Happy Horse Year!

Being back in the US for Chinese New Year (Spring Festival) has been odd for both my wife and I. For her, it's the first time she's ever been away from her family over Spring Festival. For me, I simply miss a festival that had become such an important part of my life. Last night I even ended up watching performances from the CCTV Spring Festival Gala (春晚) on Youtube with my eldest son. The family eating together at the end of this performance made me cry.

I thought for this post I'd simply share a few things that I love, or at least miss, about Chinese New Year in China. These are in no particular order.

1. Baijiu (白酒) with the menfolk
Foreigners tend to unfairly bash baijiu (Chinese "white" liquor) to no end, and I admit that it took effort for me to acquire a taste for the stuff. Nevertheless, drinking with my father-in-law and other male relatives had become a highlight of every holiday and birthday celebration. It bonded us together. It's when I really felt one with them, and I may be so bold as to say it's when they felt most at home with me. Effect of mild intoxication? Hardly. I'll give the simple explanation people gave me: This is Chinese culture.

2. Fireworks
OK, I don't really miss the fireworks. I mean, between the air pollution, the 5:00 a.m. (if you're lucky) wakeup call, and the constant use that makes one crazy on about day four, it's not really something I could miss. Still, not a single firework? Not even one?! It's a bit disappointing. 真扫兴！

3. Preserved meats (腊肉)
Not only did I miss meat-hanging season, but now I don't get to eat any myself! 非常扫兴！

4. Big family dinners
Not all Chinese families are large, but my wife's is. Aside from New Years Eve, when it was just us, her parents, her brother, and her brother's wife, Spring Festival dinners usually hosted no less than 20 people. Day after day, home after home, dinner after dinner. Eventually I grew sick of all the food and renao, but I miss being a part of it. In the words of Joni Mitchell (or glam metal band Cinderella), "You don't know what you've got, till [sic] it's gone."

5. Seeing the joy on my wife's face and on the faces of the children (mine and others')
This morning I asked my wife if she wants to stay here on Saturday and make jiaozi (Chinese dumplings) with my family or go to the Chinese church to celebrate with them. She hasn't made up her mind. I'll be fine with either. What I mourn, however, is that the Spring Festival delight that had always been present in previous years is not in her eyes now. Not seeing her delight gives me a sense of loss, as well.

So, readers: If you've experienced Chinese New Year but are spending Spring Festival 2014 abroad, what do you miss?

When language professionals don't know the grammar

How well do language professionals know and understand grammar? How well could we perform what we expect of our students? I've often chafed under the grammatical accuracy criteria given to assess oral English ability. How many of you have seen criteria that, if strictly enforced, even native, educated English speakers would be penalized?

Now what if even the professionals don't know the grammar they're supposed to teach?

In the article  Cutting to the Common Core: Decoding Complex Text, Rebecca Blum-Martínez attempts to demonstrate differing language complexity by breaking down the grammar in two texts. Unfortunately, I believe she has not done this decoding well. Below I will show the examples texts, quote Blum-Martínez's explanation (in red) and then provide my take.

In this first example, we can see two compound sentences joined by the conjunction “and.” All three sentences are in the simple past tense, and the only more “complex” tense is the “would read” in the conditional past. (Blum-Martínez)

Here's what I see: The first sentence is not a compound sentence; it is a simple sentence with a compound predicate, no different in essence from "John ate and drank". The second sentence is likewise a simple sentence with a compound predicate, but the "complex" would read should probably also be simply read so as to maintain parallelism. Of course, if a compound sentence is desired, the first and second sentences could be joined by replacing the period with a comma; it is generally poor practice to begin a sentence with but unless it is being used for emphasis.

As in the previous example, there are three sentences. However, the third sentence consists of two clauses, with each clause containing several phrases that provide us with additional information (lexical density). In the first sentences [sic], the adjective phrase “less than a year” provides us with information about the length of Lincoln’s education, and thus adds to the sense of time in this “past tense” paragraph. ...And we find two different uses of “so.” In the first usage, “so” functions as an additional adverb that adds the scarcity of paper to that of books. In the second usage, “so” functions as a linking adverbial of result or inference that signals that the second unit, “he could use it again,” is the result of the former, “cleaned the board.” Thus, “so” changes its meaning because its function has changed. (Blum-Martínez)

Here's what I see: In the first sentence, I'm not sure that the whole phrase less than a year is an adjective clause as I believe a year to be an object (head noun) in this case. However, I'm not positive about that. The last sentence does, indeed, consist of two clauses, but perhaps not as in the way Blum-Martínez thinks. If she means that and separates two clauses, she would be wrong. In fact, the second so (which is really so that) is a subordinate conjunction that connects the first clause " He worked... and cleaned...knife" with the second clause "he could use it again." If I am not mistaken, in order for so to be a linking abverb(ial), is would have to take the meaning of therefore.

