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.

More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention

Some blog followers may be interested in a post "Re: More

Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention" [Hake (2010)].

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR's Bill Goffe alerted subscribers to

an Economist report http://bit.ly/bfpdaB on an article

"Fortune Favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Effects of

Disfluency on Educational Outcomes" (Oppenheimer et al.

(2010, http://bit.ly/cATcBK ).

In research conducted both in the lab and in chemistry,

physics, English, and history classrooms, Oppenheimer

et al. found that information made "disfluent" with

difficult-to-read fonts (12-point Comic Sans MS 75%

greyscale and 12-point Bodoni MT 75% greyscale) enhanced

"learning" over more fluent information in easy-to-read

16-point Arial pure-black font.

But classroom "learning" was measured by "normal

assessment tests" which usually gauge only lower-level

learning such as rote-memorization, recipe following,

and algorithmicproblem-solving.

One might wonder, for example, if, after textbook coverage

of Newtonian mechanics, there would be an increase of

posttestscores on the conceptually oriented "Force Concept

Inventory" (FCI) [Halloun & Hestenes (1992)] for text material

with more:

(a) difficult-to-read fonts,

(b) "Fog" as measured by the "Gunning Fog Index", or

(c) structural complexity [as studied by e.g., McNamara,

Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch (1996) in "Are good texts always

better? Text coherence, background knowledge,and levels of

understanding in learning from text."]

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

To access the complete 20 kB post please click on

http://bit.ly/cZ9xHe

rrhake@earthlink.net>

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

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

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

"Easy reading is damned hard writing."

- Nathaniel Hawthorne

"The single biggest problem in communication is

the illusion that it has taken place."

- George Bernard Shaw

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better

Retention." online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at

http://bit.ly/cZ9xHe. Post of 27 Oct 2010 17:14:33-0700 to

AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract and link to the

complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.