This link has been bookmarked by 124 people and liked by 1 people. It was first bookmarked on 19 Aug 2014, by someone privately.
-
28 Mar 16
-
22 Mar 16
-
A new study which found that readers using a Kindle were "significantly" worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred
-
"The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they were asked to place 14 events in the correct order."
-
"When you read on paper you can sense with your fingers a pile of pages on the left growing, and shrinking on the right," said Mangen. "You have the tactile sense of progress, in addition to the visual ...
-
-
25 Nov 15
-
27 Oct 15
-
26 Oct 15
-
25 Oct 15
-
22 Sep 15
-
31 Aug 15
-
18 Aug 15
-
16 Aug 15
-
07 Aug 15
Lorri CarrollDo we believe studies like this? Readers absorb less on Kindles than on paper, study finds | The Guardian http://t.co/Q368LqSCq5 #isedchat
-
08 Jun 15
Cotham School LibraryResearch suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books
-
17 Apr 15
nbeardsleeSummary of the findings of some research done to compare reading from paper versus a kindle. No significant differences except in sequencing events.
-
the performance was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story.
-
"The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they were asked to place 14 events in the correct order."
-
sensory offload, supporting the visual sense of progress when you're reading
-
The network says that "research shows that the amount of time spent reading long-form texts is in decline, and due to digitisation, reading is becoming more intermittent and fragmented", with "empirical evidence indicat[ing] that affordances of screen devices might negatively impact cognitive and emotional aspects of reading".
-
-
11 Mar 15
-
09 Mar 15
-
04 Mar 15
rickcypertResearch suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books
-
13 Feb 15
-
12 Feb 15
-
The researchers suggest that "the haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does".
-
"When you read on paper you can sense with your fingers a pile of pages on the left growing, and shrinking on the right," said Mangen. "You have the tactile sense of progress, in addition to the visual ... [The differences for Kindle readers] might have something to do with the fact that the fixity of a text on paper, and this very gradual unfolding of paper as you progress through a story, is some kind of sensory offload, supporting the visual sense of progress when you're reading. Perhaps this somehow aids the reader, providing more fixity and solidity to the reader's sense of unfolding and progress of the text, and hence the story."
Mangen also pointed to a paper published last year, which gave 72 Norwegian 10th-graders texts to read in print, or in PDF on a computer screen, followed by comprehension tests. She and her fellow researchers found that "students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally".
-
The network says that "research shows that the amount of time spent reading long-form texts is in decline, and due to digitisation, reading is becoming more intermittent and fragmented", with "empirical evidence indicat[ing] that affordances of screen devices might negatively impact cognitive and emotional aspects of reading".
-
-
11 Feb 15
-
10 Feb 15
-
A new study which found that readers using a Kindle were "significantly" worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred in a mystery story
-
The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they were asked to place 14 events in the correct order."
-
The researchers suggest that "the haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does".
-
-
26 Jan 15
Jon TannerPaper books are better for understanding and retention than electronic books, possibly due to the "feel" of pages in your hand. I've experienced something like this when reading on a Kindle, where I don't know exactly where I am in the book because I don't "feel" how many pages are left. Of course, I could look at the counter, but for some reason I've felt surprised when the book ends. It's as if I mentally or emotionally prepare myself for what I anticipate will happen in a book based on where I am in it, and that gets thrown off when using as e-book. That's just my personal experience, which has no statistical validity, but this study shows that factual recall of plot is lower with an e-reader than with a traditional paper book.
-
23 Jan 15
Beth DoblerResearch suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books
-
08 Jan 15
dcapetolaKindles vs paper
-
02 Jan 15
-
29 Dec 14
Équipe École 2.0"A new study which found that readers using a Kindle were "significantly" worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred in a mystery story is part of major new Europe-wide research looking at the impact of digitisation on the reading experience."
info en anglais document d'information recherche liseuse langues lecture lecture à l'écran écran mémoire général papier
-
16 Dec 14
-
"When you read on paper you can sense with your fingers a pile of pages on the left growing, and shrinking on the right," said Mangen. "You have the tactile sense of progress, in addition to the visual ... [The differences for Kindle readers] might have something to do with the fact that the fixity of a text on paper, and this very gradual unfolding of paper as you progress through a story, is some kind of sensory offload, supporting the visual sense of progress when you're reading. Perhaps this somehow aids the reader, providing more fixity and solidity to the reader's sense of unfolding and progress of the text, and hence the story."
