lesson plan.
This could ultimately affect their ability to
Pros and Cons of
Tablets
Pro #1: Easily Adaptable
Students today learn and engage differently with
technology than previous generations. Tablets allow
students to feel empowered by the learning process by
playing to their strengths. It also provides them the
opportunity to learn how to use computers for the rest of
their lives. Across many industries, computers power a
lot of what we do professionally, so introducing this as
an educational tool will help set them up for future
career success.
Pro #2: More Capacity
One tablet has the ability to store more books than a
student will ever need for the entire duration of their
education. Tablets can also be used to store homework,
quizzes, and tests – eliminating heavy loads from
students’ backpacks and desks.
Pro #3: Access to the Latest
Information
Tablets aid teachers in providing their students with the
most accurate and up-to-date information possible,
allowing lesson plans to be updated in real time.
Publishers have been criticized for making minor
amendments to text volumes and charging schools top
dollar for new editions. Once textbooks go digital, the
print costs will be eliminated, which will result in
textbook savings of as much as 60% for school districts.
Con #1: Cost
The initial investment in technology can be steep for
some students and schools. Not all educators or families
can afford them, and the student experience should not
be based on what people can or cannot afford. Everyone
should have access to learning materials. Along the
same lines, tablets have high curb appeal and run the
risk of getting stolen if mistakenly left in a public place.
Con #2: Overexposure
Overexposing students to blue-light screens is one of the
bigger risks of computer-based learning. It can be
difficult for students to separate “computer time for
learning” and “computer time for playing”, thus, leading
them to spend time browsing the Internet or on social
media sites when they should instead be following a
concentrate on the task at hand.
Pros and Cons of
Textbooks
Pro #1: Strategic Learning
When analyzing the benefits of textbooks or
tablets, one of the biggest advantages is that
textbooks are professionally curated
documents. They have been organized in the
best way to present the information in a
logical order and are fact-checked by
academic professionals.
Pro #2: Better Absorption
It is common knowledge that handwriting
notes allows for better absorption in
remembering important teachings and lessons.
This experience is very similar when reading a
typed book vs on a computer screen and is
said to play a key role in the learning process.
Con #1: Outdated
Information
It goes without saying that the biggest
disadvantage of textbooks is the use of
outdated information when the latest version is
not yet available. Great teachers can combat
this by providing additional pointers to
provide the most up to date data, however, this
approach runs the risk that not all relevant
information will be relayed.
Con #2: Cost
On the flip-side of the cost debate, it can be
argued that students and schools will pay more
in the long-run for printed textbooks. Because
there are no printing or shipping costs
associated with content in tablets, electronic
versions may be less expensive than printed
textbooks.
Why Research Says
Textbooks Are Better Than
Tablets
This article was first published in October 2017.
Patricia A. Alexander, Professor of
Psychology, University of Maryland and Lauren
M. Singer Trakhman, Ph.D. Candidate in
Educational Psychology, University of Maryland.
In recent years, some interesting research has
shed more light on the tablets vs. textbooks
debate.
Researchers Patricia A. Alexander and Lauren
M. Singer Trakhman found that while students
preferred digital text to printed and believed
they learned better with digital, the opposite
turned out to be true.
 Students overwhelming preferred to
read digitally.
 Reading was significantly faster online
than in print.
 Students judged their comprehension
as better online than in print.
 Paradoxically, overall comprehension
was better for print versus digital
reading.
 The medium didn't matter for general
questions (like understanding the main
idea of the text).
 But when it came to specific
questions, comprehension was
significantly better when participants
read printed texts.
Alexander and Trakhman point out that there
are indications that the speed with which
students read texts affects comprehension.
And, since students naturally read digital texts
faster than print texts, the difference could be
associated with a learned trait that could be
adjusted.
Because we tend to skim more on the web, we
train ourselves to read faster in that medium.
So, it could be argued that students can be
retrained to read digital texts more
methodically to increase comprehension.
Trends in Digital Usage
Among Teens and College
Students
One thing that can't be argued is that teens and
college students are using technology more
than ever before.
 Fully 95% of teens have access to a
smartphone, and 45% say they are
online 'almost constantly.' Pew
Internet
 In the mid-2010s, the average
American 12th-grader reported
spending approximately two hours a
day texting, just over two hours a day
on the internet — which included
gaming — and just under two hours a
day on social media. That’s a total of
about six hours per day on just three
digital media activities during their
leisure time. American Psychological
Association
 Between 2012 and 2018, the
percentage of teens who use social
media more than once a day more than
doubled from 34% to 70%. Statistia
 Seventy-two percent of teens say they
check messages as soon as they wake
up, but so do almost 60% of
parents. Pew Research
That said, how can schools leverage today's
tech to connect with students, parents, and
staff in a meaningful way?
Technology for School
Communication
While the jury is still out on the tablets vs.
textbooks debate, schools have easier choices
when it comes to other uses of technology.
In the statistics above, we saw that teens check
their messages first thing in the morning and
spend an average of two hours a day texting.
Our own research has shown that contacts
read 98% of texts sent from our platform and
90% of texts are read within three minutes of
receipt. Compare that with a 21% open rate of
emails and you can see just how powerful text
messages are.
For schools looking to communicate
effectively with students, parents, and
staff, mass text messaging beats all other
communications channels handily.
If you've yet to explore bulk text messaging
for your school, we have a resource which will
give you some great ideas of how you can use
Short Message Service (SMS) texting to make
your school better. Our free Text Message
Marketing Playbook for Schools, Colleges,
and Universities includes 16 types of
messages for educational institutions.
These include:
 Special Event Reminders
 Severe Weather Alerts
 Emergency Notifications
 Surveys
 Class Supply Lists
 Volunteer Communications
 Educational Tips
 And more!
Books vs ebooks: Protect
the environment with this
simple decision
Submitted by Michael Carpenter on Fri,
17/06/2016 - 20:20 | Updated Sat, 17/09/2016
- 23:49
When talking about the books vs ebooks
debate, often you'll hear people say that
ebooks and ereaders help protect the
environment. Let's do the math for ourselves
and see what the possible advantages of
ebooks are over traditional books.
Technology plays an incredibly important role
in our day-to-day lives. After all, many of us
rely on computers, tablets, and phones for
everyday activities like perusing emails,
sending texts, and checking the weather.
Recently, even the activity of reading has
become increasingly digitalized with the
introduction of e-readers. Though Amazon’s
Kindle is certainly the most famous, there are
a host of other companies that produce them
as well- such as Barnes and Noble’s Nook.
Though at first glance this may seem like an
ideal way to reduce CO2 emissions and save
our forests, there are a variety of factors to
consider that make the choice of switching to
e-reader technology a more difficult one than
it might initially appear; there can be no doubt
that the manufacturing, use, and disposal of
these devices has an affect on our
environment.
Advantages of ebooks:
Though it would be lovely if we could all look
to e-reader technology as an environmentally
friendly alternative to print, in reality, whether
or not they have the power to decrease our
carbon footprint is dependent on our personal
habits. A single e-reader’s total carbon
footprint is approximately 168kg, and for a
book, this figure is somewhere in the range of
7.5kg; the book’s length and type can lead this
figure to vary.1 Using an average of 7.5kg, we
can conclude it would take reading about 22-
23 books on an e-reader to reach a level in
which the environmental impact is the same
as if those books had been read in print.
