A recent comment by researcher Jakob Nielson is likely to generate a good deal of discussion among bloggers (the MacWorld version, Nielson post) and will likely generate some studies from graduate students. The topic of whether a reader benefits equally from processing content presented as a book, on a Kindle, or on an iPad certainly deserves some attention. The short version of the results – the participants read more quickly from a standard book.
Researchers are trained to be critical in considering the methodology of the research they review. We ask questions – do the results follow from the method, how might the method deliver results that could be misinterpreted, etc.
Some initial reactions of this critical nature:
Does the reporting focus on speed and not comprehension reveal anything of importance? Reading speed is quite important because of working memory limits, but the bottom line is really comprehension. The MacWorld version comments that participants “were measured for their reading speeds and story comprehension”, but I found only the data on speed were reported there. The Nielson summary indicates “Our test participants got almost all the questions right, regardless of device, so we won’t analyze this data further here.” Clearly more sophisticated assessment of comprehension is needed. It seems strange to me that a 11% deficit in speed would not be accompanied by a decline in comprehension. Perhaps excluding less capable readers was responsible for the failure to demonstrate an impact on comprehension.
What about an experience bias? What level of experience did participants have with the devices (other than the book)? Do experienced e-book users function at a higher reading rate?
I would regard a reading rate that is nearly 11% slower as a significant concern (the type of concern my wife expresses because I drive 65 on Interstates that allow 75) because time certainly matters in education. I am guessing we will see more on this topic.
