4 ms·

there's no evidence on scientific pedagogic literature that "analog ways" are better than digital when you control variables like "your kid being able to open a

by luqtas 6mo ago

there's no evidence on scientific pedagogic literature that "analog ways" are better than digital when you control variables like "your kid being able to open a tab to watch a non-related Youtube video". you can't use your sample of 10 kids to say anything, nor use poor journalism done into the topic, which cites single research with less than thousand participants and bias from the author by other scientists on the field no meta-analysis done into this topic could conclude anything beyond the digital medium being a bit more efficient on reading speed. and these studies do not account when comparing one way to the other on the plethora of ways a digital medium can expand knowledge (videos, gifs, images, interactive visualizations and so on)

FarmerPotato 6mo ago
You assert a pretty strong view, on what basis? but your hypothesis is directionally wrong, as found in these trials: Screen readers take longer. Feis A, Lallensack A, Pallante E, Nielsen M, Demarco N, Vasudevan B. Reading Eye Movements Performance on iPad vs Print Using a Visagraph. J Eye Mov Res. 2021 Sep 14 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8557948/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8557948/?utm_source... Another https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~srikur/files/HCII_reading.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~srikur/files/HCII_reading.pdf?ut... Tangential: One study finds few significant effects of disruptions on just on-screen reading, no printed books.. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987964/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.... Cited in Card Catalog , Hana Goldin, "What scrolling did to reading" here: https://open.substack.com/pub/cardcatalogforlife/p/what-scrolling-did-to-reading https://open.substack.com/pub/cardcatalogforlife/p/what-scro...
- luqtas 6mo ago
  you managed to gather with all the research you cited minus the blog post, less than 100 participants. if you think this is enough to conclude anything i may warn you are tripping balls i suggest you do some read, specially of effect sizes found in many studies showing "better performance" (minuscule effect size). there's a plethora of political things you'll ignore by thinking books are better. i gathered you some stuff (there are more than 200,000 people studied on the links i'm sending to you) and i truly hope you don't try to counter-argument by pointing some meta-analysis i linked concluding the analog is better. they admit the effect is minimal to negligent and if you actually consider studies done on text that user doesn't have to "scroll" but rather advance the page with a tap/pgDN and the user don't have their social media hooked on their device (muted or absent), there literally NO EVEDIENCE of any difference between paper and digital learning [0] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-16892-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-16892-001 [1] https://futureofreading.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1-s2.0-S1747938X18300101-main.pdf https://futureofreading.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1-s2.0... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10606230/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10606230/ [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13843-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13843-8 [4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772503024000288 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277250302...

by luqtas 6mo ago

FarmerPotato 6mo ago

You assert a pretty strong view, on what basis? but your hypothesis is directionally wrong, as found in these trials: Screen readers take longer. Feis A, Lallensack A, Pallante E, Nielsen M, Demarco N, Vasudevan B. Reading Eye Movements Performance on iPad vs Print Using a Visagraph. J Eye Mov Res. 2021 Sep 14 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8557948/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8557948/?utm_source... Another https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~srikur/files/HCII_reading.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~srikur/files/HCII_reading.pdf?ut... Tangential: One study finds few significant effects of disruptions on just on-screen reading, no printed books.. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987964/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.... Cited in Card Catalog , Hana Goldin, "What scrolling did to reading" here: https://open.substack.com/pub/cardcatalogforlife/p/what-scrolling-did-to-reading https://open.substack.com/pub/cardcatalogforlife/p/what-scro...

luqtas 6mo ago
you managed to gather with all the research you cited minus the blog post, less than 100 participants. if you think this is enough to conclude anything i may warn you are tripping balls i suggest you do some read, specially of effect sizes found in many studies showing "better performance" (minuscule effect size). there's a plethora of political things you'll ignore by thinking books are better. i gathered you some stuff (there are more than 200,000 people studied on the links i'm sending to you) and i truly hope you don't try to counter-argument by pointing some meta-analysis i linked concluding the analog is better. they admit the effect is minimal to negligent and if you actually consider studies done on text that user doesn't have to "scroll" but rather advance the page with a tap/pgDN and the user don't have their social media hooked on their device (muted or absent), there literally NO EVEDIENCE of any difference between paper and digital learning [0] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-16892-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-16892-001 [1] https://futureofreading.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1-s2.0-S1747938X18300101-main.pdf https://futureofreading.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1-s2.0... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10606230/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10606230/ [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13843-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13843-8 [4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772503024000288 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277250302...