View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Touching, Tinkering, and Manipulating: Bodily Engagement When Reading for Academic Purposes and Why It Matters

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Touching, Tinkering, and Manipulating: Bodily Engagement When Reading for Academic Purposes and Why It Matters
Language: English
Authors: Marte Pupe Støyva (ORCID 0009-0003-2791-8073), Anne Mangen (ORCID 0000-0002-3415-1881)
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(2).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Reading Processes, Object Manipulation, Human Body, Graduate Students, Affordances, Reading Research
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.70088
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: Reading for academic purposes in higher education is a complex activity involving the use of various text types and formats, and readers interact with different objects such as laptops, tablets, paper formats, and writing tools. Such interactions entail embodied engagement: readers engage their bodies, especially their hands and fingers, to touch the reading surface, turn the page or scroll, tinker with a pen, and manipulate the texts. Yet, little attention has been given to the role of the reader's body during reading. This study suggests that bodily activities contribute to the ongoing reading processes, and the study asks: how do embodied, hands-on engagement with objects--through touch, tinkering, and manipulation--shape real-time, situated reading practices? We draw on data from a larger qualitative study to analyze embodied engagement during graduate students' naturalistic reading activities. Extensive video data is used to describe the readers' bodily enactment of ongoing reading processes, and we demonstrate and discuss how the interaction between reader and objects is shaped by the affordances in the physical objects. The analysis reveals how potential bodily activities vary because objects afford different ways of engaging with them. We conclude that graduate students' reading for academic purposes is an activity where the body plays a key role, and that embodied engagement with objects can both benefit and restrain students' reading. Integrating embodied and distributed perspectives on cognition with reading research can strengthen our understanding of naturalistic reading activities, and embodied engagement should be acknowledged as an important factor in reading.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503851
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHFcT8iR6P9Ekh2RnAme_V3AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHuYLJ7MvCxiw7Kr8AIBEICBm-x09bF9EOhP4b6k-O1AdlEGOVWjs7EiqUpVm4ZxEUCrPrRlPXskvAQRw1M9sNLcBQZBgBbz4bDoyWa3OQe6B7hJli1yJqDlWBKFQvlEosYnGxb7-5CCVPa4tGcn_K7ZvCzACQ9Zefc_gEdx2PYRW9wZPb93_rRnvS9abq2iMU68F2EEqIEpWkCrfsdWwBCFcTBNxTlE9fBkjNLa
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0193225955;[nrnu]02apr.26;2026Apr27.05:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193225955-1">Touching, Tinkering, and Manipulating: Bodily Engagement When Reading for Academic Purposes and Why It Matters </title> <p>Reading for academic purposes in higher education is a complex activity involving the use of various text types and formats, and readers interact with different objects such as laptops, tablets, paper formats, and writing tools. Such interactions entail embodied engagement: readers engage their bodies, especially their hands and fingers, to touch the reading surface, turn the page or scroll, tinker with a pen, and manipulate the texts. Yet, little attention has been given to the role of the reader's body during reading. This study suggests that bodily activities contribute to the ongoing reading processes, and the study asks: how do embodied, hands‐on engagement with objects—through touch, tinkering, and manipulation—shape real‐time, situated reading practices? We draw on data from a larger qualitative study to analyze embodied engagement during graduate students' naturalistic reading activities. Extensive video data is used to describe the readers' bodily enactment of ongoing reading processes, and we demonstrate and discuss how the interaction between reader and objects is shaped by the affordances in the physical objects. The analysis reveals how potential bodily activities vary because objects afford different ways of engaging with them. We conclude that graduate students' reading for academic purposes is an activity where the body plays a key role, and that embodied engagement with objects can both benefit and restrain students' reading. Integrating embodied and distributed perspectives on cognition with reading research can strengthen our understanding of naturalistic reading activities, and embodied engagement should be acknowledged as an important factor in reading.</p> <p>Keywords: distributed cognition; embodiment; higher education; long‐form study reading; reading research</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225955-3">Introduction: Embodied Reading</hd> <p>High‐level reading activities, such as when graduate students read for academic purposes, involve a range of complex processes such as inference making, reflection, advanced information processing, and critical thinking (Schüller‐Zwierlein et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref1">55</reflink>]; Wig et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref2">69</reflink>]). It seems that the number of students who are struggling with this type of complex long‐form reading is growing. Many students report that they do not complete their assigned reading tasks (Baron [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; Burchfield and Sappington [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]; St Clair‐Thompson et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref5">58</reflink>]), and the ability to sustain focus during the reading of long‐form texts seems to be particularly challenging for many students (Baron and Mangen [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]; Hakemulder and Mangen [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]; Wig et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref8">69</reflink>]). The cause of this problem remains unclear, as we still have little research‐based knowledge about authentical and situated reading activities in higher education.</p> <p>In light of the growing recognition of the important role of the body in cognitive processes (Newen et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref9">46</reflink>]; Schilhab and Groth [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref10">54</reflink>]), questions concerning students' bodily engagement during reading become salient. Situated, real‐time reading activities not only include mental and visual processes linked to information processing and extraction but also depend on the readers' perception and interactions with physical objects. Reading for academic purposes often involves juggling a range of components, including several texts, different media for reading, and the use of digital and physical tools to support reading activities. It entails physical interactions between the readers and the reading surfaces, both in terms of active manipulations of the reading material (such as highlighting text passages, underlining words, and annotating), and more subtle physical interactions (e.g., touching a paper book or holding a tablet). Highlighting the interactions between the reader and physical objects, Mangen and Weel ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref11">37</reflink>], 117) have described reading as an embodied and multisensory "human‐technology interaction." Here, technology refers to all types of both digital and analog artifacts that are used for displaying texts, covering both paper formats and various types of screens, and it is emphasized that the material affordances of tools, devices, and different types of technologies play a role (Mangen and Weel [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]). Affordances refer to the opportunities for action that objects offer to a person (Gibson [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]). The material affordances of the reading substrate and device may contribute to the reading experience. For instance, when asked what they like in particular about reading in print as opposed to reading on screens, readers frequently highlight the role of touch and the tactility of paper (Baron [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]; Mangen and Baron [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref15">35</reflink>]; Spjeldnæs and Karlsen [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref16">57</reflink>]). Moreover, studies surveying user preferences when reading on e‐readers have revealed what has been termed "haptic dissonance" (Gerlach and Buxmann [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]), that is, that readers miss the feel of paper when they read. The role of touch in reading therefore seems in need of further empirical scrutiny.</p> <p>Supplementing dominant paradigms and perspectives in research on reading and literacy with knowledge derived from recent developments involving embodied cognition is fruitful to account for the role of bodily engagement during reading activities. We draw on insights from theories of 4E (i.e., embodied—enacted/enactive—embedded—extended) cognition claiming that all psychological processes are influenced by the interplay between our sensory modalities, motor systems, and emotions, and insist on the inseparability of brain, mind, body, and environment (Glenberg [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>]). The perspectives entailed in the 4E paradigm differ in which aspects of the brain/mind—body—socio‐material and sociocultural environment nexus they tend to emphasize, as well as how and to what extent the various dimensions are claimed to shape cognition. Viewing cognition as <emph>embodied</emph> implies that all cognitive processes are grounded in the body; hence, the body is a fundamental part of learning (Fugate et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]; Kiefer and Trumpp [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]). <emph>Enacted</emph> cognition is grounded on the tight and reciprocal coupling of perception and action, and how these unfold together in guiding cognitive processes (Varela et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref21">68</reflink>]). According to this aspect, all thinking emerges from, or is constituted by, sensorimotor engagement with materials, artifacts, and technologies, whose affordances affect the nature of our perception and cognitive processes (Malafouris [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]; Schilhab and Groth [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref23">54</reflink>], 4–5). Further, cognition is <emph>embedded</emph> in that it is always situated in a context, both in a social, cultural, and physical sense (Malafouris [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>]). And lastly, <emph>extended</emph> cognition refers to the ways in which we off‐load cognitive load using devices and tools such as calculators (Kiverstein [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref25">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Specifically emphasized in the paradigm of distributed cognition (Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref26">22</reflink>]), cognitive processes are understood as dynamic relationships between the brain, the body, and various tools, technologies and affordances in a socio‐material context (Trasmundi and Cobley [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref27">63</reflink>]). Cognition is here defined as being distributed to objects and structures in the environment, as well as between people (e.g., when involved in a joint task), and through time such that outcomes of earlier events may transform the nature of later events (Fernandez‐Velasco et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>], 7; Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref29">22</reflink>]; Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref30">66</reflink>]). Our approach is informed by an embodied and distributed view on cognition and reading (Hillesund et. al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]; Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref32">64</reflink>]; Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref33">66</reflink>]), and we consider reading as situated and embodied material engagement (Malafouris [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref34">31</reflink>]; Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref35">66</reflink>]). An embodied and distributed view on reading offers a way to systematically study patterns of material engagement during reading as it happens and allows a consideration of how different artifacts and their affordances impact reading activities (Hillesund et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]; Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref37">64</reflink>]; Trasmundi and Mangen [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref38">65</reflink>]; Jensen [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref39">23</reflink>]). Often, bodily engagement during reading is obviously related to a task, as when moving a liner along the text lines to help guide attention. But it can also be seemingly unintentional and task unrelated, as when a reader begins tapping with a pen on the desk or engages in "sensuous tinkering" with the paper page or screen display (Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref40">64</reflink>]). In general, fidgeting and other noninstrumental movements seem to be rather common during reading. Yet, we know very little about why they occur, what factors seem to be prompting their onset, and how to interpret their function during reading. This study explores and discusses the role of bodily engagement, including fidgeting and other noninstrumental movements, during reading activities in higher education. The aim of the study is to extend our understanding of the role of bodily engagement during reading and discuss if and how bodily engagement can benefit the reading activity.