Re: Learning more from harder-to-read fonts?

Jorge wrote:

> If I were to design hospital
> forms that are difficult to
> fill up, maybe people will
> pay more attention, but at
> the end of the day they will
> be exhausted.

But this is an entirely different genre, no?

Most hospital forms are usually intended for record-keeping or some =

other administrative purpose.

That doesn't mean we can't learn from them, but I don't think we often =

do ... nor would this be their primary purpose.

So, I wouldn't think the study's authors -- who, for the most part, =

are careful not to make extravagant claims about the =

"generalizability" of their findings -- would recommend designing =

hospital forms in Haettenschweiler.

(And speaking of hospital forms, there was an amusing segment a few =

weeks ago on U.S. Public Radio's _Marketplace_ about the unintended =

consequences of "disfluent" medical communications:

     originally aired on _Marketplace_, Thursday, May 12, 2011
     "What's in a drug name?"

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/12/pm-whats-in-a-dru=
g-name/

I particularly liked the comment by respondent Tom Goodenow (below the =

transcript, towards the bottom of the page):

     "(In order to minimize errors by the filling pharmacist and
     avoid confusion by patients, physicians are taught in medical
     school to indicate on the instructions line of the
     prescription the condition for which a drug is being
     prescribed; but few doctors take the time or make the effort
     to do this.)"

And I doubt that switching over to Comic Sans is going to motivate =

prescription-writing doctors any better, or enable "deeper processing" =

by pharmacists.... ;-)


> However, one of the basic
> premises is that people not
> involved in a test, but
> freely able to choose to
> read or not to read, give
> up reading quite easily if
> the text does not appear
> easy to read.

I agree. And this brings us to what I consider to be the all-important =

question of student/reader motivation.

Only Study 2 looked at motivation:

	"After the units were completed and exams were taken,
	a four-question survey was administered to test whether
	disfluency affected motivational factors. Students were
	asked to rate their responses to the following questions
	on a scale of 1=965: 'How difficult do you find the material
	in this class?' (1 =3D 'very easy', 5 =3D 'very difficult'), 'How
	do you feel about the material covered in class?' (1 =3D 'I like
	it very little', 5 =3D 'I like it very much'), 'How frequently
	do you feel confused or lost during class?' (1 =3D 'never', 5 =3D
	'all the time'), and 'How likely are you to take classes on
	this material in college?' (1 =3D 'very unlikely', 5 =3D 'very
	likely')."

with the interesting result that

	"Therefore, the survey did not reveal any liking or
	motivational differences based on fluency."

I'm willing to accept the authors' finding on this, even though I'm =

not convinced that this particular set of questions actually measures =

student motivation.

But even if we assume that it does, I still question how =

"generalizable" the authors' finding about "font manipulations" =

actually is

	"That said, fluency interventions are extremely cost-
	effective, and font manipulations could be easily integrated
	into new printed and electronic educational materials at
	no additional cost to teachers, school systems, or
	distributors. Moreover, fluency interventions do not require
	curriculum reform or interfere with teachers=92 classroom
	management or teaching styles."

	and

	"Fluency demonstrates how [small interventions] have the
	potential to make big improvements in the performance of our
	students and education system as a whole."

given that the student population for Study 2 was unusually motivated =

to begin with:

	"Two hundred and twenty-two high school students (ages 15=9618)
	from a public school in Chesterland, Ohio participated in the
	study. This school accommodates approximately 930 students
	from grades 9=9612 and reported a 98.6% graduation rate (90%
	continue onto further education) and 95% attendance rate in
	2008. Ninety-eight percent of students self-identify as
	White."

(I don't claim to know about the rest of the U.S., but such graduation =

rates would be quite extraordinary for the state of California.)

Adult readers I know (both young and old) who have trouble reading -- =

i.e., who are "disfluent" to begin with -- do not need further =

impediments, when they're trying to learn-by-reading, in order to =

stimulate "deeper processing".

The study authors also warn about this:

	"Moreover, less motivated or able students from less
	successful schools might be more inclined to give up on the
	material rather than persist and encode it more deeply (c.f.
	McNamara, Kintsch, Butler-Songer, & Kintsch, 1996). Thus,
	further research is advisable before widespread
	implementation of disfluency interventions."

Indeed, my own experience reading thousands of pages of 16th-century =

English text -- printed with minimal leading in densely-set =

Blackletter which has degraded over the centuries into its own style =

of grunge type, complete with print show-through and staining -- =

convinces me that even the most motivated reader can be all too easily =

distracted from real learning -- deep or otherwise -- by a difficult =

presentation.

Admittedly, I don't think the authors are recommending 100% immersion =

like this. Among their conclusions:

	"It is important to ascertain the point at which material is
	no longer disfluent, but instead illegible, or otherwise
	unnecessarily difficult to the point that it hinders
	learning. It seems possible that the influence of disfluency
	on retention follows a U-shaped curve, and the exact
	parameters of this function remain to be determined. With
	this in mind, the most effective disfluency manipulations
	would likely be those that are within the bounds of the
	normal variation of fonts and materials that could reasonably
	appear in a classroom."

Not sure that I know what this means, though (nor how we test for it), =

especially since both studies described here focused on relatively =

*short* texts (PowerPoint presentations and teacher handouts).


Rather than introducing more "superficial changes to learning =

materials" in order to encourage "deeper processing", I personally =

favor using rhetorically-appropriate and substantive, content-based =

cognitive triggers.

The best teaching, it seems to me, challenges us to learn by exposing =

us to strange & unfamiliar ideas and ways of thinking/seeing that =

stimulate our human curiosity.

Relying on typographic nudges that may or may not promote the =

life-long habits of collaborative inquiry & learning we're all going =

to need in order to thrive in the 21st century is not, IMO, an =

adequate substitute ... no matter how cost-effective it may be.

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
[email protected]
___________________________________________________________________

Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers: =

 [email protected]

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
 http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe

For all Information Design matters:
 http://InformationDesign.org

Problems? Write to:
 [email protected]
___________________________________________________________________