reading – Learning Aloud

Reading and what we know

In reading and then writing about Willingham’s The Reading Mind, the author makes some interesting arguments about the relationships between what we know and reading comprehension and between the time spent reading and what we know. As the reciprocal relationship implies, this is a cognitive explanation of how the rich get richer. The author throws in a related analysis of whether our commitment to spending time with technology has diminished the likelihood that we are now benefiting from this relationship. What follows is my embellished summary with a few updates.

I like to think of Willingham’s description of reading as explaining how the inputs to comprehension come simultaneously from opposite directions. The bottom-up inputs come from the page – letter/phoneme recognition, word recognition, word meaning, broader understanding. The top-down inputs come from stored information (memory) – general knowledge, specific knowledge, broad understanding of the passage being read, sentence meaning, etc. You probably recognize that these inputs are really the same series just listed in opposite directions. It turns out these inputs help each other out as many are being processed at the same time. Some of these interactions you may not recognize and may surprise you. For example, a letter at the beginning of a word can be identified faster than the letter in isolation. Others, you may recognize if I bring them to your attention. For example, the understanding of a sentence may help you assign meaning to an unfamiliar word in that sentence. The battle over what is commonly described as the “science of reading” is focused on the early bottom-up processes. Should early reading experiences emphasize associating sounds with word components or should word recognition and context receive greater attention? It might be helpful to understand why the science of reading may seem to change over time because effective reading depends on multiple processes acting to support each other. Many subskills end up being important. I am more interested here in the top-down processes. Once we get past learning the basics of reading, how does reading both depend on and develop what we know?

Willingham proposes that it is never possible for a writer to explain a topic in complete detail and an author must rely on what readers already know to fill in some elements from existing knowledge. So when a reader is exposed to new material understanding is dependent both on reading skill and existing knowledge. What we already know has a surprisingly large impact on what we comprehend and retain. This claim can be demonstrated on two levels – general knowledge and topic specific knowledge.

Anne Cunningham and Keith Stanovich conducted an interesting study of high school students in which they had the students take a test of general knowledge. General knowledge involves all kinds of random information. In their research, students were asked about factual knowledge of science, history, and literature and the accomplishments of people from history, science, sports, and music. It was not that the knowledge of the specific topics was necessarily important, but rather that the scores obtained were predictive of the level of general knowledge more broadly. The researchers also administered a standard test used to evaluate reading comprehension skills. These two variables – general knowledge and comprehension skill were strongly correlated. More capable readers probably have learned more from reading, but what they have learned may also be a factor in determining their reading skill. Such differences are partly responsible for the advantage some students gain from general life experiences that cannot be provided while in the classroom.

The advantage of what we know to reading performance is made clear in studies that investigate the importance of specific knowledge in understanding content related to that knowledge. Willingham used a study based on reader differences in understanding the game of soccer. This surprised me as I was aware of a very similar study based on the game of baseball. A general description of the clever methodologies of these studies will explain how reading skills and relevant knowledge were differentiated. These studies (Recht & Leslie, 1988; Schneider, Korkel & Weinert, 1989) were conducted with younger learners. Depending on the study, these learners were given a test to evaluate their knowledge of baseball or soccer. Scores on reading comprehension tests were also available. These two measures were used to identify four groups of learners – high on both measures, high on one measure and low on the other, low on both measures. After reading a story about part of a baseball game or a soccer match, readers were asked to recall as much as they could from the story. The grouping of readers allowed a way to statistically isolate the impact of reading ability from background knowledge on what was retained. Relevant knowledge was at least as important as reading proficiency to what was taken away from the reading experience. By the way, this type of research should be relevant to those who argue access to Google is equivalent to knowing things. What you can find through search does not offer the same benefit to immediate processing as what you already know.

Leisure Reading and Technology

Leisure reading plays a unique role to developing readers because the time devoted to leisure reading varies far more than the time spent reading in schools. As adults, if we read many of us only engage in reading that would fall in this category. If engaged in an educational setting, leisure reading augments assigned reading as a reading skill development opportunity and as an opportunity to expand the acquisition of general knowledge and that is important in improving the effectiveness of reading.

