To print or not to print
Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 08:58AM While I admit that I am excited about e-books and their possibilities both as an educator and individual reader, I find myself a print addict. Anything more than a couple pages long that I need to read with care goes to the printer. I shudder at the thought of trying to read anything of substance on a PDA or, worse, a cell phone screen. I've not purchased a Kindle. My dresser is stacked with - gasp - a dozen or more hardbacks and paperbacks. Amazon, Barnes & Noble and printer cartridge manufacturers all love me.
Am I a latent Luddite?
Probably, but Hamlet’s Blackberry: Why Paper Is Eternal (2007) 74 pages by William Powers, Media Critic for the National Journal, helped me understand a little better why many of us still cling to hardcopy books, magazines, newspapers, and printouts of digital content. It's a fascinating, uh, "paper."
One of the more interesting sections describes the early impact the printing press had on hand-written manuscripts. Handwriting, according to historians became even more widespread and important after Gutenberg. He uses this as an lesson, writing: "We have seen that new technologies do not necessarily eliminate old ones, at least not as quickly or predictably as is often assumed. However, when new modes of communication arrive, they do often change the role played by existing media." (p.26) and argues that "paper's work has been shifting away from storage and toward communication." Communication being the end user experience of actually reading.
Power's describes a Sellen and Harper study that ascribes to paper four "affordances" - inherent characteristics that make it particularly useful, especially for concentrated study:
- Tangibility (Our hands can do some of the work our brain does in navigation.)
- Spatial flexibility (We can spread out paper limitlessly, not confined by the size of a monitor)
- Tailorability (We can easily mark up printed documents.)
- Manipulability (We can put one page beside another for easy comparison.)
He concludes, "within a multi-tasking context, printed documents make it easier to focus on each specific task."
There are two other characteristics of paper that Power describes that resonated with me.
The first is that is is immutable. "Unlike a Web page that can be changed in the blink of an eye, a paper document implies a certain commitment to the content it carries." (p. 49) This summarizes my concerns over Wikipedia - not that the information it contains may be inaccurate. But that it may be accurate today and inaccurate 10 seconds later. (And frightens me to think how easy it would be today for Orwell's Big Brother to finish his task of revising all of history.) This may also explain why I take a good deal more time and care writing an 800 word magazine column than a longer blog entry - no going back to "re-write" the column.
The second characteristic is that paper is a selective medium. "A hard-copy document can only hold only as much information as will fit on its pages, and it cannot link to other sources except by verbal reference. ... the immensity of the digital trove also makes it inscrutable, unwieldy, and, at times, overwhelming." Power quotes Brown and Dugid in The Social Life of Information: ...it has become increasingly clear that libraries are less 'collections.' than useful selections that gain usefulness from what they exclude as much as what they hold." If that is not the best argument for excellent collection development strategies in school libraries, I don't know what is.
Anyway, Hamlet's Blackberry is well worth taking the time to read. I suggest you print it out and do so.
Reader Comments (6)
We have been having a similar to-print-or-not-to-print discussion in our district this spring, centered primarily around an effort to reduce the costs of paper and toner.
But I agree that we will probably always use some documents in a printed form, at least for as far forward as I'm willing to forecast. While I read much more on the screen than I do on paper, I still buy books and find that format much easier to use for certain types of information.
However, the number of paper-based magazines I subscribe to has dropped to only two or three from almost two dozen five years ago. Newsmagazines and others that are supposed to cover current events don't make a lot of sense in printed form that must be physically delivered.
Thanks for the recommendation of Powell's paper. I'll certainly read it but don't expect me to do so in hard copy form. :-)
I think that really three factors are responsible for our preference towards paper for the last two decades. First, until recently, paper was much easier on the eyes. The OLED displays will help with that. Second, books are typically way more portable than computers - even laptops and eBook readers have typically required a lot of lugging and fussing (re-charging, etc.) to move them from place to place. Again, I think that as the batteries get better and the devices lighter and easier to use, this will become a non-factor. Finally - and I think most importantly - the cost of paper has, up until now, been less than the bits. That will certainly change. Ultimately, especially in education, money will be the deciding factor. Don't be surprised when textbook companies start to offer a kindle-like device that can be loaded with its texts at the start of each year. It will be free - districts will pay for the content.
One of the biggest changes I am considering making for the 2008-2009 school year is whether to go paperless (meaning all of the information I give to students - schedules, handouts, assignments - are electronic. Also, all of the assignments I ask of them will all be electronic).
As a technology teacher, I wonder if this is the "wave of the future". I personally have begun converting anything beyond two pages into Acrobat (pdf) files to read later - likely on my laptop. However, I still make a daily to-do list on paper, and still take most of my personal notes on paper. I also agree with your your four bullet points above - especially the ability to mark on printed documents and compare paper side-by-side.
So - do I need to go paperless, too? I know that the vast majority of other teachers are still doing nearly everything on paper...
Published for Lesley... Doug
Some time ago I came across this article about a study done at Ohio State University by Karen Murphy where researchers found 'Texts on computer screens harder to understand, less persuasive.
I have long advocated that students start with print when they come to the library to do research. I think it helps to build better initial understanding of concepts as well as providing some great keywords when they are ready to search online. Print has all those wonderful scaffolds for students: indexes, table of contents, glossary, headings, captions, graphs, summaries.
I haven't formally tracked it but I feel strongly that students who start with print do significantly better than students who go directly online. Whenever possible I offer them encyclopedias, non-fiction, pamphlets or even spend some time with the textbook.
It will be interesting to read Powell's paper. Thanks for posting it!
--
Lesley Edwards
Teacher Librarian
Seycove Secondary School
North Vancouver BC
blog: bookminder.blogspot.com <http://bookminder.blogspot.com>
wiki: wic.wikispaces.com <http://wic.wikispaces.com>
bookmarks: del.icio.us/bookminder <http://del.icio.us/bookminder>
Hi Kenn,
I expect people will move at their own rate (or not) from paper to digital reading. I still still read two hardcopy newspapers and lots of hardcopy magazine. My print reading has not been displaced by screen reading as much I had thought it would.
Old eyes? Old brain?
Doug
Thanks for your topic on 'To print or not to print'. I think it will add a great value to refine my skills and abilities.