{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"The Knowledge Architects: Building Wisdom in the Information Age","title":"Episode 20 | Deep Reading vs. Skimming","html":"","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":1322,"description":"Episode SummaryYou open an article. You scroll halfway down. You realize, with a faint embarrassment, that nothing has stuck. Your eyes moved. The page scrolled. The phone never even buzzed. And yet the words did not arrive. That experience, repeated billions of times a day, is the empirical signature of one of the most studied questions in twenty first century cognitive science: what happens to comprehension when we read on a screen instead of on paper?In this episode, we trace twenty five years of research on the so called screen inferiority effect, from the largest meta analyses to Jakob Nielsen's F pattern, from Maryanne Wolf's deep reading brain to Rakefet Ackerman's metacognitive account. The headline finding is small but real. The deeper lesson is that the medium effect is mostly a stance effect: screens do not destroy comprehension, hurry does. The threat to the deep reading brain is not the device. It is the habit the device tends to invite.Key Topics CoveredMaryanne Wolf and the constructed reading brain: why nothing about reading is biologically guaranteedThe shallowing hypothesis and what evidence does and does not support itThe Delgado et al. (2018) meta analysis: 54 studies, 171,055 participants, Hedges's g = 0.21The three moderators that matter more than the headline number: time pressure, text genre, year of publicationIndependent confirmation by Clinton (2019), Kong et al. (2018), Singer and Alexander (2017)Why the medium effect is small for narrative texts and largest for expository onesJakob Nielsen's 1997 observation that web users scan rather than readThe 2006 F pattern eye tracking result and its variations (layer cake, spotted, commitment patterns)Weinreich et al. (2008): 17 percent of web pages viewed under 4 seconds, only 4 percent over 10 minutesZiming Liu's 2005 self report study on changing reading habitsThe Ackerman and Goldsmith (2011) metacognitive miscalibration findingLauterman and Ackerman (2014): a deeper processing prompt...","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/FqjMDaQUSm1bYfkwwD6aDUnSGdwLjCiheWhxBb00zow/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS84YjIz/YzkwMzlmNGM5YmEw/NTJkOGYyMTk0YTMw/ZWM0Zi5wbmc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}