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-4">Theoretical Framework: Reading as Embodied and Material Engagement</hd> <p>Over the past few decades, we have witnessed an increased awareness of the embodied and multisensory aspects of reading, where scholars have studied the role of bodies engaged with texts and materialities in various social and cultural contexts. Focusing on the body has helped facilitate a move from print‐centric notions of literacy and reading to broader notions including multimodal texts and digital media, and other semiotic sign systems such as speech, gestures, and bodily movement (see e.g., Enriquez et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref41">10</reflink>]). Embodied approaches to reading and literacy can be traced in a range of research traditions, including phenomenologically inspired studies (Rose [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref42">50</reflink>]; Rowsell [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref43">51</reflink>]), and in what has been termed "sensory literacy," drawing on an anthropology of the senses (Howes [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]; Mills [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref45">42</reflink>]). In terms of language comprehension, experiments in neuroscience and psycholinguistics have shown how our understanding of oral as well as written linguistic utterances is grounded in sensorimotor experiences and, thus, embodied, at several levels (Körner et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>]). Word comprehension, sentence comprehension, and discourse processing are integral to reading, but reading is embodied also in a literal sense, in that we use our bodies in subtle and less subtle ways when we read. The embodied view emphasizes how the human body and its sensory experiences during reading activities matters for the overall outcome, as readers use their bodies' interactions with the environment to manage reading activities. They can, for example, highlight, write, or draw in the text, and use information from the material to get a sense of progress (Jensen [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref47">23</reflink>]; Trasmundi and Mangen [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref48">65</reflink>]). With a few exceptions (e.g., Hillesund et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]; Mangen [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref50">34</reflink>]; Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref51">64</reflink>]; Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref52">66</reflink>]; Trasmundi and Toro [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref53">67</reflink>]), the interplay between embodiment and material engagement in reading and cognitive, emotional, and affective processes such as comprehension, recall, immersion, attention modulation, and stress management has received less scholarly attention. Merging insights from 4E (Newen et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]) and distributed cognition (Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref55">64</reflink>]), material engagement theory (Malafouris [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]) and Gibson's theory of affordances (Gibson [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref57">15</reflink>]) may help to shed light on this still largely uncharted territory of reading research.</p> <p>Applied to reading, insights derived from the 4E and distributed cognition paradigm warrant including the reader's bodily movement and multisensory engagement with the environment. The embodied dimension of reading is obvious, for instance, in that we typically hold the reading substrate in our hands or use our fingers to navigate between pages. Importantly, such haptic interactions with texts take on a different nature when the substrate of the text is digital (Mangen [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref58">33</reflink>]; Mangen [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref59">34</reflink>]). The enacted dimension revolves around how the sensorimotor contingencies (Noë [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref60">47</reflink>]) of various reading substrates affect the reading process and experience, for example, how a touch screen affords different opportunities for engagement with a text than a text printed on paper. Embedded cognition is tied to the social, cultural, and physical setting in which the students' reading is situated. The social setting can, for example, make a difference for the students' individual reading focus and motivation for staying on task (Wig et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref61">69</reflink>]). And finally, extended cognition concerns how readers extend cognitive processes beyond the body through tools and technologies, such as note‐taking during reading to remember something (Schilhab and Groth [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref62">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Important empirical questions pertain to how the affordances of both digital and analog technologies are connected to ongoing cognitive processes and, hence, reading and learning. Key to such interaction is an understanding of how features of material artifacts, technologies, and devices shape cognition. Largely unaddressed questions pertain to how differences in reading substrate, such as the materiality of paper and the affordances of touch screen displays, may affect cognitive and experiential aspects of reading. This is perhaps particularly interesting for the reading of long‐form, complex texts, for instance, when reading for academic purposes in higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-5">Micro‐Bodily Enactment: Tinkering and Fidgeting During Reading</hd> <p>During study reading, readers frequently engage in haptic interactions with devices and other objects, as when employing various writing tools to underline in the text or write notes, or when page‐turning and book‐marking. Such types of what we can term micro‐bodily enactment seem obviously related to the ongoing reading, presumably supporting the cognitive processing. However, readers also engage in bodily, and especially haptic, engagement whose function in cognitive processes during reading is more difficult to discern. Commonly called fidgeting, such cases of seemingly task‐unrelated micro‐bodily enactment may entail twirling one's hair, touching and holding the paper page when there is no page turning involved, engaging in repetitive rhythmic movements or changes of posture, or tapping and tinkering with a pen(cil) on the desk while reading.</p> <p>In psychology and cognitive science, fidgeting is a case of so‐called "superfluous bodily movements," and is often taken as a sign of boredom, irritation, and lack of attentional engagement (e.g., Seli et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref63">56</reflink>]). Typically considered irrelevant or even detrimental to ongoing cognitive tasks (Tancredi and Abrahamson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref64">59</reflink>]), fidgeting has attracted the attention of researchers mainly as manifestations of distraction or disruption; hence, a task‐unrelated activity that should be avoided or suppressed.</p> <p>Analogously, in psycholinguistics research on multimodal communication, there is a strand of research on types of gesturing which seem devoid of any function and, hence, unrelated to the communicative purpose or task (Lopez‐Ozieblo [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref65">29</reflink>]; Mehrabian and Friedman [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref66">40</reflink>]). Even though reading differs from communication in obvious ways, insights from psycholinguistic research on nonverbal aspects of communication and human interaction may shed additional light on micro‐bodily aspects of a solitary and (most often) silent act such as reading. Of particular interest are so‐called self‐manipulations such as touching one's face or mouth, scratching one's arm, and other micro hand and finger movements. Such movements are a type of adaptors that is, "[...] acts of contact and/or manipulation with a part of the speaker's body, or with objects, or with other persons" (Maricchiolo et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref67">38</reflink>], 416), and they are typically taken as early indicators of negative affect, such as stress or anxiety (e.g., Ekman and Friesen [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref68">9</reflink>]). Perhaps particularly relevant to the present context, such "adaptors of a fidgeting nature" (Lopez‐Ozieblo [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref69">30</reflink>], n.p. [page 4 of 21]) are related to attention regulation, as a compensatory behavior during a person's disengagement from a task, by "[...] introduc[ing] variability through aimless body movements when engaging in a boring task" (Ricciardi et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref70">49</reflink>], 202).</p> <p>However, adaptors may serve cognitive functions rather than, or in addition to, indicating negative affect. Cienki ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref71">8</reflink>], 231), for instance, maintains that such adaptors are a means of stress regulation, working to soothe a person and help maintain focus during a task. Correlations between anxiety and the frequency of adaptors in clinical studies also indicate that adaptors are a way to reduce negative emotions by regulating stress (e.g., Mohiyeddini et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref72">44</reflink>]; Pang et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref73">48</reflink>]). In the same vein, Barroso et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]) found that self‐touching movements were more prevalent in distracting environments and in situations requiring a high degree of attention, indicating that such adaptors served as a cognitive strategy to maintain focus and vigilance. Hence, reading—and perhaps especially academic reading—would seem an ideal case for studying the role of fidgeting during cognitive processing, given the high cognitive demand and how the reader is required to sustain attentional vigilance and keep digital distractions at bay. Nevertheless, the role of fidgeting and other micro‐bodily enactment during reading has received scant attention in the reading research community.</p> <p>However, in a series of studies, Witchel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref75">70</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref76">71</reflink>]) studied fidgeting as an indicator of engagement during reading. In one experiment, they compared participants' movements during 3‐min reading sessions, comparing the extent of fidgeting when they read a boring text compared to when they read an exciting text. Results show that increased engagement during a task is associated with a measurable reduction in observable fidgeting (Witchel et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref77">70</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref78">71</reflink>]). In other words, increased engagement during reading correlates with less fidgeting, and vice versa.</p> <p>Given that fidgeting is intrinsic to adaptive functioning and an essential part of our cognitive dynamics (Tancredi and Abrahamson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref79">59</reflink>]), it makes sense to begin mapping its role in reading. Fidgets are bodily and sensory manifestations of a person's attempt to manage attention and to regulate the level of sensory stimuli and arousal (Tancredi and Abrahamson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref80">59</reflink>]). Hence, they contribute to emotional self‐regulation and may also help lighten the cognitive load during reading. Studies using self‐report data have also found that various enactments of fidgeting behavior support calm and pleasure (Karlesky and Isbister [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref81">24</reflink>]). Research by Trasmundi and Toro ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref82">67</reflink>]) also suggests that an increase in fidgeting and other noninstrumental behavior may be indicative of potentially enriching cognitive processes such as mind‐wandering during reading. Such cases of micro‐bodily enactment provide a window into dimensions of reading that could prove cognitively enriching. In order to better understand the role and significance of such behavioral dimensions of reading, video data drawn from a range of extended reading sessions are essential.