Along that logic, reading over 44 books on an
e-reader would actually halve a person’s impact
on the climate.1 We are thus able to reason
that if you do not read at least 22 books on an
e-reader before replacing it, your
environmental impact is actually greater than if
you had read them in print, which is why it is
especially important to assess individual
reading habits before making the decision to
buy an e-reader; you must be aware of how
many ebooks you are likely to read before
upgrading and determine whether or not that
number will make up for the initial bulk of
CO2 emissions required to produce it as well
as the emissions required to keep it
functioning daily. That being said, many
people use their e-readers for about 4 years
before replacing them, and the average e-
reader prevents the sale of nearly 22-23 books
per year.1
If you can match these statistics, using an e-
reader would allow you to significantly
decrease your carbon footprint- even when
taking into account the initial CO2 emissions
needed to produce it! A prominent study on
the subject summarized by noting that the
168kg needed to sustain a Kindle during the
entirety of its lifecycle is a clear winner when
looking at potential savings of nearly 1,074kg
if it is used to replace 3 books a month for 4
years.1 For someone that reads even more
often, the e-reader’s savings would increase
substantially! It’s hard to deny the advantages
of ebooks when faced with these revealing
statistics.
Books vs ebooks: Why Does
it Matter?
Despite the facts, you might be asking
yourself, why should I care about the
environmental impact of printed books vs
ebooks? Does it really make that big of a
difference? Though these are valid questions,
hopefully some background information will
lead to a greater appreciation of this issue’s
importance. We are so often surrounded by
an endless supply of printed books,
magazines, and newspapers that it is easy to
become desensitized to or forget about their
negative impact on our environment.
However, in 2008 alone, the publishing
industry was responsible for the harvest of
nearly 125 million trees.
On top of that, our landfills are composed of
about 26% paper, and the publishing industry
comprises about 11% of freshwater
consumed in industrial nations.1 These are
undeniably significant statistics that warrant
our attention. Most people would likely agree
that it is imperative we reduce our reliance on
landfills, maintain the health of our forests,
and attempt to limit any excess use of valuable
freshwater. We have become accustomed to
printed books, but with the introduction of e-
reader technology, it could be possible that
strides toward a more environmentally
friendly lifestyle can be made. Because of this,
we should all consider the ebooks vs printed
books argument an important one and
attempt to educate ourselves on the issue.
Before one can even hope to use an e-reader,
it must first pass through the stage of
production, which, unfortunately, means
extensive energy usage and CO2 emissions.
On top of this, an individual must take certain
steps to keep their e-reader charged and
functioning, which requires even more CO2
emissions. How does this affect the books vs
ebooks debate? There are several estimates for
the total carbon footprint of such an
endeavor, and the average seems to be in the
range of 168kg.
However, the average carbon footprint
associated with the production of a single
paper book is only about 7.5kg.1 There is the
fact that producing a single e-reader requires
the extraction of nearly 33lb of minerals and
uses about 79 galloons of water.4 It should
come as no surprise that traditional, printed
books do not require even close to the same
amount of resources, and being aware of
these simple facts makes it crystal clear that e-
readers are not a perfect solution. However,
depending on individual reading habits,
they can serve as a way to avoid excess CO2
emissions, and it is for these reasons that this
issue of the utmost importance.
Books vs ebooks: Some
Complications
There are several other important factors to
consider in regards to the books vs ebooks
debate. Firstly, once an individual decides to
replace an e-reader, things become a bit more
complicated. Even if they were able to read
enough books to lessen their individual
environmental impact, electronic waste is a
problem in and of its own. Many are aware
that companies seek to release new iterations
of their technology at a steady pace, and e-
readers are no exception; there have already
been 6 different types of Kindle released!
Consumers regularly seek to replace their
existing e-reader for the newest model. If an
e-reader is not properly recycled, it will likely
end up releasing toxic substances into the
atmosphere in one way or another.3 This is
obviously a potential downside to the
increased popularity of e-readers and requires
that companies make greater efforts to offer
recycling programs and inform consumers
about them. Thankfully, Amazon does have a
mail-in recycling program in place for the
Kindle and its batteries, but it’s arguable the
degree to which they advertise this fact.1 Yet
another argument against purchasing an e-
reader focuses on the apparent lack of
adaptation within the printing industry. It is
the duty of people within the industry to
predict how many books should be printed
and shipped to stores. Though there is data
suggesting a decline in the purchase of printed
books and an incline in ebook sales, the
industry has failed to adapt and continues to
ship in excess. Unfortunately, this results in
the burning of books that fail to sell and has a
hugely negative impact on carbon
emissions.1 Unless the printing industry is able
to predict lower sales and adjust their
production accordingly, it is nearly impossible
for e-readers to significantly reduce carbon
emissions. This is an obstacle for anyone
thinking about purchasing one to reduce their
carbon footprint, as it’s an issue individual
consumers have little to no control over.
There are also a few arguments to take into
consideration in regards to the value of
printed books. One such argument focuses on
the higher reading comprehension associated
with print. There have been studies done that
suggest reading a printed book allows for a
more natural intake of information than
reading off a screen.2 I can personally attest to
this, as my experience with both mediums in
college has led me to believe I have much
better retention when I am reading a printed
book. Yet another thing to consider is the fact
that a book will likely have a longer lifespan
than an e-reader, which will eventually be
replaced for a newer model. These arguments
have nothing to do with the environmental
impact of either medium, but they are still
referenced in the books vs ebooks debate.
Books vs ebooks: Any other
environmentally friendly
alternatives to consider?
It should be also noted this debate is not
restricted to only these two options. Though
it has been framed from this perspective,
there are a few other paths to mention. Firstly,
the value of libraries should not be
underestimated. They act as yet another
method of reducing environmental impact by 1 Ritch, Emma. "The Environmental Impact
sharing one collection with many people. As of Amazon's Kindle." The Environmental Impact
was mentioned, printing a single book has a of Amazon’s Kindle The Environmental Impact of
carbon footprint of about 7.5kg CO2. This Amazon’s Kindle (2009): n. pag. tkearth.com.
seemingly small number can become quite Web.
significant when it is multiplied by a large
number of consumers that each want their 2 "Print or Digital: It All Has Environmental
own copy of the book, but in the case of a Impact." eomega.org. N.p., 24 Jan. 2014. Web.
library, it can remain small and relatively
inconsequential; fewer books can serve a
larger number of people. This is a fairly 3 "E-readers vs Books: The Environmental
environmentally responsible method that Debate." ethicalconsumer.org. N.p., May 2013.
should be mentioned more frequently in the Web.
books vs ebooks debate. Yet another thing to
consider is the availability of e-reader apps for 4 Siegle, Lucy. “Should I Stop Buying Paper
devices you may already own. Rather than Books and Use an E-reader
purchasing a separate e-reader, it can be wise Instead?” theguardian.com. N.p., 5 Jan. 2013.
to look at what is already available to you. It Web.
has probably become clear by now that
devices can have a significant environmental
impact, but they are also incredibly expensive.
It is in the environment’s best interest, as well
as your pocketbook’s, to make use of what
you already own. For instance, an iPad can
utilize the Apple iBooks software.3 Allowing
an iPhone to double as an e-reader could also
be an option; on average, producing a single
iPhone results in about 55kg of CO2
emissions, which is significantly less than an e-
reader.1 They can be used to perform a variety
of tasks, and though many people might not
think to use it as one, it can serve as a highly
transportable, environmentally friendly
reading device.