-
-
29 Oct 14
RIRE CTREQ19 août 2014- Research suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books.
lecture littératie tablette_numérique livre_numérique livre outils_numériques performance ipad enseignant parent famille écriture
-
27 Oct 14
-
18 Oct 14
Rosalind ForberRecap of recent studies showing that comprehension, including recall of story plot and detail, are better with print than on ereaders or computer screens.
-
15 Oct 14
-
11 Oct 14
-
Anne Mangen of Norway's Stavanger University, a lead researcher on the study, thought academics might "find differences in the immersion facilitated by the device, in emotional responses" to the story. Her predictions were based on an earlier study comparing reading an upsetting short story on paper and on iPad. "In this study, we found that paper readers did report higher on measures having to do with empathy and transportation and immersion, and narrative coherence, than iPad readers," said Mangen.
But instead, the performance was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story. "The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they were asked to place 14 events in the correct order
-
She is now chairing a new European research network doing empirical research on the effects of digitisation on text reading. The network says that "research shows that the amount of time spent reading long-form texts is in decline, and due to digitisation, reading is becoming more intermittent and fragmented", with "empirical evidence indicat[ing] that affordances of screen devices might negatively impact cognitive and emotional aspects of reading". They hope their work will improve scientific understanding of the implications of digitisation, thus helping to cope with its impact.
-
what kind of devices (iPad, Kindle, print) should be used for what kind of content; what kinds of texts are likely to be less hampered by being read digitally, and which might require the support of paper," said Mangen.
-
-
08 Oct 14
Michelle KelleyResearch suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books
-
07 Oct 14
-
-
Readers absorb less on Kindles than on paper, study finds
-
Research suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books
-
Her predictions were based on an earlier study comparing reading an upsetting short story on paper and on iPad. "In this study, we found that paper readers did report higher on measures having to do with empathy and transportation and immersion, and narrative coherence, than iPad readers," said Mangen.
-
"The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they were asked to place 14 events in the correct order."
-
Mangen also pointed to a paper published last year, which gave 72 Norwegian 10th-graders texts to read in print, or in PDF on a computer screen, followed by comprehension tests. She and her fellow researchers found that "students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally".
-
-
05 Oct 14
-
28 Sep 14
Dan R.D.If you want to remember the plot of a novel, you're better off reading a paper-based book than an e-reader http://t.co/XABhmze1Nf via @edge
-
27 Sep 14
-
16 Sep 14
-
13 Sep 14
-
11 Sep 14
J MReaders absorb less on Kindles than on paper, study finds
Research suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books
Share
Tweet this
Email
Alison Flood
The Guardian, Tuesday 19 August 2014 17.14 BST
Jump to comments (447)
ebook
'The haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does' … an ebook reader. Photograph: Alamy
A new study which found that readers using a Kindle were "significantly" worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred in a mystery story is part of major new Europe-wide research looking at the impact of digitisation on the reading experience.
The study, presented in Italy at a conference last month and set to be published as a paper, gave 50 readers the same short story by Elizabeth George to read. Half read the 28-page story on a Kindle, and half in a paperback, with readers then tested on aspects of the story including objects, characters and settings.
Anne Mangen of Norway's Stavanger University, a lead researcher on the study, thought academics might "find differences in the immersion facilitated by the device, in emotional responses" to the story. Her predictions were based on an earlier study comparing reading an upsetting short story on paper and on iPad. "In this study, we found that paper readers did report higher on measures having to do with empathy and transportation and immersion, and narrative coherence, than iPad readers," said Mangen.
But instead, the performance was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story. "The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they were asked to place 14 events in the correct order."
The researchers suggest that "the haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does".
"When you read on paper you can sense with your fingers a pile of pages on the left growing, and shrinking on the right," said Mangen. "You have the tactile sense of progress, in addition to the visual ... [The differences for Kindle readers] might have something to do with the fact that the fixity of a text on paper, and this very gradual unfolding of paper as you progress through a story, is some kind of sensory offload, supporting the visual sense of progress when you're reading. Perhaps this somehow aids the reader, providing more fixity and solidity to the reader's sense of unfolding and progress of the text, and hence the story."
