6 ms·

Interesting tidbit, in the sentence in the article " To explore these patterns further, we conducted three studies that explored college students' ability to co

Interesting tidbit, in the sentence in the article " To explore these patterns further, we conducted three studies that explored college students' ability to comprehend information on paper and from screens." "Three studies" is linked to a single study, not three. The study is on the site tandfonline.com (Taylor and Francis), where you have to pay to read the study. Also interesting is that Taylor and Francis, on their website taylorandfrancis.com, says "Taylor & Francis Group publishes books for all levels of academic study and professional development, across a wide range of subjects and disciplines." So long story short, this is a study saying that books are better, that's on a site who's main business is publishing books. Not saying the study is inaccurate, but I find an article, about how books are better, on a book publishers site, somewhat suspect.

scw 9y ago
It's in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, written by academics in the field, not by T&F itself, nor funded by them. While there are problems with the peer reviewed system, publisher interference with research results isn't typically one of them.
Fomite 9y ago
First, on your notion of bias: Taylor and Francis is owned by informa. A trivial search for informa's annual report would reveal that academic publishing makes up 45.7% of their operating profit, and 50% of that comes from subscriptions, almost all of which are digital. Further, most of their major initiatives are in digital, especially for journals which are most of their revenue. Second, on your "three studies" objection - they're looking at three separate outcomes, as they mention in the article. It's common to lump the results of multiple highly related studies in a single paper. Third, as noted by another commenter, nearly all peer-reviewed journal articles are going to be published by publishers who also have a stake in other aspect of academic publishing.
- asdh432 9y ago
  I highly doubt Informa is keeping TnF around as a charity cause. They need to keep doing what they do, sell books, to make corporate happy. TnF claim to publish 1,500 new titles each year. Informa isn't just eating that entire cost.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Indeed. These studies need to be done by independent researchers multiple times and published in a number of independent venues in which the publishers (who clearly have reason to tamper) have no control over the content nor the peer review selection process (again, to be performed independently).
    - Fomite 9y ago
      Journal publishers have very little control over the content or selection of peer reviewers. That's the editorial board.
      - justinjlynn 9y ago
        https://www.elsevier.com/editors/editorial-boards https://www.elsevier.com/editors/editorial-boards > Editorial board members are selected by the journal’s editor(s), with input from the publisher. hrmn.
        Fomite 9y ago
        I'm saying in a practical sense, the publication of a single paper, and the choice of peer reviewers, is effectively not under the control of the publisher. I mean yeah, technically, Al Gore had input on whether or not I worked at Apple, because he was on the Board of Directors. But practically?
        justinjlynn 9y ago
        The point is that it is not independent in there is a clear, direct path for coercion in arrangements such as that. Did Al Gore have a hand in hiring you at Apple? Probably not, no, but could they have? Could they have you fired or at least influence the board against renewing your contract if you did something they didn't like? I think the answer there is yes.
        9y ago
slg 9y ago
I did an in depth review of the research for a Human Computer Interaction class in college a couple years back before the Taylor and Francis study and the research then generally agreed with the idea that reading a print book was the best for comprehension (I tried quickly searching for the paper to pull sources, but no luck). However that difference appeared to be mostly related to form factor and not necessarily from the screen itself. Studies that used tablets showed smaller gaps in performance than studies that used computers. Studies that used e-ink e-readers showed almost no difference in comprehension. I was not able to find a single study that compared more than 2 or 3 different devices using the same methodology. If I were to design a study I would want to see a full range of tests including print books, e-ink e-readers, tablets with full color screens, traditional computer monitors, and e-ink monitors. Hopefully then you could better isolate the cause of the lower comprehension. My own hypothesis (I have a comp sci degree, so take this psychology explanation with a grain of salt) is that comprehension is more dependent on the person's approach to the technology rather than the technology itself. Books are single purpose devices. When you have a book in your hand your brain knows it is time to focus on reading. When you sit down at a computer, the brain doesn't know what to expect or to focus on. It is similar to other advice about training your brain to expect certain activities such as reserving your bedroom only for sleeping or to have a dedicated home office if you work remotely.
- Moru 9y ago
  I find it personally important how fast the device is and how easy it is to use, if I can quickly look up things in the document and find my way back. If chapter references are clickable and so on.
  - slg 9y ago
    I certainly agree with that. There are features available on each device that change their usability and that should be factored in when deciding what should be used in the classroom. However preferences for the different functionality isn't particularly interesting from a research perspective. It will vary too widely among users and use cases (e.g. novels have different feature demands than textbooks). The fact that reading comprehension varies between the devices is more counterintuitive and it isn't immediately clear why those differences exists. That is probably why most of the research on this topic focuses on comprehension.
perlpimp 9y ago
yes this: http://taylorandfrancis.com/books/ http://taylorandfrancis.com/books/ this is called conflict of interest. I would rather carry ipad air or like sized tablet anyday rather than 5kilos of books in my backpack.
- DavideNL 9y ago
  ...and of course each year they print a new version of each book with some of the content shuffled around ("improvements"), to force students to buy NEW books instead of re-using / buying second-hand.
folksinger 9y ago
Instead of testing a null hypothesis through statistical inference, a dubious approach to the scientific method for either a frequentist or Bayesian, how about an appeal to common sense experience? Out of the scope of the study in question, but do you think a device attached to the world of social media, pornography and video gaming might be more distracting than a book containing focused information? Closer to the study: even a Kindle offers the temptation of downloading another text. Also, have you been into a public high school lately and seen just how distracting these devices are in actual use, especially as they are now relied upon in place of expensive textbooks and articles? Finally, isn't it suspicious that an individual on a technology forum would defend technology? It's almost like your average technology worker has some kind of moral stake in their profession, wouldn't you say?
- totalZero 9y ago
  I have a friend who says something is "reasonable" when he can't think of a specific justification for it. I feel the same way about appeals to common sense. They rely entirely on the predisposition of the audience.
  - folksinger 9y ago
    If you have some spare time I'd be happy to have a video chat conversation about the epistomological consequences of academic studies in soft sciences like psychology, sociology and economics and how the experiences of the target audience are always key to accepting knowledge. I don't think my arguments are going to be very effective in the comment section of a web forum. (See Socrates discussing the written word with Phaedrus for the epistomological issues of discourse without active dialog.)
    - totalZero 9y ago
      I'm not really looking to argue. I'm on vacation in Ecuador. For the sake of conversation, I think your final point in the post I originally responded to is largely similar to the idea that a textbook publisher is not an unbiased source regarding the utility of textbooks. I agree with that point, and with yours. I also believe that the fundamental strength of empirical epistemology is that it liberates us to some degree from our expectations, instead saying "set up the method and do the legwork, and let the results tell you what is correct." I happen to like that methodology, for two reasons. First, empiricism allows a more open minded approach to misconceived problems. Second, if applied correctly, empiricism is the only consistently useful epistemology because it is acquired in the same practical manner as it is applied. That said, I think academia has a very low bar in general for research that is politically well-oriented, but scientifically ill-constructed. I think the peer-review system is less of a check on BS than it should be, and that there is a lot of social pressure that prevents researchers from stepping out of certain boundaries. Nowhere is this more true than in the social sciences, where there is more room to fudge facts and findings, as well as to infer and opine. So in a sense I totally agree that the target audience is always key to accepting knowledge in academia. However, knowledge and truth are not identical sets, and something can be proven true without being accepted into the corpus of knowledge. Conversely, some of the BS that gets bandied about as "knowledge" in academic circles is just untrue gibberish that helps people go to conferences or gain acceptance in a weird elitist circle of ivory tower pinheads. And then you get stuff like a textbook company publishing research saying "Nah bro textbooks are way better. Buy more of them bro."