</p> <p>In this study, we argue that fidgeting, touching, and similar micro‐movements are potentially significant elements of reading, and we show how they reveal aspects of reading as embodied, material engagement that may be more important than hitherto assumed.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-6">Methodology: Data and Analytical Framework</hd> <p>The primary objective of the research design in this study was to enable an exploration of students' embodied engagement during real‐time, situated, and naturalistic reading activities. The empirical material that is analyzed in the present article is drawn from a larger qualitative research project. The project has a longitudinal design to address temporal aspects of academic reading practices and enable observations over an extended time period, making it possible to track developments and changes in students' reading activities. The project collected data from several data sources that together offer a comprehensive perspective on the participants' micro‐embodied enactments and hands‐on engagement with devices and other objects during their academic reading activities.</p> <p>The research design and data analysis procedures are inspired by a cognitive‐ethnographic framework (Ball and Ormerod [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>]; Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref84">22</reflink>]). Cognitive ethnography is a methodological framework that draws on ethnographic research methods such as interviews and observations to study emerging cognitive events during an activity in settings as authentic as possible (Ball and Ormerod [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>]; Trasmundi [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref86">60</reflink>], 22). This approach guided our research design process and enables us to address and discuss the relationship between observable actions and ongoing reading.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-7">Participants</hd> <p>The participants in the study are four female master's students enrolled in a teacher's education program at a university. The research project was introduced to a group of academic staff at the university and in a whole student group with students in a teacher education program, and the four students volunteered to participate. They were recruited because they fitted our selection criteria, being enrolled in a teacher's education program and having completed a minimum of 3 years of higher education equivalent to a bachelor's degree. This purposeful sampling strategy (Merriam and Tisdell [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref87">41</reflink>], 96) was employed to ensure that all participants were experienced students familiar with academic reading practices. The teacher's education program was chosen because it is an academic discipline where students traditionally are assigned a range of different academic texts, in different genres and of varying complexity. This made it possible to study a variety of reading practices involving different types of texts. The participants provided informed consent, and the project complies with the ethical guidelines given by the national research ethics review board (NESH The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref88">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-8">Data Collection and Selection</hd> <p>The original data corpus consists of data from several sources concerning the participants' academic reading activities. They were initially interviewed about their reading habits and experiences with academic reading in a semi‐structured in‐depth interview. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref89">6</reflink>]). After the initial interview, the participants were asked to video record their own, self‐organized reading sessions during three nonconsecutive intervals over the course of one academic term, each interval lasting for 1–2 weeks. The participants received a small camera and instructions on how to set it up, and the recordings were done without the presence of researchers. This strategy, involving the participants actively in the research project and employing a longitudinal research design (Henwood and Shirani [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref90">18</reflink>]), was chosen to address potential reactivity, that is, the change of behavior due to the research setting. This is often considered a methodological problem in ethnographic inspired studies, and particularly when using video data in a naturalistic situation (Knoblauch et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref91">27</reflink>], 437).</p> <p>The longitudinal design allowed time for the participants to familiarize themselves with the research setting. In addition, we put great effort into establishing a professional research relationship with the participants, focusing on building trust and making them as comfortable as possible, a key part of a qualitative research project (Maxwell [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref92">39</reflink>], 90–94). This approach is in line with the cognitive‐ethnography framework, as we were aiming to enable an exploration of reading activities as they happen in a setting as authentical as possible. The participants received no specific instructions beyond reading for academic purposes as they normally would. They had no time‐restrictions, and they chose which format and which reading substrate they wanted to use according to their own preferences and actual accessibility. The reading sessions were recorded from beginning to end, and the recordings include audio. After the second interval of video recordings, the participants participated in a video‐stimulated recall interview where we used abstracts from the video data to prompt a further discussion about their academic reading practices and followed up on the first interview. Finally, the participants wrote a reading log after each recorded session.</p> <p>Using different methods to collect data and a longitudinal research design with repeated observations allows us to validate our findings in several ways. First, we have gathered large amounts of varied data that we have described in detail, resulting in "rich data" that provide a detailed description of the setting, the participants, and the findings of the study (Maxwell [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref93">39</reflink>], 126; Merriam and Tisdell [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref94">41</reflink>], 256–257). In addition, we used respondent validation (Maxwell [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref95">39</reflink>], 126–127; Merriam and Tisdell [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref96">41</reflink>], 246) in the stimulated recall interviews to address and discuss preliminary findings with the participants to avoid misinterpretations and researcher bias. Finally, because we have used multiple methods and multiple data sources, we were able to use triangulation to check conclusions from each data source against findings in the other data sources to reduce the risk of method bias (Maxwell [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref97">39</reflink>], 102).</p> <p>Video recordings are particularly suited for the purpose of analyzing embodied engagement as it allows thorough analysis of movement, gestures and "[...] the spatial relation of bodies and objects" (Knoblauch et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref98">27</reflink>], 439). They offer a unique access to rich, detailed, and comprehensive data. Video data is highly dense with information, making it possible to scrutinize the data in a fine‐grained analysis. In this study, we analyze 10 video‐recorded reading trajectories selected from the original data corpus, where approximately 74 h of video recordings were collected in total. The analysis is also informed by the 10 recordings' adhering reading logs, and relevant interview data. This data set was selected strategically. First and foremost, the selection covers the participants' use of a variety of reading substrates, from laptops and tablets to paper books and printed pages. The data was chosen because it represents the variety in the larger data corpus in terms of engagement with various reading devices and other physical objects. The selected data thus demonstrate which physical objects the participants engage with and how they engage with them. Second, the selected data includes a variety of physical locations. Third, the selected data reflects reading activities that were performed with different purposes in mind, as stated by the participants in the reading logs, for example, the difference between reading to prepare for a lecture or reading to prepare for an exam. Table 1 presents an overview of the data set analyzed in this study.</p> <p>1 TABLE Overview of the data set.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Data set</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Reading trajectory</th><th align="center">Duration</th><th align="center">Participant</th><th align="center">Reading substrate</th><th align="center">Location</th><th align="center">Stated purpose</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">00:31:22</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">Printed paper article/smart phone</td><td align="center">Home office</td><td align="center">Prepare for lecture</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">00:26:45</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">Printed paper article</td><td align="center">Home—kitchen</td><td align="center">Prepare for written assignment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">01:13:54</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">Paper book/laptop</td><td align="center">Home—bedroom</td><td align="center">Prepare for lecture/Prepare for exam/Studying in general</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">00:18:01</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">Paper book/laptop</td><td align="center">Home—kitchen</td><td align="center">Studying in general</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="center">00:20:54</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">Laptop</td><td align="center">Home—living room</td><td align="center">Studying in general</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="center">00:55:30</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">Laptop</td><td align="center">Workplace—office</td><td align="center">Prepare for written assignment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="center">00:42:55</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">Laptop</td><td align="center">Home—bedroom</td><td align="center">Prepare for written assignment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="center">00:18:23</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">Tablet</td><td align="center">University—group room</td><td align="center">Prepare for lecture</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="center">00:27:13</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">Tablet</td><td align="center">Home—bedroom</td><td align="center">Prepare for lecture</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="center">00:38:07</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">Paper book/laptop</td><td align="center">University—group room</td><td align="center">Prepare for exam</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225955-9">Analytical Procedure</hd> <p>The analysis of the data material was done in several cyclic steps that ultimately resulted in a detailed insight into patterns of bodily engagement during the participants' reading activities. Initially, we watched and annotated the video recordings in the original data corpus, familiarizing ourselves with the data. Gradually, different bodily movements, events, and interactions were identified, described, and labeled by combining close video observation with an inductive coding approach (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref99">52</reflink>]). This descriptive coding process resulted in an extensive list of bodily activities and events observed in the video data, along with a timeframe and duration for each segment. Then, applying a sequential analysis approach (Knoblauch et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref100">27</reflink>]), we identified with high precision when and how often each movement and interaction occurred, their temporal order, and how they relate to each other.