MARC materials will be on an app now – does that make the paper MARC binder obsolete?

MARC recently announced that beta testing is complete for its new app that includes all the material from the large, legacy MARC manual, as well as links and other modern features.

As a facilitator and labor relations professional, I’m excited to get this new product.  The ability to word-search and access materials from electronic devices will help everyone who uses MARC’s unparalleled and time-tested labor and employee relations resources.

As an old guy who started his career before the internet, let alone before smartphones and the like, I’ll still be poring over my paper MARC binder too.  I’m an avid reader, and I switch back and forth between paper books, Audible, and my Apple electronic books depending on my location and situation.

As we get ready to enter this new, modernized era of MARC, I found myself wondering which is better – using the old paper reference binder or the new app? 

So I did a little quick research.  Disclaimer – I didn’t dig deeply into this, and expert opinions may certainly vary from my findings.  I excluded cost factors because I just want to know which medium is best for users – print or electronic? 

The AI app on my iPad provided this guidance:

“Neither format is universally better; digital textbooks excel in portability…, while physical textbooks win for reading comprehension and focus.  Your choice depends on whether you value…convenience or memory retention and fewer distractions.

Digital Textbooks

·      Portability:  Saves heavy backpack weight by holding an entire library on one device.

·      Features:  Includes searchbars (Ctrl+F) to find keywords instantly.

·      Downsides:  Causes eye strain, encourages skimming, and risks digital distractions from notifications.

Physical Textbooks

·      Retention:  Improves memory through spatial awareness and physical page-turning.

·      Focus:  Eliminates internet tabs, games, and social media pop-ups.

·      Downsides:  Bulky, heavy to carry

A January 9, 2024 article by Maranatha Baptist University included an article on “The Pros and Cons of Digital Textbooks vs. Traditional Texts.”

The article’s “pros” for digital textbooks included convenience allowing “students to read from their phones or laptops,” and noted that “College students are rarely without a digital device, so digital textbooks are also never lost or forgotten.”

The article listed some “cons” of digital textbooks also.  “Electronics are unreliable.  It’s common to have an electronic device fail or discover that the battery has died…Furthermore, if an internet connection is needed, the locations available to study may be limited.”

And it highlighted that digital books “also contain more distractions” such as pop-ups. 

Maranatha Baptist University’s “pros” for traditional textbooks included that they can be taken anywhere as a “stress-free option.”  There’s no worry about internet availability, distractions or a dead battery. 

“Traditional textbooks also give you the freedom to highlight and make notes as you read,” and this can enhance retention.

The inconvenience of lugging a heavy book around was listed as a “con” of the old-school textbook. 

Finally, I read (electronically, of course) a May 2025 article by RJ Kayser titled, “Are Physical Books Superior to Ebooks for Learning?”

I found Kayser’s work to be very well-written and compelling, and he referenced Adam Grant’s recent book, Hidden Potential, as partial support for his theory that neither paper nor electronic texts are inherently better or worse for learning.  Instead, effective textual learning is about the reader taking responsibility to adopt strategies for the best use of each medium.

Kayser shares his “…two most important strategies that will transform your reading retention.  (And)…the best part is that it works just as well for paper as it does for digital.”

Those two strategies are, “Your ability to maintain focus while reading,” and, “How actively you engage with and apply the information after reading.”

Kayser readily admits that it’s easier to lose focus with electronic media where a quick keystroke sends me right to Amazon for a new purchase and dopamine hit.  But he puts the responsibility back on me to be better than that and create structure and discipline to avoid the distraction traps.

And his suggestions for enhancing retention seem spot-on to me, suggesting…

·      “Teach concepts to others – When you can clearly explain an idea from a book to someone else, you’ve truly internalized it.

·      Write summaries or reflections – The act of reformulating ideas in your own words cements understanding.

·      Apply one key insight immediately – Implementation creates neural pathways that strengthen memory.

·      Connect new information to existing knowledge – Building these mental bridges creates a web of understanding that’s harder to forget.”

There are many more great insights in the article – I suggest you read it (electronically, of course, and without distractions.)

Theory and arguments aside, the inclusion of an app as a MARC tool is a great move and I can’t wait to use it and help others use it.  There were many of times in my career that a quick look at MARC from my phone, tablet or laptop would’ve not only saved time, but also saved someone from a rash employment decision that we later regretted.

And the best news – you’re still going to have the MARC physical binder too.  So you don’t have to spend a lot of time researching which is best.  Use the one that, in a given situation, is best for you.

And if you aren’t a MARC client yet, contact Gary Kleckner and become one.  Extend trust in your organization and mitigate risk.

Contact:

Gary Kleckner, Vice President

216-973-7323