Powered by Guardian.co.ukArtikel iki judul “Apa maca lan nulis ing kertas bisa luwih apik kanggo otak” iki ditulis dening Tom Chatfield, kanggo theguardian.com ana 23rd February 2015 11.10 UTC

anakku iku 18 sasi, lan aku wis maca buku karo wong wiwit lair. Aku ngomong "maca", nanging Aku pancene ateges "looking ing" - ora kanggo sebutno tangane, nempel, mbuwang, cuddling, chewing, lan kabeh liya manungsa cilik seneng apa. Swara suwene nem sasi, sanadyan, sampun dipunwiwiti ora mung kanggo katon nanging uga kanggo ngenali sawetara aksara lan angka. Piyambakipun nyebut ibukutha Y a "yak" sawise Gambar ing lawang kamar kang; ibukutha H punika "Hedgehog"; ibukutha K, "Kangaroo"; lan ing.

Reading, kados ngandika, punika kegiatan enom ing syarat-syarat evolusi. Manungsa wis ngandika ing sawetara wangun kanggo atusan ewu taun; kita lair karo kemampuan kanggo ndarbeni wicara etched menyang neurones kita. Nulis wiwitan, Nanging, metu mung 6,000 taun ago, lan saben tumindak kang maca tetep versi apa anakku iku learning: Ngenali spesies khusus saka obyek fisik dikenal minangka aksara lan tembung, nganggo sirkuit syaraf padha digunakake kanggo ngenali wit, mobil, kéwan lan kothak telephone.

Iku ora mung tembung lan aksara kita proses minangka obyek. teks piyambak, supaya adoh minangka pemikiran kita ngangap, sing mujur nengen fisik. Dadi ora kudu dadi ngageti sing kita nanggapi beda kanggo tembung dicithak ing kaca dibandhingaké tembung muncul ing layar; utawa sing tombol kanggo pangerten beda punika wonten ing geografi tembung ing donya.

Kanggo buku anyar dheweke, Liyane Onscreen: The Fate saka Reading ing Jagad Digital, linguistics professor Naomi Baron conducted a survey of reading preferences among over 300 university students across the US, Japan, Slovakia and Germany. When given a choice between media ranging from printouts to smartphones, laptops, e-readers and desktops, 92% of respondents replied that it was hard copy that best allowed them to concentrate.

This isn’t a result likely to surprise many editors, or anyone else who works closely with text. While writing this article, I gathered my thoughts through a version of the same principle: having collated my notes onscreen, I printed said notes, scribbled all over the resulting printout, argued with myself in the margins, placed exclamation marks next to key points, spread out the scrawled result – and from this landscape hewed a (hopefully) coherent argument.

What exactly was going on here? Age and habit played their part. But there is also a growing scientific recognition that many of a screen’s unrivalled assets – search, boundless and bottomless capacity, links and leaps and seamless navigation – are either unhelpful or downright destructive when it comes to certain kinds of reading and writing.

Across three experiments ing 2013, researchers Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer compared the effectiveness of students taking longhand notes versus typing onto laptops. Their conclusion: the relative slowness of writing by hand demands heavier “mental lifting”, forcing students to summarise rather than to quote verbatim – in turn tending to increase conceptual understanding, application and retention.

Ing tembung liyane, friction is good – at least so far as the remembering brain is concerned. Menapa malih, the textured variety of physical writing can itself be significant. Ing a 2012 study at Indiana University, psychologist Karin James tested five-year-old children who did not yet know how to read or write by asking them to reproduce a letter or shape in one of three ways: typed onto a computer, drawn onto a blank sheet, or traced over a dotted outline. When the children were drawing freehand, an MRI scan during the test showed activation across areas of the brain associated in adults with reading and writing. The other two methods showed no such activation.

Similar effects have been found in other tests, suggesting not only a close link between reading and writing, but that the experience of reading itself differs between letters learned through handwriting and letters learned through typing. Add to this the help that the physical geography of a printed page or the heft of a book can provide to memory, and you’ve got a conclusion neatly matching our embodied natures: the varied, nuntut, motor-skill-activating physicality of objects tends to light up our brains brighter than the placeless, weightless scrolling of words on screens.

Akeh cara, this is an unfair result, effectively comparing print at its best to digital at its worst. Spreading my scrawled-upon printouts across a desk, I’m not just accessing data; I’m reviewing the idiosyncratic geography of something I created, carried and adorned. But I researched my piece online, I’m going to type it up onscreen, lan nonton bakal seneng lan lingkungan onscreen tinulis dirancang kanggo hadiah résonansi: geografi a, konteks. Layar ing paling awon nalika padha Kapi lan nangisi kertas. Ing paling apik sing, lagi soko free kanggo melu lan ngaktifake pikiran pemikiran kita ing cara undreamt abad kepungkur.

ndhuwur kabeh, dadi misale jek kula, kita kudu nglirwaaken pemanggih sing ana mung siji cara maca, utawa sing teknologi lan kertas sing melu ing sawetara perang implacable. Kita lagi cukup Bejo duwe loro akeh poto-kawruh lan kesempatan kanggo nggawe opsi kita minangka Pas kanggo maksud sabisa - minangka lunyu lan ditelusuri utawa alon karo gesekan minangka panjaluk wusana.

Aku ora bisa mbayangno memulang anakku maca ing omah tanpa buku fisik, nyerat utawa kertas. But I can’t imagine denying him the limitless words and worlds a screen can bring to him either. I hope I can help him learn to make the most of both – and to type/copy/paste/sketch/scribble precisely as much as he needs to make each idea his own.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published liwat Guardian News Feed plugin kanggo WordPress.

22227 0