</p> <p>We noted early that the readers' bodily engagement seemed to vary and adapt as the readers interacted with reading substrates and other physical objects in different ways. Based on the first phases in the analysis, we gradually developed overarching categories as a way of distinguishing and describing the patterns of bodily engagement detected in the data material. Next, we used these categories to explore micro‐bodily engagement in detail. Sorting the participants' reading sessions into different modes of bodily enactment of reading processes provided information that allowed us to further analyze the readers' micro‐bodily engagement in the form of fiddling, tinkering, and touch that does not seem to serve any obvious purpose or function for the ongoing reading activities. In the following, these patterns are described and analyzed as modes of bodily enactment of ongoing reading processes, linking the bodily activities to the 4E and distributed cognition paradigm. The analysis is additionally informed by the reading logs and in‐depth interviews with each participant.</p> <p>Below follows a detailed description of each category of bodily enactment of reading processes with examples from the data, including a discussion of their relations to ongoing cognitive processes understood in the 4E and distributed perspective.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-10">Results and Discussion: Bodily Enactment of Reading Processes and Micro‐Bodily Engagement</hd> <p>Using video observation to observe and describe actions and movements allowed us to develop a detailed mapping of bodily engagement during the participants' reading activities. The result is a compelling insight into <emph>what</emph> types of bodily engagement happen <emph>when</emph>, in various environmental settings, and when reading for different purposes. In the following, we tie the bodily engagement to enactments of ongoing reading processes at the perceptual and sensorimotor level. They are presented and discussed in light of the embodied and distributed framework. The enactment of processes is described, and we discuss their connection to cognitive processes, understood in the 4E‐ and distributed cognition perspective; that is, <emph>why</emph> the different types of bodily engagement happen, how they relate to affordances in the surroundings, and how they shape real‐time, situated reading practices.</p> <p>Across participants, a total of 1819 instances of bodily engagement were discerned in the data set. Out of these, 801 are haptic interactions with the reading substrate, that is, interactions between the readers and the technology they use for reading that involve their hands and fingers. Thus, these interactions relate to the readers' sense of touch. The most prominent examples here include different ways of touching the reading surface, including pointing at the surface (132 instances), scrolling down on a touchpad (113 instances), and turning the page (113 instances across formats). In addition, we noted 811 haptic interactions that do not involve the reading substrate. These interactions include other physical objects and/or the readers' own bodies, such as when the reader, for example, touches their hair or face (225 instances), drinks/eats (112 instances), or when they interact with writing tools (368 instances), which are the most frequent interactions observed in this category. Lastly, 207 occurrences are cases of bodily engagement that do not involve haptic engagement, such as when the reader moves to shift position (97 instances), verbal utterances (such as reading out loud) (19 instances), and expressive facial expressions and head movements (frowning, nodding, smiling etc.) (72 instances).</p> <p>The observed bodily activities were divided into three separate categories that describe different modes of bodily enactment during reading. The first category, mode 1: "sustained reading," is applied to segments where the readers seem to be engaged in linear and continuous reading over time. Their gaze is primarily fixed on the reading substrate, and the category includes subtle bodily activities, such as the use of fingers to follow lines in the text or turning a page. The second category, mode 2: "fragmented reading," is used for segments where the readers engage in deliberate manipulations of the reading substrate and reading pace, for example when skimming pages, rereading a passage multiple times, or when using tools such as pens and markers to underline or highlight words and text passages. Here, the reading is more nonlinear and fragmented than in mode 1. The third category, mode 3: "multi‐actional reading," describes segments where the readers integrate reading with related study activities, most prominently being in a state where they switch rapidly and repeatedly between engaging with the reading substrate and engaging in a writing activity. The categories describe different levels of interaction. Each mode of bodily enactment is tied to objects in the physical context and their affordances, and how the readers engage with them in various ways. In addition to the three modes of bodily enactment, the analysis includes a category labeled mode "4—other" which is applied when the readers engage in activities that are not directly related to their academic reading tasks. This fourth category includes both short segments, for example, when the readers get distracted by noise and look up, and longer breaks, such as when they organize items on their desk or have a break and engage with social media on their smart phone. This category highlights the frequency and duration of diversions from ongoing reading activities. As a result of this methodological approach, reading trajectories can be visualized in a figure demonstrating how much time the reader spends in each mode, and when and between which modes shifts occur. This offers a unique and informative perspective on the highly complex and diverse nature of reading activities in higher education and illustrates the importance of considering temporality and bodily enactment in ongoing reading activities.</p> <p>We present two examples of reading trajectories that were coded and visualized using the categories for different modes of bodily enactment, before describing and discussing details in each mode. The first example is a reading trajectory where the participant reads a short fiction text that is part of her assigned curriculum. The text format is a PDF, and the reading device is a tablet. In the reading log, she states that the purpose of the reading session is to prepare for an upcoming lecture. The student is sitting alone in a small group room at the university campus. She is seated by a desk with her laptop open in front of her and she is wearing a headset. The entire reading session lasts for 18:23 min and she reads the entire text, which is seven pages long. When using the modes of bodily enactment to group and visualize the different stages of the reading trajectory, this reading session can be visualized as in Figure 1, below.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Modes of bodily enactment in reading trajectory 8." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Figure 1 illustrates how this reader is mainly engaged in "sustained reading" (mode 1) where she reads the text linearly. She engages in "fragmented reading" (mode 2), as she occasionally uses a digital stylus pen to highlight text passages or write short notes in the margin. She does not engage in "multi‐actional reading" (mode 3) at all in this session. There are, however, several short diversions (mode 4) occurring during the short session where she checks her smart watch or reacts to something happening in her surroundings. Such a visualization of the reading trajectory reveals when and how often this reader fluctuates between "sustained reading" and "fragmented reading" and when and how often her reading is distracted. The fluctuations from "sustained reading" to "fragmented reading" seem to be triggered by the content in the text and presumably connected to the purpose for reading ("prepare for a lecture"), as she will, for example, go back in the text, reread a passage, and then highlight a key sentence.</p> <p>The second example is a longer reading trajectory. In this example, the student sits at home, by a desk in her bedroom. She reads parts of a chapter in a textbook from her curriculum. Her stated purpose with the session is multifaceted: to prepare for a lecture, to prepare for an exam, and studying in general. Prior to the recorded session, she has skimmed through the chapter and read the first part. In the recorded session, she continues reading the text using a specific strategy: she reads a short passage, then goes back to reread it, highlights key words and sentences, and writes short notes in the margin. Finally, she uses her laptop to write notes based on her markings and notes in the text. She then continues to repeat this approach on the next passage. When using the categories of bodily enactment to visualize this reading trajectory, the result is a complex pattern of shifts between modes.</p> <p>In the first half of the reading trajectory, we observe a wave‐like pattern with shifts between "multi‐actional reading," "fragmented reading," and "sustained reading." In the second half, the reader does not engage in "multi‐actional reading" but alters between "sustained reading" and "fragmented reading." In the segments sorted to mode 4—"other" she mostly uses social media on her smart phone. The entire session lasts for 1 h and 14 min. She reads 11 pages, stopping in the middle of a chapter.</p> <p>These two examples were selected to clarify and visualize some of the complexity in the data set. They demonstrate how intricate these complex reading processes are in terms of shifts between different reading modes and the changes and developments that happen during reading trajectories. The visualizations reveal how reading for academic purposes can be a very diverse and multifaceted process.</p> <p>It is worth noting the frequency of segments coded to mode 4—"other" in the two examples. When exploring the data set, we identified when and how often the participants deviate from engaging in reading activities. Scrutinizing the data material revealed that participants deviate from their reading activities for a variety of reasons, but many of them are connected to the presence of digital devices. The students will, for example, interrupt ongoing study activities to read a notification displayed on their smart watch or to browse social media on their smart phone. Although the consequences of frequent interruptions of reading activities are outside the scope of this study to discuss in depth, we note that such deviations occur frequently in our data set. The two examples (Figures 1 and 2) above offer an indication of the duration of uninterrupted reading activities in our data. In the first example (Figure 1), the longest interval of reading activities without deviations is from 00:13:43–00:17:22, lasting for 3 min and 39 s. In the second example (Figure 2), the longest uninterrupted reading activity is registered from 01:06:24 to 01:12:17, lasting just under 6 min. These frequent diversions add to the complexity one needs to consider when exploring real‐life reading activities, and to the notion of the lack of sustained attention during academic reading activities.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Modes of bodily enactment in reading trajectory 3." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In the following, we describe each mode of bodily enactment of reading processes in detail, provide examples of different types of embodied engagement for each mode, and discuss the interplay between devices and their affordances, micro‐bodily engagement, and the ongoing reading processes understood in the embodied and distributed framework.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-13">Sustained Reading</hd> <p>The first category, "sustained reading" is used to describe a state where the readers seem to be engaged in sustained and linear reading. Their gaze is directed toward the text displayed on the reading substrate and moves continuously along the lines. The video data shows no instances of the readers slowing down to reread a paragraph, or skimming/skipping sections, or that they use writing tools to underline, highlight, etc. during reading. In this mode, the readers interact with the reading substates and other physical objects in subtle ways. In terms of actions that are easily recognized as task related and instrumental acts intrinsic to the reading process, we observe interactions such as turning the page or scrolling down on a digital device, and using fingers or a pen to point in the text and follow the line on the page. But other observed interactions have no obvious relation to any specific task during reading. When engaged in "sustained reading" the participants continue to use their fingers and hands to fidget and tinker with no apparent aim. As noted by Trasmundi: "Fidgeting during reading often involves touching and folding the pages. This fidgeting is not aligned with anticipated page‐turning or other task oriented actions" ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref101">61</reflink>], 47).