Full Sail Digital Literacy Melinda Adkins Team B: Refutal

As teenagers’ scores on standardized reading tests have declined or stagnated, some argue that the hours spent prowling the Internet are the enemy of reading — diminishing literacy, wrecking attention spans and destroying a precious common culture that exists only through the reading of books.

At least since the invention of television, critics have warned that electronic media would destroy reading.

Some traditionalists warn that digital reading is the intellectual equivalent of empty calories. Often, they argue, writers on the Internet employ a cryptic argot that vexes teachers and parents. Zigzagging through a cornucopia of words, pictures, video and sounds, they say, distracts more than strengthens readers. And many youths spend most of their time on the Internet playing games or sending instant messages, activities that involve minimal reading at best.

However, our dependency on technology can also make us lazy. Why bother to strain our eyes reading when the television will tell us about important occurrences and entertain us? Why write a letter when your family member or friend can be talked to directly over the telephone? Avoiding the practice of certain literacies will eventually lower the level of one's literacy. To avoid decreasing levels of literacy caused by technology certain precautions must be taken.

Raskin argues this point and also states that computers as teachers may be a bad idea. Students may never acquire adequate social skills and also may not learn efficiently if computers are the main sources of instruction. Ogbu writes that minorities may have a disadvantage in educational institutions. Because technology can be used in classrooms more often there is more potential for inequality. The schools with more resources will be able to offer students more technology and an even better education. Technology can damage education and literacy

Hirsch says that in order to be culturally literate one only needs to know a certain amount of specific ideas. If there are 5,000 ideas that when known are adequate for understanding a culture then if it were easy to look up these 5,000 ideas on demand the culture would be understood. Raskin proposes that a computer could store a list of these ideas along with descriptions making "it easy for an uncultured person encountering one of the expressions to look it up in the database and get the general picture" ( Raskin, p. 202). Hirsch believes that schools provide the common background, but if a database of cultural references existed then schools would not need teach what the students already have easy access to. The schools could teach the students how to use the database and the students would never need to become culturally literate

Some social critics are of the opinion that the spread of the electronic media is destroying literacy. Standardized test scores of reading and writing ability have in fact gone down in recent years. Are the new media the main cause?

the number of hours spent watching television declines as the education levels of viewers rise, but education-related differences in the amount of television use are not large and they have been narrowing

Volti notes that Marshall McLuhan was of the opinion that television affected viewers by requiring they use all their senses, that viewing television was not like reading, which is linear. Television is less concerned with sequence than reading.

Frequent users of smartphones quickly get used to the “auto-complete” function of their devices—the way they need only type a few letters and the phone fills in the rest. Maybe too used to it, in fact. This handy function seems to make adolescent users faster, but less accurate, when responding to a battery of cognitive tests, according to research published in 2009 in the journal Bioelectromagnetics.

A study led by researchers at the University of Coventry in Britain surveyed a group of eight- to twelve-year-olds about their texting habits, then asked them to write a sample text in the lab. The scientists found that kids who sent three or more text messages a day had significantly lower scores on literacy tests than children who sent none

The ready availability of search engines is changing the way we use our memories, reported psychologist Betsy Sparrow of Columbia University in a study published in Science last year. When people expect to have future access to information, Sparrow wrote, “they have lower rates of recall of the information itself and enhanced recall instead for where to access it.” It’s good to know where to find the information you need—but decades of cognitive science research shows that skills like critical thinking and problem-solving can be developed only in the context of factual knowledge. In other words, you’ve got to have knowledge stored in your head, not just in your computer.

Cyber slang is suspected of damaging students’ writing acumen. Cyber slang is a term used to describe shortcuts, alternative words, or even symbols used to convey thoughts in an electronic document. Because so many digital media limit the number of characters an author can use at a time, students are becoming more creative to get the most out of their limited space. Common cyber-slang terms that have made their way into popular speech include BFF (best friends forever), LOL (laugh out loud) and WTF (what the ____).

“I think it makes sense for these social conversations to be lightweight or light-hearted in terms of the syntax,” said President of Dictionary.com Shravan Goli. “But ultimately, in the world of business and in the world they will live in, in terms of their jobs and professional lives, students will need good, solid reading and writing skills.

The Times Daily newspaper cites a recent report from Pew Internet and American Life Project, "Writing, Technology and Teens," which found that the cell phone text-based abbreviated communications teens use are showing up in more formal writing.