Mangen also pointed to a paper published last year, which gave 72 Norwegian 10th-graders texts to read in print, or in PDF on a computer screen, followed by comprehension tests. She and her fellow researchers found that "students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally".
She is now chairing a new European research network doing empirical research on the effects of digitisation on text reading. The network says that "research shows that the amount of time spent reading long-form texts is in decline, and due to digitisation, reading is becoming more intermittent and fragmented", with "empirical evidence indicat[ing] that affordances of screen devices might negatively impact cognitive and emotional aspects of reading". They hope their work will improve scientific understanding of the implications of digitisation, thus helping to cope with its impact.
"We need to provide research and evidence-based knowledge to publishers on what kind of devices (iPad, Kindle, print) should be used for what kind of content; what kinds of texts are likely to be less hampered by being read digitally, and which might require the support of paper," said Mangen. "I'm thinking it might make a difference if a novel is a page-turner or light read, when you don't necessarily have to pay attention to every word, compared to a 500-page, more complex literary novel, something like Ulysses, which is challenging reading that really requires sustained focus. That will be very interesting to explore."
The Elizabeth George study included only two experienced Kindle users, and she is keen to replicate it using a greater proportion of Kindle regulars. But she warned against assuming that the "digital natives" of today would perform better.
"I don't think we should assume it is all to do with habits, and base decisions to replace print textbooks with iPads, for instance, on such assumptions. Studies with students, for instance, have shown that they often prefer to read on paper," she said. -
03 Sep 14
-
02 Sep 14
-
jramirez597| Books | theguardian.com
-
Michelle KassorlaBut it's green! MT @itknowingness: MT @drkassorla: Readers absorb less on Kindles than on paper http://t.co/F5iiIxOnKO #reading #edtech
-
Evans ThompsonA new study which found that readers using a Kindle were "significantly" worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred in a mystery story is part of major new Europe-wide research looking at the impact of digitisation on the readi...
-
01 Sep 14
-
"In this study, we found that paper readers did report higher on measures having to do with empathy and transportation and immersion, and narrative coherence, than iPad readers," said Mangen.
-
When you read on paper you can sense with your fingers a pile of pages on the left growing, and shrinking on the right," said Mangen. "You have the tactile sense of progress, in addition to the visual
-
We need to provide research and evidence-based knowledge to publishers on what kind of devices (iPad, Kindle, print) should be used for what kind of content; what kinds of texts are likely to be less hampered by being read digitally, and which might require the support of paper," said Mangen. "I'm thinking it might make a difference if a novel is a page-turner or light read, when you don't necessarily have to pay attention to every word, compared to a 500-page, more complex literary novel, something like Ulysses, which is challenging reading that really requires sustained focus.
-
-
31 Aug 14
-
30 Aug 14
-
jhave2"students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally"."
-
29 Aug 14
-
Mr. BiornstadComprehension "significantly worse" on e-readers. Makes u wonder abt the move to screen-based standardized tests. http://t.co/RZ3QOk8btl
-
28 Aug 14
rhetericaResearch suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books
-
deblirigesSome interesting research to consider about students learning
-
The researchers suggest that "the haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does".
-
She and her fellow researchers found that "students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally".
-
a new European research network doing empirical research on the effects of digitisation on text reading. The network says that "research shows that the amount of time spent reading long-form texts is in decline, and due to digitisation, reading is becoming more intermittent and fragmented", with "empirical evidence indicat[ing] that affordances of screen devices might negatively impact cognitive and emotional aspects of reading". They hope their work will improve scientific understanding of the implications of digitisation, thus helping to cope with its impact.
