Do Readers Absorb Less On Kindles Than On Paper? Not Necessarily 105
An anonymous reader writes eBooks are great and wonderful, but as The Guardian reports, they might not be as good for readers as paper books. Results from a new study show that test subjects who read a story on a Kindle had trouble recalling the proper order of the plot events. Out of 50 test subjects, half read a 28-page story on the Kindle, while half read the same story on paper. The Kindle group scored about the same on comprehension as the control group, but when they were asked to put the plot points in the proper order, the Kindle group was about twice as likely to get it wrong.
So, is this bad news for ebooks? Have we reached the limits of their usefulness? Not necessarily. While there is evidence that enhanced ebooks don't enhance education, an older study from 2012 showed that students who study with an e-textbook on an ebook reader actually scored as well or higher on tests than a control group who did not. While that doesn't prove the newer research wrong, it does suggest that further study is required. What has your experience been with both recall and enjoyment when reading ebooks?
So, is this bad news for ebooks? Have we reached the limits of their usefulness? Not necessarily. While there is evidence that enhanced ebooks don't enhance education, an older study from 2012 showed that students who study with an e-textbook on an ebook reader actually scored as well or higher on tests than a control group who did not. While that doesn't prove the newer research wrong, it does suggest that further study is required. What has your experience been with both recall and enjoyment when reading ebooks?
Re:Something in this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, I have the same problem. I think it's because you don't see the cover of the book every time you pick it up. This would be a really easy UI fix.
Re:No difference (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it just as likely that the 28 page story bored the kindle folks half to death and they didn't bother trying to recall it.
Which doesn't explain why the ones reading it on paper act differently.
I find both effects described are plausible. It's certainly true that the human memory by associating items with physical locations. Order particularly. It's how memory experts operate using memory palaces or the method of loci. It may be that the physical nature of a book (or a shorter form) gives the brain more to hang the details of the story on. That the reader can feel the weight and size, and is repeatedly seeing the front page, and can at all times how far through the page or document or book they are.
Its also plausible that ebooks perform better as textbooks, because whilst they'll lose out on the features I mentioned above they benefit from greater efficiency with hyperlinks and searching, such that they can be a better tool for learning. (Learning being different from memorizing. It includes the concept of first understanding the material.)
Re:Something in this? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more than just the cover image and text though. A book has an individual feel. It's page size, thickness, weight, the extent to which the spine opens, the colour and texture of the paper, even the smell.
A simplistic attitude is that these things don't matter. But for memory, such details do matter. The context is at least as important as the content. For example it's a common experience that a smell can bring forth strong memories.
Maybe this had something to do with it (Score:4, Insightful)
The Elizabeth George study included only two experienced Kindle users, and she is keen to replicate it using a greater proportion of Kindle regulars. But she warned against assuming that the "digital natives" of today would perform better.