Lauren Dawkins Rhetorical Analysis

Lauren Dawkins

September 24, 2017

The article “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens” is a scientific analysis of how reading on screens rather than reading on paper has affected our generation. Several claims are made for and against both. The article uses science to discuss how and when each are beneficial and when they are not. However in the end, we start to notice that Ferris Jabr leans more towards reading on paper based on the evidence he gives.

 

The actual author of the science based article “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens” is Scientific American while the implied author is Ferris Jabr. Both the actual and the implied author establish personal credibility by supporting their claims with evidence.The main points are not just mentioned and then left alone. They are supported by more than often more than one study. As a result, I trust the source, which is important because if the reader does not trust the source, they are not going to listen to anything either the actual or the implied author has to say. It is especially important to trust both authors in this article since it is an informative and persuasive article. Both the actual and implied author come across as very knowledgeable on the subject. This is expected since Scientific American has a good reputation for publishing developments in science for years (scientificamerican.org). Therefore, the text works to support this reputation. I was not confused or wondering how anything presented in the article was true. Immediately after a point was made, information on how this claim was tested was mentioned. According to Scientific American themselves, more than 150 Nobel laureates have written for them (scientificamerican.org). Additionally Scientific American attracts authors from different fields including world leaders, US Government Officials, and economists (scientificamerican.com). These facts support the claim that Scientific American’s reputation is a good one in the magazine industry.

The intended audience for the text are those who want to know the science behind the topic of screen versus paper. We can determine this because in the article, Ferris Jabr uses phrases such as “evidence from laboratory experiments” and “at least a few studies suggest”. A secondary audience who just want to read more about this topic but weren’t necessarily looking for the science aspect of it. Therefore, the actual audience is anyone who happens to read it. For example, someone may be scrolling through social media and stumbles upon the article or it was shared with them by a friend. Another example may be someone who was looking at articles on Scientific American and sees this article under the “Read This Next” section in the right hand margin or the “Most Popular” section on the home page. Based on the article, I can infer that both the primary and secondary audiences believe that reading is important in general. If not, they would not read the article. Secondary audience are included in this claim because they would not take the time to read the article even though their not the primary audience if they did not care about this subject. The opinions of both audiences is debatable since the subject of the article is debatable itself. We can not conclude whether or not the audiences are for reading on screen or for reading on paper just by reading the article. All we know is that the author seems to favor reading on paper.

Jabr starts the article with the story of a one year old girl whose culture has immersed her into technology and reading on screens. When given a magazine, she is not familiar with how it it works. She’s young but is already used to tapping a screen rather than flipping a page. This story grabs the reader’s attention and we wonder how much screens are affecting our lives. The large-scale purpose of this article is to inform our generation of recent impact reading on screens has had on our lives. All claims in this article are for rather than against reading on paper. Jabr uses studies and experiments to back up these claims. In the start of the article, he asks a series of questions wondering how reading on technology has affected our lives. This makes us as readers wonder how read and how it has impacted us. He says that the debate of screen versus paper still remains unsettled. (Jabr, The  Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens) According to Jabr, people read less comprehensively and slower when reading on a screen. (Jabr, The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens) Based on his research, people approach reading on a screen with a “less conducive state of mind” than when they are reading a paper book”. (Jabr, The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens) He says that one of the biggest benefits of reading on paper is that people have a sense of accomplishment that they don’t get from reading on a Kindle for example. When reading a book, you know how long the book is, how long the pages are etc. On the left hand side you can see how much you have read and on the right hand side you can see how much you have left to read. We do not get this sense of satisfaction when scrolling on a screen rather than flipping a page. He describes the reading of a paper book to be more intimate than reading on a screen. We expect a book to feel, smell, and look a certain way. They are also easier to read whereas screens “tax people’s attention”. (Jabr, The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens) Therefore, the secondary purpose is to convince the reader that reading on paper is more effective and resourceful. Another secondary purpose may be to compare and contrast the benefits of reading on paper versus reading on a screen but after all his conclusions, he decides that reading on paper is more beneficial.

Jabr’s article “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens” was published in Scientific American, a magazine that has been giving its insights on developments in science and technology for over 170 years (scientificamerican.com). Scientific American is a magazine that uses research and evidence to back up claims. The article is meant to be read when browsing scientific articles online. Surrounding the magazine, are ads suggesting articles to read next. Since the magazine has more of a scientific view on topics, the ads on the side are science based. For example, on the right hand side, the first article under the “Read This Next” section is titled “The Science of Education” with a picture of a mom and her son. Based on this we can infer that Scientific American is expecting older people who have kids to be reading this article. The next three articles are about the science of the brain and its relation to something else. Therefore we can assume that based on these four suggested articles that the writers of Scientific American are expecting people who are interested in science or more specifically the brain are the ones reading this article. The medium in which I read this article was the Web. I think the author chose this medium because throughout the article he wants you to reflect on yourself and assess how the claims he is making relate to you. In a way, there’s irony in the fact that Ferris Jabr is essentially convincing us to read on paper rather than a screen but the article was published online. Above the article, is a picture of two reading devices that resemble a Kindle or an E-reader. Since we later learn in the article that he is for reading on paper rather than on devices, it can be implied that he is trying give an example of the technology he says is “inhibiting our reading comprehension”. (Jabr, The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens) On the left hand side, there is a box with squares that have different forms of social media. It can be implied that these are ways Scientific American wants you to share this article with others. This is also ironic because they are encouraging readers of this article to share it on social media which will cause them to read it on a screen rather than in print which is what the whole article is based on. Therefore readers will more than likely interact with this text online or on social media more specifically on a phone, tablet, or computer.