-
"We need to provide research and evidence-based knowledge to publishers on what kind of devices (iPad, Kindle, print) should be used for what kind of content; what kinds of texts are likely to be less hampered by being read digitally, and which might require the support of paper,"
-
-
27 Aug 14
-
26 Aug 14
-
<div id="header"><div id="zones-nav"><div class="trackable-component crumb-wrapper" xmlns:v="http://rdf.data-vocabulary.org/#" data-component="Article:crumb nav"><br/><br/> <ul class="crumb-nav"><br/> <li id="crumb1"><br/> <span typeof="v:Breadcrumb"><br/> <a rel="nofollow" property="v:title" rel="v:url" href="http://www.theguardian.com/culture" data-link-name="Culture">Culture</a><br/> </span><br/> </li><br/> <li id="crumb2"><br/> <span typeof="v:Breadcrumb"><br/> <a rel="nofollow" property="v:title" rel="v:url" href="http://www.theguardian.com/books" data-link-name="Books">Books</a><br/> </span><br/> </li><br/> <li id="crumb3"><br/> <span typeof="v:Breadcrumb"><br/> <a rel="nofollow" property="v:title" rel="v:url" href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/ebooks" data-link-name="Ebooks">Ebooks</a><br/> </span><br/> </li><br/> </ul><br/> <br/> <br/></div><br/><br/> </div><br/> <br/> <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/><br/> </div><br/><br/><br/><br/> <div id="box"><br/> <br/><br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/><br/><br/><div id="article-header"><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/><br/><br/> <br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/> <br/> <div id="main-article-info"><br/><br/> <br/> <br/> <h1 itemprop="name headline ">Readers absorb less on Kindles than on paper, study finds</h1><br/> <br/> <div id="stand-first" itemprop="description" class="stand-first-alone" data-component="Article:standfirst_cta">Research suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books</div><br/> <br/> <br/> </div><br/><br/> <ul id="content-actions" class="share-links trackable-component" data-component="Article:top share tools"><br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <li class="full-line facebook"><br/> <span class="facebook-share"><br/> <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation" data-link-name="Facebook Share Top" data-href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation" class="facebook-share-btn"><br/> <span class="facebook-share-icon"></span><br/> <span class="facebook-share-label">Share</span><br/> </a><span class="facebook-share-count"><i></i><u></u>21679</span><br/> </span><br/> </li><br/><br/> <li data-link-name="Twitter Top" class="full-line"><br/> <iframe id="twitter-widget-0" title="Twitter Tweet Button" style="width: 109px; height: 20px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1409007440.html#_=1409071265811&count=horizontal&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbooks%2F2014%2Faug%2F19%2Freaders-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbooks%2F2014%2Faug%2F19%2Freaders-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation&related=guardiantech&size=m&text=Readers%20absorb%20less%20on%20Kindles%20than%20on%20paper%2C%20study%20finds&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F4vpyk%2Ftw&via=guardian" data-twttr-rendered="true" class="twitter-share-button twitter-tweet-button twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" allowtransparency="true"></iframe><br/> </li><br/><br/> <li data-link-name="Google plus Top" class="full-line google-plus"><br/><br/> <br/> <div id="___plusone_0" style="text-indent: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; border-style: none; float: none; line-height: normal; font-size: 1px; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block; width: 90px; height: 20px;"><iframe id="I0_1409071260637" title="+1" name="I0_1409071260637" marginwidth="0" style="position: static; top: 0px; width: 90px; margin: 0px; border-style: none; left: 0px; visibility: visible; height: 20px;" vspace="0" width="100%" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" tabindex="0" hspace="0" src="https://apis.google.com/u/0/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&hl=en-GB&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbooks%2F2014%2Faug%2F19%2Freaders-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation&gsrc=3p&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en.2yxj2SLg-Ik.O%2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DAQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Ft%3Dzcms%2Frs%3DAItRSTOrG1ECpkXX65HyMjlQQzq2qWX_rQ#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh%2Conload&id=I0_1409071260637&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com&pfname=&rpctoken=61969402" data-gapiattached="true"></iframe></div><br/><br/> </li><br/><br/> <li data-link-name="Pinterest Top" class="full-line pinterest-pin-it"><br/> <a rel="nofollow" data-pin-log="button_pinit" data-pin-href="//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?guid=cDLf0icKNBZk-0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbooks%2F2014%2Faug%2F19%2Freaders-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation&media=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic-secure.