Sunday, July 27, 2008

Reading vs. Reading

MANIFESTO

The New York Times has an interesting article—at least to a dweeb like me—today regarding reading printed material and reading off a computer monitor. Of course, venerable groups such as the National Council of Teachers of English, the International Reading Association, and the American Library Association (Full disclosure: I'm a member of both the ALA and an allied entity, the American Association of School Librarians.) will contend that the latter really doesn't constitute reading at all, but as is noted in the article, parents of Internet-reading kids are "just pleased that [their children] read something anymore."

The two positions are laid out pretty clearly in the article.
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.

But others say the Internet has created a new kind of reading, one that schools and society should not discount ...

Even accomplished book readers like Zachary Sims, 18, of Old Greenwich, Conn., crave the ability to quickly find different points of view on a subject and converse with others online. Some children with dyslexia or other learning difficulties, like Hunter Gaudet, 16, of Somers, Conn., have found it far more comfortable to search and read online.

At least since the invention of television, critics have warned that electronic media would destroy reading. What is different now, some literacy experts say, is that spending time on the Web, whether it is looking up something on Google or even britneyspears.org, entails some engagement with text.
As one who finds himself spending in excess of thirty hours per week in front of a computer monitor, I certainly know where I stand on the subject, whatever the feelings of my professional affiliations might be.

UPDATE — Kevin Drum also comments on the Times's piece.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home