DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Why Not Use Both? 

Let me get straight to the point and ask you a simple question. Do you think reading the NYT is "better" in print or digital? Think about it. 


Aha! I bet you sided to one spectrum of the argument and are now looking for reasons to support that decision. If you did not, however, and instead "[took] a step back and asked, what's at stake here? Why does this even matter? What's the critical-thinking angle? Then we can see something smarter and more compelling," even if the answer at the end of the day is "I don't know." I could say that you have successfully learned what I believe to be one of the most important lessons I have been taught being in my WRD 103 class; intellectual humility.


Often times I find myself observing individuals resorting to one side of the spectrum in an argument and solely supporting that argument without acknowledging any type of counterargument. Additionally, most of the time with these types of arguments, I have learned that there usually is a third side, or an equilibrium to the argument, or sometimes it must just be left as "it's a lot more complicated than we know," which is completely fine.


Because I have come to strongly believe that there are multiple sides to an argument, I have several videos below that continuously contrast one another with both the up and downsides of reading the NYT in print, and in digital format. These videos were created in order to inspire individuals to consciously challenge themselves to think of that third side and would additionally love individuals to begin to acknowledge the multitude of perspectives and "sides" an argument has.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Distractions on the internet with digital

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Feeling of the paper (Haptic Perception)

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Studies have shown that your eyes become more tired reading through the computer screen
  

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

With digital, it starts to decrease one's curiosity. We have become direct people, and while time is saved, quality is lost. When I was reading the print version, I challenged myself to be curious and read the obituary for the first time. I found a beautiful piece of writing about a man named Eli that I have saved to this day because of it's beauty. I know that this would not have happened if I were to solely read the NYT digitally.
  

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Interactive (definitions/examples/past articles/links)
  

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Animated Pictures. I discovered this during a digital read and compared the animated digital picture to the print picture. Although the print edition picture was helpful to the overall article, the animation took it a little further in helping readers understand the article

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Annotation
 
  
Highlighters and pens 
Vs.
 
 Finding the article --> Copy and Paste --> Track Changes --> Annotate --> Print

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Timing (Big Paper VS. Mouse Click)


Vs.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.
My Recommendation: 
WHY NOT USE BOTH?
Often times, a lot of people assume they have to side with one option and disregard the other, but I believe I have listed few out of many valid points and have come to conclude, there really isn't a "better" option. They both have elements that are helpful to different people in different situations. I think that utilizing both in various ways can be beneficial to the student's overall learning.
DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.