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F8%2F19%2F1408464234883%2Febook-009.jpg&description=Readers+absorb+less+on+Kindles+than+on+paper%2C+study+finds" data-pin-config="beside" class="PIN_1409071267527_pin_it_button_20 PIN_1409071267527_pin_it_button_en_20_gray PIN_1409071267527_pin_it_button_inline_20 PIN_1409071267527_pin_it_beside_20"><span id="PIN_1409071267527_pin_count_0" class="PIN_1409071267527_hidden"><i></i></span></a><br/> </li><br/> <br/> <li data-link-name="LinkedIn Top" class="full-line linked-in"><br/> <span style="line-height: 1; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block; text-align: center;" class="IN-widget"><span style="padding: 0px ! important; margin: 0px ! important; text-indent: 0px ! important; display: inline-block ! important; vertical-align: baseline ! important; font-size: 1px ! important;"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265195_0"><a rel="nofollow" id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265195_0-link"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265195_0-logo">in</span><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265195_0-title"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265195_0-mark"></span><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265195_0-title-text">Share</span></span></a></span></span><span style="padding: 0px ! important; margin: 0px ! important; text-indent: 0px ! important; display: inline-block ! important; vertical-align: baseline ! important; font-size: 1px ! important;"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265209_1-container" class="IN-right"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265209_1" class="IN-right"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265209_1-inner" class="IN-right"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1409071265209_1-content" class="IN-right">1,006</span></span></span></span></span></span><script data-showzero="true" data-counter="right" type="IN/Share+init"></script><br/> </li><br/><br/> <li data-link-name="email this story Top" class="full-line email"><br/> <a rel="nofollow" title="Send to a friend" href="#" class="rollover send-email"><img alt="" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/ac46d0fc9b2bab67a9a8a8dd51cd8efdbc836fbf/common/images/icon-email.png" class="trail-icon">Email</a><br/> </li><br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><br/> </ul><br/> <br/> </div><br/><br/><br/><div id="content"><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><ul class="article-attributes trackable-component b4" data-component="Article:byline"><br/> <li class="byline"><br/> <div class="contributor-full"><br/> <br/> <span itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" itemscope="" itemprop="author"><span itemprop="name"><a rel="nofollow" rel="author" href="http://www.theguardian.com/profile/alisonflood" itemprop="url" class="contributor">Alison Flood</a></span></span> </div><br/> </li><br/> <li class="article-attributes-social-buttons"><br/> <span class="social-buttons-twitter-contributor trackable-component" data-component="Twitter Follow Journalist"></span><br/><span class="social-buttons-twitter-brand trackable-component" data-component="Twitter Follow Brand"></span><br/> </li><br/> <br/><br/> <br/> <li class="publication"><br/> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian" itemprop="publisher">The Guardian</a>,<br/> <time pubdate="" datetime="2014-08-19T17:14BST" itemprop="datePublished">Tuesday 19 August 2014 17.14 BST</time> <br/> </li><br/> <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/><br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/> <div class="initially-off ma-placeholder-discussion-comment-counts"></div><br/> <script><br/> jQ(document).ready(function(){<br/> jQ.ajax({ url : 'http://resource.guim.co.uk/global/static/file/discussion/5/fill-comment-counts-swimlaned.js', dataType : 'script', type : 'get', crossDomain : true, cache: true });<br/> });<br/> </script><br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/> <li class="comment-count"><br/> <a rel="nofollow" short-url="-p-4vpyk" style="display: inline;" href="#start-of-comments" data-link-name="comment-count" class="content-comment-count"><span class="comment-count-text">Jump to comments</span> (<span class="comment-count-val">447</span>)</a><br/> </li><br/> <br/><br/> <br/> </ul><br/> <br/> <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <br/><br/><br/> <br/> <br/><br/> <div id="article-wrapper" class="trackable-component " data-component="Article:in body link"><br/><br/> <br/> <div id="main-content-picture" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" itemscope="" itemprop="image"><br/> <img data-pin-description="'The haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does' … an ebook reader. Photograph: Alamy" width="460" alt="ebook" itemprop="contentUrl representativeOfPage" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/8/19/1408464234883/ebook-009.jpg" height="276"><br/> <div itemprop="caption" class="caption">'The haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does' … an ebook reader. Photograph: Alamy</div><br/> </div><br/> <br/><br/> <br/> <div id="article-body-blocks"><br/> <p>A new study which found that readers using a <a rel="nofollow" title="More from the Guardian on Kindle" href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/kindle">Kindle</a> were "significantly" worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred in a mystery story is part of major new Europe-wide research looking at the impact of digitisation on the reading experience.</p><p>The study, presented in Italy at a conference last month and set to be published as a paper, gave 50 readers the same short story by Elizabeth George to read. Half read the 28-page story on a Kindle, and half in a paperback, with readers then tested on aspects of the story including objects, characters and settings.