In the discussion of technology and reading, Willingham considers both whether reading from a screen offers the same benefits as reading from paper and whether our constant use of technology has displaced time spent reading. Willingham acknowledges the research that demonstrates a small benefit for reading from paper. Like my posts on this topic, he sees this difference to be of little consequence acknowledging that the root cause is unknown. My embrace of screen reading is related to the long-term advantages of the production of digital notes and searchable highlights that can be organized and efficiently searched.

The notion that screen time comes at the cost of reading time (displacement) was countered with what to me were some surprising data. In his focus on leisure reading, Willingham argues that Americans never did read much and that this amount of time has not diminished from pre-internet days. I checked Willingham’s sources on this topic and found a more recent survey of adolescent reading behavior (Rideout and colleagues 2022). Reading time has actually increased a bit, but the average daily reading time has now reached 34 minutes. Twenty-four minutes involve books (paper or ebooks) and the rest newspapers, blogs, and other long-form content. I don’t find this average that disturbing given students are also reading for their classes and may have homework. The more disturbing version of this basic statistic is the variability. Nearly 20% of adolescents indicate they read nothing beyond what is assigned at school. Recent data on adult behavior indicates that the average daily reading time is about 15 minutes. Adults don’t set a very good example.

Summary

Reading both is an important source for what we know and what we know benefits the level of reading proficiency we achieve. Reading is an activity we control as individuals and if we so choose we can benefit from spending leisure time in this way.

References:

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental psychology, 33(6), 934.

Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16 (baseball)

Rideout, V., Peebles, A., Mann, S., & Robb, M. B. (2022). Common Sense Census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2021. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media

Schneider, W., Korkel, J., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Domain?specific knowledge and memory performance: A comparison of high? and low? aptitude Children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81( 3), 306–312. (Soccer)

Willingham, D. T. (2017). The reading mind: A cognitive approach to understanding how the mind reads. John Wiley & Sons.

The Science of Reading: A Review of Three Recent Books

I read a lot, but aside from posting short reactions to Goodreads I seldom write longer reviews. I was able to get the book club I attend that typically focuses on history, economics, and writing to read my suggestion – Adrian Jones’ The Science of Reading. Despite the departure from our standard fare, the breadth of the issues covered using reading and learning to read as a base resulted in many engaging discussions. The present political interest of some states in mandating how children should be taught to read, the history of the “reading wars”, the big money up for grabs in school purchases of instructional materials (books), how digital technology changed reading, and why this particular skill is so important have encouraged broader interest in how best to prepare readers and in how we all engage with text. There is something for nearly everyone here.

The three books I will comment on cover these topics with different emphases. The Science of Reading (Jones) offers the strongest historical perspective. Reader, Come Home (Maryann Wolf) emphasizes a brain-based perspective. Willingham’s The Reading Mind approaches the set of topics from a cognitive perspective. All are approachable and as an educational psychologist with a cognitive background, I see value in how different perspectives support and supplement each other.

Adrian Johns’s “The Science of Reading: Information, Media & Mind in Modern America”

Johns covers the scientific study of reading from the 1880s to the present and argues that understanding the history of the science of reading is essential to understanding broader historical changes in knowledge, information, and technology. He achieves this by tracing the evolution of how reading has been perceived and taught, particularly in the United States, where reading has been closely linked to concerns about effective participation in a democracy. The assumed connection between reading and the economy and reading and informed citizenship are reflected in the long-term interest of politicians in this subject area.

The book begins by examining the origins of the science of reading, which can be traced back to the late 19th century, and the interest of scientists in the movement of the eyes (saccades) while reading. Early researchers like James McKeen Cattell (a name many might recognize from an Introduction to Psychology class) focused on the psychophysical aspects of reading, conducting experiments to measure reaction times and investigate how the human eye processes visual information. Cattell’s research led him to advocate for teaching reading through whole-word identification, a method that gained traction in American schools. For those involved in or recognizing the battle over how best to teach reading, the alternative extremes are to emphasize word recognition or sounding out words by what most would describe as phonics.

However, as Johns illustrates, the science of reading was not solely driven by laboratory findings. An emphasis on mass literacy further fueled the development and adoption of different reading methods, reflecting the intertwined nature of scientific inquiry and societal needs.

