One thing I was not aware of however was the depth of the back issues we had access to. I thought it would be a really cool idea to have a look at a journal from today and one of the earliest ones they had. So I have chosen two journals one from 2010 and one from 1963. Looking through a few articles I definitely noticed some differences.
This is a screen grab of an article in the 1963 journal. I skimmed through three separate ones and all three without fail followed this same pattern. No figures, no charts or graphs or data. no pictures, just words. Words, Words, Words. Words are nice and all, but I found these articles very hard to get through. Why is that? Is it because I am a of a generation that cannot focus without visual stimuli? I hope that's not the case, and I know its not entirely as I love to read, but it is interesting to compare this to a a screen grab of the an article in 2010.
Here we have pictures, just a few lines above this was a diagram and a chart, but here's the best part... still plenty of words! Loads of em! Long ones, short ones, etc. I enjoyed actually reading this article. Was it because I was engaged by not only the content but the digital and visual aspects of the article? Perhaps. This little experiment is not entirely pure as the writing style and content of are five decades apart making the recent journals much easier to relate too, but I wonder how I would handle the older articles with a few more images or diagrams?
One other observation I had before I wrap this up, is while the format and media within the article is evolving, albeit at an agonizingly slow pace, the content is the same. Educators 50 years ago face the same problems we face today. Student engagement, social class disparity, student proficiency levels, etc. Very interesting indeed if you ask me.