When consumers take note of their reading

habits and the printing industry adapts
accordingly, ebooks clearly have the potential
to lessen CO2 emissions. That being said, it is
important to take in all facets of the books vs
ebooks debate as well as look at possible
alternatives, like libraries and apps, when
deciding what is best in your unique situation.

Sources:
Should I stop buying paper books and
use an e-reader instead?
https://www.theguardian.com/environm
ent/2013/jan/06/should-i-buy-an-e-
reader
Recently I've detected a certain eco
smugness from ebookworms who've
embraced Kindles, Kobos et al. It's not
wholly surprising because on paper (or
rather online, where these debates take
place) ereaders and tablets are assumed to
possess ecological superiority over
traditional books, which are given the
pejorative tag "dead-tree publishing".
Use an Amazon Kindle to full storage
capacity and it is claimed you can offset the
emissions caused by its manufacture in a
year. Keep it longer and you save 168kg of
CO2 per year (the amount produced by 22.5
real books). It's said that those who
swapped to an ereader between 2009 and
2012 cumulatively prevented release of
9.9bn kg CO2 emissions.
A study of the US book industry for a single
year (2006) estimated that publishing
consumed approximately 30m trees and
had a carbon footprint equivalent to 12.4m
metric tons of carbon dioxide. David Reay, a
British academic and carbon management
expert, worked out (while publicising his
own physical book, Methane and Climate
Change) that each book produced in the UK
probably caused 3kg of CO2. The heavier the
tome, the harder its fall from ecological
grace: a textbook at 2.18kg results in 10.2kg
of CO2 equivalent. Given that it isn't
desirable to have society dispense with
books altogether, can we assume that
ebooks must be best?
Not so fast. A New York Times study found
that one ereader requires the extraction of
33lb of minerals, including coltan, a metallic
ore that may or may not be from the Congo
(where production has fuelled the war).
Then there's 79 gallons of water and 100
kilowatt hours of fossil fuels, equating to
66lb of CO2. Books need a tiny fraction of
these resources – and no coltan. Then
there's the nitrogen and sulphur oxides and
their association with chronic respiratory
illness, and what about conditions in the
factory that made the device?
If producing a Kindle creates the same
CO2 as 30 books, then you need to read that
number on it to break even. If you download
books you wouldn't normally have bought,
are you no longer displacing emissions but
creating new ones? Are you a day or night
reader? Reading a book at night for two
hours uses more energy than charging an
ereader. Read in the day and the advantage
is reversed. You still have thinking to do.
Meanwhile the real eco-smug readers are
those with a library card.
Green crush
Perhaps your New Year's resolution will be
to give up fast-fashion fixes in favour of
something more nourishing for your
wardrobe. Byhandlondon.com, set up by
Charlotte and Elisalex, can help with two
pattern books that are clear to follow and
enticing. The Charlotte skirt (£10) is
suitable for beginners, while the Elisalex
dress (£12) has a princess-seamed bodice
with three sleeve variations and a full box-
pleated tulip skirt (sizes 6-20 in the same
pattern).
Green speak: Numby
A twist on the self-serving Not in My Back
Yarders acronym laced with environmental
responsibility. Not Under My Back Yarders
oppose hydraulic fracturing, including shale
gas exploration.
Published: April 4, 2010
OP-CHART
How Green Is My iPad?
By DANIEL GOLEMAN and GREGORY NORRIS
With e-readers like Apple’s new iPad
and Amazon’s Kindle touting their
vast libraries of digital titles, some
bookworms are bound to wonder if
tomes-on-paper will one day become
quaint relics. But the question also
arises, which is more
environmentally friendly: an e-reader
or an old-fashioned book?
To find the answer, we turned to life-
cycle assessment, which evaluates the
ecological impact of any product, at
every stage of its existence, from the
first tree cut down for paper to the
day that hardcover decomposes in the
dump. With this method, we can
determine the greenest way to read.
(A note about e-readers: some
technical details — for instance,
how those special screens are
manufactured — are not publicly
available and these products vary in
their exact composition. We’ve
based our estimates on a composite
derived from available information.
It’s also important to keep in mind
that we’re focusing on the e-reader
aspect of these devices, not any
other functions they may offer.)
One e-reader requires the extraction of 33
pounds of minerals. That includes trace
amounts of exotic metals like columbite-
tantalite, often mined in war-torn regions of
Africa. But it’s mostly sand and gravel to
build landfills; they hold all the waste from
manufacturing wafer boards for the
integrated circuits. An e-reader also
requires 79 gallons of water to produce its
batteries and printed wiring boards, and in
refining metals like the gold used in trace
quantities in the circuits.
A book made with recycled paper consumes
about two-thirds of a pound of minerals.
(Here again, the greatest mineral use is
actually gravel, mainly for the roads used to
transport materials throughout the supply
chain.) And it requires just 2 gallons of
water to make the pulp slurry that is then
pressed and heat-dried to make paper.
F O S S I L F U E L S The e-reader’s
manufacture, along a vast supply chain of
consumer electronics, is relatively energy-
hungry, using 100 kilowatt hours of fossil
fuels and resulting in 66 pounds of carbon
dioxide. For a single book, which, recycled
or not, requires energy to form and dry the
sheets, it’s just two kilowatt hours, and 100
times fewer greenhouse gases.
H E A L T H The unit for comparison here is a
“disability adjusted life-year,” the length of
time someone loses to disability because of
exposure to, say, toxic material released into
the air, water and soil, anywhere along the
line.
For both the book and the e-reader, the
main health impacts come from particulate
emissions like nitrogen and sulfur oxides,
which travel deep into our lungs, worsening
asthma and chronic coughing and
increasing the risk of premature death. The
adverse health impacts from making one e-
reader are estimated to be 70 times greater
than those from making a single book.
If you order a book online and have it
shipped 500 miles by air, that creates
roughly the same pollution and waste as
making the book in the first place. Driving
five miles to the bookstore and back causes
about 10 times the pollution and resource
depletion as producing it. You’d need to
drive to a store 300 miles away to create the
equivalent in toxic impacts on health of
making one e-reader — but you might do
that and more if you drive to the mall every
time you buy a new book.
If you like to read a book in bed at night for
an hour or two, the light bulb will use more
energy than it takes to charge an e-reader,
which has a highly energy-efficient screen.
But if you read in daylight, the advantage
tips to a book.
If your e-reader ends up being “recycled”
illegally so that workers, including children,
in developing countries dismantle it by
hand, they will be exposed to a range of
toxic substances. If it goes through state-of-
the-art procedures — for example, high-
temperature incineration with the best
emissions controls and metals recovery —
the “disability adjusted life-year” count will
be far less for workers.
If your book ends up in a landfill, its
decomposition generates double the global
warming emissions and toxic impacts on
local water systems as its manufacture.
Some of this math is improving. More and
more books are being printed with soy-
based inks, rather than petroleum-based
ones, on paper that is recycled or sourced
from well-managed forests and that was
produced at pulp mills that don’t use
poisons like chlorine to whiten it. The
electronics industry, too, is trying to reduce
the use of toxic chemicals, and to improve
working conditions and worker safety
throughout its far-flung supply chains.
So, how many volumes do you need to read
on your e-reader to break even?
