Paper vs Pixel: The Real Pros and Cons of Taking Exams On-Screen

Introduction: A Shift That Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

Moving from paper to digital exams is often seen as an inevitable modernisation. But decades of research—including extensive work by Ofqual— show that switching the medium changes how students read, think, and demonstrate what they know. These “mode effects” introduce both advantages and disadvantages that are easy to overlook.

This article explores five key truths about on-screen exams, each framed with clear pros and cons.

1. Reading on Screen: A Hidden Comprehension Gap

Con: Students comprehend complex text slightly less well on screen.

Meta-analyses consistently show a small but significant “screen inferiority effect,” especially for long informational texts under time pressure. Skimming habits and overconfidence contribute to shallower processing of digital text.

Pro: Paper can still offer excellent readability—and meaningful adaptations.

Paper allows high visual clarity and can be adapted through enlarged print, coloured paper, high-contrast formats, and other accessibility adjustments. These remain highly effective for many learners.

But: Digital presentation can be adjusted dynamically, in ways paper cannot.

On-screen text can be zoomed, recoloured, reformatted, reflowed, or paired with assistive technology in real time. This gives digital exams powerful flexibility but may also introduce unfamiliarity if students are not accustomed to working this way regularly.

Bottom line: The exam format should reflect a learner’s normal way of working.

If a student routinely uses enlarged blue paper, the exam should match that. If they rely on digital accessibility tools, the on-screen environment should allow the same approach.

2. Maths & Science: Cognitive Load Matters

Con: Multi-step problems are often harder digitally.

Students lose the cognitive advantage of writing calculations or annotations directly beside the question. Switching between screen and scratch paper increases working memory demands and the likelihood of transcription errors.

Pro: Digital tools can support problem solving.

Calculators, zoom, annotation panels, or structured input fields can help learners, particularly those needing guided interaction or accessibility support.

3. Typing vs Handwriting: A Double-Edged Sword

Pro: Typing enables faster editing and clearer organisation.

Students can revise, restructure, and correct work far more easily than on paper. Typed responses are often longer, and many students prefer the digital format.

Con: Typing skill becomes a new performance variable.

Students with weaker keyboarding fluency divert working memory to the act of typing, leaving less for planning and composition. Some studies also indicate that typed essays are marked more harshly, possibly due to higher expectations or greater visibility of errors.

4. Digital Item Types: Sometimes Easier, Sometimes Not

Pro: Some digital tasks reduce cognitive load.

Drag-and-drop interactions or moveable elements allow trial-and-error strategies impossible on paper. For example, students can rearrange number cards until an answer “looks right,” bypassing more complex mental calculation.

Con: These differences can distort what is being assessed.

If the digital interface enables shortcuts, the exam may unintentionally measure interface skill or pattern spotting rather than the intended construct.

5. Student Preference: Not Always a Reliable Guide

Pro: Students often feel more confident on-screen.

Digital environments feel modern and familiar. Motivation and engagement may increase when learners feel the format aligns with everyday technology use.

Con: Confidence doesn’t predict actual performance.

Students may overestimate their digital proficiency. Many report difficulties typing equations, manipulating graphs, or navigating specific tools. This reflects broader findings that students frequently misjudge their comprehension when reading on screens.

Conclusion: Designing a Smarter Digital Future

Digital exams offer meaningful advantages—accessibility tools, editing functions, innovative item types, and efficient marking. But they also introduce new cognitive demands that paper avoids, particularly in reading comprehension, multi-step reasoning, and typing proficiency.

There is no outright winner in the paper vs screen debate. Each mode has distinct pros and cons that can fundamentally alter the assessment experience. As the sector moves toward greater digital adoption, the priority should be ensuring that exam design works with human cognition—mirroring students’ normal ways of working and using technology to enhance, not undermine, fairness and validity.

Join the Debate

Delivering exams on-screen is one of the biggest challenges facing the assessment community today. What do you see as the biggest barriers, risks, or opportunities? Share your views and see what others think by joining the discussion below:

Join the debate →