This should highlight a very significant problem: language professionals who themselves do not know "correct" forms. How can we teach what we ourselves do not know?

In any case, Blum-Martínez and I cannot both be correct, though we might both be wrong. Do you see problems that I've missed or mistakes that I've made?

Do you support diversity or "diversity"?

In 2002 while working as a substitute teacher for Des Moines Public Schools I came across a motivational poster with a quote from the Chinese founder or Taoism/Daoism. I know that the school employees were likely ignorant of the religious connection, but I decided to perform an experiment. I sent an email to the DMPS head office asking why, given the “Celebrate Diversity” slogan seemingly posted at every school, Taoist quotations were permitted but Christian, Jewish or Islamic quotations were not. The response was both predicable and sad: Please let us know where the poster is located so that we can take it down.

Is this really what US educators believe is the fundamental character of diversity and inclusivity?

If so, we are a deluded bunch.

First things first: Popular opinions of acceptability and unacceptability are not indicators of how open-minded or inclusive people are. There was a time when it would have been unpopular to suggest that women work outside the home. Today it would be unpopular to suggest women should stay at home. In both situations, popular sentiment is not nor should be the arbiter of correctness.

True diversity is not simply equality and respect for people of different races or genders. True diversity is not simply saying people can love whomever they choose. True diversity is not simply empowerment to previously or presently marginalized groups. True diversity is not simply about appearances and behaviors.

No, for diversity to be truly diverse and for inclusivity to be truly inclusive requires the ability to respect and appreciate those whose views diverge greatly from your’s own. It means not resorting to petty name-calling and twitter battles when hearing opinions with which you disagree or even believe to be evil. It means not seeking to label others (e.g. ignorant, racist, sexist, homophobic, religious fanatic, etc.), especially when you don’t know the people, nor have tried to truly understand why those people think the way they think.

Being inclusive means acknowledging that most people want to be good, and their views accord with their attempt to be good. It does not mean believing the people, their ideas, or their behaviors are good, but rather that most people want to be good as they understand it. Diversity and inclusiveness does not mean abandoning your own right to an opinion, but it does require the humility of recognizing that (a) your own views may be wrong even if they are popular and (b) your own understanding of what is good may very likely be flawed, if not in one way, then in another.


1 general truth about inclusiveness (said 2 ways)

1. Exclusion cannot create greater inclusivity.
2. Greater diversity, tolerance, and respect for differences cannot happen by subtraction.

Going back to the opening example, banning religion from public view and public discourse does not create greater inclusiveness. You cannot exclude viewpoints and somehow become more inclusive. Subtracting exposure to topics cannot lead to greater diversity, but lesser.

Similarly, removing viewpoints from the realm of "acceptable", that is, vilifying views such that people holding those views can no longer be heard or respected is not inclusiveness. Let's say a student thinks that homosexual marriage is wrong, or that women should should be accompanied by male relatives when leaving home, or that prenatal babies with handicaps should be aborted. These are all unpopular opinions in today's social climate in the US. But when we vilify these viewpoints and claim them to be unacceptable from the get-go, we exclude viewpoints from respectful discourse and ultimately support less diversity, not more. In the end, we don't create more thoughtful, reflective, ethically engaged students, but rather students as judgmental as those we vilify. You cannot remove ideas and get greater diversity; it is as impossible as it is illogical.



5 signs of so-called "diversity"

1. As long as people get "offended"by hearing something that makes them uncomfortable, true diversity is NOT happening.
2. As long as people are using 160 character tweets and faceless attacks on people with different views, true diversity is NOT happening.
3. As long as people of both popular and unpopular views are unable to come together for respectful, meaning, constructive dialogue, true diversity is NOT happening.
4. As long as people of different viewpoints and opinions are content to stereotype and mock those whose viewpoints and opinions differ significantly or even insignificantly from their own, true diversity is NOT happening.
5. As long as currently popular notions of inclusiveness and exclusiveness are used to demean or marginalize those with unpopular views, true diversity is NOT happening.