The genre of this writing is an article of a science based magazine. This can be determined because Ferris Jabr uses experiments, studies, and research to back up all of his claims as to why reading on paper is more beneficial. Therefore, it can be concluded that Jabr’s article is persuasive as well as informative. For example, halfway through the article, Jabr cites a study performed in 2013 by the University of Stavanger in Norway to back up his claims that we have better reading comprehension when reading on paper. During the study, students were split in half where half read a pdf file and the other half read the text on paper. According to the results, when given multiple-choice and short answer questions after reading, the students who read on paper did slightly better. (qtd. in Jabr) To further this claim, he uses another claim in which he says that psychologists distinguish remembering something and knowing something is true. He says that remembering is recall where it came from, when, and how they learned it. (Jabr, The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens) Knowing, he says is believing something is true without question. You don’t have to recall how you know it, you just know. (Jabr, The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens) He then says that in another study performed at the University of Leicester when students were divided in half the same way and then quizzed, the students that read on paper depended on remembering and knowing while the students who read on a computer depended on remembering more than knowing. (qtd. In Jabr) It can therefore be concluded that when we read on paper we comprehend more and don’t have to think about our answers as hard. This text is similar to other scientific articles because it uses experiments as well as studies to further claims he makes. It also uses multiple studies not just one so that the article can be deemed reliable.

After reading the article, it can be concluded that Ferris Jabr, the implied author of this science based magazine is in favor or reading on paper rather than reading on a screen. His main purpose is to tell our generation that we have immersed ourselves in too much technology and how that sometimes that can be a good but not when it comes to reading. Based on this article, which is intended to be read by those who are interested in this debate, he discusses the reasons for his beliefs and evidence that supports it. The article can be deemed reliable based on Scientific American’s reputation and credibility.

 

 

References

Jabr, F. and Jabr, F. (2017). The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens. [online] Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/ [Accessed 26 Sep. 2017].

Scientific American. (2017). About Scientific American. [online] Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/about-scientific-american/ [Accessed 26 Sep. 2017].

 

Jabr And The Rhetoric of Reading

In Ferris Jabr’s article, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”, he starts with a description of a video about a one-year old girl trying to use a magazine like an iPad. Starting the paper off like this shows how much technology has influenced our way of living. In his article, Jabr uses rhetoric to talk about how printed text and online reading are just about equal, but have differences. Ferris was a staff editor at the Scientific American which he is now just a contributing writer. He has also written for The New York Times, Outside, TheNewYorker.com, Slate, Wired, and many more. He has an MA in journalism from New York University and a Bachelors of Science from Tufts University. With his background in writing, I would believe him to be a credible source for this article; he has a background in science and a lot of experience in writing. He’s written for big, well known writing companies, which would make him pretty reliable.

Jabr’s audience are those interested in science, as he published this article on the Scientific American. He uses many experimental studies as evidence; studies that include college students in science. Primary audience would includes those who study science from about 19-30. Also, those who have at least graduated high school. This article includes a lot of vocabulary that someone in middle school probably wouldn’t be able to understand and involves a lot of studies and experiments from colleges. His secondary audience would be those who have an interest in science that are older and want to keep up to date on science things that do have some sort of background education in science.

The purpose of his article is to show the main differences between print texts and online texts. He includes studies that include different online and print texts where they then have to recall information form each. Differences in each would include navigation through the texts, distractions, etc. “Mangen thinks that students reading pdf files had a more difficult time finding particular information when referencing the texts,” (qtd. in Jabr). “Surveys indicate that screens and e-readers interfere with two other aspects of navigating texts: serendipity and a sense of control.” (Fabr, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens) At the very end of his article he says, “ When it cones to intensively reading long pieces of plain text, paper and ink may still have the advantage. But text is not the only way to read.” (Jabr, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”).

His context of this article would include on the internet in Scientific American. Someone would read this for an assignment in school possibly for a science or literature class. Someone would also possibly want to read this if they wanted to research the differences between reading online and reading a paper version of a text. Someone else who might read this could just be curious about reading. Also, If I were someone who were to enjoy reading and wanted to see if reading online or a book was better.

His genre includes using hyperlinks to studies and important people. It’s in the Scientific American which can be found online on their website. There’s not very many pictures except for one which is a picture of two

ebook readers. He uses little subtitles to give an idea of what the next paragraph talks about; these include ‘Exhaustive Reading’, ‘Navigating Textual Landscapes’ and ‘Attitude Adjustments’. There’s also information about the author at the end and other works of his as well. Under the title of the article is a little sentence that gives an idea of what the article is about. There are some italics that are for the name of other texts and quotations as well. You can also share this article, which can be found at the top of the page in black and somewhat bold letters. You can also subscribe to the Scientific American which is found in a navy blue to grab your attention to get you to subscribe.

In his article, he doesn’t use much color, even the main focus of the picture is in black and white (Robert Drodz, Wikimedia Commons). The hyperlinks are in grey. His subtitles are in black and a little larger font so you can see what the next coming paragraphs are about. There are some other articles at the top of the page next to his first couple of paragraphs that kind of draw your attention to them. These articles can also be found at the bottom of the page at the end of the article.

Jabr’s use of rhetoric helps to persuade you to see his view on this topic. He uses a lot little subtle things to grab your attention and take his side on this discussion. Whether it be small or somewhat noticing, Jabr uses good rhetoric in his article.

