Tablet Correspondence Learning: Is It Better Than Paper?
Why this topic is on parents’ minds
Correspondence learning for preschoolers and early elementary students has rapidly shifted to tablets over the past 10 years. Z-kai Tablet Course, Smile Zemi, WonderBox, Shinkenzemi Tablet (Challenge Touch), RISU Math—all have a certain presence, and you often see each company’s ads around town, on social media, and on YouTube.
It is not unusual for families who have continued with paper materials to wonder, around the middle or last year of kindergarten or at entry to elementary school, “Is it time to switch to a tablet?” We often hear things like these.
- “With paper drills, marking answers is a lot of work. With a tablet, automatic scoring looks easy.”
- “My child happily does it on a tablet. On paper, it doesn’t last.”
- “I’m worried about screen time increasing. Isn’t it bad for eyesight or concentration?”
- “Aren’t they just being lured by gamification (points, raising characters)? Are they really learning?”
- “Each company’s monthly fee ranges widely, from ¥2,000 to ¥6,000, and I don’t know what the difference is.”
In this article, while laying out the major tablet correspondence learning services neutrally, we offer, constructively, viewpoints for “choosing by your child’s learning style and how your family manages learning,” based on research findings about how learning effects differ between paper and screens. It is an area-by-area summary that is neither “tablet = the learning of the future” nor “screens = bad.”
First, laying out the major services neutrally
Here we lay out, side by side, the representative tablet-based correspondence learning services that families around school entry often mention (fees and course lineups are a general summary based on each company’s official published information as of May 2026, and vary with campaigns, annual contracts, and years of enrollment).
Z-kai Tablet Course
Z Kai Tablet
Difficulty is somewhat high. The question design is aware of thinking and written-answer skills, and includes questions that 'make children think' rather than guess the answer. A dedicated tablet is not required (for some grades, a commercially available tablet can be used). Monthly fees are roughly in the ¥3,000 to ¥5,000 range. Fits families who value 'the quality of the learning content.'
Smile Zemi
Smile Zemi
Provided by JustSystems. A dedicated tablet is required (with an initial cost). Apps other than learning are restricted in principle, and parental control features are extensive. Centered on writing practice, drills, and automatic scoring. Monthly fees are roughly in the ¥3,000 to ¥5,000 range. Fits families who value 'ease of management at home.'
WonderBox
Wonderbox
Materials weighted toward STEAM areas (thinking skills, programming, shapes, art). A hybrid of an app + paper kits + craft materials. Not learning aligned with school textbooks, but centered on 'the foundation of learning' and 'exploration.' Monthly fees are roughly ¥3,700 to ¥4,200. Fits families who value 'breadth of thinking' over 'getting ahead in school subjects.'
Shinkenzemi Tablet (Challenge Touch)
Challenge Touch
Provided by Benesse Corporation. Uses a dedicated tablet. Aligned with school textbooks, with basic drills, automatic scoring, explanatory animations, and game-like rewards built in. Monthly fees are roughly in the ¥3,000 to ¥4,000 range. Fits families who value 'consolidating the basics in line with the school's pace.'
RISU Math (RISU Kids)
RISU Math
Specialized in math ('RISU Kids' before school entry). Dedicated tablet. Its selling point is adaptive learning, in which questions change to match where the child stumbles. A two-tier structure of a base fee + a usage fee that depends on learning progress, so for children who progress quickly, the monthly fee tends to grow. Fits families who 'want to strengthen math.'
(For reference) Paper correspondence learning and store-bought drills
Paper-based
Shinkenzemi (original style), Z-kai (paper course), Popy, store-bought Kumon drills, Gakken drills, etc. Monthly fees are mainly in the ¥1,000 to ¥3,000 range (store-bought drills are bought as needed). Marking answers and tracking progress become the parent's job, but there is zero screen time, and the reading and writing experience unique to paper remains.
