More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention #3

Some blog followers might be interested in a post "More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention #3" [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:

***************************************

ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Re: More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention" [which called attention to the article "Fortune Favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Effects of Disfluency on Educational Outcomes" by Oppenheimer et al. (2010)], EDDRA2's Keith Baker made some points upon which I commented in "Re: More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention #2."

In response to the latter post, SCListserv's Owen White wrote (paraphrasing): "Wikipedia has an article on the readability and legibility of typography at http://bit.ly/cgrVQe . . . . I'd always been taught that serif fonts (e.g., Times Roman -- fonts with little 'tails' at the ends of letters) is better for 'body text' since it provides more clues to critical distinctions; lower case 'l', for example, in contrast to upper case 'I' -- can you tell the difference in this sans-serif font?"

Similarly, JourNet's Gerald Grow had questioned Oppenheimer et al.'s designation of certain fonts as "easy" and "hard" to read in response to "Re: More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention." Grow wrote (paraphrasing): "At the link http://longleaf.net/hardtype.pdf I've posted some text set in type similar to that used in the study -- passages set in 16-point Arial, 12-point Comic Sans at 75%, and 12-point Didot (I didn't have the similar Bodoni on hand) at 75%. Print it out (an on-screen version will not provide an accurate comparison) and take a look: Is 16-point Arial really easy to read? That's debatable. . . . . . It's not clear that the study convincingly compared an easy-to-read font with a hard-to-read font. Perhaps examining the printed materials used in the study will help clear up this question."

***************************************

To access the complete 11 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/a5Yi4S .

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands

President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net>

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 03 November 2010.]

Hake, R.R. 2010. "More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention #3," online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/a5Yi4S . Post of 3 Nov 2010 11:14:54 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Oppenheimer, D.M., C.D. Yauman, & E.B. Vaughn. 2010. "Fortune Favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Effects of Disfluency on Educational Outcomes," online at http://bit.ly/cATcBK .

Re: More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a post "Re: More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention #2" [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:

****************************************

ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Re: More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention" EDDRA2's Keith Baker wrote:

"Bad fonts slow down reading which means that info has longer to get processed into long term memory which improves memory of the info. . . . . . . CP Snow was right. There is no need for physicists to reinvent the wheel psychology discovered 100 years ago if there is good education."

Two points:

1. I wonder if Baker could tell us what he thinks C.P. Snow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Snow was right about?

2. Regarding physicists "reinventing the wheel psychology discovered 100 years ago":

a. The article "Fortune Favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Effects of Disfluency on Educational Outcomes" [Oppenheimer et al. (2010)] was authored by psychologists at Princeton and Indiana University.

b. Considering the probable insignificance of "difficult-to-read fonts" to higher-order learning relative to "interactive engagement" [Benezet (1935, 1936), Hake (1998a,b)], is the emphasis on fonts actually a flat tire rather than a wheel? - see the signature quote.

****************************************

To access the complete 12 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/cmFMZr .

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands

President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“It seems that in education, the wheel (more usually the flat tire) must be reinvented every few decades.” - Lee Shulman, paraphrased by the late Arnold Arons (1986, p. 24)

REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 31 October 2010.]

Arons, A.B. 1986. "Conceptual difficulties in science," in M.R. Rice, ed. Proceedings of the Chicago conferences on liberal education, No. 1: Undergraduate education in chemistry and physics," pp. 23-32. University of Chicago.

Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention #2," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/cmFMZr. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.