In a world where technology is exploding forward at an incredible rate the unforeseen consequences seem to haunt every passing milestone of achievement. Christine Rosen of The New Atlantis argues that technology has actually given way to the precedence of the image over the written word, and that because of the image (both moving and still) literacy is declining—especially amongst the younger generations. She presses the point further in her assertion that the lack of desire for the written word and printed materials signals a declining intellectual mean in our society. The evidence presented here will show that the written word and literacy are in fact declining, and the statistics strongly infer that the rise of the image can contribute to intellectual decline. But in order to see the issue more clearly, we must look at two of the main culprits in this evolution, television and the Internet, and see their effects on literacy.
In the 1930s television was introduced to the United States as the first form of the moving image. Since then the television has become the archetype for the idea of a visual medium as a replacement for the written one—and the visual medium has grown. In 1950 only 9% of US households had a television, but as of 2009 Neilson reports that almost 99% of all households in the US had a television (Media Trends Track). Certainly the image was on the rise, but was the written word suffering at all? The answer is yes—and on all fronts. Since 1970 more than 10 million newspapers have closed their doors, and currently the average household spending on books is at a 20-year low (Crain) and in 2006 publishers reported a drop in the number of published books to the tune of 18,000 fewer publications (Naisbitt). Meanwhile the hours spent on television has only increased with time (as much as 28 hours a week for school aged children according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (Shapley)), but the grades have continued to drop—in some cases in direct relation to television viewing as revealed by Krista Conger of Stanford University. Conger found that children with a television in their room consistently had grades, “between seven and nine points lower on standardized mathematics, reading and language arts tests” compared to children who did not (Conger). Despite televised educational programs aimed at younger people the test scores don’t lie: television is a liability, not an asset.
But what of the Internet? There are those who argue that the Internet is the hallmark of the information age and the implication is that information and education are inextricably linked. Rand Spiro, a professor of educational psychology at Michigan State University, says that, “this new kind of learning [from the Internet and digital media] is the kind we most need for this increasingly complex world” (Spiro). Mark Bauerlein (an English professor from Emory University) feels differently. In an article entitled, “The New Bibliophobes” Bauerlein wrote that, “[K]ids read and write more words than ever before, but reading scores for high school seniors have been flat since the 1970s and down since the early 1990s” (Bauerlein). He also cited a 2008 report from Strong American Schools, which found that, “43% of two year college students and 29 percent of four-year college students end up in a remedial class in reading, writing, or math” (Bauerlein). Motoko Rich, a columnist for the New York Times, also criticized the new wave of “e-literacy” in a 2008 article entitled, “Online, R U Really Reading?” Rich noted that test results measuring reading ability have “declined or stagnated.” But she also cites the Kaiser Family Foundation research, which shows an increase in Internet usage by 25% in children under 18 in just five years from 1999 to 2004. The research also showed that children were using the Internet for longer periods as well with each passing year (Rich). Digital immersion is undeniably up, and test scores are undeniably down. In spite of the claims by Spiro and others who feel that online literacy is equal to traditional literacy the evidence provided by Rich as well as the statistics from Bauerlein show that e-literacy and digital saturation do not improve test scores.
Does the new paradigm of e-literacy then suppress mental development as Rosen suggests? Research cited by Paul Tough and Caleb Crain strongly suggests that indeed it does. Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley are child psychologists from the University of Kansas and they conducted a study focused on early intellectual and mental development in young children (Tough). Surprisingly, they found that given the situation of a young child IQ, and intelligence can in fact be not only developed and increased, but it can also be suppressed and hindered. In short, a child’s upbringing and education can and will determine their intelligence level as they grow up—and a child’s IQ can be impacted negatively. Hart and Risley also found that IQ at young ages was indicated by signs such as vocabulary size and word usage in interaction with others. This correlates with what Caleb Crain found in his research from the University of Washington: their 2007 study, “revealed that babies aged between eight and sixteen months know on average six to eight fewer words for every hour of baby DVDs and videos they watch daily.” (Crain) Hart and Risley have provided conclusive evidence that IQ and intelligence can be influenced at a young age, and the University of Washington linked television viewing to inhibited vocabulary and language skills in infants and toddlers. This would strongly suggest that at best the programming for infants (in spite of its presumably educational format) is no substitute for human interaction and limits their vocabulary, and at worst it may even inhibit intellectual growth and stimulation. While not utterly conclusive, the negative results do not reflect well on the idea of images being used to educate.
However, not everyone agrees that digital literacy is inferior, or that the written word is slowly eroding from its place in the average household. In “The Postliterate Future” author John Naisbitt argues that, “It is not that the word is going away. It’s not either/or…” (Naisbitt) but all signs—declining book sales, bankrupt newspapers, etc—point to the contrary. Some teachers, like Hiller Spires and Pru Cuper feel that, “Rather than attempting to reverse this natural trend [of online reading], we decided to capitalize on it by providing technology-enhanced learning opportunities” (Cuper) and the Reading Online website offers many more articles with a similar point of view. Several blogs and other online materials are also in favor of meeting the students where they already are: plugged in and online. However, the common flaw of this position is the consistent lack of verifiable research that even suggests that “e-literate” students have better test scores and a higher level of literacy.
The simple fact remains that as more readers come of age their reading grades continue to fall, but the time they spend in front of the television and plugged into the Internet continues to climb. The new digital age has brought some marvelous inventions, but it has also brought distractions and an environment where constant digital multi-tasking is normal and reading a book is not. As the digital age surges forward children are spoon-fed more and more information. They have less need to search for it and assess it for themselves; the ever-present screen is ready and willing to do that for them. They will invariably gain some level of knowledge, but the more pressing question is: will they gain understanding?
Works Cited
Bauerlein, Mark. "The New Bibliophobes." Educational Horizons Winter 2010: 84-91. ERIC. Web. 4 Apr. 2010.
Conger, Krista. "TV in Bedrooms Linked to Lower Test Scores." Stanford News. Stanford University, 13 July 2005. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.
Crain, Caleb. "Twilight of the Books." The New Yorker. 24 Dec. 2007. Web. 12 Apr. 2010.
"Media Trends Track." Television Bureau of Advertising :: TVB Online. The Neilson Company, Sept. 2009. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.
Naisbitt, John. "The Postliterate Future." The Futurist Mar.-Apr. 2007: 24-30. ProQuest. Web. 28 Mar. 2010.
Rich, Motoko. "Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?" The New York Times [New York] 27 July 2008. Print.
Shapley, Dan. "Kids Spend Nearly 55 Hours a Week Watching TV, Texting, Playing Video Games..." The Daily Green. 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 12 Apr. 2010.
Spires, Hiller, and Pru Cuper. "Literacy Junction: Cultivating Adolescents’ Engagement in Literature Through Web Options." Reading Online. International Reading Association, Sept. 2002. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.
Spiro, Rand. "Pioneering a New Way of Learning in a Complex and Complicated World." College of Education - Teaching - Michigan State University. Spring 2002. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.
Tough, Paul. "What It Takes to Make a Student." The New York Times [New York] 25 Nov. 2006. Print.
