My
comments on:
Serious
reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say
Michael Rosenwald (reporter),
Washington Post
April, 6th,
2014
Books like The Shallows
(Carr, 2011), the cult of the amateur (Keen, 2007) and newspapers articles like
this one at Washington Post, raise the problem of attention span and reading abilities.
I believe that we need to think about those problems, not to blame Internet and
computers, but to find ways to help people that face this difficulty to
concentrate while reading longer texts.
I already wrote about the Carr's and Keen’s texts and now I will concentrate on this newspaper article written
by Rosenwald, and the comments left by the readers on the website.
By the title, we can
clearly understand the author’s main claim: Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming,
researchers say. This title presents an already classic dichotomy that
online reading is not serious and is only superficial reading, in contrast to
print reading that is deep and serious. This is a premise that we need to
consider a lot before buying. I wonder if this shallow reading would lead us to
revolutions as the ones we had in Brazil before and during the Confederations’
Soccer Cup, and the Arab Spring, for example.
We have access to a lot
of information now, and we certainly use some strategies to cope with it. As
Julie Coiro says, “we need skip a lot of text”, we need to know what and why to
read the parts of texts we select to read. Now we do not only have the textbook
as a source of information, but we have a huge library with far more information
than a human brain can even think of reading in a lifetime. That is why we need
to browse, select, and evaluate information. We need to navigate to select
pertinent (accurate, reliable, and relevant) information and read. I mean read,
stricto sensu, read and build a
mental representation of the texts, being able to grasp the authors’ main
claim, to retell the main ideas, to make inferences to build and enrich meaning,
to connect those ideas with your own experiences and knowledge, to make a judgment
of this information, and so on.
The article starts with
the following story:
“Claire
Handscombe has a commitment problem online. Like a lot of Web surfers, she
clicks on links posted on social networks, reads a few sentences, looks for
exciting words, and then grows restless, scampering off to the next page she
probably won’t commit to.
“I
give it a few seconds — not even minutes — and then I’m moving again,” says
Handscombe, a 35-year-old graduate student in creative writing at American
University.”
My
question is whether what she is doing is reading or only browsing (casual
looking). I seriously suspect that what is happening to Claire is that she is
only browsing, as we browse magazines at the beauty shop to relax, to keep up
with some gossip about celebrities and keep up with the new fashion trends
(nothing against that at all!).
There
is no problem in browsing effortlessly. The problem seems to show up when the
reader does not develop other reading strategies or skills, or when he uses the
same strategy to read all the texts in every single situation, as Claire seems
to do:
“But
it’s not just online anymore. She finds herself behaving the same way with a
novel.
“It’s like your
eyes are passing over the words but you’re not taking in what they say,” she
confessed. “When I realize what’s happening, I have to go back and read again
and again.””
This is a crucial
aspect of reading. Different texts are usually read with different purposes.
Different purposes lead to different approaches to the text and result in
different understanding. It is interesting that Claire monitors her
reading. She realizes that she is not using an efficient reading strategy for
that purpose and try again.
This
makes me think of how important it is to show the students different approaches
to texts in different situations and how to monitor the reading process.
About
the classics, what I can say is that people always had problems reading the
classics! But kids do not have many problems reading Harry Potter, a modern
classic. Some texts are more challenging than others and the readers’
motivation is a very strong variable.
One
of the solutions that Rosenwald presents in
the article is the idea of a “bi-literate brain” We do not need to have a bi-literate brain, we
need to develop a poly-literate brain. The idea of bi-literate brain brings back
the dichotomy between print and digital, screen and paper, and all the
prejudice that comes with this division, one is good whereas the other is bad,
one is deep while the other is shallow, among others. Deep or shallow is a
matter of effort.
We
cannot read deeply without putting effort in this act, which means thinking,
questioning, evaluating, connecting, comparing, finding evidences, among others.
Reading thoughtfully requires cognitive effort.
This
does not mean that online reading is always effortless. Oftentimes we need to
navigate, monitoring the research process, selecting judiciously the information
and reading it carefully in order to satisfactorily accomplish the task. Likewise,
we can just browse printed texts.
The
comments readers wrote about this article are also very interesting and vary
from some people saying that they are facing this problem of lack of attention
or patience when reading longer texts, and other people making very interesting
and evaluations of the text. Most of the comments show some degree of dissonance
or controversy. Those comments show clearly that people are not only browsing
the Internet. Many people read deeply and discuss the information that interest
them.
Here
are some examples extracted from the 236 comments I found by the time I read
the article.
I can attest to this. My
backlog of unread books is bigger than ever because I don't have the patience for them.
"This alternative way of reading is competing with
traditional deep reading circuitry developed over several millennia."
Two problems here. 1 - There isn't any 'deep reading circuitry' in our brains. 2 - The
word 'developed', like so many words, misdirects our attention away from
recognizing the role of 'learning'. The difference between the brains of people
'several millennia ago' and today, with respect to 'reading' is a learned not
an evolved difference. There is no evidence for an evolved difference in our
brains with respect to reading. Adding to that, learning to read early
alphabets (Hebrew, Greek) was much simpler/easier than learning to read English
today. The way we read (or
read up till recently) is only a few hundred years old.
I agree with all that, but as an avid print reader all my
life...I'm 65....I have to say, Henry James was a challenge long before computers were even invented!
This article really has little to do with neuroscience or about
the brain directly. It is about behavior, learned behavior or habits. Considerable research has
shown that the reading of text on computers is significantly slower than the
reading of the same text in a traditional format. One reason for this is simply
much lower contrast, which slows perceptual processes. A consequence is
preference for shorter and less complex texts in computer presentations. Skimming has always been a distinct
skill from normal reading even when using conventional printed texts. It
has its uses. It is quite possible that students today are less capable
of reading and understanding complex syntax. My mother, who taught honors
English classes in Fairfax County, complained that this seemed to be the case
long before reading texts on computers could have been a factor. A more likely
explanation might be the extent to which TV replaced the reading of literature
as a source of entertainment, so that even the best of students had considerably less practice reading
sophisticated literature than was once the case. Perhaps the truest
point in this article is that reading is too recent a phenomenon to have had
significant impact on human evolution, so we are talking about variation in
learned skills in varied and changing environments. Although we assume that these learned skills involve
changes in the brain, we are still unable to determine exactly what those
changes might be. References to neuroscience and the brain are just
spurious attempts at gaining greater authority for anecdotal opinions
I have been reading books, newspapers and cereal boxes for
nearly 50 years. I also have been an early adapter of technology. This 'new'
way of reading was taught to me about 40 years ago- it's called 'Speed
Reading'. I find I can still switch
between modes even in my advanced decrepitude, so if a younger person
(or persons) has trouble doing so, it should not be extrapolated that a
majority, minority or even more than a few people are having this problem. Correlation is not Causation,
and a VERY large sample size and much lengthy research would be needed to prove
(if possible) the wild and wide-ranging assertions put forth in this article.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário