I must admit that I did not think too heavily about the matter of how the scroll has influenced, or is similar to, our current electronic formats while working through the readings. Rather, this question seemed to randomly come to mind while I was doing other things that were not even related to the course. One of the first thoughts I had on the question is that we use the word “scroll” to navigate online documents. Looking at the definition of scroll in the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the entries states:
“Originally, to move (text displayed on a screen) up or down as if it were on a scroll stretched vertically across the screen, in order to view other parts of the text….”
This seems to connect the use of the word to navigate a document to the paper scroll. Perhaps I am stating the obvious here, but it is something I have never taken a moment to consider before.
In further thinking about the comparison, the image that rises to mind is the continuous stream of row upon row of text with no breaks. I am not particularly a fan of reading anything at length on the screen for this reason and print anything that I want to read thoroughly and give my full attention to. One of the biggest reasons is that I get impatient if I don’t know where the end is. I can read an article for a few minutes and then I have to scroll to the end to find out how long it is. If I have it in print, somehow my mind can concentrate on the task at hand knowing of how much is left and how much I have read by the thickness of pages on both sides of where I am.
Another reason that I much prefer to read books over electronic is that I have a pretty good sense of physically where in a book I have read something. I have often wanted to go back and refer to something, knowing it was on the bottom on a right page, for example. With that, I can usually find what I am looking for pretty easily. I have none of that same sense with an electronic document, and would have had similar difficulty with a scroll.
What I have come to appreciate is that part of committing something to my memory includes some physical or tactile element. Also helpful is the dissecting of information into chapters, or sections. There is extra pleasure in knocking off a page of “reading” by turning a blank page between chapters, and a sense of accomplishment in finishing a chapter. In case you are wondering, I ordered every book for this course in printed version.
I have read several comments on this forum and other arenas how this younger generation is more interested in reading electronic documents. I suppose it depends on which specific generation one is referring to, but generally, I don’t share this view. I am currently teaching in a Masters program. Students will generally be in the 23 – 25 year range. I began the course by making a few hard copies of things, assuming the majority of them would prefer to read from the version posted online, but ran out every time. I now make a copy for everyone. Nobody refuses it. Similarly, the bookstore consistently runs out of textbooks for my courses as they overestimate the number of students that will opt for the electronic version. What my textbook representative tells me is that certain disciplines still see heavy preference to printed copies.
My field is accounting and there is heavy concentration of particular traits in the population that pursues this field. So it has me wondering if this preference for writing (or reading) space is connected to personality traits and/or learning styles.
I think the printed book and print, in general, certainly has and is likely to continue to decline in popularity but I don’t think it is at risk of extinction anytime soon.
References:
“scroll, v.5a.” OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2018. Web. 30 June 2018.
Anonymous
July 2, 2018 — 9:29 pm
It is interesting to see how the research on this topic has evolved over the years. Late 20th century research often concluded that electronic documents contribute to decreased reading speeds and comprehension. Research conducted in the 1980s conveyed a strong conviction that reading speed and comprehension suffered in an electronic form in contrast to the paper counterparts (Belmore, 1985; Heppner et al. 1985). I understand and empathize with the dubious, historic opinion towards electronic documents as a critique of the obvious topographic differences. With the printed text, the reader must need only contend with singular pages and a linear progression, requiring minimal navigation; electronic documents, conversely, not only utilize hypertext and multimedia, but are also platforms that experience constant change. The benefits of a printed document are easily discernable within this framework. However, it is important to mention that modern research not only refutes the claims that electronic documents have a negative impact on reading speed and recall, but proceed to state that electronic documents that “optimise hypertext and multimedia to engage students can lead to improved learning outcomes” (Walsh, 2016). Recent research contends that electronic documents have the potential to engage the 21st century learner. Particularly in today’s technology-rich era and 21st century classrooms, incorporating technology into curricula design is necessary to make learning meaningful and unique to students of this generation. As our students are immersed in new technologies and literacies, they are discovering new ways to communicate and make meaning; the curricula educators design must account for these developments of information and communication technologies. I believe that building these technological literacies into curricula is a contemporary means to teach students to communicate their thoughts and ideas with multimodal texts (Sweeny, 2010). This is not to say that the printed book is in danger of extinction, as you mention, but it does speak to the evolving state of education and literacy today.
Belmore, Susan M. (1985). Reading computer-presented text. _Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society_ 23 (1):12-14.
Gemma Walsh (2016) Screen and Paper Reading Research – A Literature Review, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 47:3, 160-173, DOI: 10.1080/00048623.2016.1227661
Heppner, F. H., Anderson, J., Farstrup, A. E., & Weiderman, N. H. (1985). Reading performance on a standardized test is better from print than from computer display. Journal of Reading, 28(4), 321-325.
Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the Instant Messaging and Text Messaging Generation: Using New Literacies to Support Writing Instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2), 121-130. doi:10.1598/jaal.54.2.4
zarah mathai
July 2, 2018 — 9:35 pm
It is interesting to see how the research on this topic has evolved over the years. Late 20th century research often concluded that electronic documents contribute to decreased reading speeds and comprehension. Research conducted in the 1980s conveyed a strong conviction that reading speed and comprehension suffered in an electronic form in contrast to the paper counterparts (Belmore, 1985; Heppner et al. 1985). I understand and empathize with the dubious, historic opinion towards electronic documents as a critique of the obvious topographic differences. With the printed text, the reader must need only contend with singular pages and a linear progression, requiring minimal navigation; electronic documents, conversely, not only utilize hypertext and multimedia, but are also platforms that experience constant change. The benefits of a printed document are easily discernable within this framework. However, it is important to mention that modern research not only refutes the claims that electronic documents have a negative impact on reading speed and recall, but proceed to state that electronic documents that “optimise hypertext and multimedia to engage students can lead to improved learning outcomes” (Walsh, 2016). Recent research contends that electronic documents have the potential to engage the 21st century learner. Particularly in today’s technology-rich era and 21st century classrooms, incorporating technology into curricula design is necessary to make learning meaningful and unique to students of this generation. As our students are immersed in new technologies and literacies, they are discovering new ways to communicate and make meaning; the curricula educators design must account for these developments of information and communication technologies. I believe that building these technological literacies into curricula is a contemporary means to teach students to communicate their thoughts and ideas with multimodal texts (Sweeny, 2010). This is not to say that the printed book is in danger of extinction, as you mention, but it does speak to the evolving state of education and literacy today.
Belmore, Susan M. (1985). Reading computer-presented text. _Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society_ 23 (1):12-14.
Gemma Walsh (2016) Screen and Paper Reading Research – A Literature Review, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 47:3, 160-173, DOI: 10.1080/00048623.2016.1227661
Heppner, F. H., Anderson, J., Farstrup, A. E., & Weiderman, N. H. (1985). Reading performance on a standardized test is better from print than from computer display. Journal of Reading, 28(4), 321-325.
Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the Instant Messaging and Text Messaging Generation: Using New Literacies to Support Writing Instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2), 121-130. doi:10.1598/jaal.54.2.4