Rhetorical Analysis of “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading”

Chris Fenzel
Dr. Licastro
Rhetorical Analysis of “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading”
This article is written by Paul La Farge. La Farge is an American novelist that has been published multiple times, is an author for nautil.us online magazine, and in this piece; discusses why we should be leaving paper text behind to focus on reading online. He starts his article with a background of how reading used to be done dating all the way back to St. Augustine; he explicitly states that reading used to be done out loud then it shifted when St.Augustine walked in on his teacher, Ambrose, and “was stunned to see him looking at a book and not saying anything” (La Farge “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading”). He is implying that this marked a change in how people read, and it is happening again with the use of laptops, phones, tablets, and just about anything other piece technology of with text. LaFarge later refers to his claim which makes his purpose for writing this article clear that it is okay to be leaving paper books to proceed to reading online and what the benefits entail. He uses a new digital book called Pry in which the reader is in a virtual reality and is the protagonist in the book as an example. He states that Pry “is the opposite of Shallow Work; its whole play is between the surface and the depth of the human mind “(La Farge “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading”). Shallow work is a book written by Nicolas Carr; a writer who is against reading online, and explains in his book how it is making us dumber. La Farge is using this statement as a counter claim to defy Carr. La Farge is using Pry as a primary example to support his claim.
He addresses his audience by using data from experiments to inform the reader of why we should be reading online. His primary audience is adults and students that subscribe to nautil.us that have a scientific curiosity and are interested but uninformed of the topic. This article is perfect for people with a scientific curiosity but are uninformed because it provides both fact and opinion on the topic of how reading online is beneficial rather than just being exclusively fact like from thescientificamerican.com, or being exclusively opinionated like Carr’s article, which makes this very informative to people just curious about the topic. For example “The cognitive load imposed by hypertext….links in a hypertext“ (La Farge “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading”). This statement exposes scientific fact on a counterclaim of his own claim, but later references a study that disproves the study he refers to in this quote. Then at the end of this article he states “ digital reading will expand the already vast interior space of our humanity” (La Farge “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading”), there is no way to prove that for certain so that statement is just his opinion on the topic. The secondary audience of this article could be students that were required to read this. I for one would have never heard of this article, even this topic, if I hadn’t been required to read this for school.
The author is definitely a credible source for both audiences. He has been published five times and has written on this topic before. Aside from ethos he also strengthens his claim in context by bolding historical quotes and important phrases to make what he is saying seem important like “Critics like to say the internet causes our mind to wander, but we’ve been wandering off all along” (La Farge “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading”). He bolds this statement because he is implying that it is just in our human nature to wander off and find something different due to curiosity. By bolding this he is allowing the reader to know that this is a key point and giving context clues. La Farge also uses different types of pictures to show how some reading used to be done compared to what it is like now to read. In one picture he shows “the book wheel”, which was how they read in some libraries. La Farge states it “allowed the reader to keep a great number of books at once, and to switch between them giving the wheel a turn” (La Farge “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading”). He then shows a picture of a kindle, which can hold an even greater number of books, to compare how far reading has come.
The website this article comes from seems to also be concerned with other worldly issues not just reading online to inform the viewer what is going on in the world around them. The viewer can see an array of different information of issues going on in the “issues” section. The site is very easily accessible with other topics in the “topic” genre, and allows you to read what other people thought of the article in the “blog” section. The article as well as the site is very formal. Not as formal as the scientificamerican.com, but also doesn’t lack the quality information that some would need to supply an educated opinion on the topic like in Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. To make you interested, above the fold there is some type of mural along with the title, then below the title they italicized “Why we shouldn’t worry about leaving print behind.” (La Farge “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading”) to show what the article is about and then gives substantial evidence throughout the article that leaving print is the best thing for the future; so La Farge has his claim already written in the title.
La Farge stands with the idea that reading online is the best way to go, while he lists both pros and cons of the subject he makes it clear where he resides on the topic. His primary audience consists of adults and students that subscribe to nautil.is that have a scientific curiosity and are uninformed on the topic. His secondary audience is compiled of students in higher level English courses in college and high school that were required to read this. The context of the article is a credible author, a sophisticated font, historical background, bolded statements, and pictures both historical and modern to compare reading in text versus reading online. There is multiple genres on this site that informs the reader of issues, tragedies, and general news on the word. All if these factors combined is being used to persuade us by LaFarge on why we should read online and stop using paper text.
LaFarge, Paul. “The Deep Space Of Digital Reading.” nautil.us, 7 Jan. 2016, nautil.us/issue/32/space/the-deep-space-of-digital-reading. Accessed 26 Sept. 2017.

Has The Internet Shaped Our Ways That We Read?

The author of the famous essay, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is by a man who technology geeks fear named Nicholas Carr. Carr is an avid writer about technology and the use of electronics in our society and culture. Carr has written for a variety of online data bases that range from The Atlantic, The New York Times, Wired, The Wall Street Journal, and many other small sources. Over the course of many years, Carr finally wrote and published four books including a home run called, “The Glass Cage: How Our Computers Are Changing Us,” (2014) which shows his readers the dependency of technology that we, as a society, have begun to show negative effects from that usage. This author has also written a well set of essays as well. Throughout his writing path, Carr was a writer-in-residence at the University of California Berkley’s journalism school and has written the blog called Rough Type, since 2005 (“Home” nicholascarr.com).