These are not services competing over which is better, but services with different design philosophies. You cannot decide “this one is the best.” They are things to choose according to your family’s approach (focus on the basics, focus on thinking skills, specialize in math, or how extensive the management features are).
How do they differ? — sorting out the axes to compare
Before getting lost choosing a service, let’s sort out the axes to look at. Lined up on these 6 axes, rather than by ad headlines, the differences stand out.
- Coverage of subjects: whether it covers all subjects (Shinkenzemi, Smile Zemi, Z-kai) or is specialized (RISU Math, WonderBox’s STEAM)
- Difficulty setting: focused on the basics aligned with school (Shinkenzemi Tablet, Smile Zemi), leaning toward application and thinking skills (Z-kai), or exploration outside school subjects (WonderBox)
- Device: whether a dedicated tablet is required (Smile Zemi, Shinkenzemi Tablet, RISU) or a commercially available tablet is OK (part of Z-kai, WonderBox)
- Wi-Fi and content restrictions: dedicated devices make it easy to restrict anything other than learning. Using a commercially available tablet is convenient, but sits right next to the temptation of YouTube and games
- Parental control features: the level of detail of learning-time locks, progress notifications to parents, usage time limits, and so on
- Monthly fee: the main range is ¥2,000 to ¥6,000. Actual costs vary with annual contract discounts, initial costs for dedicated devices, progress-linked fees, and so on
If you decide only by “which is cheapest” or “which is hardest,” it tends to drift away from how your family actually runs things. How your child learns, and how much effort your family can put into managing it, make a much bigger difference to whether it lasts.
What does the research say? — the difference between paper and screens
This is the most important part of this article. Before choosing tablet materials, let’s look at the research summary on what differences there are in learning between paper and screens. We lay it out neutrally.
A: Paper has the advantage for deep reading and understanding long texts
This is the most consistently observed finding in thinking about tablet learning.
A randomized comparative study in which 72 10th graders (ages 15 to 16) read the same narrative and expository texts in two conditions, on paper and on a PC screen, and took a comprehension test
showed that the group who read on paper scored significantly higher on the comprehension test than the group who read on screen (p<0.05). The result is that even with the same text content and the same quality of task, the difference in medium affects comprehension.
A review in the Review of Educational Research integrating research on reading on paper vs. on screens over roughly the past decade or more
also repeatedly reports a tendency that for short texts there is almost no difference, but for long texts and texts dense with information, comprehension on paper is higher. It also emphasizes the finding that readers more easily “feel they understood” on screen (their metacognitive calibration becomes looser).
And the most frequently cited meta-analysis of reading on screens vs. reading on paper, which integrated 54 studies (more than 170,000 participants in total) published from 2000 to 2017, reports that overall, paper has the advantage in reading comprehension (effect size d ≈ -0.21, with screens at a disadvantage); that the difference is larger for reading tasks with time limits and for expository texts with a lot of information; and that the newer the studies, the more the disadvantage of screens has grown rather than shrunk (simply getting used to tablets does not resolve it).
B: On the other hand, automatic scoring, drills, and adaptive learning are structural strengths of screens
That does not mean paper is all-powerful. Repeated drills, instant feedback, and adaptive learning (questions that respond to where a child stumbles) are structural strengths of screens that are hard to implement on paper.
Shinkenzemi Tablet, Smile Zemi, RISU Math, and others are designed around these strengths. The system records “where the child made mistakes” and “how many times they stumble on the same pattern,” and gives questions on weak points again and again—this is something that is realistically hard for a parent to do by hand.
Guide to the Computerization of Education (Supplementary Edition): How ICT Environments Should Be Developed in Schools
also concludes that ICT should be positioned not as a simple replacement for paper, but as a means of achieving individual optimization, repetition, and instant feedback that are difficult with paper. The idea is not “replacing everything from paper with tablets,” but thinking about “in which areas to use the strengths of screens.”
C: Looking at “educational apps” through Hirsh-Pasek’s four pillars
Here is a framework from the science of learning for evaluating materials.