With respect to fossil fuels, water use and
mineral consumption, the impact of one e-
reader payback equals roughly 40 to 50
books. When it comes to global warming,
though, it’s 100 books; with human health
consequences, it’s somewhere in between.
All in all, the most ecologically virtuous way
to read a book starts by walking to your
local library.
Last updated on: 11/20/2018 |
Author: ProCon.org
Footnotes & Sources
The background and pro and con arguments were written
by ProCon.org staff based upon input from the following
footnotes (directly referenced) and sources (used for
general research and not directly referenced):
Footnotes:
1. C. Claiborne Ray, “The Weight of Memory,”
nytimes.com, Oct. 24, 2011
2. Associated Press, “Cell Phone Theft on the Rise,”
wowt.com, Oct. 21, 2012
3. Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris, “How Green
Is My iPad?,” nytimes.com, Apr. 4, 2010
4. Janet Maragioglio, “iPads Boost Math Scores,
Benefit Education,” mobiledia.com, Jan. 31, 2012
5. Mary Elizabeth Dallas, “Overloaded Backpacks
Can Injure Kids: Experts,” nlm.nih.gov, Aug. 26,
2012
6. Federal Communications Commission, “Digital
Textbook Playbook,” fcc.gov, Feb. 1, 2012
7. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), “National PBS
Survey Finds Teachers Want More Access to
Classroom Tech,” pbs.org, Jan. 23, 2012
8. Emily Price, “How Much Storage Does Your
 Tablet Need?,” tecca.com, Mar. 3, 2012
9. Electronista, “Digital Textbooks May Save
Schools $250 Per Student Per Year,”
electronista.com, Mar. 30, 2012
10. Mikael Ricknas, “Average Tablet Price Drops to
$386, Says IMS Research,” computerworld.com,
June 8, 2012
11. Patrick Thibodeau, “Tablet Sales to Soar as Prices
Drop Through 2015, Says Gartner,”
computerworld.com, Mar. 30, 2011
12. Thomas Adams, “Textbook Weight in California:
Data and Analysis,” California Department of
Education website, Apr. 14, 2004
13. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Occupational
Outlook Handbook,” bls.gov (accessed Nov. 9,
2012)
14. Del Williams, “How Much Is Out-of-Control
Printing Costing Your School?,”
softwareshelf.com (accessed Aug. 1, 2012)
15. Ben Johnson, “Paper and Pencil Curriculum: How
Much Do You Rely on It?,” edutopia.org, Feb. 23,
2011
16. Tom Mendelsohn, “Ten Great Free Education
Apps for the iPad,” The Independent, Jan. 30,
2012
17. LearnStuff, “Graduating with Technology,”
learnstuff.com, Aug. 17, 2012
18. Kathryn Zickuhr, “Younger Americans’ Reading
and Library Habits,” libraries.pewinternet.org,
Oct. 23, 2012
19. David Talbot, “Given Tablets But No Teachers,
Ethiopian Kids Teach Themselves,”
mashable.com, Oct. 29, 2012
20. New York Daily News, “iStrain: Tablets and iPads
Can Cause Eye Problems,”
articles.nydailynews.com, Mar. 14, 2012
21. I-Mei Lin, “Psychophysiological Patterns During
Cell Phone Text Messaging: A Preliminary
Study,” Applied Psychophysiological Biofeedback,
Feb. 6, 2009
22. Dean Fishman, “Neck Pain from Texting,” The
Text Neck Institute website, Nov. 2, 2010
23. Lee Wilson, “Apple’s iPad Textbooks Cost 5x
More Than Print,” educationbusinessblog.com,
Feb. 23, 2012
24. Lesley Lanir, “Digital Information Overload
Overwhelms and Distracts Students,”
decodedscience.com, Nov. 4, 2012
25. Urs Gasser and John Palfrey, “Mastering
Multitasking,” cf.linnbenton.edu, Mar. 2009
26. Kate Garland, “Computer- vs. Paper-based Tasks:
Are They Equivalent?,” Ergonomics, Sep. 2008
27. Lorien Crow, “Are E-Books Bad for Your
Memory?,” mobiledia.com, Mar. 15, 2012
28. Nicholas Carr, “Author Nicholas Carr: The Web
Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains,” wired.com, May
24, 2010
29. FindtheBest, “What Is the Average Battery Life of
a Tablet Computer?,” tablets.findthebest.com
(accessed Aug. 6, 2012)
30. Associated Press, “Cell Phone Theft on the Rise,”
wowt.com, Oct. 21, 2012
31. Mike Schmoker, Focus: Elevating the Essentials
to Radically Improve Student Learning, 2011
32. Laura Hazard Owen, “What Apple Is Wading
Into: A Snapshot of the K-12 Textbook Business,”
paidcontent.org, Jan. 21, 2012
33. Digital Book World, “Publishers’ eBook
Production Statistics,” digitalbookworld-
hub.com, Aug. 21, 2012
34. Book Industry Study Group and the Association
of American Publishers, “BookStats 2012,”
bisg.org, July 18, 2012
35. Dian Schaffhauser, “The Price Is Right?,” Campus
Technology website, Apr. 1, 2012
36. Christopher F. Schuetze, “Textbooks Finally Take
a Big Leap to Digital,” nytimes.com, Nov. 23,
2011
37. Aaron Smith, “Smartphone Adoption and
Usage,” pewinternet.org, July 11, 2011
38. The New Media Consortium, “The 2012 Horizon
Report,” net.educause.edu, 2012
39. California State Board of Education, “Textbook
Weight Standards: Adoption of Proposed Title 5
Regulations, Section 9517.2,” cde.ca.gov, July
2007
40. AVG, “The AVG Digital Diaries Report – How Has
Technology Changed Childhood?,”
avgdigitaldiaries.com, Apr. 2012
41. Gautham Nagesh, “Pew: Minorities Continue to
Lead Twitter Adoption,” thehill.com, June 1,
2011
42. Will Oremus, “New Digital Divide: Whites Less
Likely to Own Smartphones,” slate.com, Aug. 7,
2012
43. Jane Weaver, “Teens Tune Out TV, Log On
Instead,” msnbc.msn.com, July 24, 2012
44. Rob Reynolds, “Digital Textbooks Reaching the
Tipping Point in US Higher Education,” Xplana
Learning website, Mar. 2011
45. Government Accountability Office, “College
Textbooks: Enhanced Offerings Appear to Drive
Recent Price Increases,” gao.gov, July 2005
46. Nicole Allen, “New Laws, Free Books and
Textbook Rentals Could Help Curb Rising Costs
This Fall,” studentpirgs.org, Aug. 26, 2010
47. Geoffrey Fletcher, Dian Schaffhauser, and
Douglas Levin, “Out of Print: Reimagining the K-
12 Textbook in a Digital Age,” State Educational
Technology Directors Association website, 2012
48. Association of American Publishers, “School Size
and Weight Policy,” publishers.org (accessed
Feb. 22, 2013)
49. LA Times, “L.A. Unified Halts Contract for iPads,”
latimes.com, Aug. 25, 2014
50. Thomas Himes, “Los Angeles Unified’s iPad
 Contract to be Re-Bid among Favoritism
Concerns,” dailynews.com, Aug. 26, 2014
51. John Koetsier, “L.A. Unified to Give Every
Student an iPad in Deal Worth ‘Hundreds of
Millions,'” venturebeat.com, June 19, 2013
52. Pam A. Mueller and Daniel M. Oppenheimer,
“The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard:
Advantages of Longhand over Laptop Note
Taking,” Psychological Science, May 22, 2014
53. Statista, “Estimated Textbook Publishing
Revenue in the United States from 2010 to 2016
(in Billion US Dollars),” statista.com (accessed
Oct. 12, 2018)
54. Chris Zook, “Infographic: Textbook Costs
Skyrocket 812% in 35 Years,” aeseducation.com,
Sep. 7, 2017
55. Grand View Research, “US Tablet Market Size,
Share & Trends Analysis Report by Operating
System Type (Android, iOS), Competitive
Landscape, and Segment Forecasts, 2018 –
2025,” grandviewresearch.com, July 2018
56. Pew Research Center, “Mobile Fact Sheet,”
pewinternet.org, Feb. 5, 2018
57. Common Sense Media, “The Common Sense
Census: Media Use By Kids Age Zero to Eight,”
commonsense.org, 2017
58. Hoang Nguyen, “Three-Quarters of Kids Between
Ages 8 and 11 Regularly Use a Tablet,”
yougov.com, Apr. 16, 2018
59. Andrew Perrin, “Nearly One-in-Five Americans
Now Listen to Audiobooks,” pewresearch.org,
Mar. 8, 2018
60. Taylor Soper, “Amazon Passes Samsung for
Second Place in Worldwide Tablet Shipments,
Sees 50% Growth in 2017,” geekwire.com, Feb.