Now, with his essay, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” the target audience is an array of viewers. The primary audience is the adults of our society ranging from the late twenties all the way to the old age, as they can relate to his arguments and the differences that he faced when researching online compared to the library before the internet was easy to access. Carr also has a secondary audience. The secondary audience is the millennials, as they grew up with this type of technology surrounded by them. Today, everywhere you look, you’ll see a teenager using their cell phone. Back in the day, there wasn’t anything compared to that as cell phones like the ones today never existed or cell phones didn’t even exist at all.

Illustration by Guy Billout
The illustration presented shows how the internet owns our ways we read lately. (Illustration by Guy Billout, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

Going on, the purpose of this article was to provide the viewer both the advantages and disadvantages the internet has brought us. When it comes to his advantages, Carr provides the viewer with an example as to why he believes the internet has helped. In his article he writes, “The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes.” (Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”) He shows how with the fast-paced internet, he can find research with a click of a button. This has provided a considerable sum of time saved. Now, there is a catch that Carr expresses as well. The author has shown that with the use of Google and the internet, our minds have gotten lazy and will skim read everything they see and not gather as much information as needed. He provides an example, with himself, as how he can barely focus on even a blog post. Carr also finds the use of a friend that has the exact same problem with. In, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr quotes Bruce Friedman, an avid blogger who posts blogs about medicine. Friedman says, “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” (Quoted Friedman, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”) which shows that even the best of us struggle to now capture the idea of what we are reading online.

The title is has a larger text size to grab the reader’s attention from the barely colorful website. (theatlantic.com)

When it comes to the context, this article was written for The Atlantic in its 2008 July/August issue. The Atlantic is a publication center formed in 1857 to provided us to, “Create a distinctly American voice: to project an American stance, to promote something that might be called the American Idea.” (“History Document” theatlantic.com) Today, The Atlantic is mainly an online news source with topics ranging from business, technology, education, science, or even global news. Now, the essay that Carr wrote for The Atlantic, “Is Google Making US Stupid?” was written like a normal website as it flows with little to no breaks in between except with advertisements. Carr writes this piece (very much like a blog post) as people would view it on an electronic device and expects it to be shared over social media due to the countless, “share,” buttons scattered around. Carr will try to prove his point that many people will just skim read or get easily distracted with the small use of advertisements and pictures in his writing.

These “share” buttons appear at the bottom of the website whenever you scroll down. (share buttons, theatlantic.com)

With the user experience of The Atlantic’s website has a lot of sub-headers that provide the viewer the ultimate experience of documents. With this website, they provide the use of sections with, popular, latest, magazines, sections that are being written on like culture and technology, and areas that give hands on sharing tool. The essay provides an illustration by Guy Billout explaining that speed reading is monitored by the “Internet Police.” Carr only uses one illustration to capture how he feels about the internet taking over how we read. With the website that this essay was published in, colors don’t stand out as it is mainly a black and white surface. It feels like a book with little to no illustrations. It does provide pictures throughout the essay that is almost like propaganda to join the Atlantic.

These are the advertisements that will feature stories written on the website as well. (Advertisements, theatlantic.com)

Carr’s essay is written like a blog post, as it is mainly in Lyon text format, and flows like any blog would. With the Lyon text font, Carr uses this to “POP” the text on the website. His font size is also bigger than normal websites, causing the viewer’s eyes to be more focused on that piece of text instead of the small amount of advertisements. Even the title captures the viewer’s attention with its bold font.

Carr expresses the use of technology as a sin. He has shown that by surrounding ourselves inside of technology, we take advantage of it and will skim everything to go on with our lives. Carr is a trustworthy source when it comes to the argument of technology taking over our ways we read. For example, Carr will provide other interpretations and outsources other people’s work, like Kubrick’s A Space Odyssey to show, “the essence of Kubrick’s dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence” (Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”). With his background, Carr has expressed technology in most of his books that have won numerous awards like a New York Times bestseller (“Home” nicholascarr.com). His opinion on that the internet is making our society stupid, I find to be a fifty-fifty point of view but being lazy is a different story. Over the years, technology has risen and given our society an easier sense of reality. It has caused our minds to take advantage and only skim for the needed information. Nether less, Carr provides key points, both with stories, and other people’s opinions to the table in his essay of, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” that should lead the idea of if the internet is changing our intelligence or not, to an eventual answer.

 

Work Cited:

Billout, Guy. “Man with a Book Gets Pulled over by the Internet Police.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/. 24 Sept. 2017.

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 27 Apr. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/. Accessed 23 Sept. 2017.

Carr, Nicholas. “Nicholas Carr.” Nicholas Carr, www.nicholascarr.com/. Accessed 23 Sept. 2017.

Murphy, Cullen. “History of Atlantic Monthly.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 1994, www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/about/atlhistf.htm. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

“The Atlantic.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, www.theatlantic.com/. Accessed 23 Sept. 2017.

Ferris Jabr Has A Point

The author of “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”, is Ferris Jabr. According to his personal website “Ferrisjabr”, he is a writer from Portland, Oregon with a MA degree in journalism from New York University and a Bachelor of Science degree from Tufts University (“ABOUT”). He was a staff editor at Scientific American and he has written for other magazines, like New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker, and Outside. He seems to have a great amount of knowledge in writing and science to be able to compose this kind of article. Something else that is compelling that makes him more credible is that he went to college with Maryanne Wolf and he cites her in his article.

Maryanne Wolf, Professor of Citizenship and Public Service, Director of the Center for Reading and Language Research, and Professor in the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development at Tufts University.