</p> <p>Overall, the data segments that are included in the "sustained reading"‐category do contain many subtle haptic interactions with the reading substrates and other bodily engagement. Two hundred and forty‐six different cases of bodily engagement were identified in this mode in the data set. Across participants, the most frequently observed interactions in this category include different ways of touching and interacting with the reading substrate. The most frequent interactions include pointing at the reading surface using a finger or a tool (68 separate instances in the "sustained reading"‐mode), scrolling slowly down while reading (99 separate instances in this mode), holding on to a single paper page (44 instances), and lifting and holding the reading surface (18 instances). The participants also engage their bodies beyond interacting with the reading substrate. They hold on to writing tools (60 instances) and touch their hair or face (105 instances) all while being engaged in sustained reading.</p> <p>For example, one of the participants continuously holds and touches the corner of the paper page as she is engaged in "sustained reading" while reading on paper. Figure 3 serves as an example of a typical posture and case of such micro‐bodily enactment. The reading substrate is printed pages stapled together, and the reader continues to touch and fidget with the upper right corner of the page as she reads the text.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Tinkering with page corner and limiting perceptual field (from reading trajectory 2)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The fidgeting and tinkering with the corner of the page seems to contribute in subtle ways to the experience of reading. This is one example of how the material affordances of the reading substrate may matter, because reading on paper offers the reader the opportunity to fidget with the pages, touch them and fold them, which in turn gives the reader a different sensory experience than that of reading on screen. Micro‐bodily enactments such as fidgeting and tinkering in the "sustained reading" mode seem to vary with the affordances of objects in the different settings. Similar to what is found in survey studies of paper versus screen reading, the materiality and tactility of paper seem to afford modes of sensuous engagement in different ways than screen devices do (Baron et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>]; Mizrachi and Salaz [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref103">43</reflink>]). When reading on paper, micro‐bodily enactment is evident in the way the readers are using hands and fingers to touch and fidget with the pages. The readers keep holding, touching, and tinkering with the pages while they read, in ways that are not visibly related to instrumental aspects of the reading.</p> <p>The importance of analyzing what happens in terms of bodily activity when readers are seemingly engaged in sustained reading becomes evident when considering how the physical objects in the environment may enhance or diminish the readers' possibilities for allowing the reading process to continue without being disrupted. Our observations here are in line with the findings from another qualitative study of students' reading (Wig et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref104">69</reflink>]), in which students read assigned texts either in print or digitally while their reading was video recorded. Wig et al. ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref105">69</reflink>]) observed that, when reading on paper, the reader was able to remain "on task" during self‐initiated interruptions, as when drinking from a water bottle. In contrast, when reading on a digital device such as a tablet, such acts would typically result in a break in the reading as the tablet would be left idle on the desk and the gaze would move away from the text during drinking. Affordances of the print format thus allowed the reader to move the reading surface simultaneously as she moved to drink, whereas she would leave the digital reading device on the table and move her attention away as she drank, hence disrupting the sustained reading (Wig et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref106">69</reflink>], 12). In our data set, we observe similar tendencies. This is illustrated in the example below, where a reader shifts position and moves from a posture where she leans forward (Figure 3A) to leaning backwards (Figure 3D) before she settles in a more reclined position (Figure 3F). In doing so, she uses her hands and fingers to lift the paper page partly from the desk as she moves, allowing the sustained reading process to continue throughout the movement (Figure 4).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Shift of posture while engaged in "sustained reading" (from reading trajectory 1)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The reader moves fluently <emph>with</emph> the paper page as she continues to read the text, her gaze remaining directed toward the page. This is an example of how the reading substrate's affordances impact how the reader moves while continuing the ongoing reading process. The pliability of printed paper pages allows her to touch and lift a single page at the same time as she changes posture, while the remaining pages are still lying on the desk. As such, the paper format may allow for different bodily engagement than a screen device.</p> <p>Elaborating on this argument, a tablet format is in turn more flexible in terms of affording dynamic bodily engagement than, for example, a laptop. During "sustained reading" when reading on a laptop, this device largely remains fixed in space, as illustrated in the example below (Figure 5).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Static distance between the reader's head and text when using a laptop (from reading trajectory 6)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Here, the laptop displays the text, and the reader uses her hand to scroll down as she reads. Although portable, the laptop maintains a more static distance between the reader's head and text, hence constraining bodily engagement (Trasmundi [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref107">61</reflink>], 51). The material affordances of the substrate have implications for the reader's embodied enactment, which may in turn impact cognitive processing and/or emotional engagement. As mentioned, the phenomenon "haptic dissonance" (Gerlach and Buxmann [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref108">14</reflink>]) indicates that the material affordances and sensorimotor contingencies of paper, as in a print book, matter for the reading experience. Research has also shown that such differences in sensorimotor contingencies and materiality may contribute to cognitive aspects of the reading: an experiment comparing the reading of a short story in a print pocket book and on an e‐reader found that readers who read in print were better at reconstructing the plot of the story than those who had read on an e‐reader, and they could also more accurately respond to questions related to time, order, and duration of events in the story (Mangen et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref109">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The differences in embodied engagement when reading on different substrates are also found in the interview data. One of the participants explains why she prefers reading on paper even when the texts are originally supplied in a digital format:</p> <p>Yes, we get everything digitally. Eh, so then I print it. And previously I have been a bit like "Eh! I will try to read in on the laptop", but it is a VERY short path from the article on the computer to what lies open behind it. Eh, so that (...) I cannot do it. I must have it on paper. And a bit like physically have it in my hand and be able to turn the pages in it and turn the pages back and, yes</p> <p>Here she describes her experience with trying to read on a digital device but finding the latent distractions problematic. She then goes on to talk positively about affordances in the paper format and mentions specifically the tactile feeling of holding paper and touching the pages.</p> <p>Micro‐bodily enactment is also evident when the reading substrate is a digital device, but instead of touching and tinkering with paper pages, the readers engage their hands and fingers in other ways. For example, one of the readers continues to hold a digital stylus pen in her hand when she is engaged in "sustained reading" while reading on a tablet. Occasionally, she uses this tool to point at the text and follow the lines, and thus guide her visual perception (Figure 6A1,A2). More often, she is not using it for anything obviously task related. Rather, she touches her hair/face with it (Figure 6B), or fidgets with it (Figure 6C1,C2).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Sustained reading with writing tool in hand (from reading trajectory 8)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>During this 18:23 min long reading trajectory, she holds her digital pen for 16:51 min, often engaging in sensuous tinkering while reading linearly. The frequency of fidgeting and tinkering we observe during "sustained reading" may indicate that it is a way to manage cognitive tension and to help sustain focus (Farley et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref110">11</reflink>]; Tancredi and Abrahamson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref111">59</reflink>]; Trasmundi [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref112">61</reflink>], 48), as in this example when the reader continuously holds a digital stylus pen during reading on a tablet in her hand, despite rarely using it for a task‐related purpose such as underlining or highlighting. Overall, the participants we observed fidget and tinker with the paper pages, writing tools, their hair, and other objects (35 separate instances in this mode). Tinkering may thus be indicative of sensuous aspects of reading, reflecting how material affordances of the reading substrate contribute in positive and emotionally supporting ways to the experience of being engaged in sustained reading. Screen devices vary in the degree to which they invite tinkering and other types of haptic interaction. Whereas hand‐held devices such as a tablet naturally afford holding and manual engagement when, for example, turning the page and navigating, devices such as laptops are more stationary and fixed. Such ergonomic differences may be one reason why the so‐called screen inferiority effect, that is, that reading on screen results in poorer reading comprehension than reading on paper, has shown to be smaller for tablets than for laptops (Salmerón et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref113">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-18">Fragmented Reading</hd> <p>The second mode of bodily enactment of reading processes is characterized by a closer engagement between the reader and the reading substrate, where the readers deliberately change their reading pace and manipulate the material as they read. This includes activities such as rereading, skimming, highlighting and underlining words and text passages, writing notes in the margins, and creating bookmarks. The reading activities in this mode can be characterized as nonlinear and ruptured. The readers have a "nonlinear approach" (Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref114">62</reflink>], 22), and achieve something other than sustained reading. This mode involves the handling of physical objects during the reading activity, whether analog or digital. More than 400 examples of manipulations of the reading material were observed across participants.