5, 2018
61. Pew Research Center, “The Rise of E-Reading,”
pewinternet.org, Apr. 4, 2012
62. Kinga Jenetics, “Amazon EBook Market Share
2017 – Is it Big Enough?,” publishdrive.com, Oct.
25, 2017
63. Author Earnings, “February 2017 Big, Bad, Wide
& International Report: Covering Amazon, Apple,
B&N, and Kobo Ebook Sales in the US, UK,
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,”
authorearnings.com, Feb. 2017
64. Carl Straumsheim, “A New Course,”
insidehighered.com, Mar. 4, 2014
65. VitalSource, “VitalSource Acquires Data Platform
Acrobatiq, Dramatically Expanding Analytics and
Adaptive Learning Capabilities,”
press.vitalsource.com, Sep. 4, 2018
66. IDC, “Worldwide Smartphone Volumes Will
Remain Down in 2018 Before Returning to
Growth in 2019 and Beyond, According to IDC,”
idc.com, May 30, 2018
67. VitalSource, “K-12 Schools,” vitalsource.com
(accessed Oct. 26, 2018)
68. Sean Cavanagh, “K-12 Print Needs Persist
Despite Digital Growth,” edweek.org, Apr. 14,
2015
69. Alliance for Excellent Education, “Every Student
Succeeds Act Primer: Digital Learning,”
all4ed.org, Mar. 2016
70. Deloitte, “2016 Digital Education Survey: After
the Bell Rings: Expanding the Classroom,”
deloitte.com, 2016
71. CoSN, “CoSN’s 2017 Annual Infrastructure
Survey Report,” cosn.org, 2017
72. Education SuperHighway, “2018 State of the
States: Expanding Digital Learning to Every
Classroom, Every Day,”
stateofthestates.educationsuperhighway.org,
Oct. 2018
73. Doug Gross, “Obama Wants High-Speed Internet
in Schools by 2018,” cnn.com, June 6, 2013
74. John B. Horrigan, “The Numbers behind the
Broadband ‘Homework Gap’,” pewresearch.org,
Apr. 20, 2015
75. Audrey Sumser, “Discovery Education Makes E-
Textbooks Easy / Reference Online,” slj.com,
Dec. 4, 2016
76. Lindsay McKenzie, “Are Etextbooks Affordable
Now?,” insidehighered.com, May 1, 2018
77. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,
“Back-to-School: Smart Tips to Ease the Load of
Kids’ Backpacks,” aaos.org, Aug. 9, 2017
78. Michele Molnar, “Struggling to Compete in the
K-12 Market, Apple Makes Big Product
Announcement at a School,” edweek.org, Mar.
27, 2018
79. Steve Olenski, “Is the Data on Your Business’
Digital Device Safe?,” forbes.com, Dec. 8, 2017
80. Mirela Roncevic, “Directory of E-book Platforms
for Libraries,” journals.ala.org, Apr. 2013
81. Schoology, “The Global State of Digital Learning
in K-12 Education,” schoology.com, 2017
82. Scholastic, “Kids & Family Reading Report: 5th
Edition,” scholastic.com, 2015
83. Scholastic, “Kids & Family Reading Report: 6th
Edition,” scholastic.com, 2017
84. ASCD and OverDrive, “Digital Content Goes to
School: Trends in K-12 Classroom E-Learning,”
ascd.org, 2016
85. Janet Grenslitt, “National Survey Awards School
Districts for Innovative Technology Initiatives,”
govtech.com, Mar. 29, 2018
86. The Foundation for Blended and Online Learning
and Evergreen Education Group, “Digital
Learning Strategies for Rural America: A Scan of
Policy and Practice in K-12 Education,”
evergreenedgroup.com, Mar. 2018
87. Evergreen Education Group, “Keeping Pace with
K-12 Online & Blended Learning: An Annual
Review of Policy and Practice,”
evergreenedgroup.com, 2012
88. Evergreen Education Group, “Keeping Pace with
K-12 Online Learning: 2016,”
evergreenedgroup.com, 2016
89. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),
“Report Card on American Education: Ranking
State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform,”
alecreportcard.org, 2018
90. State Educational Technology Directors
Association (SETDA), “Navigating the Digital Shift
2018,” setda.org, 2018
91. State Educational Technology Directors
Association (SETDA), “Digital Instructional
Materials: Acquisition Policies for States,”
dmaps.setda.org (accessed Nov. 13, 2018)
92. Hallie Levine, “Pick the Best School Backpack for
Your Child,” consumerreports.org, Sep. 1, 2017
93. Barack Obama, “President Obama Speaks on
Technology in Schools,”
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov, June 6, 2013
94. Lauren Camera, “On Tech, Teacher Doesn’t
Know Best,” usnews.com, Dec. 26, 2015
95. Mike Johnson, “The Best Tablets for Reading –
Our Top 10 Picks for Best E-Readers & Tablets,”
tabletunderbudget.com, Oct. 6, 2018
96. Elizabeth Harper, “The Best Way to Take Notes,”
techlicious.com, May 31, 2018
97. Jennifer Groff, “Technology-Rich Innovative
Learning Environments,” oecd.org, Feb. 2013
98. Apple, “iPad in Education Results,” apple.com,
July 2016
99. Sharon Hurley Hall, “8 Ways Teachers Can
Benefit from Cloud Storage,” cloudwards.net,
Nov. 8, 2017
100. Liz Bowie, “Librarians Share Their Best Book
Repair Tips,” demco.com (accessed Nov. 15,
2018)
101. John Keilman, “New Technology Lets Students
Cheat More Than Ever,” businessinsider.com,
Aug. 7, 2012
102. Rebecca Levey, “5 Ways Students Use
Technology to Cheat – What Parents Need to
Know,” mashable.com, Sep. 28, 2012
103. The Telegraph, “Six in 10 Pupils Admit to Using
Internet to Cheat in Homework,”
telegraph.co.uk, Sep. 10, 2009
104. Nick Pandolfo, “As Some Schools Plunge into
Technology, Poor Schools Are Left Behind,”
hechingerreport.org, Jan. 24, 2012
105. Meghan Bogardus Cortez, “As Connectivity
Improves, the Digital Divide Persists in Teacher
Tech Preparation,” edtechmagazine.com, July
18, 2017
106. TeachingTimes, “Miss, A Lion Stole My
Homework,” teachingtimes.com (accessed Nov.