scw 9y ago

It's in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, written by academics in the field, not by T&F itself, nor funded by them. While there are problems with the peer reviewed system, publisher interference with research results isn't typically one of them.

Fomite 9y ago

First, on your notion of bias: Taylor and Francis is owned by informa. A trivial search for informa's annual report would reveal that academic publishing makes up 45.7% of their operating profit, and 50% of that comes from subscriptions, almost all of which are digital. Further, most of their major initiatives are in digital, especially for journals which are most of their revenue. Second, on your "three studies" objection - they're looking at three separate outcomes, as they mention in the article. It's common to lump the results of multiple highly related studies in a single paper. Third, as noted by another commenter, nearly all peer-reviewed journal articles are going to be published by publishers who also have a stake in other aspect of academic publishing.

asdh432 9y ago
I highly doubt Informa is keeping TnF around as a charity cause. They need to keep doing what they do, sell books, to make corporate happy. TnF claim to publish 1,500 new titles each year. Informa isn't just eating that entire cost.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Indeed. These studies need to be done by independent researchers multiple times and published in a number of independent venues in which the publishers (who clearly have reason to tamper) have no control over the content nor the peer review selection process (again, to be performed independently).
  - Fomite 9y ago
    Journal publishers have very little control over the content or selection of peer reviewers. That's the editorial board.
    - justinjlynn 9y ago
      https://www.elsevier.com/editors/editorial-boards https://www.elsevier.com/editors/editorial-boards > Editorial board members are selected by the journal’s editor(s), with input from the publisher. hrmn.
      - Fomite 9y ago
        I'm saying in a practical sense, the publication of a single paper, and the choice of peer reviewers, is effectively not under the control of the publisher. I mean yeah, technically, Al Gore had input on whether or not I worked at Apple, because he was on the Board of Directors. But practically?
        justinjlynn 9y ago
        The point is that it is not independent in there is a clear, direct path for coercion in arrangements such as that. Did Al Gore have a hand in hiring you at Apple? Probably not, no, but could they have? Could they have you fired or at least influence the board against renewing your contract if you did something they didn't like? I think the answer there is yes.
        9y ago

