Article Review
November 3, 2014
I recently engaged in a discussion with some fellow authors and readers about e-readers versus print books. Some authors tout e-books as the only way to go in publishing one’s work and some of my friends have stopped publishing print versions of their work. Some readers will purchase only the electronic version of a story or e-book. A couple of us, however, expressed our dissatisfaction with the e-reading experience. It just wasn't as satisfying as reading print books. We couldn’t quite articulate why that was, but later, I happened upon a couple of articles that seemed germane to the discussion.
Kanesha Gander postulates in her article, “Kindle e-readers make it 'significantly harder' to absorb the plot of a book, scientists claim,” that the experience of reading a book versus the same story on an e-reader is different in regard to memory of the plot. Gander writes,
while factors including empathy with the characters, immersion into the story, and a reader’s understanding of the narrative were relatively similar, Kindle readers performed “significantly worse” when asked to relay the story’s events in the correct order.
The reasons for this lack of understanding, according to the scientists who conducted the study, could be “sensory offload;” the act of turning pages mimics the progress of the plot and moves the story with the number pages consumed by reading.
Michael Rosenwald writes in his article, “Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming,” that by reading short articles with highlighted links to other, perhaps related articles, that our brains are evolving (or mutating, depending upon one’s point of view) in such a way that we no longer be able to engage in or absorb a full length novel. Younger people and future generations who receive most of their information electronically or digitally may never learn this skill. Our attention spans are shortening with our patience for and our ability to engage in narrative of any length. The answer, according to this article is to train our brains to become “bi-literate” – that is, to be able to successfully engage in both modes of reading.
Rachel Grate writes in her article, “Science Has Great News for People Who Read Actual Books,” that the debate between paper versus electronic books goes beyond sentimentality versus practicality; scientists have conducted studies showing that sensory experience of reading a print book aids the reader in comprehension and memory of the text.
The conclusion I reached at the end of the discussion and after reading these articles is that there is a place for both media. I am concerned, however, that if Rosenwald is correct about our brains changing to accommodate the mode of reading we do on screens and the internet, what will those changes mean to the future of literacy? Clearly more research is necessary to answer that question.
Bibliography
Gander, K. (2014, August 19). Kindle e-readers make it 'significantly harder' to absorb the plot of a book, scientists claim. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/kindle-ereaders-make-it-significantly-harder-to-absorb-the-plot-of-a-book-scientists-claim-9679643.html
Grate, R. (2014, September 22). Science Has Great News for People Who Read Actual Books. Retrieved November 4, 2014, from http://mic.com/articles/99408/science-has-great-news-for-people-who-read-actual-books
Rosenwald, M. (2014, April 6). Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/serious-reading-takes-a-hit-from-online-scanning-and-skimming-researchers-say/2014/04/06/088028d2-b5d2-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment