{"id":1291,"date":"2014-05-02T23:35:33","date_gmt":"2014-05-03T03:35:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/?p=1291"},"modified":"2020-02-07T10:00:57","modified_gmt":"2020-02-07T15:00:57","slug":"understanding-ebooks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/2014\/05\/02\/understanding-ebooks\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding Ebooks"},"content":{"rendered":"

Say, you\u2019re Homer (the Greek one), and you\u2019ve just put the finishing touches on your latest epic. You\u2019re going to want a book. You\u2019re going to want one so that you won\u2019t have to worry about people mishearing your singing (because microphones haven\u2019t been invented yet) or those pesky barbarians on the road to the next town mugging you and stealing your lyre. If you think about it, a book is a pretty nifty piece of technology. In fact, books are awesome enough to have been in use for something like 5000 years, and not only to still be in use in modern society, but to still be commonplace<\/i> in it.<\/p>\n

\"They're<\/a>

They’re really expensive!<\/p><\/div>\n

It is probably because books printed on paper have been so reliably awesome for so long that there has been so much controversy surrounding the expansion of reading platforms to include E-reading devices (Kindles or Nooks) and computers. Bibliophiles everywhere are collectively freaking out about the end of printed books, and as a result, a lot of ink has been spilled (Well, maybe not ink. Pixels, maybe? Bytes?) on research to determine how these new formats measure up to our classic, well-loved paperbacks.<\/p>\n

Sara Margolin et al.\u2019s study in May of 2013 mentions one study that argued that reading off of screens was better because readers were able to finish passages more quickly. Another argues that, while that was true the information was not as well retained because the hyperlinks found in many online texts present a distraction that divides one\u2019s attention. The list goes on, but until Sara Margolin et al.\u2019s study, none of them had specifically addressed comprehension of the text.<\/p>\n

Comprehension is significant because of the way we are believed to understand information as we read.\u00a0<\/span>Consider this sentence: \u201cI carried a present into the room strewn with streamers and balloons.\u201d A memory test might ask you to recall what was in the room or what I was carrying. A comprehension test would test to see if you assumed that I was at a party. Because the information of exactly where I am is not in that sentence, you would have to internalize that information and make inferences based upon it in order to arrive at that conclusion.<\/p>\n

Most people do not simply recall every word they have seen verbatim (the balloons and streamers); rather, we are believed to create a meaningful abstract representation of what we have read that is based both upon what we have read and whatever information happens to be in our long term memories (the party). Therefore, a simple recall of facts tests how much of the reading has made it into the most superficial levels of that model.\u00a0A comprehension test, on the other hand, forces us to use that information to make inferences and to think critically, in turn forcing the reader to go deeper into that model to see where the reader has supplemented the information in the text with his or her own knowledge.<\/p>\n

\"Not<\/a>

Not exactly like this, but you get the idea.<\/p><\/div>\n

In the study, researchers had participants read from a print-out of text from a book, as is the case in many classes, from an e-reader, which simulates the experience of reading from paper with a technology called e-ink, or from a computer screen, also commonplace in many classes. I draw emphasis to in-class prevalence because all the participants in the study were students at a 4-year college in New York. They were presented with six texts, half narrative, half expository, in one of the three above formats (chosen randomly), and asked to answer comprehension question about them.<\/p>\n

According to the results from Margolin et al., there is not a significant correlation between different presentation formats and comprehension. In fact the only significant variation they found between any of their results was between those who had skipped parts of the reading and those who had not. The \u201cskippers\u201d showed less comprehension. This is shocking, I know.<\/p>\n

Okay, let\u2019s back up a little bit. I can already hear all the chorus of \u201cbut I like the way books smell!\u201d or \u201cbut reading on my laptop is so<\/i> convenient\u201d or \u201cbut I really love my Kobo!\u201d (actually, not ever that last one). Margolin et al.\u2019s results don\u2019t take into account how cool that new laptop skin you bought looks. What the results mean is that if you had the choice to read a book in the same format on an e-reader, a computer, or a book, what you take from the book, your comprehension of the material, will be the same.<\/p>\n

\"Sounds<\/a>

Seriously, who uses a Kobo?<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

I know for anyone firmly on the side of one platform or another is really disappointed, but think about it! This is a good thing! This means that people are good enough at comprehending things to be able to do it in different contexts. You can rest assured that the next time you skim that article before class, the reason you don\u2019t understand it is not because you read it off your computer, but because you didn\u2019t read half of it! E-readers and computers are not necessarily replacing books, just displaying them from a different platform. Bottom line: go with whatever platform you want, but keep in mind, you actually have to read the words to understand the text.<\/p>\n

\"Yes,<\/a>

Yes, really!<\/p><\/div>\n

References<\/p>\n

Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J. and Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, Computer Screens, or Paper: Does Reading Comprehension Change Across Media Platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27,<\/em>\u00a0512\u2013519. doi:\u00a010.1002\/acp.2930<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Say, you\u2019re Homer (the Greek one), and you\u2019ve just put the finishing touches on your latest epic. You\u2019re going to want a book. You\u2019re going to want one so that you won\u2019t have to worry about people mishearing your singing (because microphones haven\u2019t been invented yet) or those pesky barbarians on the road to the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5921,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[80216,60348,80217,80215],"tags":[272],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1291"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5921"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1291"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1291\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3707,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1291\/revisions\/3707"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}