Edmund Burke Huey’s influential 1908 book, “The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading”, marked a crucial shift in the field, arguing that reading was not merely a mechanical skill but a complex social activity shaped by readers’ experiences. Huey emphasized the importance of “apperceptive filling in,” where readers constantly make inferences based on clues from the text, highlighting the active and constructive nature of reading comprehension. Huey remained influential and my own introduction to reading as a fascinating area of study included my reading of an updated edition of Huey’s book in the 1960s. The word recognition position became integrated with the use of context to form one of the two alternative positions proposing how kids should be taught to read.

Johns dedicates considerable attention to the “reading wars,” the ongoing debates between proponents of phonics-based instruction and those favoring whole-language approaches. He argues that these debates, often framed as a simplistic this or that options, fail to capture the complexity of reading acquisition and the nuances of effective teaching methods. However, as one might recognize from recent media accounts of mandated methods in different states, the methods to be used and the commercial materials to be purchased with state money are often described to parents and the general public in similar simplistic ways.

The book examines key figures and events in the reading wars, including Rudolf Flesch’s scathing critique of whole-language instruction in his 1955 bestseller, “Why Johnny Can’t Read”. Flesch’s book ignited a public debate, pushing back against the prevailing emphasis on whole-word recognition and advocating for a return to phonics-based instruction.

Johns also discusses the work of Jeanne Chall, whose research, culminating in her 1967 book “Learning to Read: The Great Debate,” offered a more complex perspective on the reading wars. Chall argued that a balanced approach incorporating both phonics and whole-language strategies was crucial, particularly in the early stages of reading development. I was pleased to see that my friend Dick Anderson who once headed the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois also received some space in Jones’ book as a supporter of a similar balanced approach.

The latter part of the book explores the impact of technology on reading, examining the development of teaching machines, programmed learning, and the rise of computers. Johns discusses the work of visionaries like Alan Kay, whose Dynabook project, though never fully realized, envisioned a portable computer designed to replace school textbooks and transform the learning process. Today’s iPad could represent the type of device Kay could only imagine.

Johns concludes by reflecting on the enduring challenges of reading in the digital age, posing questions about the differences between reading on paper and screens, and the implications of new technologies for literacy and learning.

While providing a thorough historical overview, Johns occasionally delves into intricate details of specific experiments or research methodologies, which may not be of interest to all readers. I find the description of actual studies of great interest and the answer to the question of how researchers study something as invisible as the processes of a mental skill such as reading and come up with explanations of what exactly is going on.

Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world

Maryanne Wolf’s *Reader, Come Home* presents a critical examination of how the digital age is reshaping the human brain’s ability to read deeply. She reviews the brain science of her previous book (Proust and the Squid), but then spends time on whether new technologies presenting text and multimedia alter how the brain adapts to the processing of text. There is more brain science in her first book for those wanting that focus and more focus on screen time, changes in attention span, and reading from a screen versus from paper in the book I am reviewing here.

The central argument of *Reader, Come Home* is that the human brain was not initially designed for reading; instead, reading rewired our brains in ways that changed our thinking. Wolf is deeply concerned that excessive exposure to screen-based media is now rewiring our brains in a different, less beneficial way. The skimming style of reading encouraged by digital platforms, where information is processed quickly and often superficially, is contrasted with the deeper, more reflective reading associated with print books. Wolf stresses that while the brain is highly plastic and can adapt, the quality of that adaptation depends on the stimuli it is exposed to regularly.

Wolf does not argue for a wholesale rejection of digital reading. Instead, she advocates for a balance, calling for the development of what she terms “biliterate” brains. These are brains that are adept at both skimming digital media and engaging in deep, reflective reading. Her emphasis is particularly on children, who, she argues, are especially vulnerable to the negative impacts of digital reading due to the greater plasticity of their brains. If children are exposed only to skimming on digital platforms, they may miss out on the profound cognitive and linguistic benefits that come from deep reading.

The book also provides practical advice for parents and educators. One of Wolf’s key suggestions is to encourage parents to read to their children from printed books rather than relying on digital devices that often come with built-in distractions. The concern is not just about reading comprehension, but also about how children learn to engage with and reflect on complex information, skills that are crucial for higher-order thinking.

A recurring theme in Reader, Come Home is that we are becoming passive consumers of information rather than active, critical thinkers. Wolf’s fear is that if we continue down this path, future generations will lose the ability to think deeply and critically. She draws on cognitive science to show how the brain’s attentional systems are being rewired in ways that diminish our capacity for sustained attention, a vital component of deep reading.