</p> <p>One of the readers explains her reasons for reading in this fragmented manner like this:</p> <p>[...] what feels good about the way I work where I both like use markers and write eh keywords in the margin on the side and like write there is that I feel like then I am not getting small breaks all the time but I am doing a bit different things, because if I am to sort of sit and read five pages from top to bottom, that becomes too much for me, then, then I will (...) then I eventually lose it in a way then I just become tired and maybe I will put it away, so when I am doing the little things and sort of switch then I am able to do it for a much longer time period</p> <p>It is interesting to note that she emphasizes this approach, to engage actively with the text, as a method to help her remain on task for "much longer" than she would have if she were to simply just "sit and read" the pages from top to bottom. Thus, she argues that this way of reading and interacting with the text contributes to sustaining her attention and remaining on task. In the interview, she emphasizes that she prefers a paper format when she reads her assigned texts this way:</p> <p>[...] most of it is sort of digitally available, but personally I like to read that is turn [<emph>the page</emph>] and write notes and write and stuff because that is when I feel like I am learning best and then I write my own notes afterwards, eh, so I have printed almost everything already</p> <p>Her statement about the notion of "learning best" when reading on paper as opposed to reading on screen mirrors findings in studies where readers highlight the tactility of paper and its importance for learning outcomes (Baron [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref115">2</reflink>]; Mangen and Baron [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref116">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Whereas the substrate of paper allows the reader to manually underline, highlight, doodle, and write notes <emph>by hand</emph>, the tablet format affords similar movements, while a laptop does not afford the same bodily engagement. On a regular laptop, the bodily engagement entailed in manipulating the displayed text is tied to the readers' use of the keyboard and touchpad, which is sensorimotorically different from engaging hands and fingers in using objects like a physical pencil and paper pages. A tablet format offers yet another set of possibilities; a touch screen and some digital formats can allow the reader to for example highlight text passages using a finger, and for some tablet formats there is an option to use digital stylus pens. These differences are highly interesting in the 4E‐cognition perspective. The affordances of the different technologies used for reading matter for the readers' sensorimotor engagement, something that in turn may matter for the ongoing cognitive processes, because it affects what is perceived and understood (Malafouris [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref117">31</reflink>]; Schilhab and Groth [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref118">54</reflink>], 4). One of the readers explained that she preferred reading scientific articles on her tablet, much due to how she could use her digital stylus pen (here referred to as "the pen") during reading:</p> <p>I always have it with me! Because then I can highlight, I am not able to sit with my finger or (...) it has become like just become like the pen is always present, eh, so that it almost becomes as if I have a sheet with markers, that then the pen is all those markers</p> <p>It becomes evident that the digital stylus pen is an important tool for this reader. She explains that she would not do a similar action, such as highlight a passage, if she had to do it with her finger instead. This is an interesting example of the subtle differences in embodied enactment that different substrates and available tools afford that play an important role for individual readers. She emphasizes that she always brings the digital stylus pen with her when she reads on her tablet.</p> <p>Figures 7 and 8 illustrate typical situations in the "fragmented reading" mode. Here, the readers deliberately manipulate the texts. In Figure 7, the reader alters the appearance of the paper page using highlighters in different colors to highlight and color code sections of the text. She has also made handwritten notes in the margins.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0007.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0007.jpg" title="7 Using highlighters in different colors to manipulate a textbook (from reading trajectory 3)." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0008.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0008.jpg" title="8 Reader using a digital stylus pen to manipulate a digital text (from reading trajectory 8)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Figure 8 illustrates a "fragmented reading" situation where the reading substrate is a digital device. Similar to the example in Figure 7 above, this reader has highlighted parts of the text and then writes a handwritten note in the margins.</p> <p>In total, the participants manipulate their texts this way several times. The data set includes 101 separate instances of highlighting by hand, 32 instances of underlining, and 20 instances of writing notes in the margin. The examples demonstrate how the readers manipulate the texts when reading a paper book (Figure 7) and when reading on a digital tablet (Figure 8). The bodily engagement involved in the manipulation of the two substrates is similar, but there are important differences between what print and digital reading devices and their adhering writing tools afford with respect to such task‐related manipulations of the reading material. The reader in Figure 7 interacts with several different physical objects (different colored highlighters and the pen) as she manipulates the text. She switches between these objects as she is putting one writing tool down on the table next to her before picking up another. In contrast, the reader with the tablet changes the setting for her digital stylus pen directly on her screen, allowing her to switch from, for example, a "highlighter" setting to a "pen" setting in a digital toolbar. The physical writing tool in this example does not change because the same object serves multiple purposes depending on the digital setting the reader chooses. Where the digital stylus pen remains in the reader's hand when reading on a tablet, the writing tools that the reader with the paper book interacts with afford more bodily activity as she switches between them in rapid sequence.</p> <p>Manipulating the reading material does not necessarily involve a tool like a pen or a highlighter. It can also be a more subtle act that relies on the reader's use of hands, fingers, and gaze. For example, the act of using a finger to point and follow along the lines in a text was observed 50 times in the data set across participants in the "fragmented reading"‐mode. This is illustrated in Figure 9 below, where one of the students reads a passage several times and uses her index finger to touch the surface and follow the lines in the text.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0009.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0009.jpg" title="9 Reader rereading and using index finger to follow the lines in the text (reading trajectory 3)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In the example illustrated in Figure 9, the reader rereads the passage for a second time. She leans forward, touches the paper book with both hands, and uses her right index finger to follow the lines as she reads. In a following up, stimulated recall interview she explained why she rereads text passages while using her fingers to point in the text and follow the lines:</p> <p>Yes I do a lot of different things like that eh and maybe it's because it then becomes easier to read for a long period of time that it is kind of not just the same, but [...]. Eh, no, but it is probably because usually I read sort of normal I was about to say without the finger and then either if I am sort of a bit tired or feel like I have to pay extra attention to it and for example if I have read it before and then I sort of have to go through if it's something I am looking for then I use the finger to like yes go over it more easily</p> <p>Her description ties her embodied engagement to a way of retaining attention and reading with a specific task in mind ("if it's something I am looking for"). When asked if she does the same thing when reading on a screen, she responds:</p> <p>Eh I don't think I do it on screen. I could have done it, but I read as little as possible on screen, eh, so (...) no, I have (...) I cannot imagine that I have done it on screen. No. But that is why I like (...) I like books that I can write (...) mess around (...) like use circles and lines and [laughs] all of that stuff, but it is possible to do that on a laptop too and I will sort of be able to try that too but I LIKE to have like the text here and I think it is a lot easier to get it</p> <p>Here, she indicates that although she believes it is possible to do the same movement (follow the lines with her fingers) when reading on screen, she does not actually do it, and she believes it is easier to do so when reading on paper. In addition, the reader highlights the importance of being able to "mess around" with the reading substrate in terms of manipulation purposes and says that she prefers the paper book format for this activity. In other words, the paper format affords different types of manual interactions than a laptop. The quotes from the reader and the extract from the video data exemplify how the haptic affordances in the various reading substrates "[...] stimulate different routes towards understanding and engagement, because important components in the overall cognitive systems are changed" (Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref119">66</reflink>], 70).</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-22">Multi‐Actional Reading</hd> <p>The third mode, "multi‐actional reading", is applied to segments characterized by rapid and frequent switching between actions that are connected to reading activities. The bodily engagement observed in this mode can largely be described as intentional and task related. Their gaze switches between two or more surfaces, and the readers engage both their posture, hands, and gaze. During "multi‐actional reading" the participants, in addition to engaging in writing activities, continue to touch the reading substrate, point at it and tap on it with their fingers (148 observed instances). In addition, they engage their hands and fingers by touching their hair or face (68 observed instances) and subtly interact with writing tools and other objects by holding them and fidgeting with them (19 observed instances). For example, we observed that some of the readers would read a short passage before writing something based on what they just read, then repeat this sequence several times. The category covers instances where the readers handle multiple texts at the same time, or when they engage in writing activities that are intertwined with their reading activities. This is done because, even though the object of study here is primarily reading activities, it often does not make sense to separate reading from writing when describing reading for academic purposes at an advanced level, as students will engage in reading activities when the overarching goal is to create a written text (Hillesund [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref120">19</reflink>]). And further, the writing process will also involve reading at several levels, in the forming of words and sentences, rereading drafts, and related processes (Hillesund [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref121">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this mode, the readers interact with different devices simultaneously (i.e., a paper book and a laptop, as in Figure 10 below). They will typically type on a keyboard while their gaze alternates between the reading substrate and the laptop. Figure 10 illustrates how one of the participants uses her hands and fingers, along with previously created personal manipulations of the text such as color‐coded highlighted passages, to locate specific words and text passages in the reading substrate. She then writes notes on her laptop based on the text in the paper book.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70088-fig-0010.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70088-fig-0010.jpg" title="10 Gaze and hands moving between keyboard and paper book (from reading trajectory 3)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In this instance, the sequence of actions where the reader moves between the surfaces is repeated several times following the same pattern. This specific reading trajectory consists of almost 22 min with "multi‐actional reading." During these 22 min, the reader touches the paper book 79 separate times as she points at the text, follows the lines with her fingers, and taps with her finger at specific parts of the text. She continues to engage her hands and fingers as she is processing the text. This exemplifies the interesting interplay between the body/sensory modalities, psychological processes, and cognition that is claimed in the 4E cognition theories (Glenberg [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref122">16</reflink>]). In an in‐depth interview, this reader sheds further light on the connection between her actions and what she hopes to achieve, as she explains her "multi‐actional reading" as something she does when she has a specific writing task in mind or when something is "very relevant":</p> <p>[...] if there is something I can see is very relevant that I can use then I make a small document with a (...) small quotes, eh, gathered from there then, eh, and (...) that I preferably (...) and where they are gathered from and then I reformulate it a bit eh and use it in the assignment</p> <p>The bodily engagement during "multi‐actional reading" seemes to serve several purposes. Using hands and fingers to point in the text helps the readers locate passages and navigate between the surfaces, and to hold on to particular passages in the text in one medium while their gaze moves to another. This way, the fingers and hands may be integral parts of the cognitive process, acting to partially off‐load the cognitive processing: haptics and vision work together to keep track of ongoing reading activity. In her ethnographic research on students reading, Trasmundi ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref123">61</reflink>], 43–44) has identified several instances of such "holding on to," with readers using their fingers as placeholders for either thoughts, or texts. For instance, several times during reading, one reader suddenly raises his index finger and points out in the air while opening his mouth (Trasmundi [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref124">61</reflink>], 43–44). In such moments of attentional modulation, the finger serves to "hold on to a thought by modulating [the reader's] environment" (Trasmundi et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref125">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>During enactments such as these, although the readers are actively engaged in a reading task and remain focused, the actual "reading" can be characterized as nonlinear and ruptured. This does not, however, indicate that this form of reading activity is dysfunctional or experienced by the readers as unsuccessful or particularly challenging. On the contrary, the rapid skipping back and forth between reading and writing activities seems to be an important part of the academic reading process. It may support an overall purpose of gaining access to the content of the text, organizing it in units, and relating it to a writing assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-24">Conclusions and Implications</hd> <p>This study describes and discusses the complexity of real‐life, situated reading activities, and contributes to a deeper understanding of the role of various types of bodily engagement when reading for academic purposes. Using close observation of students' authentic reading sessions when reading for academic purposes, the study reveals how observable actions and events can be understood as bodily enactment of reading processes and help us understand how readers organize, shape, and handle cognitively demanding reading tasks that unfold over an extended time period.