5 signs of actual diversity

1. If people can realize that disagreement does not equal hatred and that saying, "You're wrong," does not mean, "I don't like you," true diversity is happening.
2. If people of both popular and unpopular views feel they can express their views without fear of attack, true diversity is happening.
3. If people of both popular and unpopular views are learning to express their views without attacking others as individuals, true diversity is happening.
4. If people are learning to disagree while still having mutual respect, true diversity is happening.
5. If people whose viewpoints and opinions differ in fundamental and divisive ways are meeting together, discussing views, and attempting to understand one another, true diversity is happening.

Well teachers, what can be done to foster true spirits of diversity in our classrooms?

What should we stop doing if celebrating diversity is really our goal?

Follow Matthew on twitter @MatthewTShowman

"Chinese students just want grades."

(Below is a highly condensed version of a longer draft article)

Another comment complaints about Chinese students in the US is that they only care about grades. That is, they don't really value learning or contributing to classes or campus, unless it factors into their grades. Again variations of this complaint abound online in articles and posts from sites such as The Chronicle of Higher Education, Danwei, and China Law Blog. Again I want to look into the fairness of this complaint.

As with previous post, it is unfair to point fingers at Chinese student or any other international student group for caring too much about grades and too little about learning. I personally have always cared deeply about learning, but in my time at university plenty of US students demonstrated ambivalence toward learning. Students regularly handed in papers devoid of actual research or studiousness. Many never read professors comments, looking only at the score. Students asked, "How can I improve my score?" and I always thought to myself, "Spend more time hitting the books." Concern about grades is not limited to international students.

However, there are several factors that do, in fact, contribute to Chinese students focusing on grades, and in some cases not about the learning, at least not in the American sense of the word. These factors include an exam-focused education system, a relationship-based (more than merit-based) society, and a culture of "face".

It's no secret that the Chinese education system is exam based. People underestimate, however, the effect this can have on many students. Students' academic careers, from elementary school through university, are determined by the results of exams. By and large, these exams test students ability to regurgitate facts and plug numbers into formulas. Whether students understand or not is often irrelevant. In such an environment, grades are paramount, and most understand grades to be the sole determinant of whether learning has occurred. Such a mindset does not change simply because one has entered a US university.

Getting jobs and promotions in China is often more about who you know than about what you know or what you can do. Although few might say it, there is a glum recognition that no matter how hard one studies or how much on learns, it simply may not matter. So, why try? If you need is the document for legitimization (a degree, a transcript, etc.), but the important thing knowing the right people, why not cheat? Why not find someone to take the test for you? You'd be better off cultivating relationships than acquiring knowledge.

Face is an oft-mentioned aspect of Chinese culture (as well as of Japanese and Korean culture). For Chinese, in practice, face often comes down to not only being a winner, but also looking the part, hence the uniquely Chinese penchant for ostentatious luxury goods. Today, many schools still make students' scores public, from the the top students to the bottom. Universities select students with the top exam scores (or those whose parents have good connections). Employers seek students with the top scores, regardless of actual ability, experiences, or societal engagement. Chinese students in the US who plan to go back to China know this and act accordingly; appearances matter.

This is an incredibly condensed description, and the topic truly deserves a much more nuanced discussion. Nevertheless, I hope it has been helpful.

Why do you think US students complain about Chinese students' focus on grades?

If you believe it is a legitimate complaint, why do you think Chinese focus so much on scores, even at the expense of learning (in the US sense)?

Follow Matthew on Twitter: @MatthewTShowman

Additional Media
Channel C: Discussion of college application in China and the US
Channel C: Why don't Chinese students challenge authority? (The first half is most relevant to this post.)
Wall Street Journal: What the Chinese Want (Tom Doctoroff)
The high ambitions of China's consumers (Tom Doctoroff)

Why don't Chinese hang out with other people?

(Below is a highly condensed version of a draft article.)

One of the comment complaints about Chinese students in the US are that they only hang out with themselves, and that they aren't interested in other peoples. Variations of this complaint abound online. I personally recall seeing such comments mentioned in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Danwei, and China Law Blog. Are these complaints fair?

