Author: grabe

I have spend my life attempting to understand and improve human learning through the lens of a cognitive psychologist. Originally trained in biology, I understood that the hypothetical constructs used by those with a cognitive perspective had to somehow translate into the biological perspective of the neuroscientist, but when I investigated what the biological field offered I have found little of practical value. The findings of neuroscience were interesting, but offered me little beyond my existing cognitive perspective when it came to practical matters.

The concept of plasticity offered a difference of some potential. It posits that experience can result in fundamental changes in the human brain at the biological level and as I understand this proposal these changes are relatively permanent. By permanent, I mean it takes some time to modify such changes. I do think this concept has been abused. For example, the proposal in the popular “mindset” book suggests that students be encouraged to move from a fixed to a growth mindset because you can change your brain through continued effort. While my “intro to psych” understanding of plasticity would argue this is theoretically true, the actual investment of effort would be beyond the likely level of commitment of any believer. However, there are situations in which this level of commitment exists. The exposure of most of us including children to technology would meet this level of exposure.

A 2010 Kaiser Foundation study showed that elementary aged children use on average 7.5 hours per day of entertainment technology, 75 percent of these children have TV’s in their bedrooms, and 50 percent of North American homes have the TV on all day.

This is a tremendous amount of time and few of us would change an existing routine at this level.

So, if there is something about this exposure to technology that provides a unique brain experience, it would be an issue of interest and possibly concern.
What might this unique brain experience be? I have heard it described as continuous partial attention. The idea that while engaged in a primary task, we continually divert our attention to a different task. If the brain adjusts to make this attentional flexibility more powerful, as a consequence, the capability for focused attention would be diminished. We would find ourselves more distractable. Tasks requiring sustained attention would become more difficult to perform well.

My description here has been simplified and focuses specifically on attention because I believe this would be the cognitive variable most impacted by extended periods of time encouraging attentional switching. I am trying to setup an  introduction of the proposal in two books by Maryann Wolf – Proust and the Squid and Reader come home: The reading brain in a digital age. Neuroscience and brain plasticity are at the core of the author’s focus on learning to read, the long-term benefits of reading, and the impact of large amounts of screen time on reading.

Among the claims of her books:

Reading is not a cognitive skill our brains are preprogrammed to do. We reprogram our brains in order to read. Learning to read takes advantage of brain plasticity to change the way the brain works at multiple levels. A consequence of this change is not only that we learn to read, but we also become capable of more powerful thinking skills as a consequence of this reprogramming. Reading would be one of those tasks to which we devote a considerable amount of time.

Wolf proposes that heavy use of technology devices may work counter to some forms of brain development encouraged and sustained by reading. This different brain organization encourages a “skimming” approach to reading, difficulty in sustained attention, and possibly a decline in other thinking capabilities that come from and require deep and prolonged focus. Among the skills listed is empathy – the capacity to reflect on how others me see a situation from a perspective that differs from our own.

Concern for activities that compete with focused reading have been noted for as long as I can remember. This concern did not depend on a biological perspective. Don’t have the television on while you study was an admonishment I heard in my day as a student. Certainly, cognitive psychologists have long known the issues of limited capacity short term memory and attention and have understood the impact on the performance of a primary task. The altered brain position of the neuroscientist suggests it is more than that. The limited capacity perspective would suggest the remedy is to remove the secondary task; e.g., don’t talk on the phone while driving. This is not the same as proposing your driving skill has been changed whether or not you have happen to be on the phone. A relativity permanent change in function is what is suggested if the brain does alter the way it functions.

Is reading from paper and reading from the screen of an iPad different? I see this question at two levels – the immediate impact and the brain alteration argument. In both cases, I also try to understand why there would be a difference. I don’t see how the surface on which words appear could matter. I understand that what one can do with the paper and the iPad while reading are different. I have a similar reaction to the question of whether students should be allowed to take notes on a laptop during a lecture or should be required to write in their notebooks. While some may argue the surface on which one works matters, the option of using one surface in multiple ways and not the other seems far more obvious. If you get bored during a lecture, you can use your laptop to check Facebook. You can’t do this with your notebook. Similar options exist while reading on the iPad, but not a book. Just for the record, this would not be the same with a Kindle which pretty much limits you to reading and marking up the content (notes, highlighting) as optional activities.

Wolf suggests we have a different set while reading on a device and I think she is correct. She contends we are used to using devices to switch between tasks. We look something up. We check our email. We see if anyone has posted something to our Facebook timeline. The device whether it has to be or not is associated with frequently changing among tasks. I suppose this is true. The issue I have might be described as does this result in bad habits we carry over into new settings or does this result in an altered brain that nearly forces us into a different way of behaving. Are different habits of acting the same as different capabilities?

I don’t think the research at this point can answer the questions I have. I am willing to acknowledge that bad habits have been introduced. I admit that I do other things when reading on my iPad than when reading a book. Ironically, I read both of Dr. Wolf’s books on my devices (a Kindle and an iPad). I admit I looked up some things while reading. I also took notes and highlighted in a way I can now search from my devices or a different device than I used originally. I am not convinced my supplemental activities were destructive in the short or long term. I suppose my device-based reading activities are different than most, but I would suggest this is a professional habit rather than a difference in how my brain works.