We'd previously reported on a longitudinal study being done by Stanford that hopes to shed light on whether social networking and other forms of e-composition are producing a generation of "better" or "less" skilled writers than their predecessors.
While we're still waiting for the release of that study, commentators continue to offer their opinions on whether we're in the midst of the greatest literary revolution since Gutenberg or are instead slouching towards the electronic equivalent of reductivist caveman grunts.
This column from the Chronicle of Higher Ed notes that one Emory English professor believes that despite all the texting, Twittering, emailing, etc, there's no empirical evidence showing an improvement in reading and writing skills:
'[W]e don't see any gains in reading comprehension for 17-year-olds on NAEP exams, the SAT, or the ACT,' referring to the battery of standardized tests taken by teenagers. If Twittering, texting, and the like really improved writing, [the professor argues], surely the tests would show some evidence.
You can read the Chronicle article here as well as Emory Professor Mark Bauerlein's original column called Technology and the Seduction of Revolution, which prompted the above story, here.
I am the scholarship dude.
(jbl)