According to your reports, our examples of literacy training throughout history revealed that colonialism, fascism, patriotism, and consumerism—maybe even phallocentroism!—were being taught along with the ABC’s. The reviewers of SesameStreet.org also correctly pointed out how much this site taught computer literacy as well as alphabetic literacy. I think there’s even more to be said about this example, however. This show was heralded for its multi-cultural cast and, urban setting. Its groundbreaking status cannot be overestimated and its inclusionary politics may have not been equaled since. However, with its chopped up format of mini-skits followed by animated “breaks,” it also taught televisual literacy. I think there’s a straight line to be drawn between the first Sesame Street generation (in which I count myself) and the first MTV viewers (ditto). And, even though the show aired and still does on public television, and its production company, the Sesame Workshop, is a non-profit enterprise, the emphasis on licensed toys and branded apparel certainly seems to promote consumerist values. We might question, then, whether this appealing group of multi-colored muppets is really helping children learn to read TV guides and price lists.
The “Reading at Risk” and follow-up reports generated the most discussion. Overall, we saw problems with their conflation of different types of reading that they lumped together, and the sorts of reading they excluded. Kellie, for example, saw an underlying bias against non-paper media:
“The astounding magnetic affect electronic media had on people, especially the young, supposedly amused them away from willingly engaging themselves in a literary book. This postulation and mulish stance definitely shaped [the NEA’s] results because they wanted to prove that media was the reason for the accelerated declining rate of literary reading.”
Ghayth seems to respond to this by stating, “. . . sometimes you have to read information on the internet, but this is not the same as reading literature,” but this begs the same question they do: How is this different? How do we know this it is different? Very little research has been done (some is just starting) on how screen reading might be different from paper reading. Is it a physical difference in cognitive processes, a behavioral one (linking and scanning), are we just talking about different genres of writing (posts vs. chapters, for example)—or are all of the above interconnected in convoluted and complex ways? The NEA, in its quest for simplicity and measurable outcomes, ignores this still nebulous area of screen reading, but with their assumption that what one does on the Internet is not reading, they basically exclude a large and growing category of literacy.
But their shaping assumptions don’t end with an anti-Internet bias. Ghyath also pointed out their odd (or at least outmoded) distinction between reading for work and leisure—can’t they sometimes be the same? (They are for me!) He also pointed out that sometimes “reading” is actually “listening”—via audiobooks. Troy saw another problem in the NEA’s distinctions among print sources: “The NEA seems to imply that reading is only reading if you are reading a novel, play, short story or poem. It sure feels like I’m reading when I read a magazine or newspaper. I guess if the source has illustrations then it is not considered reading.” Julianne similarly wondered about the type of books being read. Does it matter if it’s a Harlequin romance, the ubiquitous Twilight series, a Booker prize winner or Moby Dick? The NEA purposely avoided that quandary, but in doing so left other questions unanswered.
Indeed, throughout the report, the medium seemed to take precedence over the content. Are all books created equal? Are all online sites? I know I’ve certainly been intellectually challenged by certain blogs and read books that probably actually decreased my total IQ. This same prejudice—the blind acceptance of any sort of book reading—has educators agreeing that reading Captain Underpants is better than not reading at all. I have not seen evidence that reading dumbed-down texts early in life leads to reading mind-expanding ones later in life. Maybe it does—I don’t know. What I do know though, is that SOME video games require complex puzzle solving abilities, advanced strategizing and decision-making skills, imaginative role-playing—and yes, even (occasionally) reading that fosters all those traits.
But another student perspective, however, helps us start to tease out distinctions between books and other media that might be usefully made. Books are still the chief conveyors of long fiction. Why is fiction reading important? Kellie says, “reading begets other vital and productive characteristics that many people lack, for example patience, intelligence, respect.” Perhaps it is the identification process in fiction reading—the way we temporarily merge ourselves (at least in realist fiction) with a main character and his/her trials and tribulations that helps us develop EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE. Certainly fiction reading is not the only way to develop empathy, but it’s a compelling one, and we might be concerned about its loss. Except that maybe we’re not losing reading at all. Troy sums up:
“While this is simplistic and frankly a bit silly we have nothing to worry about. Oprah has saved us by telling everybody what to read. While I may seem flip or sarcastic I really am not. Oprah has signaled a cultural shift in attitudes towards reading. This is a very positive thing. The NEA should feel optimistic, it is cool to read again. “