On one hand, it is unfair (and possibly xenophobic) to blame Chinese or any other international student group for spending more time with themselves than with other student groups. People naturally incline toward people of similar interests. Probably hardest to cross are lines between peoples with different ideologies. Do you often see LGBT student groups hosting friendly social events with conservative evangelical Christian groups? Different cultural and linguistic backgrounds create ideological differences that are likewise difficult to bridge. And it's simply more comfortable to spend time with people you can converse with more easily.

On the other hand, Chinese are and will continue to be closely connected in ways that are difficult for Americans to understand, and vice versa. The Chinese view of friendship carries with it obligations and duties that would make most Americans uncomfortable. They might even conclude that Chinese friendships are superficial and selfish. (Indeed, even the words obligation and duty in English carry negative connotations.) In contrast, the lack of these obligations in US friendships likewise cause Chinese to often conclude that US friendships are superficial and selfish.

Fundamentally, this is the difference between individualistic and collectivist worldviews. American friendships vary based on time and place because Americans fundamentally believe that to survive they must take care of themselves and cannot (or should not) rely on anyone else. Chinese friendships remain regardless of time and place, as Chinese believe that survival requires the help of the group; the individual must rely on the group just the group relies on him or her.

Chinese culture has always been family and clan focused. In modern society, the clan extends to classmates and colleagues. In time of national adversity or when abroad, the clan includes all Chinese. Why do Chinese so easily group together when abroad? All things being equal, why don't they reach out and make new non-Chinese friends at university, just like all the US students? In a sense, while we see new Chinese students in the US as new individuals in a sea of new individuals, they see the other Chinese as friends they simply haven't met yet: "brothers from other mothers."

What to do? Should concerned administrators sit back and do nothing? What about concerned students?

Don't give up. Engage Chinese students. Invite them to take part in activities. Remember that in the absence of strong group culture (e.g. classmates with whom students take all or most classes together), although most Chinese want these friendships with US students, they are uncertain how to make and maintain such friendships. You can bridge the gap.

Oh, and be ready for what may seem like unreasonable requests. It means they want your friendship.

Follow Matthew on Twitter: @MatthewTShowman

I hear Chinese don't party, right?

For those of you who have not heard of Channel C, let me provide a brief description. Three Chinese women from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (now all recent graduates) began creating videos trying to address bridge the cultural gap between Chinese and American students. (The team currently have five members, according to their website.) They describe their purpose as follows:

In these videos, we attempt to demystify Chinese students, promote bilateral understanding, and provide an honest, diverse and vernacular perspective on China and Chinese international students, so that Chinese students and domestic students are able to carry out  in-depth conversations in and out of the classroom. (Channel C)

The videos being produced are really quite informative. You should take a look. Today I want to discuss one video in particular: Why Chinese Students Don't Party?! For background, you may want to watch the video first.

What I found interesting about the video is what it didn't say. There was a great discussion of why Chinese find parties in the US difficult: not knowing what to do, valuing academics a bit more, etc. What was not said was why Chinese don't know what to do at parties. I assume this may be due to the fact that the participants are Chinese and already know their background, so they don't touch on the subject.

From my experience, there are essentially three kinds of party experiences in China: dinner, KTV, and "parties".

Dinner
Dinner could be had in a restaurant or at home. After eating in a restaurant (around a large round table), people will likely go their separate ways, go for a walk, or go to KTV. If at a home, people with likely make food together, eat together for quite some time, and then clean up together.

KTV
For the uninitiated, KTV is karaoke. Chinese-style karaoke means reserving a room and singing with friends (or those you hope will be friends). Usually there are snacks. Often alcohol is involved. It's about laughing with each other and giving each other a show. (KTV bars also have a reputations for being fronts for prostitution, but most are legitimate.)

"Parties"
Why do I use the so-called quotations? Because these are not usually parties in the sense of a US party, which is why there is the disconnect between Chinese and US partygoers. A formal party (i.e. for a club, a department, an office, etc.) is what we in the US would call a variety show. There will be an MC. There will be singing acts. There will be dancing acts. There will be dramas. Participants will have practiced, some of them for weeks. It is not uncommon for everyone attending the party to be involved with the production in one way or another.

At an informal party (i.e. at someone's home or dorm room) the host will likely have prepared games for people to play. Often people will be encouraged to give performances. Sometimes performances are the punishments for losing the games.

Summary and suggestions
In these three contexts, one thing holds constant: activity. Yes, people will chat with each other but within the context of shared activity (ritual). Yes, there is room for spontaneity but within a planned context. Now do you understand why Chinese students may feel lost and unsure of themselves at a typical college party? Drinking and talking... Where's the activity?