For those who enjoy scientific debates, contrast Wolf and Willingham’s perspective on this issue. Willingham explains the resistance to reading long-form content more as a decreased tolerance for boredom rather than the brain being shaped biologically.

The Reading Mind: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding How the Mind Reads

The Reading Mind is a comprehensive exploration of the mechanics of reading, offering both a cognitive and a practical perspective on how our brains process text. Willingham draws from a wealth of psychological research to explain the nuances of reading, from identifying phonemes to building meaning from full texts.

At its core, The Reading Mind breaks down reading into stages, beginning with letter and sound recognition and culminating in full comprehension of texts. Willingham explains that the ability to match letters to phonemes (basic units of sound) is crucial to reading development, particularly for children. As readers become more proficient, their ability to decode words becomes more automatic, freeing cognitive resources for understanding the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. In other works, the sound of words is initially quite important, but gives way to more automatic recognition of words. This cognitive model serves as a foundation throughout the book as Willingham discusses the importance of both bottom-up processes, like letter recognition, and top-down processes, such as using background knowledge to comprehend texts. I read somewhere that this simultaneous bottom-up and top-down processing can be described as interactive, compensatory processing. This means that multiple processes are going on simultaneously and they work both to support each other. Letter recognition is information by word recognition (the word provides a context that speeds up letter recognition). Words are more quickly recognized and their meaning is more effectively retrieved within meaningful sentences (sentences provide a context that informs word recognition and understanding). Understanding what we read is assisted by what we already know in general and what we know more specifically about the topic we are reading about (again a context effect improving more basic processes).

One of the more powerful demonstrations I know of considers the relative contribution of reading proficiency and subject knowledge to comprehension. Willingham provides an example based on soccer knowledge. The research study I was familiar with used baseball knowledge. Anyway, young readers were classified as more and less proficient readers and more and less knowledgeable of baseball. This gives you four groups – high skill, high knowledge; high skill, low knowledge; low skill, high knowledge; and low skill, low knowledge. All readers were asked to read a description of half an inning of a baseball game and later write what they remembered. This method allows the impact of reading skill to be teased apart from the impact of subject knowledge. The findings demonstrate that existing knowledge had a larger impact on recall than reading skill.

One of the book’s strengths is its emphasis on the role of motivation in reading. Willingham makes the case that motivation is as critical as cognitive skills when it comes to becoming a proficient reader. Readers who enjoy reading tend to read more, which in turn improves their reading abilities, creating a virtuous cycle. This insight is particularly valuable for educators and parents trying to encourage reluctant readers. Willingham argues that ease of access makes a big difference

A notable section of The Reading Mind addresses the potential impact of technology on reading habits. Willingham acknowledges the concern that digital distractions, such as social media and video games, might reduce the amount of time young people spend reading. However, he points out that these activities have not necessarily displaced reading time for most youth. Instead, he suggests that the issue lies in a reduced tolerance for boredom, which could make sustained reading more difficult for some. While Willingham does recommend limiting screen time, he is skeptical of alarmist claims that technology is fundamentally altering how children’s brains process information. His balanced view on this topic is refreshing in an age of widespread concern about the effects of digital media on cognitive development.

Conclusion:

My efforts here were to give enough of the flavor of each of these books to perhaps convince you to take a look. As I tried to suggest in the beginning of this post, all books are very approachable and take you in multiple directions addressing several topics that seem of current interest.

Abandon comprehension skill instruction?

I admit this a kind of click-bait title, but I paraphrased it from a source arguing that far too much ELA time is spent on comprehension skills. I did end the title with a question mark.

The article divides the development of reading skill into two pretty much sequential components – decoding skills and comprehension skills. I agree. The article does not argue that attempts to teach comprehension skills should be completely abandoned, but rather claims that these stepping stone skills are emphasized too much because the key to reading comprehension is really the development of existing knowledge. Again, I kind of agree and suggest that this research supported argument is under-appreciated by many teachers and is lacking in the understanding of such important issues as the struggles of lower SES kids in developing core academic skills.

The position taken by the authors reminds me of a post I generated just a few days ago concluding that increasing time spent in social studies at the elementary school level is more important in developing reading proficiency than variations in the time spent on reading instruction. The logic explaining this finding is that of the typical elementary subject areas, social studies is the area that best covers what might be described as general knowledge (e.g., in constrast to the specialized knowledge and vocabulary of science). Understanding what we read is heavily influenced by what we already know about a topic and general knowledge is, as the term implies, general meaning it applies more widely. Hence, it seems wrong, but possibly counterintuitive to many, to steal time from social studies to emphasize STEM. Develop learning skills first and then allow opportunities to turn these proficiencies loose on topics of personal interest.