A review paper in Psychological Science in the Public Interest presenting a framework for evaluating educational apps and materials from the viewpoint of the science of learning
organizes four pillars that support effective learning experiences.
- Active: whether the child takes part using their head and hands (not passive watching where tapping alone moves things forward)
- Engaged: whether the child can concentrate on the activity without being distracted by pointless sparkles and sound effects
- Meaningful: whether it connects with the child’s life and concepts they already know
- Social: whether dialogue with parents and peers is built into the experience
Depending on the design, tablet correspondence learning can achieve 1 to 3 quite well. On the other hand, 4 (Social) is a variable decided by how the family engages. The more you assume that “handing over a tablet completes the learning,” the more easily this becomes hollow—a point to watch out for according to research.
D: The reality of ICT use in Japanese families
Domestic surveys also serve as a guide. The Parent-Child Survey on Children’s Lives and Learning (Children’s Learning and Learning Environment) records that while the use of digital devices at home spreads through the school years, there is also a tendency for “time to be skewed toward uses other than learning (watching videos, games).” The reality is that “giving a tablet” and “using it for learning” can drift apart quite a bit depending on how the family runs things.
How to read it: applied to tablet correspondence learning
Laying research A to D over the question of choosing tablet correspondence learning, the summary is as follows.
Areas that make use of the strengths of screens
Where tablets shine
Repetition in drills (arithmetic, kanji, vocabulary). Automatic scoring and instant feedback. Adaptive learning that responds to each child's stumbling points. Automatic recording of learning progress and notifications to parents. Explanations through videos and animations. 'Co-viewing' (parent and child watching and talking together) of educational content with a story.
Areas where the strengths of paper remain
Where paper still wins
Deep reading of long texts. Understanding expository texts with a lot of information. Writing practice (learning pencil control and letter shapes). Written-answer questions that need careful thought. A sense of geometry by drawing shapes yourself and thinking. Reading story picture books aloud. Around school entry, when the foundations of deep reading and writing grow, there is still little rational reason to drop paper completely.
In other words, summarized in the language of research:
In home learning around school entry, rather than making it a choice between paper and screen, using each for different areas—paper for reading and writing, screens for drill repetition and adaptive learning—is the approach most in line with current research findings.The current state and limits of “adaptive learning”
“Adaptive learning” and “AI-based individual optimization,” which often come up in the advertising of tablet correspondence learning—let’s look at these neutrally too, without exaggeration.
Adaptive learning works best in areas like arithmetic drills, kanji, and vocabulary, where the correct answer is clear and stumbling points can be detected from answer patterns. RISU Math and the drill functions of Shinkenzemi Tablet operate in this band. Here, the strengths of screens come through straightforwardly.
On the other hand, in areas where there is no single correct answer and the process needs to be evaluated, such as “depth of thinking,” “understanding of texts,” and “creative ways of solving,” current adaptive learning is not strong. The fact that Z-kai Tablet Course keeps human correction for written-answer questions, and that WonderBox opens inquiry-based tasks to parent-child dialogue, has as its background this line between “what machines can evaluate” and “what they cannot.”
If you take “AI individual optimization” at face value and assume that all learning can be left to machines, that is an excessive expectation. On the other hand, if you dismiss it with “machine evaluation is meaningless,” you throw away the efficiency of repeated drills. What machines are good at to machines, and what people are good at to people—this is the realistic answer at present.
The relationship with children’s concentration — the temptation of the tablet
When you put a tablet in your home, one point always comes up: “the temptation of things other than learning.” Dedicated tablets (Smile Zemi, Shinkenzemi Tablet, RISU) are standardly designed to restrict apps other than learning, but with formats that use a commercially available tablet (part of Z-kai, WonderBox), the family manages the distance from YouTube, games, and social media.
How involved parents need to be — “a tablet makes it easy” is half true, half false
Things often said about the appeal of tablet correspondence learning are that, with automatic scoring, “no need to mark answers,” “progress is emailed to parents,” and “the child can do it alone”—it is true that the operational burden on parents goes down compared with paper materials.