He might have taken her class which brings me to believe that he has a passion for this topic of reading online versus paper. In an interview between Khalil Cassimally and Jabr, he states that his father was a physicist and would always answer his science questions about how the world works when he was younger (“An interview with Ferris Jabr”). His wonder for science started at a young age and, during the same interview, he later declares his mind was built for learning about and explaining science.

Since Jabr wrote this article for a magazine called, Scientific American, it makes sense that he wishes to grab the attention of scientists and other people interested in science. He does this by backing up his claims with experiments. He uses Anne Mangen, a college professor from the University of Stravanger for an example. She conducted a study of seventy-two tenth grade students in which half of these students read a text online and the other half read the same text on paper. The conclusion was that the students who read the text on the computer performed worse on the comprehension test than the students who had a paper copy. Jabr also uses quotes from a credible source, psychologist and scientist, Maryanne Wolf. She says that she wishes to keep the traditional experiences of reading and somehow reflect that in digital reading (“The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”). His audience would also be middle-aged, middle class, and has at least some college experience based off the advertisements in the margins.

Squarespace is a software you can download to help you build your own website.

This advertisement shows a program for starting your own website and for the most part, you need some college experience to start your own business and run it on your own. A secondary audience for Jabr’s article could be college students who are doing research. His article gives them explanations of his claim and provides many sources for them to do further research. College students want articles that are credible so that they can use them.  Jabr provides this.

Chegg is a textbook rental company based in Santa Clara, California that also gives students access to homework help, online tutoring, and matches to scholarships and internships.

There are also advertisements for college students. This one is promoting a program called Chegg which connects students to the textbooks they need for school (“Fact Sheet”).

Ferris Jabr’s main claim in this article is to compare the nature of reading online to reading in paper form. He states that he tries to explain how reading on screens is different from reading on paper and asks if we should be worried about dividing our attention between both mediums (“The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”). Throughout his article he uses evidence to explain how both devices for reading affects us. One comparison Jabr makes is that on paper texts a reader can focus on a single page of the book while recognizing how much further there is to go in the whole text. Although, when reading on a screen the reader might be continually scrolling without knowing where they are in the entirety of the text (“The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”). Jabr also claims later that we should embrace the advantages of both e-books and paper books. He states there have been successful articles online from the New York Times, Washington Post, and ESPN that rely on scrolling and could not have the same interaction with the reader in print. On the contrary, he projects that “When it comes to intensively reading long pieces of plain text, paper and ink may still have the advantage” (“The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”).

An award-winning, global magazine about current discoveries and technological innovations.

This article is located in an online magazine called Scientific American. It is an award-winning, source of information about current discoveries and technological innovations (Scientific American). There are other scientific articles to the right of “The Reading Brain” under the tab called “Read This Next”.

“Read This Next” link on the right side of the article.

Jabr possibly chose this medium because his whole article reflects reading online. It makes sense that he would post his article on the Web since online reading has become more popular in recent years. In addition, his article is not too long which goes along with his theory that people have a harder time comprehending texts online. Maybe he wanted to try to eliminate that by not making his article too long as to lose the readers interest. Jabr’s article was probably meant to be read a little more seriously, but it was not too difficult of a read that a person who studied fashion instead of science would have a problem.

“The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens” is mostly a scholarly article. More specific, it is a scientific article. It discusses a new perspective on an emerging theory which is online reading. It meets the reader’s expectations by backing his thoughts up with scientific experiments and quoting doctors and researchers.

Photo by: Robert Drózd

Jabr’s article uses visual rhetoric to help get the audience thinking about reading and what devices we use to read. The picture you see when you first open the article is of two Kindles, one with a keyboard and one without. The image is black and white and that contributes to the overall scholarly theme. There are some distractions that can be noticed when reading his article. For instance, there is an advertisement that pops up on the right side of the article.

Chegg Ad at the top of the Article.
The other Ad next to the article.

The ad changes between “Chegg” and “Squarespace” when you reload the article. It is very distracting at first, but when you scroll down far enough, you can no longer see the advertisement.

Jabr’s article persuaded me to grasp the concept that we can use both screens and paper to read so it was very successful. The examples he used are factual and honest. There was enough evidence to convince me that there are positives to both ways of reading and that we should use them interchangeably.

Works Cited

Cassimally, Khalil. “An Interview with Ferris Jabr.” Scitable, 16 Nov. 2010, https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/interviewing_science_writers_ferris_jabr Accessed 26 Sep 2017.

Chegg. Chegg Inc, 2017, https://www.chegg.com/factsheet Accessed 26 Sep 2017.

DiBiaggio, John. “Meet the Team.” Tufts University, 2017, https://ase.tufts.edu/crlr/team/wolf.htm Accessed 26 Sep 2017.

Jabr, Ferris. “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens.” Scientific American, 11 Apr. 2013, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/ Accessed 26 Sep 2017.

Scientific American. Springer Nature, 2017, https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/about-scientific-american/ Accessed 26 Sep 2017.

The Rhetoric of Technology Versus Paper

Many people have different arguments about why or why not technology is beneficial for society.  One of the beliefs is that reading on a screen in not as valuable as reading from a print source.  In the article, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper Versions,” the author shows his opinion on this topic.  Ferris Jabr is an author who grew up in Portland, Oregon.  Most of his writings are from the years 2000-2015.  These stories cover a variety of topics, such as science, nature, animals, and humans.  ScienceLine (About) states that he has a Bachelor’s degree from Tufts University where he studied psychology and English.  Most of his publications are from Scientific American and The New York Times.   He writes often about scientific research that has been done and his opinion or viewpoint on the controversial issues.

