» Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:36 am Spoiler
Several studies show that if you read a text on paper, you get a deeper and more lasting understanding of the content. If you read the same text on a screen, although you also understand the content, you cannot use it as easily in other contexts. The knowledge does not become intrinsic.
The content is erased quickly from your memory. The screen is best for superficial and quick reading.
A new Norwegian survey of tenth graders, by Anne Mangen and her colleagues at the Reading Center at the University of Stavanger, confirms some of these differences between reading on screen and paper.
72 students were divided into two groups. Both groups were given two texts, one fiction and one non-fiction. One group read the texts as pdf files on a typical computer screen, the other on paper. The students' reading skills and vocabulary were mapped in advance so that variations could be corrected for. Then students answered questions that indicated how well they understood the text.
The results clearly showed that comprehension was poorest among the students who read on screen for both the non-fiction and fiction texts.
What could the explanation be?
One difference between screen and paper is that the text on paper is "concrete". You can feel the thickness of the book. You can easily see where it begins and ends. You can quickly scroll through text with your hands. This sensuous, direct experience provides a mental map of the whole text. When you not only see but also touch, the brain has an easier job.
The mental map matters a lot if the text is long, previous research shows. It requires that you be able to navigate quickly and scroll a lot between different places to see connections.
On screens this physical experience is almost gone. You can only see one page at a time. The length of the text you find on the screen is related only by scrolling the content, the page numbers or other abstract and indirect markers.
Although the iPad allows you to make movements similar to paging, your fingers meet smooth glass. The text moves across the screen. Text is no longer a tangible entity. When your hands touch the screen, they feel just glass. This may affect the interpretation of the text on the screen.
It's not just understanding that suffers. Paper also speaks more to the emotions than the screen, suggest experiments that Anne Mangen recently did with literature professor David Miall and psychology professor Don Kuiken at the University of Alberta in Canada.
The research compared the reading of a short narrative on the iPad and paper. Those who read the paper were more into the story than those who read on the iPad. These results are so new that they have not yet been published.
Collaboration with researchers from other disciplines are important. At the moment she works in France with neuro-physiologist Jean-Luc Velay. He has done experiments showing that writing by hand activates other areas of the brain than typing with the keyboard.
The book is tangible, and the text is fixed to the paper. This physicality can facilitate understanding. Such insight allows for a fundamental new understanding: the body and mind are inseparable. This becomes increasingly important for neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers.
Studies have shown that the brain does not work like a computer. It's not that we perceive, and then process sensory information afterwards. [I thought this was exactly how brains work? I may not have read this quite correctly.] On the contrary, it is a much larger and closer connection between what we do with the senses and the body, and what we understand.
That is why it is so important to study how various technologies invites us to use the body, especially the hands and fingers, said Mangen. It is precisely such studies that Mangen and Velay are in the process of now. Participants in the experiment are reading a mystery novel, either on the tablet Kindle or paper book. This study will include finding out how touching a book and electronic readers affect empathy.
In the light of these studies, is it wrong to replace textbooks with tablets and computers in school? Mangen states that if this occurs, it is contrary to what the findings from the research suggest, and contrary to most of what she knows of studies in psychology in the field. There must be more behind the reasoning for such important decisions than just faith in digital technology, said Mangen.
The content is erased quickly from your memory. The screen is best for superficial and quick reading.
A new Norwegian survey of tenth graders, by Anne Mangen and her colleagues at the Reading Center at the University of Stavanger, confirms some of these differences between reading on screen and paper.
72 students were divided into two groups. Both groups were given two texts, one fiction and one non-fiction. One group read the texts as pdf files on a typical computer screen, the other on paper. The students' reading skills and vocabulary were mapped in advance so that variations could be corrected for. Then students answered questions that indicated how well they understood the text.
The results clearly showed that comprehension was poorest among the students who read on screen for both the non-fiction and fiction texts.
What could the explanation be?
One difference between screen and paper is that the text on paper is "concrete". You can feel the thickness of the book. You can easily see where it begins and ends. You can quickly scroll through text with your hands. This sensuous, direct experience provides a mental map of the whole text. When you not only see but also touch, the brain has an easier job.
The mental map matters a lot if the text is long, previous research shows. It requires that you be able to navigate quickly and scroll a lot between different places to see connections.
On screens this physical experience is almost gone. You can only see one page at a time. The length of the text you find on the screen is related only by scrolling the content, the page numbers or other abstract and indirect markers.
Although the iPad allows you to make movements similar to paging, your fingers meet smooth glass. The text moves across the screen. Text is no longer a tangible entity. When your hands touch the screen, they feel just glass. This may affect the interpretation of the text on the screen.
It's not just understanding that suffers. Paper also speaks more to the emotions than the screen, suggest experiments that Anne Mangen recently did with literature professor David Miall and psychology professor Don Kuiken at the University of Alberta in Canada.
The research compared the reading of a short narrative on the iPad and paper. Those who read the paper were more into the story than those who read on the iPad. These results are so new that they have not yet been published.
Collaboration with researchers from other disciplines are important. At the moment she works in France with neuro-physiologist Jean-Luc Velay. He has done experiments showing that writing by hand activates other areas of the brain than typing with the keyboard.
The book is tangible, and the text is fixed to the paper. This physicality can facilitate understanding. Such insight allows for a fundamental new understanding: the body and mind are inseparable. This becomes increasingly important for neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers.
Studies have shown that the brain does not work like a computer. It's not that we perceive, and then process sensory information afterwards. [I thought this was exactly how brains work? I may not have read this quite correctly.] On the contrary, it is a much larger and closer connection between what we do with the senses and the body, and what we understand.
That is why it is so important to study how various technologies invites us to use the body, especially the hands and fingers, said Mangen. It is precisely such studies that Mangen and Velay are in the process of now. Participants in the experiment are reading a mystery novel, either on the tablet Kindle or paper book. This study will include finding out how touching a book and electronic readers affect empathy.
In the light of these studies, is it wrong to replace textbooks with tablets and computers in school? Mangen states that if this occurs, it is contrary to what the findings from the research suggest, and contrary to most of what she knows of studies in psychology in the field. There must be more behind the reasoning for such important decisions than just faith in digital technology, said Mangen.
I tend to agree with all of this research. On the other hand, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a(n electronic) system could be created specifically for studying. I know that PDFs sometimes help me piece difficult legal texts together because of the helpful search function, for example.
