5 Uncommon Definitions of Common Words

by Derek Spencer

One of the best ways to develop a robust vocabulary is to read, read, read. The more you read, the more likely it is you'll come across words you've never seen — or learn new meanings for words you already know. Here are a few common words that have an uncommon meaning when used in certain contexts. Sharing these with your students might be fun!

1. Depend (v.) — to hang or be suspended from something

Example sentence: "The locket depended from a delicate chain slung 'round the dowager's slim neck."

I was made aware of this meaning of "depend" while reading a William Gibson novel. It stuck with me.

Does it Matter Whether You Read Print or Digital?

by Derek Spencer

Last Friday I wrote a little commentary about a Mind/Shift post extolling the virtues of "deep reading" and questioning whether this sort of engagement with text can occur when reading on electronic devices. I quoted this paragraph:

A growing body of evidence suggests that online reading may be less engaging and less satisfying, even for the “digital natives” for whom it is so familiar. Last month, for example, Britain’s National Literacy Trust released the results of a study of 34,910 young people aged eight to sixteen. Researchers reported that 39% of children and teens read daily using electronic devices, but only 28% read printed materials every day. [. . .] The study also found that young people who read daily only onscreen were nearly two times less likely to be above-average readers than those who read daily in print or both in print and onscreen.

. . . and then asked the question that came to mind: What, exactly, were the students in this study reading on their electronic devices? Novels? Tweets? News articles? Facebook posts? YouTube comments?

A recent article in The Atlantic details a study that attempts to determine whether there is a correlation between reading comprehension and the medium on which the words are displayed. Check it out (it's a quick read), then come on back.

. . .

Welcome back! How've you been? Great to see you again.

From reading the article, you now know that the experiment cited in The Atlantic asked 90 college students to read five fiction and five nonfiction passages. All of these passages were at a high school reading level. These passages were displayed on either paper, an e-ink Kindle, or a computer monitor. After reading, students were tested on their ability to "extrapolate and draw conclusions from what they had read." Students, on average, correctly answered 75% of these multiple-choice questions.

The Atlantic article posits that this study implies that the medium doesn't affect comprehension or the ability to draw conclusions from a reading. But (and there's always a 'but', isn't there?) . . .

The study examined only 90 college students, which is a rather small sample. With a sample of that size, the 75% accuracy noted in the study comes with a margin of error of ± 10.33 percentage points. This means that if we extend the results of this study to the entire population of college students, we can be 95% confident the range of student performance will be between 64.67% and 85.33%.

A range of 20.66 percentage points is, well, huge. When I was in high school, a passing grade was anything over 70%, and an 'A' was 93% and above. The range here is wide enough to cover the difference between an 'A' and a 'D' in my high school. It's wide enough to cover the difference between receiving a 'C' and failing.

So yes, while this study does seem to imply that there is little difference between reading texts in print versus on electronic devices, it's not nearly accurate enough to say we can claim (with a high level of confidence) that the medium doesn't affect comprehension. It's going to take a study with a much larger sample size to convince me of that — and I hope one follows, because reading on electronic devices is only going to become more prevalent.

Concerning these findings, however, I would encourage you to season them with a healthy dash of skepticism.

Thanks for reading!

Derek Spencer is a Marketing Communications Associate at Prestwick House. He owns a Kindle (e-ink, not full-color) and has used it to read fiction and nonfiction titles alike into the wee hours of the morning. He hasn't noticed a difference in his ability to comprehend texts, but he also doesn't believe that anecdotal evidence should be used to make statements about entire populations.

On "Deep Reading" and Electronic Devices

by Derek Spencer

I think we can all agree that the practice of "deep reading" — the kind of reading that takes time, engages the emotions, and makes you think about important issues — is important for personal growth. When we read deeply we immerse ourselves in the writer's words and envision ways in which we can relate what we're reading to our own lives, to the lives of those we care for, and to the world at large.

In a post on Mind/Shift, Annie Murphy Paul alerts us to the differences between deep reading and the reading we do on the web, as well as to how these differences might be influencing the reading proficiency of students who are doing most of their reading on digital devices.

A choice quotation from the article:

A growing body of evidence suggests that online reading may be less engaging and less satisfying, even for the “digital natives” for whom it is so familiar. Last month, for example, Britain’s National Literacy Trust released the results of a study of 34,910 young people aged eight to sixteen. Researchers reported that 39% of children and teens read daily using electronic devices, but only 28% read printed materials every day. [. . .] The study also found that young people who read daily only onscreen were nearly two times less likely to be above-average readers than those who read daily in print or both in print and onscreen.

The last line of that quotation is particularly troubling. However, there's no mention of what these young people are reading on their electronic devices. Are they reading news articles? Youtube comments (notoriously caustic and poorly written)? Tumblr posts? Tweets? Facebook status updates? Works of literature? Might the quality of what they're reading be a factor in at least some of this study's findings? Does reading Things Fall Apart on a Kindle Paperwhite rather than paper negatively impact the reader's ability to engage with the text? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I think they're worth asking.

One thing I don't question at all is Paul's conclusion:

There’s another reason to work to save deep reading: the preservation of a cultural treasure. Like information on floppy disks and cassette tapes that may soon be lost because the equipment to play it no longer exists, properly-educated people are the only “equipment,” the only beings, who can unlock the wealth of insight and wisdom that lie in our culture’s novels and poems. When the library of Alexandria was lost to fire, the scarce resource was books themselves. Today, with billions of books in print and stored online, the endangered breed is not books but readers. Unless we train the younger generation to engage in deep reading, we will find ourselves with our culture’s riches locked away in a vault: books everywhere and no one truly able to read them.

You can read the full text of Paul's post here (and it's definitely worth checking out):

Mind/Shift: "The Case for Preserving the Pleasure of Deep Reading"

Thanks for checking out our blog!

Derek Spencer is a Marketing Communications Associate at
Prestwick House. He's been known to pick up a book in the gloaming and relinquish it only upon reluctantly meeting the sun's luminous glance.