By Paul Wallis
DIDGITAL JOURNAL
Published December 22, 2023
Ed Maggs is managing director of Maggs Bros antiquarian booksellers.
— © AFP CHRIS RADBURN
It’s been a long argument about this subject. Researchers at the University of Valencia have come up with a lot of arguments in favor of print text In their study. Not everyone will be pleased with that outcome.
One of the biggest rocks thrown by the study is the statement that print text is 6 to 8 times better for comprehension. Bear in mind how much training material is digital, and you can see the instant problem.
This is also a bit of a sacred cause for traditional readers who don’t like electronic media. They are now vindicated …perhaps.
There’s a lot more to this argument which is far from obvious:
Different media naturally result in different behaviors. You can’t scroll through a print text. A static screen full of text is a different series of focal lengths and lighting.
The basis of literacy is comprehension, regardless of the types of media used. *
*Literate comprehension means being able to critique information and accurately recall it, from basic information to critique level.
*Quality of information and the quality of its delivery add to these issues. Some people do great science, but their information can be more like a cryptic crossword.
*Even the physical properties of digital text are a problem. Cheapskate pale or iffy fonts do not help readers. You can zoom in and get out of focus, too, partially obscuring the pages. In print text, that font size is long since out of fashion with publishers.
*The type of reading and type of reader are also important. An engaged reader is by definition more involved than a casual reader. If the reader is adding to their knowledge base, the importance of the text is much higher.
The study found that the “reading mindset” for digital media tends to be “shallower”. This could be habituated behavior, and let’s face it, the main reason for constant scrolling is avoiding unnecessary content.
On the other side of this message is the study finding that comprehension improves for secondary school and undergraduates. That may mean simply more pressure or better focus. Other information says that the type of reading material discourages comprehension, which is quite understandable.
There is a major distinction between specialized content and “bits and pieces” of information in any learning environment. Do you remember and prioritize a single paragraph when reading? You might, but mixed media is also a very mixed bag.
I’ve been working online as a writer for decades including a lot of commercial writing. I do both print and digital media. One thing I’ve learned about digital media is that big solid blocks of text are more like obstacle courses for readers than assets to reading.
It’s more eyestrain than information. Comprehension is subject to fatigue. There’s also boredom, repetition, and lack of incentive in the case of the more turgid texts.
The scrolling mindset and the reading mindset are very different. You can’t blame people for scrolling through large slabs of text to get to specific points. Readers need signposts like headings and bullet points for scrolling simply because there is so much to read.
Then there’s the type of digital media to be considered. According to researchers, social media users showed “minimal association with text comprehension”. That’s a very polite way of putting it.
The value of this study is that comprehension is now, finally, a subject for study. It’s long overdue.
__________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
It’s been a long argument about this subject. Researchers at the University of Valencia have come up with a lot of arguments in favor of print text In their study. Not everyone will be pleased with that outcome.
One of the biggest rocks thrown by the study is the statement that print text is 6 to 8 times better for comprehension. Bear in mind how much training material is digital, and you can see the instant problem.
This is also a bit of a sacred cause for traditional readers who don’t like electronic media. They are now vindicated …perhaps.
There’s a lot more to this argument which is far from obvious:
Different media naturally result in different behaviors. You can’t scroll through a print text. A static screen full of text is a different series of focal lengths and lighting.
The basis of literacy is comprehension, regardless of the types of media used. *
*Literate comprehension means being able to critique information and accurately recall it, from basic information to critique level.
*Quality of information and the quality of its delivery add to these issues. Some people do great science, but their information can be more like a cryptic crossword.
*Even the physical properties of digital text are a problem. Cheapskate pale or iffy fonts do not help readers. You can zoom in and get out of focus, too, partially obscuring the pages. In print text, that font size is long since out of fashion with publishers.
*The type of reading and type of reader are also important. An engaged reader is by definition more involved than a casual reader. If the reader is adding to their knowledge base, the importance of the text is much higher.
The study found that the “reading mindset” for digital media tends to be “shallower”. This could be habituated behavior, and let’s face it, the main reason for constant scrolling is avoiding unnecessary content.
On the other side of this message is the study finding that comprehension improves for secondary school and undergraduates. That may mean simply more pressure or better focus. Other information says that the type of reading material discourages comprehension, which is quite understandable.
There is a major distinction between specialized content and “bits and pieces” of information in any learning environment. Do you remember and prioritize a single paragraph when reading? You might, but mixed media is also a very mixed bag.
I’ve been working online as a writer for decades including a lot of commercial writing. I do both print and digital media. One thing I’ve learned about digital media is that big solid blocks of text are more like obstacle courses for readers than assets to reading.
It’s more eyestrain than information. Comprehension is subject to fatigue. There’s also boredom, repetition, and lack of incentive in the case of the more turgid texts.
The scrolling mindset and the reading mindset are very different. You can’t blame people for scrolling through large slabs of text to get to specific points. Readers need signposts like headings and bullet points for scrolling simply because there is so much to read.
Then there’s the type of digital media to be considered. According to researchers, social media users showed “minimal association with text comprehension”. That’s a very polite way of putting it.
The value of this study is that comprehension is now, finally, a subject for study. It’s long overdue.
__________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
No comments:
Post a Comment