</p><p>Anne Mangen of Norway's Stavanger University, a lead researcher on the study, thought academics might "find differences in the immersion facilitated by the device, in emotional responses" to the story. Her predictions were based on an earlier study comparing reading an upsetting short story on paper and on <a rel="nofollow" title="More from the Guardian on iPad" href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/ipad">iPad</a>. "In this study, we found that paper readers did report higher on measures having to do with empathy and transportation and immersion, and narrative coherence, than iPad readers," said Mangen.</p><p>But instead, the performance was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story. "The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they were asked to place 14 events in the correct order."</p><p>The researchers suggest that "the haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does".</p><p>"When you read on paper you can sense with your fingers a pile of pages on the left growing, and shrinking on the right," said Mangen. "You have the tactile sense of progress, in addition to the visual ... [The differences for Kindle readers] might have something to do with the fact that the fixity of a text on paper, and this very gradual unfolding of paper as you progress through a story, is some kind of sensory offload, supporting the visual sense of progress when you're reading. Perhaps this somehow aids the reader, providing more fixity and solidity to the reader's sense of unfolding and progress of the text, and hence the story."</p><p>Mangen also pointed to a paper published last year, which gave 72 Norwegian 10th-graders texts to read in print, or in PDF on a computer screen, followed by comprehension tests. She and her fellow researchers found that "students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally".</p><p>She is now chairing a new European research network doing empirical research on the effects of digitisation on text reading. The network says that "research shows that the amount of time spent reading long-form texts is in decline, and due to digitisation, reading is becoming more intermittent and fragmented", with "empirical evidence indicat[ing] that affordances of screen devices might negatively impact cognitive and emotional aspects of reading". They hope their work will improve scientific understanding of the implications of digitisation, thus helping to cope with its impact.</p><p>"We need to provide research and evidence-based knowledge to publishers on what kind of devices (iPad, Kindle, print) should be used for what kind of content; what kinds of texts are likely to be less hampered by being read digitally, and which might require the support of paper," said Mangen. "I'm thinking it might make a difference if a novel is a page-turner or light read, when you don't necessarily have to pay attention to every word, compared to a 500-page, more complex literary novel, something like Ulysses, which is challenging reading that really requires sustained focus. That will be very interesting to explore."</p><p>The Elizabeth George study included only two experienced Kindle users, and she is keen to replicate it using a greater proportion of Kindle regulars. But she warned against assuming that the "digital natives" of today would perform better.</p><p>"I don't think we should assume it is all to do with habits, and base decisions to replace print textbooks with iPads, for instance, on such assumptions. Studies with students, for instance, have shown that they often prefer to read on paper," she said</p></div></div></div></div>
-
-
25 Aug 14
ccozort"The Elizabeth George study included only two experienced Kindle users"
-
23 Aug 14
mtt ggllDoes reading comprehension suffer on an electronic device? Study says yes. http://t.co/XujZnfAfts via @BH_Retreats
– Kas Thomas (kasthomas) http://twitter.com/kasthomas/status/503217741352812544 -
Sharon Lux"readers using a Kindle were "significantly" worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred in a mystery story is part of major new Europe-wide research looking at the impact of digitisation on the reading experience."
reading comprehension Online reading reading print vs electronic
-
22 Aug 14
-
José L. CastilloAdmito q yo tb memorizo peor si leo en digital. Pero relaciono más y comparto más y me dan más #tradeoff #EABE15 http://t.co/b9YpqyGwlM
-
21 Aug 14
-
Peter BeaumontSome subjects used iPads, some books and tested on recall."the performance was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story. "The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they w
-
20 Aug 14
-
Stéphane NOEReaders absorb less on Kindles than on paper, study finds | The Guardian http://t.co/UrLwiR1JHL
-
SJLibrary LearningA new study which found that readers using a Kindle were "significantly" worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred in a mystery story is part of major new Europe-wide research looking at the impact of digitisation on the reading exper
-
Anne WeaverResearch suggests that recall of plot after using an e-reader is poorer than with traditional books
-
19 Aug 14
-
-
Half read the 28-page story on a Kindle, and half in a paperback, with readers then tested on aspects of the story including objects, characters and settings.
-
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.