In their influential article “What Reading Does for the Mind”, Anne E. Cunningham and Keith E. Stanovich delve into the cognitive processes involved in reading, highlighting the significant role reading plays in shaping cognitive development and enhancing intellectual abilities. This piece is essential for anyone interested in understanding the complex relationship between reading and mental functioning. While their work is both thorough and compelling, it brings to light a key debate in educational psychology, particularly regarding the efficacy of rereading as a study technique. Some research schools, including those led by Robert Bjork, have cast doubt on the effectiveness of rereading, proposing that it may not be as beneficial as traditionally believed.
The Power of Reading for Cognitive Development
Cunningham and Stanovich’s article provides a comprehensive review of research on the cognitive benefits of reading, emphasizing that frequent and sustained reading has a far-reaching impact on brain development. They argue that reading strengthens cognitive abilities in various areas, including vocabulary, comprehension, and reasoning skills. By engaging with written material, readers actively stimulate neural pathways that enhance cognitive function and knowledge acquisition.
The article is particularly valuable for its integration of both theoretical perspectives and empirical research, demonstrating how reading practices contribute to long-term cognitive benefits. For instance, the act of decoding words and processing complex sentence structures helps to reinforce memory and comprehension skills. Moreover, reading widely across different genres and disciplines exposes the mind to new ideas, enhancing critical thinking and creativity.
The Debate: Is Rereading Really Ineffective?
One of the central claims made by certain schools of thought, including the research spearheaded by Robert Bjork and colleagues, is that rereading is not as effective a study method as commonly believed. According to this viewpoint, the benefits of rereading diminish over time due to the fact that it often involves passive review rather than active engagement with the material. Cognitive psychology research suggests that techniques like self-quizzing and active retrieval are far more beneficial for long-term retention and deeper learning.
Active Retrieval vs. Passive Review
Bjork’s research emphasizes the importance of active retrieval in the learning process. Active retrieval refers to the practice of testing oneself on the material to reinforce learning and aid in memory retention. This method contrasts sharply with passive review strategies like rereading and highlighting, which may lead to the illusion of familiarity but do little to enhance long-term understanding.
Cognitive psychology studies have shown that students retain information better when they engage in retrieval practice, whether through self-quizzing or being quizzed by a teacher. The act of retrieving information forces the brain to work harder to recall the material, strengthening the neural connections associated with the learned content. In contrast, rereading simply exposes the material again without forcing the brain to engage in the same active process, making it a less effective technique.
The Illusion of Mastery
Rereading, according to cognitive psychologists, often leads to an illusion of mastery. When students repeatedly read the same material, they may feel that they understand it better, but this sense of mastery is superficial. Without challenging the brain to recall the information actively, students may miss opportunities to consolidate the knowledge in their long-term memory. In fact, research has found that the benefits of rereading tend to fade quickly, as the brain does not form the robust connections required for deeper understanding.
Counterpoint: Rereading’s Role in Learning
However, the outright dismissal of rereading as a study strategy may be premature. While cognitive psychology suggests that active retrieval is superior, this doesn’t mean rereading has no place in effective learning. Rereading can still be beneficial in certain contexts. For example, when students encounter particularly difficult or complex material, rereading can help clarify concepts and reinforce understanding. The key, however, is to combine rereading with more active study techniques.
Furthermore, rereading can serve as a primer for retrieval practice. Students may first read the material to gain a foundational understanding, and then engage in active retrieval to reinforce and deepen their knowledge. In this way, rereading acts as a preparatory step before more rigorous study methods, rather than a stand-alone technique.
Conclusion: A Balanced Approach
Cunningham and Stanovich’s article offers a well-rounded perspective on the benefits of reading for cognitive development, while also indirectly addressing the contemporary debates around study methods. Although their article doesn’t directly engage with the research on rereading, their emphasis on the cognitive processes involved in reading suggests that the act itself is far from passive, particularly when the material is engaging and thought-provoking.
The debate around rereading is a reminder that learning is a complex and multifaceted process. While cognitive psychology offers compelling evidence for the superiority of active retrieval over passive review techniques like rereading, it is important to acknowledge the context in which rereading can still play a meaningful role. A balanced approach that combines active retrieval with targeted rereading can provide the best of both worlds, allowing students to maximize their learning potential.
Ultimately, while active retrieval should certainly be a cornerstone of study routines, dismissing rereading entirely as an ineffective strategy overlooks its potential benefits in certain learning contexts. As with any educational strategy, the key is to employ a variety of methods that suit the material, the learner, and the learning objectives.
Reading and re-reading may not be effective learning methods in an exam retrieval point of view. But are we ignoring the Giant? WHAT READING DOES FOR THE MIND BY ANNE E.CUNNINGHAM AND KEITH STANOVICHhttps://t.co/MGoPNCZ2FS pic.twitter.com/YbjDPFPH3B
— Kiran Johny (@johnywrites) August 30, 2019