“Do we read differently on the computer screen from how we read on the
printed page?” Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam asked readers in a
recent article.

From most of the research that has come in so far from academics in
North America and Europe, the answer is yes, although not everyone’s
in agreement with what it all means.

For me, what is means is that we need a new word for reading on
screens. I have therefore coined the neologism “screening”. Of course,
not everyone agrees with me. Are you reading this oped piece in the
Globe or are you screening it online?

by Danny Bloom
OPED

“Do we read differently on the computer screen from how we read on the
printed page?” Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam asked readers in a
recent article.

From most of the research that has come in so far from academics in
North America and Europe, the answer is yes, although not everyone’s
in agreement with what it all means.

For me, what is means is that we need a new word for reading on
screens. I have therefore coined the neologism “screening”. Of course,
not everyone agrees with me. Are you reading this oped piece in the
Globe or are you screening it online?

When I asked Anne Mangen, associate professor
at the National Center for Reading Research and Education at the
University of Stavanger in Norway, what she thought about the word
screening for reading on a screen, she told me by email: “My first
impression is that the term ’screening’ is adequate in some
respects, but not in others. It’s adequate to the extent that it
points to certain differences in the reading mode which has to do with
the display nature, the central bias of a screen compared to a page of
print text (our gaze is naturally oriented towards the center), and
the image-like character of modalities (we tend to read a screen
spatially, in contrast to the page which we linearly).”

But Mangen, who is one of the leading researchers in her field and who
published an important paper last December in the Journal of Research
in Reading in Britain, also said that “screening” is not adequate
“insofar as it does not discriminate between different kinds of
screening — we can also screen a print text (scan, filter, skim,
etc.), and we perceive different kinds of screens differently (compare
the TV with the cell phone, the e-book with the laptop).”

Coco Ballantyne, writing for Scientific American online about Mangen’s
paper, noted: “It’s no mystery that publications have been
taking a beating as more and more people read their news on the Net.
But there’s a catch. The online info may be instant and abundant –
and in many cases free — but it may come at a cost, says a new study.”

Dr Mangen, in her paper, listed a few reasons that reading on paper
and reading on a screen are two different animals.

* Reading on a screen is not as rewarding — or effective — as
reading printed words on paper.

* The process of reading on a screen involves so much physical
manipulation of the
computer that it interferes with our ability to focus on and
appreciate what we’re reading.

* Online text moves up and down the
screen and lacks physical dimension, robbing us of a feeling of
completeness.

* The visual happenings on a compter screen and our physical interaction
with the entire device and its set ip can be distracting. All of these things
tax human cognition and concentration in a way that a book or
newspaper or magazine does not.

* The experience of reading a book or a newspaper or a magazine is
both a story experience and a tactile one.

The jury’s still out on just how different reading on paper is
from reading on a screen, but the public discussions in the blogsphere
are getting interesting.

Richard Long of the International Reading
Association based in Delaware, told Scientific American that in his opinion
“more research needs to be done to study the effects of online
reading on different users .. [and noting that] ….many older people
may absorb more or learn faster by flipping through pages, because
their brains have been trained to read hard copy, whereas younger
readers may learn faster digitally, because they’re accustomed to
working online.”

In the meantime, as the experts conduct more research and write more
academic papers, I have a hunch that we will need a new word someday
for reading on screens. It probably won’t be “screening”, but it’s a good word
to get people thinking.

When I asked James Fallows, an editor at large for the Atlantic
Monthly, what he thought about the term, he told me that while the
word was interesting, he was “not likely
to be an early
adopter of “screening” — and he listed two reasons.

“First, there is already and established and different meaning of
’screening’ that
could easily be confused here,” Fallows said by email. “The
meaning I have in mind is similar to
’skimming,’ ‘reviewing,’ ‘categorizing’ — going through material
quickly to assess its importance, as opposed to fully concentrating on and
absorbing it.”

He added: “The existing meaning of ‘reading’ has been independent
of the medium on
which the words are displayed. We’ve used the term to apply to words printed
on paper; subtitles on a movie screen; words flashed on neon signs; etc. In
all the cases, regardless of medium, we use ‘read’ to refer to the act of
taking in written symbols by eye and converting them mentally to
words. So, good luck with your idea. I am not opposed to it, but this
is why I’ll
stick with ‘reading’ myself.”

So, dear Reader, are you reading this in the Globe today or are you
screening this online? I would love to hear your answers [at
danbloom@gmail.com].

————————————–

Danny Bloom, a 1971 graduate of Tufts, is a freelance writer based in Taiwan.

Yuvaraj