 

The article has a variety of audiences that it is trying to reach.  One group could be researchers.  The article discusses many experimental trials.  For example, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper Versus Screens” states that “research suggests that reading on paper still boasts unique advantages” versus reading on a screen (Jabr).  This information would be interesting and informative for science professionals, because they may be intrigued by having research to back up an opinion.  The publication, Scientific American, is known for having articles beneficial for scientists.  In addition to the publication proving this article is meant for science professionals, the advertisements throughout the article provide evidence that the type of people interested in “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper Versus Screens,” would also be interested in other educational opportunities.  For example, one of the advertisements is trying to get the readers to subscribe to their magazine.

Scientific American. Advertisement. September 25, 2017

This shows that this article targets people that would be likely to read more about science.  The second, is an advertisement that will help elementary students learn more.  It shows each grade level and has a link to fun games that improve learning.  This advertisement is appropriate for this article, because they both appeal to the same people.  The type of people that will be interested in educational aids for students will most likely also be interested in an informative science article about technology.  One possibility that would be interested in both may be parents of young children.  There is also a particular age group for Jabr’s article.  It would not be appropriate for young children because it might be hard for them to understand the advanced language.  Jabr has a very specific audience that he wants to target in this article.

 

The article posted on Scientific American has a main claim throughout.  The purpose of Jabr’s writing is to persuade the readers to agree with his ideas about how technology is impacting intelligence.  Jabr argues that reading on a screen is not as valuable as reading on paper.  He believes that having a piece of paper in front of you is easier and more productive than reading digitally (Jabr). He believes that people do not remember as much as when they are not physically flipping the pages. He uses specific examples from research done by consumer reports to conclude that reading on a screen is not as clear for readers (Jabr).  He goes on to explain that people are not as focused when reading digitally.  His purpose on writing this article, is to provide evidence for his opinion about reading on a screen.

 

Jabr’s article was written in the current period.  He published “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper Versus Screens” in 2013.  Around that time, technology was just beginning to be popular.  His article discusses multiple times the use of iPads.  He talks about the impact of reading on screens versus on paper.  He uses scientific examples to support his opinion.  This explains why it is appropriate for the publisher to be Scientific American.  Most people who would be interested in reading his article would also be likely to visit the website Scientific American.  In addition to the publisher, the form of writing is important for an author and the audience.  This article is mostly viewed on the web.  It may also be available in a magazine made specifically for science professionals.  The context in Jabr’s writing allows the appropriate audience to view his writing.

 

The genre of this article is an online publication.  Readers who are interested in this article may be expecting hyperlinks for more details about Jabr’s specific examples.  For example, there is a link to click on that brings you to the video Jabr is talking about in the first paragraph.  Another thing that is usually associated with websites are advertisements.  The content of the article is related to the advertisements that are shown.  This makes the readers more likely to be influenced by the advertisements that pop up.  Another convenience that goes along with online articles is the search function.  When a reader can search on a website, the author does not have to include each detail.  For example, different articles may be linked together because they are about the same topic.  This makes it easier for the audience as well as the author when reading or writing something that is a popular argumentative topic.

 

Color is a sense that most people don’t think about when looking at something, such as an educational article, like the one written by Jabr.  The website Scientific American uses mostly black and white.  The background does not have any color, other than white.  The font also looks more sophisticated, because the letters are very uniform and they do not have many curves.  The article looks like a newspaper.  It has larger bolded headings, with smaller text undeath it.  The text is also lined up on the left side of the page.

Scientific American. Text lined up along left side of page

It is very narrow, which makes the article appear longer than it is.  This is another way the author made his writing more educational and informative, rather than just opinionated.  Lastly, the author did not write this article to try and excite children.  This is shown by his use of very few pictures throughout the text.  This is another way that the appearance can help a reader to understand the authors purpose in writing.

 

Jabr’s article was informative and entertaining to read.  His explanations were convincing, which made me think about my opinion of reading on paper versus reading on screens.   The facts that he used to back up his main idea were helpful in establishing background knowledge on this particular topic.  By the end, I was convinced that most people support his opinion, although I still believe that technology has greatly increased intelligence.  I would likely cite Jabr’s article in a school-related paper about the use of technology in classrooms.  The specific details Jabr uses would be helpful to back up the opinion that online reading is not as beneficial as reading the print version.  Jabr’s article was successful in proving his opinion.

 

 

What Does Jabr Really Mean?

 

Shannon McNulty

What Does Jabr Really Mean?

            In the article, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”, Jabr explains that people have become so reliant on the online reading material and ebooks rather than classic paper text. He continues on to say that people are unable to follow the material they are reading and recall where the essential information is placed. He referenced various studies and statistics in order to support his claims. Overall, the article simply explains there is lack of attention while reading ebooks and online material unlike reading printed texts. Jabr provides many studies and statisitics in order to support his claims throughout the article.

Ferris Jabr wrote the article “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens. According to Jabr’s own website, ferrisjabr.com, he is a writer in Portland, Oregon who works for Scienific American. He has also written various other articles for many other sites such as The New York Times Magazine and Slate. Jabr has a MA degree from New York University in journalism and a Bachelors of Science degree in psychology and English from Tufts University (“About”). Considering all of this background information about the author, I can conclude that this article is a reliable source as he has background in writing and psychology.