</p> <p>The findings in this study indicate that bodily engagement when reading for academic purposes may serve important purposes for the reader, some of which seem obviously and closely related to the reading task at hand, whereas others seem less deliberate and goal‐directed. The analysis illustrates how long‐form study reading entails numerous and various cases of material engagement with the reading substrate, as well as other types of bodily engagement such as fidgeting and tinkering during the observed reading activities. The extent to which bodily engagement occurs in the data material underscores how reading is much more than a mental act of information processing. The variety of modes of bodily enactment invites reflections on reading as material engagement and the role of the body, in particular the fingers and hands, for cognitive and emotional facets of reading.</p> <p>The study demonstrates the need to support students with an awareness of the different affordances of reading materials, helping them to make informed decisions when they plan their reading activities, as choice of reading format impacts possibilities for touch, manipulation, and other ways of engaging the body during reading activities. It reveals that it is important for both students, policymakers, and educators to acknowledge and consider the affordances of different reading materials when reading academic texts and emphasizes the importance of considering reading as a situated and embodied activity, including different social and environmental settings, and various purposes for reading.</p> <p>Extending the traditional and dominant disembodied views in reading research with perspectives from 4E and distributed cognition can yield interesting findings to improve our understanding of reading and how it is shaped by current and future technologies. The role of bodily enactment in cognitive processes may have important implications for affective and experiential aspects of reading such as managing attention, suppressing potential distractions, offering stress regulation, and creating opportunities for reflection and imagination. Multi‐method, empirical research enabling more precise measures of such factors can add substantially to our understanding of the effects and implications of digitisation on reading across a variety of purposes and contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-25">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable feedback and support from Naomi Baron, Marte Blikstad‐Balas, Frank Hakemulder and Sarah Bro Trasmundi throughout the research process. We also extend our gratitude to the participants in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-26">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The study has been conducted in compliance with the national ethics requirements in Norway, and with GDPR. The study was reviewed by the Norwegian Research Ethics Review Board. The participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study and have consented to the use of photographs in scholarly contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-27">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0193225955-28">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Research data are not shared due to sensitivity and GDPR restrictions.</p> <ref id="AN0193225955-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref83" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, L. J., and T. C. Ormerod. 2000. "Putting Ethnography to Work: The Case for a Cognitive Ethnography of Design." International Journal of Human‐Computer Studies53, no. 1: 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baron, N. S.2021. How We Read Now: Strategic Choices for Print, Screen, and Audio. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref102" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baron, N. S., R. M. Calixte, and M. Havewala. 2017. "The Persistence of Print Among University Students: An Exploratory Study." Telematics and Informatics34, no. 5: 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baron, N. S., and A. Mangen. 2021. "Doing the Reading: The Decline of Long Longform Reading in Higher Education." Poetics Today42, no. 2: 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372‐8883248.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref74" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barroso, F., N. Freedman, and S. Grand. 1980. "Self‐Touching, Performance, and Attentional Processes." Perceptual and Motor Skills50, no. 3 Suppl: 1083–1089. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1980.50.3c.1083.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref89" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2019. "Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis." Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health11, no. 4: 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burchfield, C. M., and J. Sappington. 2000. "Compliance With Required Reading Assignments." Teaching of Psychology27, no. 1: 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref71" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cienki, A.2024. "Self‐Focused Versus Dialogic Features of Gesturing During Simultaneous Interpreting." Russian Journal of Linguistics28, no. 2: 227–242.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref68" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Ekman, P., and W. V. Friesen. 1972. "Hand Movements." Journal of Communication22, no. 4: 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460‐2466.1972.tb00163.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enriquez, G., E. Johnson, S. Kontovourki, and C. A. Mallozzi. 2016. Literacies, Learning, and the Body: Putting Theory and Research Into Pedagogical Practice. Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farley, J., E. Risko, and A. Kingstone. 2013. "Everyday Attention and Lecture Retention: The Effects of Time, Fidgeting, and Mind Wandering." Frontiers in Psychology4: 619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00619.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernandez‐Velasco, P., J. Nijman, and R. Casati. 2023. "The Cognitive Advantages of the Notebook." Cognitive Semiotics16, no. 1: 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem‐2023‐2003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fugate, J. M. B., S. L. Macrine, and C. Cipriano. 2019. "The Role of Embodied Cognition for Transforming Learning." International Journal of School & Educational Psychology7, no. 4: 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2018.1443856.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerlach, J., and P. Buxmann. 2011. "Investigating the Acceptance of Electronic Books: The Impact of Haptic Dissonance on Innovation Adoption."ECIS 2011 Proceedings, 141. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, J. J.1977. "The Theory of Affordances." In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, edited by R. E. Shaw and J. Bransford, 67–82. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glenberg, A. M.2010. "Embodiment as a Unifying Perspective for Psychology." WIREs Cognitive Science1, no. 4: 586–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hakemulder, F., and A. Mangen. 2024. "Literary Reading on Paper and Screens: Associations Between Reading Habits and Preferences and Experiencing Meaningfulness." Reading Research Quarterly59, no. 1: 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.527.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henwood, K., and F. Shirani. 2022. "Qualitative Longitudinal Design: Time, Change, Interpretive Practices." In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design, vol. 2, 414–429. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529770278.n26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillesund, T.2023. "Scholarly Reading (and Writing) and the Power of Impact Factors: A Study of Distributed Cognition and Intellectual Habits." Frontiers in Psychology14: 1165700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1165700.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillesund, T., T. Schilhab, and A. Mangen. 2022. "Text Materialities, Affordances, and the Embodied Turn in the Study of Reading." Frontiers in Psychology13. https://<ulink href="http://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827058">www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827058</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howes, D.2022. The Sensory Studies Manifesto: Tracking the Sensorial Revolution in the Arts and Human Sciences. University of Toronto Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchins, E.1995. Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen, M.2022. "Min kuglepen er en sporhund, når jeg læser": Et kognitivt etnografisk studie af læseprocesser. Syddansk Universitet, Det Humanistiske Fakultet.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karlesky, M., and K. Isbister. 2016. "Understanding Fidget Widgets: Exploring the Design Space of Embodied Self‐Regulation." In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human‐Computer Interaction. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971557.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiefer, M., and N. M. Trumpp. 2012. "Embodiment Theory and Education: The Foundations of Cognition in Perception and Action." Trends in Neuroscience and Education1, no. 1: 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2012.07.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiverstein, J.2018. "Extended Cognition." In The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition, edited by A. Newen, L. De Bruin, and S. Gallagher, 19–40. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knoblauch, H., R. Tuma, and B. Schnettler. 2014. "Video Analysis and Videography." In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, 435–449. SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Körner, A., M. Castillo, L. Drijvers, et al. 2023. "Embodied Processing at Six Linguistic Granularity Levels: A Consensus Paper." Journal of Cognition6, no. 1: 60. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lopez‐Ozieblo, R.2020. "Proposing a Revised Functional Classification of Pragmatic Gestures." Lingua247: 102870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102870.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lopez‐Ozieblo, R.2025. "The Dual Functions of Adaptors." Language10, no. 9: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10090231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malafouris, L.2013. How Things Shape the Mind: A Theory of Material Engagement. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malafouris, L.2018. "Bringing Things to Mind: 4Es and Material Engagement." In The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition, edited by A. Newen, L. De Bruin, and S. Gallagher, 755–771. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mangen, A.2008. "Hypertext Fiction Reading: Haptics and Immersion." Journal of Research in Reading31, no. 4: 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2008.00380.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mangen, A.2016. "What Hands May Tell Us about Reading and Writing." Educational Theory66, no. 4: 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mangen, A., and N. S. Baron. 