However, it does not become zero. Looking from both research and practice, points still remain where parents need to be involved.
- Initial setup and account management (usage time limits on the dedicated tablet, Wi-Fi settings, parent ID)
- Checking progress about once a week (how far they’ve gotten, where they’re stumbling)
- Following up on stumbling points (for units where the correct-answer rate dropped, a parent explaining aloud or writing it on paper to show)
- Checking for a “made-to-do-it” feeling (whether the child has become just tapping reluctantly)
- “Co-viewing”-style involvement (making time, even once a week, to watch explanation videos with your child or think through problems together)
If you expect that “once you hand over a tablet, it will move forward on its own,” what Hirsh-Pasek’s four pillars call Social (parent-child dialogue) becomes hollow. The operational burden goes down, but the amount of involvement cannot be made zero—this is the reality of tablet materials.
The reality of monthly fees — the main range is ¥2,000 to ¥6,000
Here is a rough summary of fees (as of May 2026; they vary with annual contracts and enrollment conditions).
- Shinkenzemi Tablet (Challenge Touch): for preschool and early elementary, monthly fees in the ¥3,000 to ¥4,000 range. Discount for paying a year at once. There is a system in which the effective cost of the dedicated tablet becomes lighter if certain continuation conditions are met
- Smile Zemi: monthly fees in the ¥3,000 to ¥5,000 range. The dedicated tablet costs extra (a few thousand to over ¥10,000, with conditions on cancellation)
- Z-kai Tablet Course: monthly fees in the ¥3,000 to ¥5,000 range. Varies by grade and course. For some grades, there is a way to enroll without using a dedicated tablet
- WonderBox: monthly fees of ¥3,700 to ¥4,200 (sibling discount available). No dedicated device; uses a commercially available tablet
- RISU Math (RISU Kids): a two-tier structure of a base fee + a usage fee that depends on progress. For children who progress quickly, the monthly fee may pile up
With annual contract discounts, campaigns, and sibling discounts, actual costs may be lower than the listed prices. Thinking about whether it fits how your family runs things and whether you can keep it up, rather than deciding only by low price, gives more stable value for money in the end. With “cheap but doesn’t last,” the opportunity cost of disrupting the child’s learning rhythm is bigger than the cost of the materials.
Signs that it isn’t lasting
For the first few months after starting, tablet materials naturally continue thanks to their newness. The problem is six months to 1 year later. When the following signs appear, it is time to pause and think about adjusting.
- Doing it only “for the rewards” (tapping through without reading the questions, skipping explanations)
- Opening the app for just a few minutes a day and closing it (only racking up a streak)
- The correct-answer rate is falling, but the child hasn’t noticed
- Stumbling in the same place, and even when adaptive learning gives the questions, there is no improvement (a lack of fundamental understanding)
- Starting to say “I don’t want to do it” (a buildup of feeling made to do it)
- Far more time spent using the tablet for things other than learning (the learning app has become decoration)
The response when signs appear is not to cancel immediately. Try going back to paper drills once, make time 2 to 3 times a week for a parent to sit next to the child, try putting limits on gamified rewards—the realistic order is to first adjust how you run things, and if it still doesn’t improve, then consider switching services or taking a break.
“Combining paper and tablets” is the realistic answer
Based on the summary so far, the form most in line with research findings for home learning around school entry is combining paper and screens.
- Reading aloud and reading picture books: mainly paper. The library, store-bought picture books, paper picture books from correspondence materials
- Writing practice, pencil control, learning letter shapes: mainly paper. Writing drills, drawing pads, store-bought drills
- Arithmetic drills and repetition: screens are convenient. The automatic scoring and adaptive questions of tablet materials come into their own
- Individual follow-up on stumbling points: combine adaptive learning on screen + a parent explaining aloud
- Explanation videos and reinforcing subjects: watch on screen, and after watching, a parent asks one question: “What part did you understand?”
There is no need to choose just one correspondence learning service. For example, “daily basic drills with Shinkenzemi Tablet + reading aloud with library picture books,” “thinking skills with WonderBox + writing practice with store-bought Kumon drills,” “thinking skills with Z-kai Tablet + paper picture books chosen by a parent”—combinations like these overlap straightforwardly with the research summary.
As we laid out in the article on Kodomo Challenge, the line that the effect of materials is not “learned automatically once delivered” but “comes from the time parents spend using them together” works the same way for both paper materials and tablet materials.
Nei-sensei responds to the persona’s worries
My daughter, who’s in the middle year of kindergarten, soon gives up on paper drills, saying “I don’t want to anymore.” When I asked a friend’s mom, she said that since switching to Smile Zemi, her child does it happily, like a game. Should we switch too?
It’s a hard call, isn’t it? The first important thing is that you don’t have to decide “paper or screen” as an either-or. Reading the research summary honestly, there is a difference by area: paper has the advantage for deep reading and writing, while screens are convenient for arithmetic drills, repetition, and individual follow-up on stumbling points. For a child in the middle year of kindergarten, you can use both.
Both…? Wouldn’t that cost twice as much?
It’s easy to feel that way. But, for example, “subscribe to just one tablet material and use it for arithmetic and repetition,” and “cover paper with library picture books and store-bought writing drills”—this actually doesn’t cost that much extra. A store-bought Kumon drill is ¥700 to ¥900 per book, and the library is free. Looking at the whole year, it often comes out cheaper than two subscriptions.
Which tablet should we choose? I’m interested in Z-kai, Smile Zemi, and WonderBox.
It’s not a matter of deciding which is the best. They’re services with different design philosophies, so you choose based on your child and your family’s approach. If you want to firm up the basics in line with the school’s pace, Smile Zemi or Shinkenzemi Tablet; if you want to go into thinking skills and written answers, Z-kai; if you want to step outside school subjects and broaden exploration, WonderBox; if you want to strengthen math, RISU—each has a different axis. The surest way is to send for each company’s free trial or sample materials and see how your child reacts.
Isn’t screen time a concern? Eyesight, concentration…
Let me be honest about that. At present there is no strong research showing that time spent learning with tablet materials themselves quickly harms eyesight or concentration. The problem is that when you put a tablet in your home, time is easily absorbed by things other than the materials (YouTube, games). That’s why it matters either to choose a dedicated tablet (Smile Zemi, Shinkenzemi Tablet), or, if you use a commercially available tablet, to limit time and apps with a parental control app. “Choosing materials” and “how you use them at home” are separate matters.
Do you think a tablet would solve my daughter giving up quickly on paper?
For the first few months, probably yes. New, sparkly, game-like rewards—these really do raise children’s engagement. But after six months to a year, the newness wears off. At that point, whether she has started tapping through only for rewards, whether she is really reading and thinking about the questions, and you sometimes sitting beside her to watch—if these remain, tablet materials come into their own. If you go in from the start thinking not “it’s a tablet, so it will continue automatically” but “even with a tablet, parental involvement is needed,” it will continue calmly even six months later.
We should keep reading paper picture books from now on too, right?
Yes, I strongly recommend it. In research too, the result that paper has the advantage for deep reading comes out again and again in several large meta-analyses. Continuing to read picture books aloud in the middle and last years of kindergarten becomes the foundation of reading comprehension after starting school. Even if you bring in tablet materials, keep reading-aloud time before bed on paper—this is the form of home learning most compatible with current research findings.
Two common misconceptions (summary)
Closing dialogue
Today’s talk helped me sort things out in my head. It’s not “switch to a tablet / don’t switch,” but I can think of it as “using each for different areas.”
That’s right. Reading aloud and writing on paper, arithmetic and repetition on a tablet—this is the form that overlaps most straightforwardly with current research findings. Choose the service by your child’s learning style and how much effort your family can put into managing it. “This one is the best” doesn’t exist, according to research either.
