Read more.Quote:
Traditional book readers are more capable at recalling the plot of a story.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Traditional book readers are more capable at recalling the plot of a story.
So, one study, of just 50 readers, and one 'book' (of 28 pages) and 'academics' extrapolate conclusions about the comprehensive abilities of millions of readers, based on the ability to remember what happened, and when, in that one story???
God, (if He/She/It) exists, save me from hapless academics.
Can't someone think of some useful for them to do, or at least, teach them to do it well?
Maybe many of that 50 don't remember the story well because it bored them? Maybe there was a male/female bias in the story type compared to readers, maybe that bias was young/old, or cultural background, or ....
Also, personally, I read novels to be entertained, and I really don't care if I remember the details of the plot chronology afterwards. And I'm a Kindle reader with about 45 years of extensive paperback reading, and a personal library including about 3500 paperbacks. How do I fit into the Kindle versus 'real' book scale, given that on my bedside table, there's a Kindle and ..... hang on, let me count ..... 21 paperbacks in my "to read" pile.
This is just fall out from the Amazon/Hachette battle, there is very little actual science here and it just comes across as a paid for news article, there is merit in these studies but this is pure media war between two business's.
Wow that is a stupid study.
Reading a PDF on a computer screen is nothing like using an eBook reader so is completely irrelevant to the headline story.
I, for one, read far more than I ever did and surely that's the important thing, not whether I can remember whether some event happened before another.
I have only tried an e-reader for history books that I could not afford in hardback and find knowing whether some event happened before another quite important.Quote:
Originally Posted by probedb
But that's very different plot chronology, in a paperback novel. Nor do all history books present data in a strict time-line fashion. And if the reader trying to learn can't assimilate data into an overall picture, with historical data, you're going to hit a major problem right about the time yoh finish the first book and start the second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian224
But this study was, allegedly, about plot comprehension, and I'd bet a tiny proportion of Kindle users are using them for academic books. The vast bulk will be reading, primarily, novels, or other paperback-style literature like, maybe, biographies.
Mind you, Kindles (etc) have some academuc advantages, too, not least, searching whole documents.
Wow hexus you really have suprised me.... why have you even published this article? Its clearly a poor study as those 50 people will have varying mental capacity so its hardly a reliable study.
Im for kindle, love mine and the handy thing is searching and LOOKING up words because quite frankly when I used to read paperback there were several words in books I didnt understand but I would never remember to look them up, thankfully I dont need to do this anymore as the kindle has a dictionary....
The key word in the report is significant, if it's been used correctly then the author, within the bounds of sample size and bias, has found a provable statistical corrolation.
Without reading the original study we can't seperate the actual claims from how the reporter has interprepted the claims which is unfortunate as this could be a fascinating study if scaled up.
Same old argument that comes up with every advance in how we experience entertainment media.
They didn't even do the test properly. The same 50 people should have read a story in a book and on an e reader, then be tested on both. Not half and half
What a sorry excuse for a study. That has to be politically/financially motivated.
Agree with what you're saying - I actually find reading a PDF on a computer screen quite "remote" these days - not the same sense of involvement that you get with a good novel, whether that be on Kindle or proper book.Quote:
Originally Posted by probedb
Actually, maybe this is an obvious point, but could it be that the chosen story didn't involve/grab the reader? I know that I have problems remembering the plot etc from a poor story, yet one that "grabs" me I can still remember well. As an example I read a poor Dale Brown story in February and can't remember much about it, yet other books by the same author that I've read years ago I can recollect well enough to summarise for someone who hasn't read them.
Oh, and I take issue with the idea of physical cues being a factor (turning pages for a real book). I don't know about other folks but I don't have any kind of autoscroll switched on in my Kindle (if that feature actually exists!), so I've got to reach for the page advance button anyway - and I don't see that being different to having to flip a page.
Interesting article Hexus, mainly for the illustration of how some appallingly bad "science" is out there, and moreover for the resulting discussion here.
I could readily believe that I retain less when reading books on my kindle compared with paper versions, but that would have more to do with me reading about 4-5 times as many books a year since getting an ereader because it is just so much easier to fit in reading when your current book is thin enough and light enough to fit in a jacket pocket and always have it with you and also has your next book ready and waiting too.