I have been reading content focused on the role technology can play in enhancing human productivity. Among the works I have reviewed is a 2012 book by Marc Prensky titled “Brain Gain”. Prensky is clearly a technology optimist and argues the need to counter all of the negativity one encounters from authors encouraging readers to focus on the negative (e.g., The Dumbest Generation; The Shallows; Alone Together). Prensky suggests that the negativity must be interpreted within a broader context (breadth of perspective) and with the understanding that it takes some time to learn how best to apply any new technology.
In an effort to apply these ideas myself and to update the application of these suggestions to a more recent controversy, I find myself thinking about the concerns of those who investigate the difference between reading from paper and the screen and the recommendation of these researchers for classroom practice. While there are a few researchers who push back and the mechanisms differentiating the two means of text processing have yet to be consistently identified, I think it fair to summarize the present position of “most” is that reading from a screen is inferior. I can generate all kinds of limitations I see in the existing research and assumptions associated with the findings, but such an analysis is not the focus of this post. I find Prensky’s recommendation that the breadth of perspective be considered useful and an interesting way to explain my general argument in support of digital reading.
My argument – A) Adults learn from reading from a device so educators should be preparing learners for this future and B) the type of learning adults do works better when reading with the benefit of technology.
Most of the research I have reviewed compares screen and paper reading experiences within a very limited time frame and with a specific immediate dependent variable. In other words, learners read the same text either from paper or screen (or both in a within participants methodology) and then complete some assessment of understanding. Ignoring all uncontrolled variables that may be relevant, let’s just say that there is a benefit for reading from paper.
Even in a school context past the early grade emphasis on learning to read, this is not really how reading text is applied. Learning to read morphs into reading to learn and learning implies the use of understanding at a later point in time. Various ways of describing this transition may be useful. One that is pretty straightforward is exposure versus study. Expanding the perspective on the use of newly acquired information really recognizes that exposure is not assumed to be the end of the process and students perhaps in interaction with the teacher and classmates will continue to process newly acquired information to assure understanding, retention, and application. A simple flow of processes might suggest – exposure, understanding, storage, retrieval, and processing for application.
Paper vs. screen is not applied in evaluating which approach is better for this flow. Most adults engage while in the stage of exposure with additional processes such as highlighting and note-taking. Notes may be added in the margins or separately. Most K12 students are not allowed to highlight and generate marginalia even though adults commonly do this while reading from paper. If you have read other posts I have written, you probably realize where this is now going. Technology offers opportunities for storage, search, and exploration of ideas that cannot easily be duplicated with paper (even notebooks). Once you add in the life skills needed to accumulate personal content across long periods of time and to combine inputs from multiple sources sometimes needing to resolve inconsistencies, I hope you can see that the skills we are focusing on, certainly in k12 and perhaps even in higher education, ignore the power of the digital representation of what has been identified during exposure, the continued personalization of what has been identified as meaningful summarizes, the opportunity to store such personalizations and link them to personalized insights from other sources identified at other times, and the retrieval of individual insights and connections of insights when what has been learned can be useful.
We may have yet to meet Prensky’s second goal (i.e., understand how best to apply new technological tools), but even our existing strategies (storage of information summaries and insights as notes) can easily be improved by taking digital notes while reading/listening and reviewing these notes (e.g., SoundNote for notes for listening). Refinements in how these digital tools will be used in education will require experience that will follow introduction to students and extended student use. My point – it is time to start exploring in classroom settings.
My previous posts on digital notes.
Prensky, M. (2012). _Brain gain: Technology and the quest for digital wisdom_. St. Martin’s Press.