2024. "Student Perceptions and Practices When Reading in Print and Digitally: An Evolving Saga." In The Reading Lives of Teens, edited by C. E. Loh, 40–62. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mangen, A., G. Olivier, and J. L. Velay. 2019. "Comparing Comprehension of a Long Text Read in Print Book and on Kindle: Where in the Text and When in the Story?" Frontiers in Psychology10: 38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00038.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mangen, A., and A. van der Weel. 2016. "The Evolution of Reading in the Age of Digitisation: An Integrative Framework for Reading Research." Literacy50, no. 3: 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12086.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maricchiolo, F., A. Gnisci, and M. Bonaiuto. 2012. "Coding Hand Gestures: A Reliable Taxonomy and a Multi‐Media Support." In Cognitive Behavioural Systems, edited by A. Esposito, A. M. Esposito, A. Vinciarelli, R. Hoffmann, and V. C. Müller, 405–416. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐642‐34584‐5_36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, J. A.2013. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 3rd ed. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehrabian, A., and S. L. Friedman. 1986. "An Analysis of Fidgeting and Associated Individual Differences." Journal of Personality54, no. 2: 406–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6494.1986.tb00402.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B., and E. J. Tisdell. 2016. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 4th ed. Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills, K. A.2015. Literacy Theories for the Digital Age: Social, Critical, Multimodal, Spatial, Material and Sensory Lenses. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783094639.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mizrachi, D., and A. M. Salaz. 2019. "Beyond the Surveys: Qualitative Analysis From the Academic Reading Format International Study (ARFIS)." College & Research Libraries81, no. 5: 808–821. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/11337116.v1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohiyeddini, C., S. Bauer, and S. Semple. 2015. "Neuroticism and Stress: The Role of Displacement Behavior." Anxiety, Stress, and Coping28, no. 4: 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.1000878.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NESH The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. 2022. Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities, 5th ed.Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newen, A., L. de Bruin, and S. Gallagher, eds. 2018. The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noë, A.2004. Action in Perception. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pang, H. T., F. Canarslan, and M. Chu. 2022. "Individual Differences in Conversational Self‐Touch Frequency Correlate With State Anxiety." Journal of Nonverbal Behavior46, no. 3: 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919‐022‐00402‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ricciardi, O., P. Maggi, and F. D. Nocera. 2019. "Boredom Makes Me 'Nervous': Fidgeting as a Strategy for Contrasting the Lack of Variety." International Journal of Human Factors And Ergonomics6, no. 3: 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHFE.2019.104590.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, E.2011. "The Phenomenology of On‐Screen Reading: University Students' Lived Experience of Digitised Text." British Journal of Educational Technology42, no. 3: 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8535.2009.01043.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowsell, J.2014. "Toward a Phenomenology of Contemporary Reading." Australian Journal of Language and Literacy37, no. 2: 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651939.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J.2021. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 4th ed. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmerón, L., L. Altamura, P. Delgado, A. Karagiorgi, and C. Vargas. 2024. "Reading Comprehension on Handheld Devices Versus on Paper: A Narrative Review and Meta‐Analysis of the Medium Effect and Its Moderators." Journal of Educational Psychology116, no. 2: 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000830.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schilhab, T., and C. Groth. 2024. Embodied Learning and Teaching Using the 4E Cognition Approach: Exploring Perspectives in Teaching Practices. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003341604.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schüller‐Zwierlein, A., A. Mangen, M. Kovač, and A. v. d. Weel. 2022. "Why Higher‐Level Reading Is Important." First Monday27, no. 9. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v27i5.12770.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seli, P., J. S. A. Carriere, D. R. Thomson, J. A. Cheyne, K. A. E. Martens, and D. Smilek. 2014. "Restless Mind, Restless Body." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition40, no. 3: 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035260.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spjeldnæs, K., and F. Karlsen. 2022. "How Digital Devices Transform Literary Reading: The Impact of e‐Books, Audiobooks and Online Life on Reading Habits." New Media & Society26, no. 8: 4808–4824. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221126168.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> St Clair‐Thompson, H., A. Graham, and S. Marsham. 2018. "Exploring the Reading Practices of Undergraduate Students." Education Inquiry9, no. 3: 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1380487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tancredi, S., and D. Abrahamson. 2024. "Stimming as Thinking: A Critical Reevaluation of Self‐Stimulatory Behavior as an Epistemic Resource for Inclusive Education." Educational Psychology Review36, no. 3: 75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐024‐09904‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trasmundi, S. B.2020. Errors and Interaction: A Cognitive Ethnography of Emergency Medicine. John Benjamins Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trasmundi, S. B.2025. The Imagination Pulse: From Flickers to Firestorms in Reading. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trasmundi, S. B., E. Baggs, J. Toro, and S. V. Steffensen. 2024. "Expertise in Non‐Well‐Defined Task Domains: The Case of Reading." Social Epistemology38, no. 1: 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2023.2266690.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trasmundi, S. B., and P. Cobley. 2021. "A Dialogue Between Distributed Language and Reading Disciplines." Language Sciences84: 101355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trasmundi, S. B., L. Kokkola, T. Schilhab, and A. Mangen. 2021. "A Distributed Perspective on Reading: Implications for Education." Language Sciences (Oxford)84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101367.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trasmundi, S. B., and A. Mangen. 2024. "Substrates, Displays, Technologies and Texts: Embodied, Experiential Reading." In Embodied Learning and Teaching using the 4E Cognition Approach: Exploring Perspectives in Teaching Practices, edited by T. Schilhab and C. Groth, 45–53. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003341604.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trasmundi, S. B., A. Mangen, and L. Kokkola. 2025. "Timely Reading: Implications of Distributed Cognition for Reading." Language and Literacy27, no. 2: 62–83. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29735.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trasmundi, S. B., and J. Toro. 2023. "Mind Wandering in Reading: An Embodied Approach." Frontiers in Human Neuroscience17: 1061437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1061437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varela, F. J., E. Thompson, E. Rosch, and J. Kabat‐Zinn. 2016. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Revised ed. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wig, S., S. B. Trasmundi, F. Hakemulder, F. Holm‐Torjusen, and A. Mangen. 2025. "Flow and Longform Reading. Notes from an Exploratory Case Study." Cognitive Semiotics18, no. 1: 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem‐2025‐2003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witchel, H., C. E. I. Westling, J. Tee, et al. 2019. "Can Fidgeting Be Used to Measure Student Engagement in Online Learning Tasks?" In Research Matters: Articles From the Pedagogic Research Conference 2018, edited by R. Masika and A. Chown, 39–48. Centre for Learning and Teaching, University of Brighton Press. https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/conference_contribution/Can_fidgeting_be_used_to_measure_student_engagement_in_online_learning_tasks_/23470616/1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witchel, H. J., C. E. I. Westling, J. Tee, A. Healy, R. Needham, and N. Chockalingam. 2014. "What Does Not Happen: Quantifying Embodied Engagement Using NIMI and Self‐Adaptors." Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies11, no. 1: 304–331.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marte Pupe Støyva and Anne Mangen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref120"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503851
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Touching, Tinkering, and Manipulating: Bodily Engagement When Reading for Academic Purposes and Why It Matters
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marte+Pupe+Støyva%22">Marte Pupe Støyva</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2791-8073">0009-0003-2791-8073</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anne+Mangen%22">Anne Mangen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3415-1881">0000-0002-3415-1881</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(2).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Processes%22">Reading Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Object+Manipulation%22">Object Manipulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Human+Body%22">Human Body</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affordances%22">Affordances</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Research%22">Reading Research</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.70088
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Reading for academic purposes in higher education is a complex activity involving the use of various text types and formats, and readers interact with different objects such as laptops, tablets, paper formats, and writing tools. Such interactions entail embodied engagement: readers engage their bodies, especially their hands and fingers, to touch the reading surface, turn the page or scroll, tinker with a pen, and manipulate the texts. Yet, little attention has been given to the role of the reader's body during reading. This study suggests that bodily activities contribute to the ongoing reading processes, and the study asks: how do embodied, hands-on engagement with objects--through touch, tinkering, and manipulation--shape real-time, situated reading practices? We draw on data from a larger qualitative study to analyze embodied engagement during graduate students' naturalistic reading activities. Extensive video data is used to describe the readers' bodily enactment of ongoing reading processes, and we demonstrate and discuss how the interaction between reader and objects is shaped by the affordances in the physical objects. The analysis reveals how potential bodily activities vary because objects afford different ways of engaging with them. We conclude that graduate students' reading for academic purposes is an activity where the body plays a key role, and that embodied engagement with objects can both benefit and restrain students' reading. Integrating embodied and distributed perspectives on cognition with reading research can strengthen our understanding of naturalistic reading activities, and embodied engagement should be acknowledged as an important factor in reading.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503851
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503851
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.70088
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Reading Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Object Manipulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Human Body
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affordances
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Research
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Touching, Tinkering, and Manipulating: Bodily Engagement When Reading for Academic Purposes and Why It Matters
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marte Pupe Støyva
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anne Mangen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2722
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1