Ready the pitchforks?

[Lin2412]

Sorry e-reader fans -- several studies have suggested that reading in print leads to superior comprehension and retention compared to reading on a screen. This suggests that trickier materials or books you hope to read more carefully should be read on paper, while the Kindle is reserved for fare you intend to skim or read purely for pleasure.

I still think it varies from person to person.

(Original Article from Huff post)

[howyoudoin]

The articles keep conflating data from reading experiences on e-ink and computers and phones.

Extremely shoddy work.

[GERGE]

This is the only real study: Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension

Computer screen.

I passed the paywall, this is it:

Objective
To explore effects of the technological interface on reading comprehension in a Norwegian school context.

Participants
72 tenth graders from two different primary schools in Norway.

Method
The students were randomized into two groups, where the first group read two texts (1400–2000 words) in print, and the other group read the same texts as PDF on a computer screen. In addition pretests in reading comprehension, word reading and vocabulary were administered. A multiple regression analysis was carried out to investigate to what extent reading modality would influence the students’ scores on the reading comprehension measure.

Conclusion
Main findings show that students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally. Implications of these findings for policymaking and test development are discussed.

Skimming it, it is about the use of computer screen in education. It seems it is a legit and useful study. But it is not about reading novels on a Kobo.

[meeera]

herewegoagain.com

The e-ink research was even shoddier than the reporting. Of 50 subjects, 48 of them ereading-naive.

[patrickt]

A. If I were in school I'd want paper books that I could highlight and flip back and forth and write notes in the maregins.

B. For reading for pleasure, something that doesn't seem to interest these people, I'll go with my Kindle any day.

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by patrickt

A. If I were in school I'd want paper books that I could highlight and flip back and forth and write notes in the maregins.

B. For reading for pleasure, something that doesn't seem to interest these people, I'll go with my Kindle any day.

This.

[Demingy]

I used ebooks for most of my college courses (some created by me from the paper version was the only one available). I loved being able to search the book and my annotations, the ability to highlight and add notes while also having the option to turn them off if I didn't want to be distracted by them, and really loved having a much lighter bag.

I guess it is possible that I may have retained more using the paper version instead, but I didn't have any problems with the level of retension that I did have. It worked for me.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by patrickt

A. If I were in school I'd want paper books that I could highlight and flip back and forth and write notes in the maregins.

B. For reading for pleasure, something that doesn't seem to interest these people, I'll go with my Kindle any day.

Going back and looking at some of my text books, the only thing I wrote in the margins were doodles of space ships.
Maybe'd have have done better with an ereader.

[The Old Man]

I find the "my clippings" feature on the Kindle better than notes I ever made in a book.

[harriska2]

I also prefer textbooks (nonfiction) in e-reader format. I use goodreader to read the OCR'd PDF, make notes, highlights, then can export the annotations. Easy peasy. A 12 inch device might be better for this but my 9.7 inch ipad is just fine.

[pidgeon92]

[QuantumIguana]

I think it is more like Whack-A-Mole than beating a dead horse. We whack that mole of questionable studies because they keep being presented again and again. Reading off a computer screen isn't the same as reading from an e-reader. Before I tried a Kindle, I assumed it would be like reading from a computer screen.

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. They also performed almost twice as poorly when asked to arrange 14 plot points in the correct sequence.

They really dug to find some difference and overplay that difference while glossing over the similarities.

[crossi]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I think it is more like Whack-A-Mole than beating a dead horse. We whack that mole of questionable studies because they keep being presented again and again. Reading off a computer screen isn't the same as reading from an e-reader. Before I tried a Kindle, I assumed it would be like reading from a computer screen.



They really dug to find some difference and overplay that difference while glossing over the similarities.

I think it might be true though, that bit. I tend to remember events in books not only by what had happened before or after in the text, but where it was physically in the book. Like I would know that something happened about half way through and if I wanted to find it I would open it about half way and start skimming. With ebooks I don't really have a feel for how long it is or where I am in the book. I know I could look for page numbers or locations but I just don't. Even so for fiction I greatly prefer ebooks.

[dickloraine]

I don't know if I remember everything, but the study showed a small difference in ordering events by time. Most other aspects were very similar, sometimes the ereading slightly better. So you can't say paper is always better, but in remembering the timing.
Another interesting question about all this studies would be, what effects (if they're really there) are natural and which are tainted by behavior and learning. It is not to far fetched to think, that if you learn reading in a specific way and medium, your brain adapts to it the best it could. For example using physical informations in addition.

[DiapDealer]

Isn't it possible that, for everyone but the two participants (in the eink research) who were accustomed to reading on eink devices, the "check me out, I'm actually reading on a wizzbang gizmo!" factor might have skewed results? I know it wasn't a seamless transition from paper to electronic for myself. It took a while for the device to "go away." Doesn't make sense to me to try and form any permanent conclusions on retention/comprehension from a test where forty-eight of the fifty participants were still in the process of acclimating to the concept.