Digital Reading & Weakened Literacy
They're Just Built Different: Screen-Based Reading is NOT Real Reading.
I have heard it claimed with increasing frequency that reading a book on a digital device can help to bolster cultural interest in, as well as the effectiveness of, reading. While I have no quarrel with the former claim, there may yet be value in looking at the latter assertion further. Some even contend that the habitude of screen-based reading is even preferable to that of reading the traditional paper book.
I have taken it upon myself to speak to the claim that reading on a smartphone, or tablet, or Kindle, or computer monitor, or through television, or by means of another digital image-based medium is sufficient to back the literate mentality. These people would have us believe that “reading is reading”— that whatever medium is used to read is of little consequence to the literary experience.
They also tell us of the admirable benefits supplied by digital technology— that their digital device can hold sundry books in the palm of their hand, that their phone’s backlit screen can enable reading in low-light conditions, that their smartphone is easier to bear than a stack of books, that their tablet can execute many other simultaneous tasks while reading. In America, where the longing for technology has no limits, I have even heard some go as far to say that they decline to read printed books, and will only read through a digital screen.
Though I do refute that the aforementioned technological feats are possible, there are still other substantial differences that must be taken into account, should one seek to have a greater understanding of how technology alters a culture’s literary posture.
As I have already explained in an earlier article, all mediums are not capable of harboring and transmitting the same ideas, that the mediums we use to transmit information inevitably alter the context, texture, form and meaning of whatever is communicated, that some mediums are more well-suited to transmit information than others, that public discourse is greatly altered through the moving of identic information from one medium to the next.
My words should not be taken to suggest that one cannot read a book on a digital device. Of course, many have, and still do. And it also has not escaped my notice that this article must be read through a digital screen. But to say that reading on a digital device is equivalent to reading a physical book, or that reading on a smartphone cannot lessen what might be attained from traditional book reading, or that they are both equal in fostering the literate mentality, or that one is capable of reaping the exact same craft from each methodology, or that there is little difference between reading on a tablet and reading a paper book, is sophistical.
In order to understand why this is, we must first recall that technology is never indifferent in its application. Only those who know little of technology’s history and outcomes convey the idea that a tool is ever neutral.
Indeed, for it is no mistake to say that technology always favors specific usages. Reading, as we know, is geared towards rationality, thinking sequentially, analytic activity, the cultivation of patience, self-restraint, deferred gratification, immediate recognition. Reading is also modelled after the oral mode of discourse, is static, linear, and is continuous in its themes and subjects.
And, to be sure, the same might be said for reading pure vocabulary on a website or smartphone. But those who champion the cause of reading through digital tech neglect to mention the clear distinction between the two mediums.
Perhaps explaining some of the differences between the paper book and the digital book here may be of use. Whereas the printed book can be used in most contexts and circumstances, a dead battery renders the digital book inaccessible to its user. Whereas the printed book is available for any literate person who wishes to read it, digital readers who lack the key to a password-protected device will find its functionality limited. Whereas a digital device without a protective case might be left inoperable after being dropped on the concrete, a book is likely to withstand the affliction. Whereas the material contained within the physical paper book is effectively preserved in virtually all events, one cannot tellingly foreknow when and under what factors books consisting of a digital file on a device might be corrupted, censored or deleted. Whereas in our entertainment-based culture a printed book is more liable to be left freely abandoned in public places, a digital device, it is safe to assume, is much more likely to catch the watchful eye of the alert thief.
Though much more can be added here, I think it unnecessary to elaborate, for it is more relevant here to speak of the ways in which digital technology impresses upon the human mind. To be sure, for while the logical and sequential nature of the printed page demands sustained concentration on what is being read, the digital page makes no such demands.
“How exactly does the technology we use to read change the way we read?,” asks an article from the science magazine Scientific American. “How reading on screens differs from reading on paper is relevant not just to the youngest among us, but to just about everyone who reads—to anyone who routinely switches between working long hours in front of a computer at the office and leisurely reading paper magazines and books at home; to people who have embraced e-readers for their convenience and portability, but admit that for some reason they still prefer reading on paper; and to those who have already vowed to forgo tree pulp entirely. As digital texts and technologies become more prevalent, we gain new and more mobile ways of reading—but are we still reading as attentively and thoroughly? How do our brains respond differently to onscreen text than to words on paper? Should we be worried about dividing our attention between pixels and ink or is the validity of such concerns paper-thin?”
What I am suggesting here is that the image-based medium of the digital screen— be it of the smartphone, tablet, Kindle, computer monitor or television— is so infused with our remembrance of its entertaining properties, that it becomes onerous to attempt to re-create it as a medium for effective information dissemination.
