Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site September 02, 2014, 06:49:17 PM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
Learn about the DonationCoder.com microdonation system (DonationCredits).
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Interesting study comparing reading on paper vs tablets  (Read 336 times)
mouser
First Author
Administrator
*****
Posts: 33,294



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:13:33 AM »

Interesting study comparing reading on paper vs tablets:

Quote
In most respects, there was no significant difference between the Kindle readers and the paper readers: the emotional measures were roughly the same, and both groups of readers responded almost equally to questions dealing with the setting of the story, the characters and other plot details. But, the Kindle readers scored significantly lower on questions about when events in the story occurred.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/20...for-convenience.html?_r=0

Found on http://gadgetopia.com/post/9125
Logged
IainB
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 4,647


Slartibartfarst

see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2014, 07:22:18 PM »

Yes, interesting.
I found this particularly interesting:
Quote
“It’s all one complex web that we need to start disentangling,” she said. The study might still provide fodder for those who insist that reading a novel on a screen just isn’t the same. “It’s a confirmation that these ergonomic dimensions, the tactile feedback of holding paper, might actually matter,” she said.
A rather revealing and cringeworthy statement, I thought, reflecting as it does the speaker's apparent lack of knowledge of the relatively large body of research on the subject of ergonomics and visual perception and their effect on the reader's reading comprehension of written material in differently-presented mediums. Never mind, she apparently got a trip from Stavanger to Turin on the strength of it, to present that paper, which was nice.
Logged
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,651



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2014, 09:08:41 PM »

@IainB - Don't jump to conclusions too quickly regarding Ms. Mangen...

The lack of quotation marks around the statement [The study might still provide fodder for those who insist that reading a novel on a screen just isn’t the same.] leads me to believe that sentence may likely have been inserted by the reporter or editor rather than the researcher. Especially since the statements on either side of it do display quotation marks - and do not draw the semi-conclusion the non-quotation does. (Reporters like a conclusion or sound bite. They hate leaving it with a "this opens up several interesting areas for further investigation - but much more data and study is needed before any real conclusions can be drawn" ending.)

That's the problem with so much of what passes for science reporting. You never quite know what's a legitimate summary of something the researcher actually said, and what's an aside, misinterpretation, or editorial gloss by the reporter or the newspaper.

Remember the "God Particle" and all the fun the press and pulpit had with that - despite the fact the researchers never once called it that -  or made half the claims about it the press seemed to think they did?
 undecided
Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
Innuendo
Charter Member
***
Posts: 1,914

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2014, 10:35:32 PM »

If article writers are too lazy to run a spell and grammar checker on the article, what hope do we have that they will actually fact check which demands more effort than hitting a button?

Logged
IainB
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 4,647


Slartibartfarst

see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2014, 11:22:12 PM »

@40hz: I was indeed referring solely to the composite of the the two statements by Mangen inside the quotes, which happened to have the (probably reporter's) bit stuck inbetween them, as you say, and which latter I did not want to leave out as the remainder might have looked odd cut out like that - losing its context somewhat.

However, I don't know about that middle bit's sentence:
Quote
The study might still provide fodder for those who insist that reading a novel on a screen just isn’t the same.
It seems rather vapid. I mean, it clearly isn't the same - if only by definition - but so what? And why would anyone want to "insist" they weren't the same - the implication being that no right-thinking person would say they weren't, perhaps? Maybe journalistic bias creeping in around the edges there - if journalist he is.

I'd be interested to know what that "emotional response" test was all about.
Logged
IainB
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 4,647


Slartibartfarst

see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2014, 11:48:09 PM »

@40hz: Your comment about "Remember the "God Particle"...":
I didn't see what all the fuss was about. Creationists would probably assert that we are all made up of "God particles" anyway. This was my view, FWIW:
Yes, I found this about the theoretical Higgs boson in Wikipedia:

Interestingly, there are apparently two groups of scientists:
(a) Higgs: those scientists who are believers in the SM (Standard Model) predictions and who apparently:
Quote
... expect the LHC experiment to be able to provide definitive experimental evidence of the existence of the Higgs boson.

and

(b) Higgsless: those scientists who are non-believers in the SM - and who thus hold instead that the HM (Hiiggsless Model) is the Truth and who apparently:
Quote
expect the LHC experiment to be able to provide experimental evidence of the non-existence of the Higgs boson.

Scientists! They're a funny lot aren't they?     huh

I don't know how many of either group might be climate scientists.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.041s | Server load: 0.11 ]