15, 2018)
107. Kevin Zahner, “‘My Dog Ate My Chromebook’
and Other Excuses,” zahnerhistory.com, Dec. 16,
2017
108. Christie Blazer, “Literature Review Digital
Textbooks,” dadeschools.net, July 2013
109. Justin B. Hollander, “Long Live Paper,”
nytimes.com, Oct. 9, 2012
110. Ken Myers, “7 Potential Issues to Be Prepared
for When Bringing Tablets into the Classroom,”
emergingtech.com, Feb. 13, 2014
111. Wylie Wong, “Security at K–12 Schools Ramps up
as More Devices Roll In,” edtechmagazine.com,
Mar. 31, 2016
112. Online Degree Programs, “7 Good Reasons to
Keep Your Old Textbooks,”
onlinedegreeprograms.com, July 17, 2012
113. US Department of Education Office of
Educational Technology, “Transforming
American Education, Learning, Powered by
Technology, National Education Technology Plan
2010,” ed.gov, 2010
114. Claire McLaughlin, “The Homework Gap: The
‘Cruelest Part of the Digital Divide’,”
neatoday.org, Apr. 20, 2016
Sources:
California Department of Education, “Textbook
Weight in California: Analysis and
Recommendations,” cde.ca.gov, May 2004
James Doubek and NPR Staff, “Attention, Students:
Put Your Laptops Away,” npr.org, Apr. 17, 2016
K-12 High Speed Network, “Technology News,”
k12hsn.org, Mar. 9, 2011
Sarah Kessler, “6 Companies Aiming to Digitize the
Textbook Industry,” mashable.com, May 10, 2011
Douglas Macmillan, “Tech Execs Meet in DC to Plan
5-Year Transition to Digital Textbooks,”
go.bloomberg.com, Mar. 29, 2012
Danielle Nadler, “Tablets or Textbooks: Schools Sit
at Critical Crossroads,” leesburgtoday.com, Nov. 10,
2011
Will Oremus, “New Digital Divide: Whites Less
Likely to Own Smartphones,” slate.com, Aug. 7,
2012
Margaret Reardon, “Which Tablet Is Best for
Textbooks?,” news.cnet.com, Nov. 22, 2011
Margaret Rock, “The Future of Education: Tablets
vs. Textbooks,” mobiledia.com, Apr. 4, 2011

The Cost Of Mobile
Internet Around The
World [Infographic]
Niall McCarthyContributor
Business
Data journalist covering technological, societal and
media topics
For smartphone users fond of
heavy streaming, mobile data doesn't always
come cheap. In fact, the cost of a gigabyte of
mobile data varies hugely between
countries. UK-based price comparison
website cable.co.uk recently released an
extensive analysis of mobile data pricing
across the globe which focused on 6,313
data plans across 230 countries. India was
named the cheapest country for one gigabyte
of data with the average cost in U.S. dollars
only coming to $0.26. Kyrgyzstan came
second with $0.27 while Kazakhstan
rounded off the top-three with $0.49.
Zimbabwe is the most expensive country for
data where a gigabyte averages $75.20, 289
times as much as in India. The following
infographic provides an overview of pricing
in 15 selected countries with noticeable
differences immediately apparent in Europe.
While a gigabyte of data would set Italian
smartphone users back $1.73, the same
amount would cost $2.99 in France, $6.66 in
the United Kingdom and $6.96 in Germany.
Costs are even higher in North America
where they average $12.02 in Canada and
$12.38 in the United States.
Even though South Korea has been a
trailblazer in exceptional mobile
infrastructure and lightning fast internet for
years, its prices are still quite hefty at around
$15 for a gigabyte of mobile data.
Smartphone users in Seoul are still better off
than those in Switzerland where costs are in
excess of $20. Commenting on the
worldwide rankings, Dan Howdle, a
consumer telecoms analyst at cable.co.uk,
said that many of the cheapest countries
have excellent mobile and fixed broadband
infrastructure so providers can offer large
amounts of data at cheap prices. In many
cases, the economy dictates that prices must
be low, as that's what people can afford.
What Is Digital Eye Strain?
https://www.nvisioncenters.com/education/dig
ital-eye-
strain/#targetText=A%202015%20survey%20fo
und%20that,keep%20up%20with%20the%20ch
anges.
Digital eye strain is also referred to
as computer vision syndrome. This condition
can lead to several vision issues and forms
of eye discomfort due to using a digital
screen for too long. Screens include
computers, laptops, tablets, smartphones,
and portable gaming devices.
The level of discomfort often increases with
the amount of use. The average American
worker spends about seven hours every day
working on a computer of some sort. This
statistic does not take into account personal
time on screens, including playing games,
watching movies, or reading books at home.
The American Optometric Association
(AOA) found that some people who use
computer screens of some type for even two
hours per day were at risk of digital eye
strain symptoms. A 2015 survey found that
65 percent of American adults report
experiencing digital eye strain.
The “blink rate,” which is imperceptible
visual updates constantly happening on
digital screens, leads people to blink less
because the eyes are flickering in miniscule
ways to keep up with the changes. Less
blinking, different perceptions of distances,
and poor ergonomics or lighting in your
office environment can all lead to digital eye
strain.
For the most part, symptoms of digital eye
strain can be treated with minor lifestyle
changes. Existing eye problems like
farsightedness or astigmatism can make
symptoms of digital eye strain worse rather
than the other way around. However, it can
be uncomfortable if the person does not
know how to treat the issue.
Symptoms and Causes of
Digital Eye Strain
Reading or looking at images on a digital
screen is different than a printed page.
The level of contrast between the
background color and the letters is lower
than with a printed page. Letters or images
on a computer screen are less defined than
they are in a physical piece of media. Glare
and “blue light” from computer screens also
affect the eyes differently than with a paper
book or looking at a printed image.
Digital eye strain can cause many
symptoms, the most common of which
include:
 Eyestrain and discomfort.
 Blurry vision.
 Dry eyes.
 Neck pain.
 Shoulder pain.
These might be exacerbated by:
 Low or poor-quality light in the room.
 Glare from the digital screen.
 Improper viewing distances, such as if the
screen is too close to your eyes.
 Poor posture while seated and typing.
 Uncorrected or undiagnosed vision
problems.
Many people experience a combination of
these factors. When performing normal
office work on a computer, digital eye strain

can start to impact quality of life. However,
most symptoms are temporary and will start
to go away with lifestyle changes or after
computer work is done for the day.
In rare cases, especially if the person spends
more than seven hours in front of digital
screens, these symptoms may not go away
because the eyes do not have time to relax
and adjust. Blurry distance vision is the most
likely to continue after you are not working
on a digital screen, and this problem can
make driving or walking difficult.
https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com
The prolonged use of digital devices has
contributed to an increase of ‘computer-related’
ocular symptoms called computer vision
syndrome (CVS), also known as digital eye
fatigue. Research has found that around 75% of
the population working in front of a screen for
6–9 hours daily complain of some ocular
discomfort[1]. Office-based studies have shown
the prevalence of CVS to be higher in women
than men[2], but similar between contact lens and
spectacle wearers[3].
CVS broadly relates to ocular discomfort
associated with prolonged computer use, but the
time spent using screens, especially handheld
devices, is increasing inexorably in our day-to-
day activities, and avoiding screen use is not a
possibility for many people. Indeed, it is
estimated that children and young adults now
spend around six hours a day using screens,
including the use of multiple mobile devices[4].
References:
[1]
Blehm C, Vishnu S, Khattak A et al.
Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv
Ophthalmol 2005;50(3):253–
262. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.02.008
[2]
Ranasinghe P, Wathurapatha W, Perera Y et
al. Computer vision syndrome among computer
office workers in a developing country: an
evaluation of prevalence and risk factors. BMC
Res Notes 2016;9(1):150. doi: 10.1186/s13104-
016-1962-1
[3]
Rosenfield M. Computer vision syndrome: a
review of ocular causes and potential
treatments. Ophthalmic Physiol
Opt 2011;31(5):502–515. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-
1313.2011.00834.x
[4]
Childwise. Connected Kids report. 2015.
Available
at: http://www.childwise.co.uk/reports.html#spe
cialreports (accessed December 2017)
WorldViews
47 percent of the world’s population
now use the Internet, study says
A woman checks a message on her cellphone in
Epworth, east of the capital, Harare, Zimbabwe,
Aug. 11, 2016. REUTERS/Philimon Bulawayo/File
By Adam Taylor
November 22, 2016
A new report from a United Nations agency
says that 47 percent of the world's people now
use the Internet — an increase from just one
year ago, when the same agency estimated
that just over 43 percent of the global
population were Internet users. However, the
study, released Tuesday by the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), also
discovered serious geographic and economic
disparities in who uses the Internet.
The 2016Measuring the
Information Society Report found
that 79.1 percent of Europeans were Internet
users, for example, the highest of any
geographic region in the world, followed by
66.6 percent of people in the Americas and the
Commonwealth of Independent States (a
regional organization comprised of a number
of former Soviet Republics, including Russia).
But on the other end of the scale, only 25.1
percent of African citizens are using the
Internet, the report found, compared to 41.6
percent of Asia and 41.9 of Arab states.
Contrasting from country to country, the
disparity in Internet users can be especially
stark. Iceland had the highest levels of
Internet use, with 98.2 percent, followed
closely by a number of northern European
nations such as Luxembourg (97.3 percent),
Norway (96.8 percent) and Denmark (96.3
percent).
But in some countries, Internet users were a
tiny fraction of the population. Just 2.2
percent of Niger's citizens are Internet users,
the report estimated, followed by Chad (2.7
percent), Guinea-Bissau (3.5 percent) and
Congo (3.8 percent). The ITU was unable to
estimate Internet users in some countries,
including the restrictive regimes of North
Korea and Eritrea.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the report found that
richer countries tend to use the Internet more
than poorer nations. Eighty-one percent of the
population in developed nations were Internet
users, versus just 15.2 percent of the
population of the least-developed countries.
In the United States, 74.6 percent of the
population use the Internet — a high figure
internationally, but lower than in many other
wealthy nations.
There are now 3.9 billion people in the world
who do not use the Internet, the study found,
and in addition to being poorer, they tend to
be disproportionately less educated, rural,
elderly and female. The report suggested that
"broader socio-economic factors" — in
particular education levels — may need to be
addressed if the United Nations wants to
reach its target of having 60 percent of the
world's population online by 2020.
In its report, the ITU also looked at a number
of other variables in access to the Internet. It
found that, despite the fact that more than
half of the world's people were not Internet
users, 84 percent of the global population
lived in an area where mobile-broadband is
available. One problem may be access to
Internet-enabled devices — in some low-
income countries, between 20 and 40 percent
of the population still does not have a phone.
In a country such as South Sudan, there are
just 23.9 mobile phone subscriptions for each
100 people, the ITU found. In Burundi, only
1.2 percent of households have a computer.
The report also noted that cost can be a factor
for Internet access in many countries — a
fixed-broadband plan with a minimum of one
gigabyte of data per month corresponds, on
average, to more than 60 percent of gross
national income per capita in the world's
least-developed countries.
The ITU's annual Measuring the Information
Society Report uses a variety of these
indicators to create an index for information
and communications technology (ICT) around
the world. The agency found that South Korea
topped the index for the second year in a row,
with the rest of the top 10 filled out by two
other Asia-Pacific countries and seven
European countries.
Overall, there was an improvement over the
last year's index, with some countries,
including St. Kitts and Nevis and Burma,
dramatically improving their ICT
development over the last year. However,
others languished: Chad and Niger came in
174 and 175 respectively this year, swapping
their positions last year at the very bottom of
the table.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
Textbooks have a huge
impact on education
In England, 10 per cent of 10-year
olds are issued textbooks, in South
Korea, the figure is 99 per cent. The
benefits are clear
If you ask people aged 40+ if they can
remember textbooks they used at school the
answer is usually ‘yes’ Photo: ALAMY
By Barnaby Lenon
7:56AM BST 15 Jul 2015
A top education adviser to US President,
Barack Obama, has suggested textbooks
should be scrapped in British
schools within the next five years.
Richard Culatta, of the US Department for
Education, said the many digital resources
available will soon make textbooks
obsolete. He said that while textbooks are
outdated as soon as they are printed, apps
and websites can be constantly updated.
The intervention comes after Schools
Minister, Nick Gibb, warned that an ‘anti-
textbook’ culture in English schools was
leaving pupils lagging behind peers in top
performing nations.
So should our schools be using textbooks or
not? What are the facts?
In England, 10 per cent of 10-year olds are
issued textbooks. In South Korea, the figure
is 99 per cent. In secondary science, 8 per
cent of pupils in England are issued with
textbooks compared to 88 per cent in South
Korea and 92 per cent in Taiwan.
These Asian countries are among the
highest performing in the world, according
to the OECD’s latest PISA survey, which
evaluates the knowledge and skills of the
world’s 15-year-olds. So why are English
schools not using textbooks, when other
education systems use them to great effect?
Cost is a factor, but as important is the
growing use of copied worksheets and
handouts.
Handouts have certain advantages
(bespoke to the class, pupils have to focus
on that one piece of paper) but some
disadvantages (easily lost, rarely organised
into a file).
Will today’s children be able to remember ‘materials’ on their
computer screens?
Textbooks are dying out because more
materials are now available digitally. And
the emphasis on differentiated learning
(different children in one class being taught
at different rates) has discouraged the
notion of ‘one resource for all’.
The demise of textbooks is a downward
spiral – if schools don’t buy textbooks,
publishers cannot afford to produce them. In
the past, a small number of outstanding
teachers earned a good living producing
wonderful, captivating textbooks and these
people are now being lost to the system.
So what’s so good about textbooks? In my
experience, textbooks are better than online
resources or paper handouts in several
ways. They are easier to issue (two minutes
at the start of the year) and much easier to
refer back to (‘let’s return to page 45 which
we did last October’).
They are a big part of the solution for the
child who joins a course late or who misses
a large piece of work. They are a resource
which parents can use to help their children.
