Giles contended that knowledge gained from a computer screen was too fleeting, and had no texture or context. He argued that the learning process should be more tangible in order for the information to mean something and to stick with us.
Being buried in case law at the time, I completely agreed with Giles. I was certainly free to read the assigned cases
on a computer screen — back in those
days LexisNexis had a piece of software that you could load onto your computer
and then use to access case law through your dial-up internet connection. But the alternative to this high-tech approach
was reading the case in the casebook (or, after locating a case on LexisNexis,
printing it and reading the hardcopy). This paper-based method allowed me to easily flip back-and-forth from case
to case, underline parts of the text, and, most importantly, write down my
thoughts in the margins.
And now, nearly twenty years
later, a number of studies show that reading digitally — e.g., on a laptop or one
of those annoyingly trendy iPads — results in significantly worse comprehension
than reading from a book. The
reason is that reading a physical book engages other senses, places the information
in context, and solidifies the learning process.
Hmm. That research finding sounds oddly similar to
Giles’ argument in 1997.
So what’s the lesson in all of
this? When a stodgy, British, tweed-wearing
librarian talks about things like books, reading, and learning, it’s best to
turn off the computer — or as he called it, “the idiot box” — and listen to what
he has to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment