Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-l] More Difficult to Read Text Leads to Better Retention #3



Some subscribers to Phys-L and Physoc 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. kThe abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/b0qham>

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>.