What can hosts do to help Chinese students feel more comfortable socializing in the US?

First, understand where they are coming from and why they might be uncomfortable. The video and this post should help.

Second, an invitation is not enough. The students need coaching. They need help. It's a completely new kind of social experience. Most Chinese students want to participate. They want to make new friends and experience social life in the US. They generally don't have the cultural background to do so without help.

Third, make introductions. Remember, Chinese social situations are more formalized (ritual) than in the US. Making introductions is a great way to help them break the ice and feel included.

For those of you who are Chinese or have experiences with Chinese, what would you add? What suggestions do you have?

Specializing ourselves to death?

Last week I had a conversation with a program director at a major midwestern public university. One topic discussed was the state of educational specialization in the US. If you read the requirements of almost any job positing at a college and university and you'll see a list that can often seem excessive. Understandable, yet excessive. This in not a phenomena only found in academia.

“Requires a degree in social work.” “Must have at least three years experience teaching at a US college or university.” These are two of many items past colleagues, friends, and I have noted during employment search. All of these have been positions they or I have looked at and thought, “Matthew can totally do this!” or “This is exactly the work that Matthew does/loves to do/would thrive in!” I'm sure I'm not alone in these experiences. The question is this: Functionally, are these postings merely maintaining high standards or unnecessarily narrowing the field of potential candidates?

As the aforementioned program director explained, his university has taken an interesting approach: reducing the number of requirements to those that are actually necessary. They do not see it as a lowering of standards but rather as a way of broadening their search. They don't want to disqualify excellent candidates with diverse intangibles who are simply unable to be pigeonholed into narrow, overly-specialized sets of “requirements”, many of which are not actually prerequisite and could be learned on the job.

This issue of over-specialization can directly impact the mission of schools, organizations, and companies. Do organizations overlook new solutions to problems by insisting staff possess narrowly defined educational or professional backgrounds? Do companies fail to innovate by creating homogenous groups rather than dynamic teams? Could the creativity of employees be stifled by a dearth of skills, knowledge, and interests?

And what about students? Do schools do a disservice to students by overly narrowing the pool of candidates from which teachers, lecturers, and instructors are selected? Do we do a disservice to students if we push them into majors too early? I never speak poorly of doctoral students or the work they do to earn that distinction, but should doctoral study be the model? Should a Ph.D. be the standard to which academics or teachers aspire and by which society judges ability or success?

A decade ago I knew a young woman who graduated with a music degree and a business minor. After graduation she worked as a manager in a Wells Fargo branch. The job required a college or university degree, but she admitted that her particular degree was of virtually no use to the job she was actually doing. I remember thinking that this was a form of institutional discrimination. I remember wondering how many excellent managers were ignored because they lacked the degree.

Is this the way it should be? Is this the way it must be? Could we reimagine job requirements in a way that maintains or even improves quality yet empowers a greater number competent applicants?

Follow Matthew on twitter at @MatthewTShowman

Sometimes books are the best teachers?

Most expat families I knew in Changsha homeschooled their children. Generally this was done for linguistic reasons, the children not speaking Chinese well enough. Even those families whose children did go to Chinese schools often provided extra lessons at home. This would be homeschooling by virtual necessity.

In the US homeschooling is understandably less common. Recently, however, I've found myself in conversation with several families who teach their children at home. Their reasons have varied, but at least two of these families have chosen to homeschool, at least in part, because their children were not being challenged in their previous public schools. I've been very impressed with the curiosity and knowledge of these children and by their willingness and ability to interact well with adults. One thing has stood out for me with all of these families: the prominence of reading.

All of these kids read a lot. Two parents (different families) remarked that their children often grab books and teach themselves. One child likewise told my wife he often just gets a book and teaches himself. These parents are not lazy, but rather these students are motivated, curious and have the reading skills needed to pursue their interests. It reminds me of a family I met in 2003 whose daughter chose to study Latin (as an extra subject) once pulled out of the local school.

In a post last week, Stephen Krashen discussed the role access to books plays in promoting literacy. Jeff McQuillan also has also authored a study on the effects of print access. As common sense would seem to make obvious, students with higher literacy tend to perform better academically, as they are better prepared for texts, both written and aural. Overall, the importance of reading and of creating a culture of reading at home and at school has been reinforced over the past two weeks.

