers on a regular basis are examples of a changing landscape of users and devices that calls for a reevaluation of what we know about age and computers. This article presents two studies comparing the performance of young and older adults in reading tasks. In our studies,
older adults outperformed young adults in terms of reading times and reading comprehension regardless of medium (paper or computer display). In addition, the overlap of confidence intervals for reading times and comprehension by medium suggests participants performed equally well regardless of medium. Both findings are in contrast to results from similar studies from the 1980s and 1990s."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...9#.UrJWQY1VK_4
Looks like a very interesting journal. I may wander off to the library and check our some of the back issues just for fun.
May I point out that the research by Kate Garland, quoted in the linked article provided in the first post on this thread, is >5 years old, published in a journal called Ergonomics in 2008, which means the data was collected well prior to that before being analyzed and written up and peer-reviewed before actually being published. The focus of the research was assessing the interface of a person using a computer (monitors with backlit screens! keyboards!, desks and chairs!) for learning and testing vs textbooks and paper testing, and it was compared to other research done in 1992.
The linked article makes it sound as though the research was done with ereaders, which it was not, plus it was done prior to the more popular use of ereaders. It was prior to the first release of kindle and Nook readers into the market place, and prior to the first iPhone and iPad releases that made smart devices and tablets everyday items instead of just by and for techies. There were certainly ereaders available prior to 2008, but they were not something you'd see people using in an airport if you glanced around in 2005-2007 when the study was done.
The intent of Ms. Garland's research was not to see how the average person might retain information obtained from an ereader vs a print book. These were psychology students given information on computers then were pressed to answer questions about the material on computer. They were compared to psychology students who got the same material on paper and were tested using paper testing methods. The question had more to do with how valid testing on a computer was compared to testing on paper, pointing out that one should not assume that there is equivalency between the interfaces of computers and paper.
I think if that same research was done using current e-ink devices or tablets, which can be held as comfortably as (often more comfortably than!) a book, the inference by that journalist would not be that ereading is adverse to learning. Testing is another question altogether, though.
As for me, I got some hardback books from the library recently that made me feel like my thumbs were going to bust from holding them! I was so happy to get back to my lightweight PRS-350!