The power of rereading

Our mastery of the perfunctory once-over reading style is consistent with larger trends. We increasingly read shorter, image-heavy texts. More and more of this writing is online. And with the ubiquity of wifi-enabled devices, we are constantly flooded with information. But does our consumption of ever-growing amounts of information come at the expense of gaining knowledge? How do we take raw information and gain true insight and understanding from it?

With heavy workloads and demanding schedules, students are often tempted to measure success by the quantity, rather than the quality, of content they digest. Real learning comes, however, not from constantly skimming vast loads of material, and we cannot maximize knowledge acquisition when we consume, in quick succession, book after book after book. Rather, returning to content we have already encountered —rereading, revising, rehashing—is necessary for real engagement with ideas.

Ideas can be powerful in and of themselves, but just as, or perhaps more, valuable are the unique connections and linkages we draw between them. Passing through material once can be effective in gaining basic information and content. But meditation —protracted, contemplative thought—often yields the most novel thinking, allowing us to produce insights about both the text and its author.

Revisiting old texts and past ideas is time-intensive and comes at the cost of being able to learn new things. Despite this opportunity cost, revisiting and rethinking are indispensable for building upon previous bases of knowledge and meaningfully engaging with material.

So why is it that we spend more time speeding through information than circuitously exploring various forms of knowledge? One explanation is that the college grading system distorts academic signals so that students are incentivized to produce what they perceive their professor to want, rather than pursue true intellectual inquiry. Activities like reading are reduced to instrumental functions, enlisted in the service of getting good grades.

Alternatively, students may feel the pressure of credentialism. Activities are valued by how they look on a resume rather than how meaningful they really are, and students who cram activities into their schedules end up with less time to revisit old material. Perhaps another explanation is that the general premise of a liberal arts education seems to encourage breadth over depth. As the push for interdisciplinary modes of inquiry continues, we may continue to see the growing trend of skimming over rereading.

Of course, it is never too late to really, deeply engage and reengage with content. We may not cover as much material, but we may find ourselves getting more out of our education.