The Semi-Disconnected Life: An Experiment

I just got back from a week in Maine, vacationing with family on an island there.  We had a great time, but it was remote enough that we had no cell phone service, let alone access to wi-fi. The local library had wi-fi available when it was open, but I never managed to make it there.   So there I was, a nominal tech-guru, the type who checks her email at least twenty times a day, unwired and disconnected for a week.

I must say, it was a bit liberating.  I read three whole books. Long ones. More importantly, one rainy day, I actually sat and read for five hours straight.  The same book.  I'd all but forgotten what it was like to have that sort of concentrated experience with a piece of fiction, though I used to do it all the time.  The majority of my reading these days is non-fiction, and largely online.  If I read a book a month I'm doing well.

So get to the point, you say?  

Before I left, I'd been thinking quite a bit about Nicholas Carr, and his studies into the internet's effect on our brain.  (Links below, for reasons I'll explain later).

More specifically, I'm interested in the effects of hyperlinks on reading habits, the fragmentation of our attention span.  In my early blogging (and English-teaching) days, I bought the argument that they allowed for a deeper, more nuanced,  kind of writing, allowing writers to mention ideas and link to them without having to diverge from the main point. Theoretically, this created a more embedded reading experience, too, with an entire world of thought within one posting.

 Studies suggest the reality hasn't worked out as we thought, that the mere decision on whether or not to click a link interrupts and fragments the reading/thought process, let alone actually clicking on the link. (You'll find a sampling of my readings below.)  As Carr notes,

 The link is, in a way, a technologically advanced form of a footnote. It's also, distraction-wise, a more violent form of a footnote. Where a footnote gives your brain a gentle nudge, the link gives it a yank. What's good about a link - its propulsive force - is also what's bad about it.

I was just reading a Joyce Valenza article this morning, and only made it through one paragraph before I had clicked on a link and was away on something else entirely.  I don't think I ever made it back to the original article, though there was more I wanted to read.

More importantly, how do links affect students' research behavior? Anecdotally, just in watching my coterie of researchers the past three years as they work their way through databases--they seldom take the time to read through an entire article; they tend to bookmark, then click away, collecting as many documents as possible, without taking much time to decide whether it's relevant and pertinent.

Now, resource gathering is a valid part of the research process, but I wonder if students would take more time in their initial assessment of database/web articles, if the links to other resources came AT THE END?

In my own little version of Carr's delinkification experiment, for the next two weeks, I'm going to post all hyperlinks at the end of each post.  I hope you'll take the time to note your reactions in the comments section.  Does it affect your reading of the post?  How might if affect students if we ask database companies to start hyperlinking at the end of their articles/entries?

And, here, dear reader, are my links:

Nicholas Carr:  His blog; his book, The Shallows.

My various online readings:

  Carr's dehyperlinking post

WSJ:  Carr on the internet; responses from Shirky and Pinker.

NY Times review of The Shallows.

Here We Go Again...

The media is suddenly intensely interested in the effect of the internet on reading skills. Last month, the Atlantic published Is Google Making Us Stupid? while today the NY Times ran a lengthy article entitled Online, R U Really Reading?


Anytime I read one of these articles, I picture of bunch of Medieval monks fretting over the printing press and bemoaning the inevitable loss of memory skills it will bring about.

To its credit, I found the Times article pretty balanced. Studies do show (and my personal experiences verifies) that online reading is vastly different from reading, say, Crime and Punishment. It promotes shorter attention span, jumping from text to text and idea to idea rather than deep sustained thought.

Yet many of the naysayers refuse to recognize the benefits of online reading: the immediacy, the ability to read multiple and varied opinions in a short amount of time, covering a breadth of material not possible in more traditional formats. If the reader has enough time and interest, depth need not be short-changed.

I've well documented in my early blog posts the profound experience my reading had on me last summer as I explored Web 2.0 technologies, almost solely online through blog postings and RSS feeds.

I am greatly troubled, however, by a comment towards the end of the article. Despite repeated studies showing students vast ignorance when it comes to thoughtful analysis of their online reading. Despite the 61% of students who failed to achieve competency levels on ETS new iSkills test (measuring information literacy), we still get bone-headed statements like this:

Some simply argue that reading on the Internet is not something that needs to be tested — or taught.

“Nobody has taught a single kid to text message,” said Carol Jago of the National Council of Teachers of English and a member of the testing guidelines committee. “Kids are smart. When they want to do something, schools don’t have to get involved.”

Oh, really.

Never mind the logical fallacy in comparing text messaging to reading, in what alternative universe does this woman live that students don't need to be taught critical thinking skills? Reading online may be a different kind of thought from sustained reading, but it requires thought nonetheless. In fact, one could argue it requires MORE analysis, as students must learn to distinguish between credible and non-credible sources, which is more difficult online than in printed text.

This comment (from an English teacher, no less) reaffirms an observation I've made over the past few months: my job involves training the adults every bit as much it involves training the students. Maybe more so, as teachers determine the amount of time I'm allowed in working with the classes. If they don't see a need, I don't see the students.

If you get a chance, take a look at the article and read some of the comments. It's an education in itself.

Photo Credits:

'Sustained Silent Reading'. Uploaded to Flickr Creative Commons
by vsqz on 19 Mar 06, 2.21AM PDT.