In the article, "Online Reading Comprehension," Kevin Hodgson describes the “reading” of a twelve year as he jumps from screen to screen and bounces from one hyperlink to the next. As an avid reader and English teacher, I can relate to the notion that such reading “is enough to drive you to the brink of despair. I have asked myself the question, “Can you read or think deeply online?”
Clearly, the format of reading has changed drastically in a very short time. I just finished discussing some of the differences with my students, and they were quick to reply that there are a lot of distractions online. However, they all agreed that easy and quick access to information was a definite plus. Many students prefer online reading because, “they like to read pieces that are short” and they like to “switch between articles.” Surprisingly though, there are students who prefer offline reading. One student said, “I just like the feel of a book in my hand.” I agree with everything that the kids said. I, too, see the positives and negatives.
I definitely think that I read differently online. I skim and scan much more. I am able to effectively filter out the sidebar distractions. If there are links that I want to investigate, I usually read the whole article first and then go back, because I still like to do things in a linear fashion. When I have to read something thoroughly, I don’t usually print it out, but I do take notes (handwritten). Writing down information helps to keep me focused and definitely improves my comprehension. Although I love the convenience of my Kindle, I still enjoy a “real” book. I would never give up online reading, but I do think that I read and think more deeply when I am reading offline.
The format in which information is presented online also affects one’s perception of its validity. When reading the articles for the Module 3 MOOC, all of the New Literacies articles are scholarly papers. They are presented as papers online; they are text only without additional images, videos or distracting advertisements. The content, presentation and authorship enhance the perception of the articles’ validity and rigor. The information is well researched and academically substantial. On the other hand, the article by Hodgson is shorter and includes tables, pictures and diagrams. The article may not appear as scholarly, but it is much more approachable. Reading it doesn’t seem as daunting. The information appears to be well-researched, and is definitely accessible and helpful.
There is no doubt that more and more reading will be done online. As a result, we have an obligation to make sure that our students develop strategies to read effectively online. We need to remind them to “cut out the clutter,” as Hodgson says. We also need to teach them to scan, to skim and to synthesize sources. Modeling can help, as can group work where students discuss what they are reading and their strategies with each other. We also need to stress that importance of recognizing the validity of sources. We can’t assume that all of our students are “digital natives.” Students need multiple opportunities to practice reading a variety of online sources.
On a final note, as much as I value online reading, one of my concerns continues to be the effect it has on very young children. We’ve heard how important it is to limit “screen time” in young children, but what about reading on an iPad or a Kindle? Is that reading time or screen time? The New York Times had an interesting article last weekend, Is E-Reading to Your Toddler Story Time, or Simply Screen Time? The bottom line is that no one really knows. As with so much of technology, there are positives and negatives, and the long term effect isn’t known. Whether it’s in the classroom or at home, my philosophy will continue to be to embrace the new without throwing away the old. Good Night Moon or Where the Wild Things Are just wouldn’t be the same online.
Citations:
Hodgson, Kevin. Strategies for Online Reading Comprehension
Quenqua, Douglas. “Is E-Reading to Your Toddler Story Time, or Simply Screen Time?” NY Times. 10/11/14.
No comments:
Post a Comment