Although the students had been told at the outset that they should “study something important, including homework, an upcoming examination or project, or reading a book for a course,” it wasn’t long before their attention drifted: Students’ “on-task behavior” started declining around the two-minute mark as they began responding to arriving texts or checking their Facebook feeds. By the time the 15 minutes were up, they had spent only about 65 percent of the observation period actually doing their schoolwork.

But evidence from psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience suggests that when students multitask while doing schoolwork, their learning is far spottier and shallower than if the work had their full attention. They understand and remember less, and they have greater difficulty transferring their learning to new contexts.

One large survey found that 80 percent of college students admit to texting during class; 15 percent say they send 11 or more texts in a single class period.

David Meyer, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan who’s studied the effects of divided attention on learning, takes a firm line on the brain’s ability to multitask: “Under most conditions, the brain simply cannot do two complex tasks at the same time. It can happen only when the two tasks are both very simple and when they don’t compete with each other for the same mental resources. An example would be folding laundry and listening to the weather report on the radio. That’s fine. But listening to a lecture while texting, or doing homework and being on Facebook—each of these tasks is very demanding, and each of them uses the same area of the brain, the prefrontal cortex.”

The moment of encoding is what matters most for retention, and dozens of laboratory studies have demonstrated that when our attention is divided during encoding, we remember that piece of information less well—or not at all.

Literacy has been under siege for some time. The supposed agents of this threat have changed over the years but the perception remains constant. Television, movies, video games, mobile phones, and the Internet have all been identified as the culprits that rot the brain, desensitize, delude, and generally ruin the minds of the young (and perhaps everyone else too). At the core of much of this concern is the perceived decline of literacy. One of the most passionate and eloquent commentators on this decline and its impact is Chris Hedges. In Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (2009), he notes, “The illiterate, the semiliterate, and those who live as though they are illiterate are effectively cut off from the past. They live in an eternal present.”

This “eternal present” is comprised of “comforting, reassuring images, fantasies, slogans, celebrities, and a lust for violence.” It is a world devoid of substance, dislocated from history, reflection, and nuance. The media and popular press point clearly to new technologies as the cause of this decline but also, ironically, as the source of the “new literacy.” Texting, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and countless other technologies and media are widely seen as undermining or displacing literacy. Not so. They are certainly changing our relationship with literacy and altering what it means to be literate in a ubiquitous multimedia world. But all these things are intimately linked to literacy.

So it turns out that most new technologies and media are not threatening literacy but in fact enhancing it. As a result these are not the tools and capacities that will displace literacy; they are much more likely to be sources for the defense of literacy. While they may be easy targets for the luddites, none of these technologies has exhibited a capacity sufficiently powerful to displace literacy or even create a substantive new literacy. In fact, most are based on a foundation of conventional literacy. The Internet is the largest, most comprehensive information resource ever assembled. It represents the triumph of literacy not its demise. These technologies are not candidates for post-literacy. A replacement for literacy will require a greater level of capability and capacity than that of these relatively primitive technologies.

are our schools meeting this demand? In short, no. Or at least, not well enough. As a country we have devoted many resources to early childhood education initiatives that teach children to read. But once students possess these basic skills, they must be taught to interpret the information they read, to think critically, to write clearly, and to communicate effectively. Unfortunately, middle and high school students are not meeting state and national standards for basic reading proficiency, let alone developing higher literacy skills. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 38% of twelfth graders read at or above the proficient level.

Promoting adolescent literacy cannot be limited to reading and writing. To be highly literate in our culture involves mastering many different types of literacy- digital, financial, health, media, etc. If a student graduates high school able to read and write, but is unable to use a computer, we would consider their functional literacy limited. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but it serves to illustrate this point: literacy is defined and influenced by cultural and societal standards. And in a consumerist society such as ours, our jobs dictate many of those standards. These jobs demand digital literacy.