In this article the targeted audience is most likely people who enjoy reading scientific articles as the article is on Scientific American. People who subscribe to Scientific American are people who have an interest in science and articles relating to science. Another reason scientific people are targeted is the article states many scientific facts as well as scientific studies, for example, Erik Wästlund conducted a study on whether paper or screens demand more physical and cognitive resources, Jabr referenced this study in his paper. The article could also appeal to people interested in psychology as many psychologists are referenced for certain studies they have done relating to Jabr’s topic. The secondary audience present may be students using this article for school or research purposes, similarly to me.

The main purpose of the article was to inform readers about the difference between reading ebooks and texts online rather than paper texts. It goes on to say that digital texts are increasing in popularity and therefore more people are experiencing effects of reading digitally rather than physical texts. Jabr makes various claims the first one being that people prefer reading paper text but digital reading is a lot more convenient and is available in many different forms so people tend to rely on it more. Another claim Jabr makes considers how paper texts allow us to navigate long readings and comprehend them but in return. digital reading does not allow readers to have the ability to map what they are reading and help them to comprehend the text. Jabr references how the brain treats letters as physical objects in which creates a “mental representation of the text” (Jabr, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”), which in return helps readers focus on a paper back book and easily navigate the book. However, screens do not allow this and rather trouble people by getting in the way of their journey of reading (Jabr, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”). According to a study by Anne Mangen referenced by Jabr, the inability to navigate the text hinders ones ability to comprehend. An additional claim found in Jabr’s text is exhaustive reading, which refers to reading that causes more attention than normal causing a drain in a readers attention span. Unlike text reading, with digital reading comes the aspect of light that may cause glare and cause readers eyes to get more tired during long periods of reading. However, this does not occur with paperback books as they tend to be gentle on readers eyes (Jabr, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”). The aspect of light can be a big factor when reading and can lead to loss of focus and possibly lack of comprehension. The final claim made by Jabr is readers attitudes when approaching their text, he explains that most readers tend to take digital reading lighter and tend to have the mindset to skim the reading. He mentions Ziming Liu who concludes that “people reading on screens take a lot of shortcuts” (Jabr, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens”), people tend to browse and hunt for key aspects rather than read the whole article. He provides many convincing claims throughout the article with lots of evidence for persuasion.

The article, “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens” was published on Scientific American on April 11, 2013. The article is posted on the web probably so it is easily accessible. Readers will probably primarily read this article on a computer when having to do research on the subject matter, others may read it for interest in the psychological and science aspect of the article. It is listed under the sub category of Mind as it references many psychologists and focuses on the mental state of the brain when using different forms of reading.

The article is science based primarily focusing on psychology and research connecting the brain and reading together. Similar articles to “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens” would relate to our articles having to do with the mind as well as other articles relating the brain to reading or on the subject of digital reading versus paper reading. The Scientific American sub categories the article into the mind category, this is probably primarily due to the article relating to the brain and having so many psychological studies involved. So generally I would say the genre of the article would be related to the mind or psychology, which is where the Scientific American placed the article as well.

Picture of digital reader included in article

When reading the article “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens” I noticed that it was written in black text with a white background in formal font, possibly mimicking a paperback book. The top of the page has the title enlarged to grasp the reader with a short one sentence summary in small gray writing below. This short summary is followed by sizable picture which is also in black and white, it is a picture of a digital reading device. The picture helps to provide a visual of a digital reader in case the audience is unaware and has never used one before. The only color found on the page is along the side under suggested articles relating to the current article being read as well as the advertisements that appear at the top of the screen and in the middle of the article. Another touch of color Scientific American includes is the big royal blue box trying to convince readers to subscribe now. Overall, the article was very simple and easy to navigate but it lacked intriguing images to drawl the reader in, however it was written in a science journal so that is expected. I would conclude that the article is a very helpful resource and Jabr is a reliable source.

Suggested articles
Subscribe Now advertisement at the bottom of the article

He Has a Point

The author of the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, is Nicholas Carr. Nicholas Carr is well known for his publications, The Shallows and The Glass Cage: Automation and Us (“Is Google Making Us Stupid”). He has also written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Wired (Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid”). In a biography of Carr it asserts he specializes in writing about technology and culture. He is also a former member of Encyclopedia Britannica’s editorial board of advisors and an executive editor of Harvard Business review. According to his personal site “Nicholas Carr“, his education entailed a B.A. from Dartmouth College and a M.A. in English, American Literature and Language from Harvard University (“Home”). Carr seems like he has credibility, which makes his article trustworthy. He comes across as if he is very knowledgeable about technology and uses a variety of dependable research from media theorists, bloggers, developmental psychologists, media scholars, historians, MIT computer scientists and studies which back up his assertions throughout the article.

Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, was published on The Atlantic. The Atlantic covers “news, politics, and international affairs, education, technology, health, science and culture” (Wikipedia, “Introduction”). The primary audience of this publication are middle aged people, including both men and women, who are frequently searching for a variety of news coverage. The secondary audience of The Atlantic are any age, specifically 14-25 year old’s, who are inquisitive about what is happening in the world or for research purposes. The audience for Carr’s article is congruent to the audience for this publication. Carr’s primary audience is middle aged people continuously accessing The Atlantic for primarily news coverage. His secondary audience are matured students in school who may have to research about how technology affects the way we read and write or people who are fascinated by the of technology’s impact on our reading and writing skills. Carr makes this clear by referencing A Space Odyssey in the first paragraph. This movie was produced in 2001, which makes the reference for 20-50 year old who would have been old enough to watch the movie and understand it. I know in my class nobody understood the reference because none of us were old enough to watch the movie when it came out and was prevalent. There were also flashing advertisements, in between paragraphs, for other articles on The Atlantic which were called “Rise of the connected family” and an article on the Vietnam war, “To Pledge Allegiance”, targeting middle aged individuals who most likely have families of their own. On the article page were also advertisements for internet and cable, which means you must have money and a house to find the ad relevant to your life. At the top of the article were buttons that say “share” and “tweet”, which shows there must be tech savvy people reading the article. If this article was made for elderly people, they wouldn’t know what those buttons mean nor how to use them.