For sixth formers especially, learning to
make notes from texts is a vital skill they will
need at university; with the advent of digital
materials, fewer and fewer students are
learning to make notes. Textbooks are fare
better for revision than handouts (many of
which will have been lost).
"For sixth formers especially, learning
to make notes from texts is a vital skill
they will need at university"

If you ask people aged 40+ if they can
remember textbooks they used at school
the answer is usually ‘yes’. But more than
just the title of the book, they can remember
individual pages and diagrams in the text.
Will today’s children be able to say the
same of the ‘materials’ on their computer
screens?
Textbooks of the past had a huge impact on
education. They not only reflected exam
board syllabuses, they influenced them. The
best textbooks were the curriculum. They
determined the level to which the better
students worked.
Given what we know about the success and
failure of educational systems, we would be
better off listening to teachers from South
Korea and Taiwan than advisers from the
USA.
Barnaby Lenon, former headmaster,
Harrow and Chairman of the Independent
Schools Council
https://www.telegraph.co.uk
https://www.theloop.ca
With the new school year only a few weeks
away, digital eye strain in children and teens
is likely to increase significantly in the
coming months. A survey from the Alberta
Association of Optometrists
(AAO) revealed that most parents are
unaware their children could strain their
eyes from digital screens, or that there are
ways to help slow the damage.
With the new school year only a few weeks
away, digital eye strain in children and teens is
likely to increase significantly in the coming
months. A survey from the Alberta Association of
Optometrists (AAO) revealed that most parents
are unaware their children could strain their eyes
from digital screens, or that there are ways to
help slow the damage.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Digital eye strain is the discomfort experienced
after screen use for more than two hours at a
time,” stated Jim Asuchak, the AAO’s president.
“Children are, on average, spending at least
double that amount of time on digital devices,
and we are seeing the results in our exam
chairs.”
And with all the tablets, cell phones, computers
and televisions that kids have access to, parents
are finding it more challenging now than ever
before to limit their screen time.
The survey found that elementary school
children often looked at screens for an average
of four hours per day, with that number doubling
for teenage children.The number was even
higher for adults, with the average time spent
looking at a screen hitting 10.5 hours a day.
The high-energy light that is emitted from a
screen can penetrate deep into the eye, causing
damage. Staring at a screen can also slow down
a person’s rate of blinking, causing their eyes to
become drier and have less exposure to
a protective layer of liquid.
According to the AAO, there are a number of
symptoms that indicate digital eye strain,
including headaches, blurred vision, eye
irritation, double vision, excessive tearing or dry
eyes, excessive blinking or squinting, as well as
shoulder, neck and back pain.
Out of the 506 people surveyed, approximately
70 per cent of adults said they experience these
symptoms, and 28 per cent of children are
already starting to suffer from digital eye strain.

But this number may be higher than reported,
because symptoms can be difficult to detect in
kids.
Posted: Aug 16, 2017 6:16
CBC News ·
AM MT | Last Updated: August 16,
2017
Not taking breaks
An online survey commissioned by the
Alberta Association of Optometrists (AAO)
revealed that 59 per cent of parents in the
province "are not aware of or do not
encourage their children to take steps during
or after using digital devices to reduce the
impact on their eyes."
"Digital eye strain is the discomfort
experienced after screen use for more than
two hours at a time," Dr. Jim Asuchak,
practicing optometrist and president of the
AAO, said in a news release on the study.
"Alberta children are, on average, spending
at least double that amount of time on digital
devices, and we are seeing the results in our
exam chairs."
Kavan Shergill, 8, sitting for an exam with
Lasby, said his eyes have been dry and itchy
lately and that he gets headaches, especially
after spending time on his iPad.
"I'm trying to not go on it, but like, I can't,"
he said. "It's hard."
Eye irritation and blurriness
can impair learning
According to Lasby, Shergill's symptoms are all
early signs of digital eye strain.
She says the long-term impacts are not yet
known because it's such a new phenomenon, but
the irritation and blurriness can impact learning
in the classroom.
"Children oftentimes don't know what they're
feeling is inappropriate or that it's not normal, so
they don't complain. They just think blurriness,
that's normal," said Lasby.
"Or perhaps they say 'I'm reading, it's blurry, I
don't feel like doing this anymore,' and now
they're hyperactive and they move around a lot,
so sometimes that hyperactivity is a
misdiagnosis and it can be an eye problem."
Teens spend almost 8 hours
daily on digital devices
According to the AAO survey, Alberta parents
said elementary school-age children spend more
than four hours each day using digital devices at
home and at school. For teenagers, that number
increases to nearly eight hours each day.
Lasby says symptoms can be treated with eye
drops, special eye glasses and blinking
exercises. She said there are also apps that can
adjust the colour temperature of screens to
reduce the impact.
The AAO's survey was conducted online
through the polling firm Angus Reid from July
13 to July 18 among 506 Albertans with children
under the age of 18.
For comparison purposes only, a random sample
of this size would yield a margin of error of plus
or minus 4.4 percentage points, 19 times out of
20.

https://www.thevisioncouncil.org/content/digit
al-eye-strain/kids
WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON ADULTS?
Americans report experiencing the following
symptoms of digital eye strain:
 32.4 percent report experiencing eye strain
 27.2 percent report experiencing dry eyes
 27.7 percent report experiencing headaches
 27.9 percent report experiencing blurred vision
 35 percent report experiencing neck and shoulder
pain
Additionally, close to 80 percent report using
digital devices, including TV, in the hour
before going to sleep, with almost 55 percent
in the first hour they are awake.
WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON
CHILDREN?
While more than 70 percent of American
adults report their child(ren) receives more
than two hours of screen time per day, nearly
25 percent are still not concerned about the
impact of digital devices on their child(ren)'s
developing eyes.
Meanwhile, besides playing outside, the most
popular activites children engage in are
playing on a digital device (23.1 percent) and
watching TV (20.1 percent). And American
adults report their children experience the
following after being exposed to two or more
hours of screen time:
more devices simultaneously, and 59 percent
report experiencing symptoms of digital eye strain.
WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON TEENS?
Teens today have grown up with technology
always at their fingertips. Whether they're
playing the latest game or doing homework,
technology permeates a teen's life early on
and increasingly becomes part of their daily
routine as they get older.
While more than 70 percent of American
adults report their teen(s)/child(ren) receives
more than two hours of screen time per day,
nearly 25 percent are still not concerned about
the impact of digital devices on their
teen(s)/child(ren)'s developing eyes.
Meanwhile, besides playing outside, the most
popular activites teens/children engage in are
playing on a digital device (23.1 percent) and
watching TV (20.1 percent). And American
adults report their teens/children experience
the following after being exposed to two or
more hours of screen time:
 Headaches (8.8 percent)
 Neck/shoulder pain (5 percent)
 Eye strain, dry or irritated eyes (9.1 percent)
 Reduced attention span (15.2 percent)
 Poor behavior (13.3 percent)
 Irritability (13.5 percent)

 Headaches (8.8 percent)

 Neck/shoulder pain (5 percent)
 Eye strain, dry or irritated eyes (9.1 percent)
 Reduced attention span (15.2 percent)
 Poor behavior (13.3 percent)
 Irritability (13.5 percent)

About 80 percent of American adults report

using digital devices for more than two hours
per day with nearly 67 percent using two or