Again, I do not mean to say that it is not possible to transmit information through these mediums, as we know. I mean only that image-based mediums are not as efficient for the task as orality, the written word or printing. The point is that the medium of the long-standing paper book is more well-suited for conveying information than our culture’s celebrated digitized mediums of the day. Image-based mediums like television, smartphones, web browsers, Netflix, Adobe Reader, digital video players, YouTube, TikTok are not as effectual as the printed word for the function of efficient and true learning, for they are entertaining vehicles, not informative, and so everything disseminated must take the form of amusement.
Those who read books on digital devices will realize that technology’s infinite avenues of entertainment are always only a simple tap or a swipe away— device notifications, text messages, e-mails, smartphone apps, music catalogues, navigation apps, social networks, podcasts, Skype calls, YouTube videos— and must recognize that a steady stream of spontaneous diverting interruptions are a normal feature of digital reading, which they are. The screen wants to remind you that its amusement is always present and at your disposal. The paper page makes no such demands.
This is not to say that a “screen-reader” will only come to be stimulated at his unconscious reminiscence of technology’s gratifying affirmation, for it is not uncommon for technology to complete the task on its own. Naturally, whereas readers’ recollection of their past experiences of the printed page does little to sway their mind with external distractions, I believe it likely that those who choose to read on digital devices will find the tech continuously breaking their engrossment through the constant receiving of mobile alerts and push notifications.
The Scientific American article goes on to note that “evidence from laboratory experiments, polls and consumer reports indicates that modern screens and e-readers fail to adequately recreate certain tactile experiences of reading on paper that many people miss and, more importantly, prevent people from navigating long texts in an intuitive and satisfying way. In turn, such navigational difficulties may subtly inhibit reading comprehension. Compared with paper, screens may also drain more of our mental resources while we are reading and make it a little harder to remember what we read when we are done. A parallel line of research focuses on people's attitudes toward different kinds of media. Whether they realize it or not, many people approach computers and tablets with a state of mind less conducive to learning than the one they bring to paper.”
I am not contending here that digital reading is inherently wrong or immoral. I seek only to disclose the fundamental differences between our mediums of communication, and how screen-based reading remakes the literate mentality into something it was not.
As explained by the article: “An open paperback presents a reader with two clearly defined domains—the left and right pages—and a total of eight corners with which to orient oneself. A reader can focus on a single page of a paper book without losing sight of the whole text: one can see where the book begins and ends and where one page is in relation to those borders. One can even feel the thickness of the pages read in one hand and pages to be read in the other. Turning the pages of a paper book is like leaving one footprint after another on the trail—there's a rhythm to it and a visible record of how far one has traveled. All these features not only make text in a paper book easily navigable, they also make it easier to form a coherent mental map of the text.”
The article adds, “In contrast, most screens, e-readers, smartphones and tablets interfere with intuitive navigation of a text and inhibit people from mapping the journey in their minds. A reader of digital text might scroll through a seamless stream of words, tap forward one page at a time or use the search function to immediately locate a particular phrase—but it is difficult to see any one passage in the context of the entire text. As an analogy, imagine if Google Maps allowed people to navigate street by individual street, as well as to teleport to any specific address, but prevented them from zooming out to see a neighborhood, state or country. Although e-readers like the Kindle and tablets like the iPad re-create pagination—sometimes complete with page numbers, headers and illustrations—the screen only displays a single virtual page: it is there and then it is gone. Instead of hiking the trail yourself, the trees, rocks and moss move past you in flashes with no trace of what came before and no way to see what lies ahead.”
Let us again bethink the rationale of the late “electronic oracle” Marshall McLuhan, who imparted to us the maxim “The Medium is the Message.” What he meant, in saying this, is that the mediums we use to convey information inevitably alter the way information in transmitted and received. If the mode of transmitting a message is changed, then it is probable that the message itself is also changed. Often times, the alteration of the original missive is assured. This is what McLuhan taught us— that in many cases, the functionality of the mediums used to relay information are more consequential than the very information itself.
The problem is not that our culture’s digital agencies are entertaining. The inescapable truth I wish the reader to understand is that all supposedly informative subjects presented through these mediums— video documentaries, online news articles, television’s nightly news, podcasts, Tweets, YouTube opinions, memes, TikTok snippets— must be displayed as entertainment. On these mediums, all discourse, be it informative, political, academic, historical or religious, must take the form of amusement instead of learning.
What should be kept in view here is that any information that is intended to instruct through digital technology will never be as well-suited for the job as orality or the written or printed word. Even something as simple as taking a sentence verbatim from the printed page and transferring it to the digital screen can substantially alter the fundamental meaning, texture and context of what is being disseminated.
