Search Box

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

We Read Differently Online And In Print

The Deep Space of Digital Reading

Why we shouldn’t worry about leaving print behind.

Paul La Farge | January 7, 2016

[...] There’s no question that digital technology presents challenges to the reading brain, but, seen from a historical perspective, these look like differences of degree, rather than of kind. To the extent that digital reading represents something new, its potential cuts both ways. Done badly (which is to say, done cynically), the Internet reduces us to mindless clickers, racing numbly to the bottom of a bottomless feed; but done well, it has the potential to expand and augment the very contemplative space that we have prized in ourselves ever since we learned to read without moving our lips. [...]

Around half of newspaper readers rely only on print edition. January 6, 2016. Source:

<more at; related articles: (Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper. Rakefet Ackerman and Morris Goldsmith. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011 Mar;17(1):18-32. doi: 10.1037/a0022086. [Abstract: Despite immense technological advances, learners still prefer studying text from printed hardcopy rather than from computer screens. Subjective and objective differences between on-screen and on-paper learning were examined in terms of a set of cognitive and metacognitive components, comprising a Metacognitive Learning Regulation Profile (MLRP) for each study media. Participants studied expository texts of 1000-1200 words in one of the two media and for each text they provided metacognitive prediction-of-performance judgments with respect to a subsequent multiple-choice test. Under fixed study time (Experiment 1), test performance did not differ between the two media, but when study time was self-regulated (Experiment 2) worse performance was observed on screen than on paper. The results suggest that the primary differences between the two study media are not cognitive but rather metacognitive--less accurate prediction of performance and more erratic study-time regulation on screen than on paper. More generally, this study highlights the contribution of metacognitive regulatory processes to learning and demonstrates the potential of the MLRP methodology for revealing the source of subjective and objective differences in study performance among study conditions.]) and (Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Diana DeStefano and Jo-Anne LeFevre. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1616–1641. [Abstract: A process model of hypertext reading was used to generate predictions about the effects of hypertext features on cognitive processing during text navigation and comprehension. We evaluated the predictions of the model with respect to the extant literature, focusing on studies in which versions of hypertexts were compared. Consistent with our predictions, the increased demands of decisionmaking and visual processing in hypertext impaired reading performance. Individual differences in readers, such as working memory capacity and prior knowledge, mediated the impact of hypertext features. For example, readers with low working memory and low prior knowledge were usually disadvantaged in hypertext. Some benefits were observed for learners with low prior knowledge, however, if the hypertext structure was hierarchical and consistent with that of the knowledge domain. We also surveyed the effectiveness of structural features designed to reduce cognitive load, including graphical overviews, restricted access to links, and visible link types. Complex graphical overviews did not reliably enable learning and navigation, whereas navigational support from restricted access and visible link types were helpful. We identified gaps in the empirical literature and suggested future studies to investigate cognitive processes in hypertext reading.])>

No comments:

Post a Comment