By Dr. Larry Burriss
I remember back in high school we were reading the play “Julius Caesar,” and one day I came to class with a paperback copy of the play rather than the huge English literature book.
To say my teacher, Miss Sampson, was not impressed would be an understatement. She made it very clear that a paperback book was not a real book, and for my out-loud reading time I would need to go back to my locker and get the hardback literature book.
Actually, Miss Sampson was one of my favorite teachers. Very hard but also very fair. I like to think what success I’ve had a writer over the years is because of her.
But, anyway, a similar argument today seems to be raising its head: is listening to an audio book the same as reading a printed book?
Of course, reading words with your eyes is different from listening to words with your ears. And of course they are very different experiences.
But recent neurological research seems to show that no matter how the words get into your brain, the effect is the same. That is, the acquisition of knowledge is the same, as is the pleasurable response.
And here’s something else: listening to a book while distracted, such as while working or driving, has the same negative result as reading a print book in a distracted environment. That is, retention and comprehension go down as distractions go up.
So, if the results of listening or seeing are the same, what’s the problem?
Well, once again, it’s coming down to semantics and a certain snob appeal. Notice in the previous sentence I used the phrase “listening or seeing.” I did not say “listening or reading.”
I recently asked several people who were listening to a audio book what they were doing, and most said they were “listening to a book” rather than “reading a book.”
Looking back, I hate to think what Miss Sampson
Leave feedback about this