slg 9y ago

I did an in depth review of the research for a Human Computer Interaction class in college a couple years back before the Taylor and Francis study and the research then generally agreed with the idea that reading a print book was the best for comprehension (I tried quickly searching for the paper to pull sources, but no luck). However that difference appeared to be mostly related to form factor and not necessarily from the screen itself. Studies that used tablets showed smaller gaps in performance than studies that used computers. Studies that used e-ink e-readers showed almost no difference in comprehension. I was not able to find a single study that compared more than 2 or 3 different devices using the same methodology. If I were to design a study I would want to see a full range of tests including print books, e-ink e-readers, tablets with full color screens, traditional computer monitors, and e-ink monitors. Hopefully then you could better isolate the cause of the lower comprehension. My own hypothesis (I have a comp sci degree, so take this psychology explanation with a grain of salt) is that comprehension is more dependent on the person's approach to the technology rather than the technology itself. Books are single purpose devices. When you have a book in your hand your brain knows it is time to focus on reading. When you sit down at a computer, the brain doesn't know what to expect or to focus on. It is similar to other advice about training your brain to expect certain activities such as reserving your bedroom only for sleeping or to have a dedicated home office if you work remotely.

Moru 9y ago
I find it personally important how fast the device is and how easy it is to use, if I can quickly look up things in the document and find my way back. If chapter references are clickable and so on.
- slg 9y ago
  I certainly agree with that. There are features available on each device that change their usability and that should be factored in when deciding what should be used in the classroom. However preferences for the different functionality isn't particularly interesting from a research perspective. It will vary too widely among users and use cases (e.g. novels have different feature demands than textbooks). The fact that reading comprehension varies between the devices is more counterintuitive and it isn't immediately clear why those differences exists. That is probably why most of the research on this topic focuses on comprehension.

perlpimp 9y ago

yes this: http://taylorandfrancis.com/books/ http://taylorandfrancis.com/books/ this is called conflict of interest. I would rather carry ipad air or like sized tablet anyday rather than 5kilos of books in my backpack.

DavideNL 9y ago
...and of course each year they print a new version of each book with some of the content shuffled around ("improvements"), to force students to buy NEW books instead of re-using / buying second-hand.

folksinger 9y ago

Instead of testing a null hypothesis through statistical inference, a dubious approach to the scientific method for either a frequentist or Bayesian, how about an appeal to common sense experience? Out of the scope of the study in question, but do you think a device attached to the world of social media, pornography and video gaming might be more distracting than a book containing focused information? Closer to the study: even a Kindle offers the temptation of downloading another text. Also, have you been into a public high school lately and seen just how distracting these devices are in actual use, especially as they are now relied upon in place of expensive textbooks and articles? Finally, isn't it suspicious that an individual on a technology forum would defend technology? It's almost like your average technology worker has some kind of moral stake in their profession, wouldn't you say?

totalZero 9y ago
I have a friend who says something is "reasonable" when he can't think of a specific justification for it. I feel the same way about appeals to common sense. They rely entirely on the predisposition of the audience.
- folksinger 9y ago
  If you have some spare time I'd be happy to have a video chat conversation about the epistomological consequences of academic studies in soft sciences like psychology, sociology and economics and how the experiences of the target audience are always key to accepting knowledge. I don't think my arguments are going to be very effective in the comment section of a web forum. (See Socrates discussing the written word with Phaedrus for the epistomological issues of discourse without active dialog.)
  - totalZero 9y ago
    I'm not really looking to argue. I'm on vacation in Ecuador. For the sake of conversation, I think your final point in the post I originally responded to is largely similar to the idea that a textbook publisher is not an unbiased source regarding the utility of textbooks. I agree with that point, and with yours. I also believe that the fundamental strength of empirical epistemology is that it liberates us to some degree from our expectations, instead saying "set up the method and do the legwork, and let the results tell you what is correct." I happen to like that methodology, for two reasons. First, empiricism allows a more open minded approach to misconceived problems. Second, if applied correctly, empiricism is the only consistently useful epistemology because it is acquired in the same practical manner as it is applied. That said, I think academia has a very low bar in general for research that is politically well-oriented, but scientifically ill-constructed. I think the peer-review system is less of a check on BS than it should be, and that there is a lot of social pressure that prevents researchers from stepping out of certain boundaries. Nowhere is this more true than in the social sciences, where there is more room to fudge facts and findings, as well as to infer and opine. So in a sense I totally agree that the target audience is always key to accepting knowledge in academia. However, knowledge and truth are not identical sets, and something can be proven true without being accepted into the corpus of knowledge. Conversely, some of the BS that gets bandied about as "knowledge" in academic circles is just untrue gibberish that helps people go to conferences or gain acceptance in a weird elitist circle of ivory tower pinheads. And then you get stuff like a textbook company publishing research saying "Nah bro textbooks are way better. Buy more of them bro."