IS Human flourishing
likely in the ICT WORLD
OF THE FUTURE?
Evidence from Electronic
Reading Research

Randy connolly
Professor, dept. computer science
Mount royal university
Calgary, canada

Janet miller
Associate Professor, Dept. student counselling
Mount royal university
Calgary, canada

Within psychology and philosophy
there has been renewed interest
in the idea that human life needs
not only objective welfare but
subjective well-being

The good life as a concept has redeveloped into the related idea of been
Human flourishing

S l Surely ICT ICTi
improves
Human flourishing

the role that ICT has
played in the
transformation of a
key part of human
flourishing:

Surely ICT+reading (Internet,
eBooks) has improved human
flourishing!

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”

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

flourishing?

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

flourishing
is a measure of an
individual’’s judgments about
their functioning in life rather
than just their feelings
towards life .

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 .

Flourishing and ICT
Evidence from reading research

electronic
Reading comprehension

Are there differences in
the reading experience
between paper and
?
p p
screen?

There is evidence that YES
readers’ comprehension levels are significantly
lower when reading materials on the screen in
comparison to reading paper materials

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.

Why
are comprehension levels lower?

Scanning while
Consuming electronic text

Research into actual behavior
when consuming text online
provides clear explanation for
diminished comprehension

Early research
into web usability quickly uncovered a
very important fact about how people
actually read on the web

How long do you spend
visiting a web page?
You’re looking at the
answer

The evidence for this is very strong
It has been empirically verified via
server records, eye tracking in labs, and
f
y g
monitoring software.

The science for this is very
well validated empirically
Users are reading at best 20% of the
text on a web page.

Are academics
any different?

Reading time:
Paper
10-15 min

Reading time:
acrobat pdf
1-2 min

users rarely have even
remotely accurate insight
into their actual scanning
behaviors

Academic’s self-assessment
of
their pdf reading
time
5-10 min

multitasking
and
distraction

One absolutely vital feature
of most current electronic reading
devices is that they contain within them
substantial potential for distractibility.

This potential distractibility
lowers comprehension levels and lowers
task completion probabilities.

It is becoming progressively more common
for people to multitask, especially in
regards to different media technologies.

Who cares?
Some have argued that
younger digital generation
can multitask successfully

The evidence tells a different story

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),

the evidence is very consistent
Heavy media multitaskers (of any age)
have lower grades,
less self-regulation,
lower motivation levels,
and lowered learning

So is this just
something that
only those young
kids are doing?

How frequently will this person switch
her attention between devices?

About every 2 to 5 seconds
Attention lengths of 5 seconds for laptop,
and 2 seconds for TV

Multi-tasking on one device?
Task switch happens about every 19 seconds

Are we aware of
how frequently we
task switch?

Test subjects underestimated
their attention switches by

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)

Every task switch when multitasking
has a measurable cognitive time cost.

Since we seem to be
increasing our
preference for
frequent task switching
over sustained attention,

we are spending more and
more of our cognitive
processing handling ICT
task switching,
which is measurably
degrading cognitive
performance and
efficiency

Flourishing
and
reading
So what’s the connection?

Critical thinking is essential
to human flourishing ….

…. and the evidence about comprehension,
distractibility, and scanning all point to a
Decrease in critical thinking

Critical thinking?

scanning
multitasking

We worry that we are in the midst
of a vicious cycle.

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 …

Can we do?

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.

Do we do this?

philosophy

critical thinking must
be learned through
actively engaging
students in the
investigation of
information

And by forcing
students to read for
depth, which is a
slower, less
distracted form of
reading.

the field of Positive
psychology (which has been
focused on the idea of human
flourishing) can also be of
help.

Mindfulness refers to
a state of being
attentive to what is
taking place in the
present.

Empirical evidence links
Mindfulness to less
distraction, more focus,
and more deliberation in
completing tasks.

is this almost over?

Is flourishing in the ICT
world of the future
likely? Well, it depends.

Ict flourishing will
become only a
marketing fantasy if we
continue in the present
way …

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
….

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.

Thank you Janet miller
Randy connolly