The point is that screen-based education undermines what the traditional idea of schooling represents, for this style of learning, by its very nature, stands in opposition to what has been called book-learning or its underling, school-learning. In short, reading books through the screen does not embolden people to love books. It emboldens them to love the screen.
We might say that the most important thing one might learn is always something about how one learns. The smartphone, tablet, or kindle, or computer monitor, or television, educates by teaching users to do what digital-device-viewing requires of them. And what is required of screen-based readers is far removed from what a classroom once required of them when reading a printed book. To be true, this point— that reading printed books and reading through a digital device differ in what they imply about learning— might very well be one of the primordial issues in education today, though our educators, paradoxically, seem to be silent on the matter.
All information must take the form of the medium in which it is distributed. If information is broadcasted through orality or the written or printed word, then it may take of a scholarly form. If information is dispatched and presented through the screen of a smartphone, then it will take the shape of amusement, for that is the internal framework of the medium through which it was sent.
Perhaps I can strike more to the heart of the issue by delivering insights on the inconsistencies of the two mediums by referencing a study1 published in the online peer-reviewed academic journal Scientific Reports.
“Electronic devices have become an indispensable part of our daily lives, while their negative aspects have been reported,” the study read. “One disadvantage is that reading comprehension is reduced when reading from an electronic device…In recent years, reading and studying on electronic devices has become more common. Although electronic devices have benefited mankind tremendously, they cause eyestrain and headaches and lead to poor reading comprehension. The link between visual environment and cognitive performance has been reported in basic research. The decline in comprehension when reading from an electric device might be due to poor concentration levels or different sensory processing circuits, which might be associated with physiological states, including brain and physiological activity levels. Even if the content of the text is the same, reading comprehension may be different depending on the visual context [italics mine].”
Let us take, as another example, the differences between the mediums of print, radio and television. “Stauffer et al. found in studying students’ responses to a news program transmitted via television, radio and print, that print significantly increased correct responses to questions regarding the names of people and numbers contained in the material,” noted author Neil Postman, in his book Entertaining Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness.
“Stern reported that 51 percent of viewers could not recall a single item of news a few minutes after viewing a news program on television. Wilson found that the average television viewer could retain only 20 percent of the information contained in a fictional televised news story. Katz et al. found that 21 percent of television viewers could not recall any news items within one hour of broadcast. On the basis of his and other studies, Salomon has concluded that ‘the meanings secured from television are more likely to be segmented, concrete and less inferential, and those secured from reading have a higher likelihood of being better tied to one’s stored knowledge and thus are more likely to be inferential.’ In other words, so far as many reputable studies are concerned, television viewing does not significantly increase learning, is inferior to and less likely than print to cultivate higher-order, inferential thinking.”2
What is taking place here is that the content of books, or news articles, or school curriculums, are being determined by the character of our culture’s image-based mediums. And what is striking that that character is apparently not included as part of what is being studied.
I bring all this up because our culture has moved far and fast in bringing to an end the age of the slow-moving printed word, and have granted our image-based mediums—smartphones, computers, television— sovereignty over all of its institutions.
But in understanding this, there are certain questions asked by Postman that our culture would do well to keep in view. “What is information? Or more precisely, what are information? What are its various forms? What conceptions of intelligence, wisdom and learning does each form insist upon? What conceptions does each form neglect or mock? What are the main psychic effects of each form? What is the relation between information and reason? What is the kind of information that best facilitates thinking? Is there a moral bias to each information form? What does it mean to say that there is too much information? How would one know? What redefinitions of important cultural meanings do new sources, speeds, contexts and forms of information require? Does television, for example, give a new meaning to ‘piety,’ to ‘patriotism,’ to ‘privacy’? Does television give a new meaning to ‘judgement’ or to ‘understanding’? How do different forms of information persuade? Is a newspaper’s ‘public’ different from television’s ‘public’? How do different information forms dictate the type of content that is expressed?”
Should readers remain unconvinced of the digital screen’s disservice to the information world and the literate mind, then more study on the matter may be necessary to fully comprehend how technology changes our culture’s conception of literacy.
Of course, I am merely doing work that has already been done, a humble re-telling of the lessons imparted to us by McLuhan and Postman. I have chosen to do so because they have been long overlooked.
The good news is that there may be no better time to appreciate them than the present.
Honma, M., Masaoka, Y., Iizuka, N. et al. Reading on a smartphone affects sigh generation, brain activity, and comprehension. Sci Rep 12, 1589 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05605-0
Neil Postman, Entertaining Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness, P. 152