I’ll start by going to the library to borrow picture books. For tablet materials, I’ll send for a few free trials, see how my daughter reacts, and then decide.
That’s a very good order. Just one last thing. Even after you start tablet materials, please try making time, even just once a week, for you to sit beside your daughter and look at the screen together. Just asking one question—“How did you figure that out?”—changes the value of the materials a lot. There are no materials where “children learn automatically”; on paper or on a tablet, the time a parent spends with them works most strongly—that part doesn’t change even when the medium does.
I feel the pressure lifting. I’ll give it a try. Thank you.
Research details
Primary sourcesStudy design: Randomized comparative experiment
Participants: 72 10th graders (ages 15 to 16) in Norway. They read the same narrative and expository texts in two conditions, a paper group and a PC screen (PDF display) group, and took a comprehension test
Main results: The group who read on paper scored significantly higher on the comprehension test than the group who read on screen (p<0.05). It showed that even with the same text content and tasks, the difference in medium affects comprehension.
Limitations: The sample is secondary school students, so caution is needed in applying it directly to preschoolers and early elementary students. A further reservation is that the study used a PC screen (not a tablet).
Study design: Systematic review
Scope: An integrated review of empirical studies of reading on paper vs. on screens since the 2000s
Main results: For short texts and narrative texts, almost no difference in comprehension between paper and screen is observed, but for long expository texts dense with information, a tendency for comprehension on paper to exceed comprehension on screen is reported repeatedly. In addition, a phenomenon is observed in which readers more easily “feel they understood” when reading on screen (their metacognitive calibration becomes looser).
Limitations: Mainly studies of adults and students rather than children. Effects by age need separate study.
Study design: Meta-analysis
Scope: Integrated 54 studies published from 2000 to 2017, with more than 170,000 participants in total
Main results: Overall, reading on paper has the advantage over reading on screen in reading comprehension (effect size d ≈ -0.21, with screens at a disadvantage). The difference is larger for reading tasks with time limits and for expository texts with a lot of information. Furthermore, the newer the studies, the more the disadvantage of screens has grown rather than shrunk (simply getting used to tablets does not resolve it).
Limitations: Because it integrates studies of children and studies of adults, effects by age group require separate analysis. The effects of learning designs that make use of the functions of digital devices (annotation, search) are outside the scope of this meta-analysis.
Study design: A review of the science of learning + a proposed framework for evaluating educational content
Scope: Integrated existing findings from the science of learning and developmental psychology, and presented a four-pillar framework for evaluating commercial “educational apps” and “educational toys”
Main results: Effective learning experiences meet four requirements: Active, Engaged, Meaningful, and Social. In particular, Social (dialogue with parents and peers) is hard to achieve with materials alone and is largely decided by how families and caregivers engage. It points out that many “educational apps” do not meet these four pillars.
Limitations: It is a proposed evaluation framework, not a test of the effects of individual materials. The effects of each material need separate study.
Positioning: A public guideline organizing how ICT environments should be developed and used in schools
Main points: ICT is positioned not as a simple replacement for paper, but as a means of achieving individual optimization, repetition, and instant feedback that are hard to implement with paper. On the other hand, paper materials and reading continue to have an important role, and using each medium for different purposes is recommended.
Limitations: It is a guideline for school education, not a document that applies directly to home learning or correspondence learning. This article refers to it as background for thinking about using paper and screens for different purposes in home learning.
Study design: Large-scale questionnaire survey
Participants: Elementary to high school children nationwide and their parents (on the scale of tens of thousands of pairs)
Main results: While the use of digital devices at home spreads through the school years, a tendency for “time to be skewed toward uses other than learning (watching videos, games)” is also recorded. Whether digital devices are used for learning varies greatly depending on how the family runs things and its approach.
Limitations: It is a survey based on self-reports on questionnaires and does not directly measure actual learning time or effects. Preschoolers and early childhood are not the main focus of the survey. This article refers to it as a reference showing how digital devices are actually used at home.