Carr’s purposes are to display how the internet has modified the way we read and write and how we have simply become lazy, distracted readers. Carr portrays his purpose by using a variety of evidence in the article. He starts off by using his own personal experience stating his “concentration starts to drift after two or three pages” and he “becomes fidgety, lose the thread, and begin looking for something else to do”. He also talks about how the internet has made us become lazier. Before we would have to research for days in the library, but now we are able to search on google and find exactly what we need in a matter of minutes. Carr also talks about himself as well as his friends saying that they all think “the Net is becoming a universal medium”. This statement is true because no matter what we need, it is always there on the internet.  Carr states that the conclusion of a study performed by University College London showed “skimming activity” and the subjects would read “no more than one or two pages before hopping to another source” (qtd. in a study of online research habits from University College London). He also brings up the fact that “the last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading” and that “it’s in their best economic interest to drive us to distraction” since they get paid for how much they advertise. This ultimately ensues in our attention being scattered and disseminated concentration. The internet is a machine designed to get quick and competent information, which results in us becoming an idler and not being able to work to find information. Carr ends by stating “Kurbick’s dark prophecy” saying that the more we rely on computers, “our own intelligence flattens into artificial intelligence” (Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”).

This is the only illustration throughout the whole article

The medium of the article I read was on the web, but The Atlantic also published magazines and the article was also published in the July/August 2008 edition. This article was meant to be delivered on a phone or laptop when you have a full attention span. Whether you are looking for news articles in school, at work, in some cases at a doctor’s office or on your couch, you need to be able to focus as you read. On the website, similar informational and news articles surround it which means that these articles are all supposed to be read when you can concentrate and figure out what they are articulating. Carr adds an illustration by Guy Billout where the “internet patrol” is writing a ticket for a guy holding a book next to a speed limit sign. This picture is meant to add some humor to the article and show that the internet controls our everyday lives.

The genre of this article is an informational and critique article on how technology is affecting our reading and writing abilities. It is an informational article because it uses a lot of evidence to explain and depict how the internet affects our English skills. It is also a critique article because Carr is criticizing how we all depend on the internet to do everything for us and how he thinks it is affecting our intelligence.

These are the first things you see when you pull up the article

At the beginning of the article there is a big headline, bolded and bigger than everything else on the page to signal that this is the title and you can expect google and our intelligence to be talked about. Under the big headliner, there is the issue date and the author’s name in capital letters and highlighted in red, so you know who wrote the article without searching for the name. The web page is all white with black letters that are in a regular Times New Roman font. The only variation of font throughout the article can be found with the hyperlinks that are in a blue color font, which directs your attention to who the sources are. There is only one illustration in the whole article, which looks like it was designed on the computer and may even be clip-art. The picture shows an internet patrol officer by his car giving a man with a book a ticket, as they are standing by a speed limit sign. This picture was put into the article to show that it is uncommon for people to use books now, and that when you aren’t using the internet, there is a problem.

This article does an efficient job of persuading me that Google has made us lazy, preoccupied readers. While reading the article there are flashing advertisements and a variety of hyperlinks. This results in you getting distracted as you read about today’s society getting distracted while reading online. Not only do you firsthand get distracted, but Carr also uses a plethora of research to back up his claims. My first reaction to the article was “wow this is long” and honestly skimmed the entire article. It wasn’t until I decided to write my rhetorical analysis on the paper that I did a deep, diagnostic reading. Not only did I do a deep reading, but I printed out the article to read it. Which backs up all of his claims that we only skim read online, but use printed sources get a better understanding of the article.

 

 

Works cited:

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 27 Apr. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/. Accessed 20 Sept. 2017.

Carr, Nicholas. “Nicholas Carr.” Nicholas Carr, www.nicholascarr.com/. Accessed 21 Sept. 2017.

“The Atlantic.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Sept. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic. Accessed 20 Sept. 2017.

Rhetorical Analysis Assignment

In class we practiced analyzing sources using rhetorical conventions. For this assignment, you will compose a rhetorical analysis of one of the articles we have read so far in class.

First, you need to choose one article to focus on. Then, you need to determine the author (biographical information), audience (who is this targeted toward), purpose (main claims and arguments), context (when what is written, where was it published, etc), and genre (what form of writing is this) using the handout provided in class. You should address each of these topics thoroughly with direct evidence from the text and your research. You must use MLA citations for any information you summarize, paraphrase, or quote (we will go over this in class). To do this you must write a 3-4 page analysis (double spaced, TNR 12).

You should also provide an analysis of the interface – in other words the platform the text is published in – and how that interface affects your experience of the text. When analyzing the interface consider color, font, images, videos, infographics, and user experience. You will do this through a visual aide that guides your audience through the article. You may use screen captured GIFs (I suggest or LiceCAP or GIPHY) or screen captured images with hand drawn annotations (you can use an app for this, see list here). The idea is to walk your audience through your analysis visually and alphabetically.

The draft is due in digital form in class on 9/25 . The final revised copy should be posted as category “blog” and tag “rhetorical analysis” by 9/27.

This project is worth 15% of your grade.