My family recently relocated to the US. Most of the books in our wall-o-books had to be left in China. Amusingly, I brought so many of my sons' Chinese language children's books back to the US with me, that two bags were searched in the airport to make sure I wasn't transporting "illegal literature". Now in the US, we go to the library a lot, but I miss the heavy physical presence of books in our home. We may end up homeschooling our children, also partly for linguistic reasons. Whether we do or not, literacy will remain a theme in our home.

How do you foster reading in your homes or classrooms?

Follow Matthew on twitter at @MatthewTShowman

A few other interesting articles
Cullinan, B.E. (2000) Independent reading and school achievement. Assessment of the role of school and public libraries in support of educational reform, Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc. [Accessed 5 January 2014].

Cunningham A.E. and Stanovich, K.E. 2001. What reading does for the mind. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1(2), p.137-49, [Accessed 5 January 2014].

Dickinson, D.K., Griffith, J.A., Golinkoff, R.M. and Hirsh-Pasek, K. 2012. How reading books fosters language development around the world. Child Research Development [Accessed 5 January 2014].

Duursma, E., Augustyn, M. and Zuckerman, B. 2008. Reading aloud to children: the
evidence. Arch Dis Child, 93(7), p. 554-57, [Accessed 5 January 2014].

All reading is not equal

When it comes to pleasure reading, what should your students or children be reading? What do you encourage them to read? Classic or modern? Fiction or non-fiction? Academic or non-academic? Newspapers? Magazines? Comic books? The backs of baseball cards?

What about physical vs. digital?

As Common Core State Standards (CCSS) begins to roll out across much of the country (for better or worse), the debate about what students read and should read has increased. CCSS calls for more exposure to informational texts and deemphasizes literature. Some support the change, others do not. What I do not see in the debate is how to create lifelong readers, which all but requires pleasure reading.

I'm a firm believer of self-selection. Readers naturally tend to gravitate towards readings that not only suit their interests, but also match their relative language ability. That is, while I may enjoy a comic book or a youth fiction now and again, or while I may occasionally challenge myself with a text like James Joyce's masterpiece Ulysses, I generally and naturally tend to read texts that fit my level of skill and comfort. I'm sure other readers do the same. Whatever genre your students or children like to read is probably just fine, just so long as they're reading and learning to love their reading experiences.

The issue becomes a bit more muddled when we talk about medium. Is reading from online, on e-readers, or on tablets equal to reading from physical formats? There are mixed answers to this question, with some studies showing equal or better results from electronic and hyperlinked (especially those with leads) text but the majority showing reduced recall (learning) from non-paper sources.

So what is the answer? For now I think the most prudent thing would be to encourage paper reading as much as possible without totally discounting electronic formats. Despite the the fact that hypertext and electronic formats intuitively seem ideal for learning, the research just isn't there yet. Below are listed some mixed resources that fall on either side of the debate.

What genres do you encourage for your students or children? Based on the research you've read, where do you fall along the digital-paper continuum?


Some articles for further reading
Antonenko, P., Dale S. Niederhauser, D.S. and Thompson, A. (2007) Optimization of cognitive load in conceptually rich hypertext: effect of leads. Cognitive science journal  [Accessed 29 December 2013]. 

Cagnoz, B. and Altun, A. (2012) The effects of hypertext structure, presentation, and instruction 

types on perceived disorientation and recall performances. Contemporary educational technology, 3(2), p.81-98. [Accessed 1 January 2014].

DeStefano, D. and LeFevre, J. (2007) Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review, Computers in human behavior, 23, p.1616-41. [Accessed 29 December 2013].

Genç, H. and Gülözer, K. (2013) The effect of cognitive load associated with instructional formats and types of presentation on second language reading comprehension performance. Turkish online journal of educational technology, 12(4), p.171-82. [Accessed 2 January 2014].

Miall, D.S. and Dobson, T. (2001) Reading hypertext and the experience of literature. Journal of digital information, 2(1). Available through: Texas Digital Library [Accessed 29 December 2013].

Şahin, A. (2001) Effects of linear texts in page scrolling and page-by-page reading forms on reading comprehension introduction. Turkish online journal of educational technology, 10(3), p.94-100. [Accessed 2 January 2014].

Zumback, J. and Mohraz, M. (2008) Cognitive load in hypermedia reading comprehension: Influence of text type and linearity. Computers in human behavior, 24, p.875-87. [Accessed 29 December 2013].