The role that information and computing technology (ICT) plays in improving human flourishing is not always clear. This presentation examines current research on one aspect of ICT, namely electronic reading, to demonstrate that in this case the ICT in question may actually diminish flourishing. It begins with an overview of the idea of flourishing in positive psychology, and then presents research on electronic reading comprehension, multitasking and distraction, and online scanning behaviors. The paper then makes an argument about the close connection between reading and flourishing, and then concludes by hypothesizing that mindful‐based reading practices may mitigate some of the worst features of electronic reading.
3. Janet miller
Associate Professor, Dept. student counselling
Mount royal university
Calgary, canada
4.
5. Within psychology and philosophy
there has been renewed interest
in the idea that human life needs
not only objective welfare but
subjective well-being
6. The good life as a concept has redeveloped into the related idea of been
Human flourishing
14. However it is always a mistake
“to assess the impact of a technology on
the basis of inference from capabilities
instead of on the basis of evidence”
15. If we do examine the evidence
we will see that the intrusion of ICT into
reading is NOT improving human
flourishing but doing the opposite
17. Eudaimonism True well-being (eudaimonia) is
achieved when an individual lives a
life in which he or she strives to
develop and perfect their capabilities
within a context of objective welfare
18. flourishing
is a measure of an
individual’’s judgments about
their functioning in life rather
than just their feelings
towards life .
19.
20. flourishing
Within positive psychology
flourishing has been subjected
to experimental investigation
and there does appear to be
mounting evidence that
eudaimonic flourishing is a
vital constituent of both
happiness and mental health .
24. There is evidence that YES
readers’ comprehension levels are significantly
lower when reading materials on the screen in
comparison to reading paper materials
25. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext
reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3).
Eveland Jr, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural
isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load?: Learning from the web
versus print. Communication Research, 28(1).
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment. Journal of
Documentation, 61(6).
Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., Epstein, I., & Fayard, P. (2003). Effects of
online reading on popular science comprehension. Science
Communication, 25(2).
k Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2 2) 2012). ki Taking di reading h i
comprehension
exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts
under time pressure. Computers in Human , Behavior28(5)
Ji, S. W., Michaels, S., & Waterman, D. (2014). Print vs. electronic readings
i ll C t ffi i d i d l i Th I t t
in college courses: Cost-efficiency and perceived learning. The Internet
and Higher Education, 21.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on
paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension.
International Journal of Educational Research.
43. One absolutely vital feature
of most current electronic reading
devices is that they contain within them
substantial potential for distractibility.
49. Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between
multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2),
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2011). Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent 505-514.
l i i d C b h l h i d
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students
really multitask? an experimental study of instant messaging while
reading. Computers & Education, 54 (4)
television and computer usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 14(9).
Yeykelis, L., Cummings, J. J., & Reeves, B. (2014). Multitasking on a
Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2012). Mobile media use,
multitasking and distractibility. International Journal of Cyber Behavior,
Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 2(3), 15-29.
y , , g , , , g
single device: Arousal and the frequency, anticipation, and prediction
of switching between media content on a computer. Journal of
Communication
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media
multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 106(37)
i d Fried, C C. B. (2 ) 2008). In-l class l laptop use and di its ff effects on d student l i
learning.
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking
hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers.
Computers & Education, 62.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of Computers & Education, 50(3),
cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4)
Aguilar-Roca, N. M., Williams, A. E., & O'Dowd, D. K. (2012). The impact of
l t f t d t f d ttit d i l l t
laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures.
Computers & Education, 59 (4)
Lee, Y., & Wu, J. (2012). The effect of individual differences in the inner and
outer states of ICT on engagement in online reading activities and PISA
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko,
A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with
technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education,
58(1).
2009 reading literacy: Exploring the relationship between the old and new
reading literacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 22 (3)
Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Measurement and evidence of computer-based
task switching and multitasking by ‘Net generation’ students.
Computers & Education, 56 (3),
50. the evidence is very consistent
Heavy media multitaskers (of any age)
have lower grades,
less self-regulation,
lower motivation levels,
and lowered learning
51. So is this just
something that
only those young
kids are doing?
59. In An overview of the evidence
researchers concluded that the
availability of ICT at home had a
direct and negative impact on reading
literacy (even after controlling for other
factors)
60.
61.
62. Every task switch when multitasking
has a measurable cognitive time cost.
63. Since we seem to be
increasing our
preference for
frequent task switching
over sustained attention,
64. we are spending more and
more of our cognitive
processing handling ICT
task switching,
which is measurably
degrading cognitive
performance and
efficiency
72. We worry that we are in the midst
of a vicious cycle.
73. As we become more and more
distracted by our ICT,
our reading comprehension
declines more and more, and
thus our ability to self-assess
our comprehension and self-regulate
our attention,
diminishes more and more …
77. There is cause for hope.
critical thinking skills are
teachable, and once learned,
they can be effectively
employed even in an online
world.
We believe that these skills
are the key to human
flourishing in the ICT
environment.
88. Is flourishing in the ICT
world of the future
likely? Well, it depends.
89. Ict flourishing will
become only a
marketing fantasy if we
continue in the present
way …
90. However, if we are aware of
the true nature of online
reading and its limitations,
and we return printed paper
from the dustbins of history
….
91. And if we make concerted
efforts to be mindful while
reading, to employ higher-level
critical thinking
skills and to apply
intellectual standards of
assessment to evaluate
what we are reading, then
flourishing is likely to
become more attainable.