Read news written by journalists

A recent article from the Blue Skunk blog (Doug Johnson is about my age and has been blogging about as long) laments the decline of newspapers and the willingness of everyone to read original journalism. He identifies the lack of willingness to pay for a paper or two as a significant issue. There are many great books on the decline of newspapers in the last few years (I happen to be reading Merchants of Truth by Jill Abramson at this time) and all describe the struggles of news sources that employ journalists to collect the news from original sources in an era of declining revenue and free outlets that are mostly opinions and retelling of the content generated by others. There are compounding factors such as the lack of patience for investing time in long form reading and a focus on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Buzzfeed, etc. leading individuals to assume they are informed when they are not. Doug urges us to invest in actual news sources as a commitment to reading the news and keeping journalism alive.

Johnson’s post caused me to think about my own reading. I read a lot and a great deal of long form content (books, news articles), but I don’t subscribe to what might be described as a major national news outlet. I subscribe to the Minneapolis StarTribune which I read digitally and we pay for an Apple News+ subscription which offers to a wide selection of magazines, the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, but not the New York Times or Washington Post. I read articles from the Post and Times when articles not part of the subscriptions are available or until I have exhausted my monthly allotment.

I encourage others to look at two news aggregation services which I use and describe below.

First, is the Apple news aggregator and Apple+ (Apple+ is $10 a month).

This site offers access to a wide variety of quality sources. Try the link even if you are not interested in the paid level. The site seems to work better using Safari and I would recommend this browser if you are interested in the paid level (it knows who you are across devices and this seems to make access easier).

I would also recommend Google’s aggregation site – news.google.com. This site is interesting in the way it organizes content by topic with multiple sources per topic and if you are willing as a way to explore the same story from multiple perspectives.

Google news also makes it clear whether a story is available with or without a subscription to a particular service saving the time and frustration of trying to read content you will not see in full.

Screentime and neuroscience

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.

Newsela adds “paired texts”

Newsela has not been around for long, but the company has become quite popular as a way for educators to meet the literacy needs of classrooms serving a wide range of reading levels. The service offers the same “news” stories written at multiple reading levels.

Newsela now offers an additional approach that meets the challenges of what some have described as a “new literacy”. Most of us increasing turn to online resources to meet our information needs and we locate this information using search. What search returns are multiple hits and we tend to fashion an understanding from a review of several of these sources. In keeping with this notion that we build a personal understanding by combining information from multiple sources, Newsela now provides a resource called Paired Texts. Two articles that address a common theme are provided. Students are provided a writing prompt that is best addressed by combining information from the two resources.

As far as I can tell, the articles are selected to provide different information and not contradictory perspectives. This would seem to be the next step – what do you do when a search provides information that is not consistent and you are asked to take a position?

Tablets and Reading

I encountered two posts today that concern “deep” reading and tablets – one negative (Chronicle of Higher Education) and one positive (te@chthought). Just for the record, both articles are observational/opinion pieces and the Chronicle article seemed primarily focused on long form (books) reading in the humanities.

Both papers make some sense – e.g., we are distracted when we can use the same device for reading and for other things, we can follow links to explore a basic idea in greater detail. There are some oversights – not all tablets (basic Kindle reader) are designed to encourage multitasking, cost is an issue educators/students do care about, online reading can result in fairly detailed annotation and highlighting, etc.

I must admit that I seldom purchase a book (since this is the focus of the negative position) in hard copy anymore. However, I purchase many more books than was the case say 15 years ago. I quit reading scientific journals in the paper format because reading online was far more efficient, allowed me access to many more journals than I could own or my library carried in paper form, and allowed more sophisticated note taking and highlighting because of search and storage capabilities.

I am pretty much convinced that ebooks are the format of the future. Technology tools associated with reading (broadly defined) will continue to improve (paper books would seem to have little upside). We may have behavioral flaws that have permeated our reading activities, but the distractions are there unless we seclude ourselves in a setting without access to devices or the Internet. I would hate to think that isolation is the only role for the libraries of the future.