There are other studies that support the theory that watching television does decrease literacy. In 1976, the National Assessment of Education Progress found that teenagers who watched three hours of television the night before an exam scored significantly lower than those who watched less than 60 minutes of television. (Hornik 195) The students who watched three hours of television scored a 59% compared to the 69% of the ones who only watched one hour. (Hornik 195) The number themselves are not striking; however, the similarities with the homework are more surprising. The same group of teenagers scored a 58.5% when they did not do homework and a 72% when they had done homework. This shows an interesting relationship between time spent watching television and time spent in academic studies. The National Assement study gives credibility to the displacement hypothesis. Two other studies observed similar effects. The California State Department of Education conducted a study in 1980, that showed that television caused a "relatively sharp decline on mathematics, reading, and written expression examinations at both the 6th and 12th grade levels". (Hornik 195) The second study conducted by Morgan and Gross found correlation between television hours with each reading ,mathematics, and language competencies. The study found correlations of -0.20 for the sixth through ninth graders that participated. (Hornik) The important point in the past studies is that television affects not only literacy but also mathematics, and language skills. This is the strongest evidence yet that supports the displacement theory, along with the Alwin and Hall studies this is the strongest evidence yet for the displacement theory.

Since the first television screens lit up our living rooms scientists have been studying its affect on young children. Now scientists have compared mother-child communication while watching TV to reading books or playing with toys to reveal the impact on children's development. The results show that watching TV can lead to less interaction between parents and children, with a detrimental impact on literacy and language skills.

The team found that when reading a book with their children parents used a more active communication style, bringing the child into contact with words they may not hear in every day speech, thereby improving their vocabulary and grammatical knowledge. In contrast watching TV resulted in significantly fewer descriptions and positive responses than mothers playing with toys. "Reading books together increased the maternal communication beyond a level required for reading, while watching TV decreased maternal communication. This is significant when we consider the amount of time young children spend watching TV. In some cases children are left alone to watch TV, missing out on any parental communication at a critical stage in their development," concluded Nathanson.

Meyer, of the University of Michigan, worries that the problem goes beyond poor grades. “There’s a definite possibility that we are raising a generation that is learning more shallowly than young people in the past,” he says. “The depth of their processing of information is considerably less, because of all the distractions available to them as they learn.”

Two years ago, Rosen and his colleagues conducted an information-age version of the marshmallow test. College students who participated in the study were asked to watch a 30-minute videotaped lecture, during which some were sent eight text messages while others were sent four or zero text messages. Those who were interrupted more often scored worse on a test of the lecture’s content; more interestingly, those who responded to the experimenters’ texts right away scored significantly worse than those participants who waited to reply until the lecture was over.

Email, videos of cats falling over, frivolous list-based websites—there’s no-denying that the Internet has given us some pretty wonderful things. However, all this awesomeness comes at a cost, and that cost is the destruction of our minds, sanity, and social lives. That’s right: For all the good it’s done, the Internet has the potential to make us very miserable, very angry, or very dead.

10 Email Is Addictive (Just Like Gambling)

The trouble is, email follows something called the “variable interval reinforcement schedule,” which is the same process that drives gambling addiction. In both cases, you perform an action (check your email or put a coin in the machine) in the hopes of receiving a reward (an interesting email or a whole lotta money). But that reward only comes at unpredictable times—causing you to perform the first action more and more frequently. It’s one of the strongest habit-training methods known to man, and nearly everyone who owns a computer has been subjected to it for years. 

Back in the day there was this book entitled “Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know.” It was published in 1988 and was written by E.D. Hirsch, Jr. Moi liked the concept, some others, not so much. “Cultural Literacy” is defined by Education. Com: Having sufficient common knowledge, i.e., educational background, experiences, basic skills, and training, to function competently in a given society (the greater the level of comprehension of the given society’s habits, attitudes, history, etc., the higher the level of cultural literacy)

Middle school students who frequently use “tech-speak”—omitting letters to shorten words and using homophone symbols, such as @ for “at” or 2nite for “tonight”—performed worse on a test of basic grammar, according to a new study in New Media & Society.

Drew P. Cingel, a doctoral candidate in media, technology, and society at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., conducted the experiment when he was an undergraduate with the Media Effects Research Laboratory at Penn State University in University Park, Pa. under director S. Shyam Sundar. The researchers surveyed 228 6th, 7th, and 8th graders in central Pennsylvania on their daily habits, including the number of texts they sent and received, their attitudes about texting, and their other activities during the day, such as watching television or reading for pleasure. The researchers then assessed the students using 22 questions adapted from a 9th-grade grammar test to include only topics taught by 6th grade, including verb/noun agreement, use of correct tense, homophones, possessives, apostrophes, comma usage, punctuation, and capitalization.