There are many that think the growing use of computers and mobile phones to communicate has a bad effect on the writing and reading ability of young people. Do you agree or disagree?

There are many that think the growing use of computers and mobile phones to communicate has a bad effect on the writing and reading ability of young people. Do you agree or disagree?

The idea that digital communication technology is eroding kids’ reading and writing skills is a particularly long-standing, well-trodden objection to the effect of technology on education — one I largely agree with with some caveats: belief in genuine, empirically-grounded concerns about specific domains of literacy development qualified by a rejection of the claim that digital communication effects directly and uniformly detracts from young people’s language skills.

In fact, fears over digital communications disrupting reading are based on reasonable observations of how diverse ambient conditions stimulate unique cognitive pathways while reading. While the hyperlinked, multimedia, notification-interrupted context of digital reading — with its speedy scanning and constant shifting from one thing to the next in an atmosphere of continuous distraction — does lead to that deep seated engagement pattern we would prefer, that sort of focus is necessary for a complex understanding of text meaning along linear movements. Studies documented significant measurement shifts in populations likely to read digital media frequently from cognitive psychology: “F-pattern reading,” the scanning of start of lines for keywords instead of sentences or units. The educational implications are real and disturbing if these patterns colonises the overall attitude of young people to reading, so that they will not know how to interact with extended prose in a sustained way – and without sustained engagement with extended prose academic success and true intellectual development are unlikely.

There are a few more direct ways that it impacts writing. The abbreviations, truncations, and grammatical shortcuts associated with digital messaging — while perfectly functional in the communicative mission they serve — contribute to a decline of formal rules of written English that are still necessary in academic and workplace settings when these become dominant registers. Autocorrect and predictive text takes away the active engagement with both spelling and word choice called for by writing pen on paper or unassisted typing, and this seems likely to atrophy the conscious linguistic attention which good spelling and a rich vocabulary are predicated upon. Character-limited formats compress expression, rewarding brevity while excluding the sustained argumentation, evidential development and nuanced qualification that characterise career formal-essay writing — a cognitive mode active practice must favour, not merely assume to evolve spontaneously.

But the case against digital communication as truly compounding all that is wrong with literacy paints a far too simple picture of a much, much more difficult truth. Present-day young people are writing and reading more text than any other generation in human history — the amount of reading and writing they produce (through messaging, social media, comment sections, online communities, content platforms) is far greater than pre-digital generations engaged with through print media. Such a volume of reading and writing certainly IS not the literacy that people are familiar with but it is — in register different from traditional literacy, format different indeed, but still engagement with language: building vocabulary, narrative competence and communicative creativity in ways that verbal communication alone cannot.

In addition, it has been noted that many younger readers who would never have read these works through print channels are interacting with a much greater literary and intellectual level because of digital platforms. The range of the fan fiction communities, online book clubs and long-form journalism websites, digital libraries and the incredible wealth of educational materials that have become available online means that young people — individuals whose access to access to traditional print was limited by availability or cost or simply the lack of a reading culture in their immediate surrounding — now read products with genuine depth and substance. Digital reading makes a wealth of different voices and perspectives available, expanding the cultural reach of material offered to young readers in ways that the physical book market — molded by the economics of commercial publishing — has not been able to replicate historically.

Thus, the most accurate verdict is that the role digital communication plays in literacy—either for improvement or decline—is highly contingent on what it replaces and what it offers. Where it replaces engagement with prolonged, intricate texts in return for only fragmented consumption, the literacy implications are truly negative. It may be literacy-promoting where it expands the scope and richness of text experiences for young people who would otherwise read and write less. The challenge for education is not to fight digital communication but instead to ensure that young people acquire both the basic skills in digital literacy demanded by their contemporary world and the more traditional deep literacy skills of formal learning and intellectual development, a balance that careful educational investment can provide.

To summarize, I agree to a degree that digital communication presents very real dangers to certain areas of the reading and writing development of youth specifically surrounding interpreting deep meaning and formal writing conventions. However, even if concerns about the negative effects of digital communication far exceed what is said in favor of it, this comment ignores that a definitive range of lively and sometimes truly rich text interaction exists thanks to this form of communication, engagement in which contributes positively to aspects of development as demanded recognition alongside the real worries