Instant Messaging: Friend or Foe?

In my most recent post, I evaluated potential implications of recent research about the human brain benefiting from the internet, and articulated concern with the emphasis on web use instead of reading traditionally. Consequently, this week I investigated various evidence about online effects on reading and writing in young people--specifically by instant messaging. This unique means of communication, IM for short, involves text-based expression in real time and unlike email, a sense of urgency can exist as the other individual waits for a response. Hence, many instant message users employ abbreviated English. For instance, "lol" means "laugh out loud" "ttyl" means "talk to you later," "u" acts as "you" and "b" as "be." With students utilizing instant messaging, AIM and MSN among the most popular seen to the right, it seems likely that ramifications of this habit exist in the classroom. To delve deeper, I scouted external blog posts covering this topic. First, I visited one called The Web of Language by Dennis Baron, a professor of English and linguistics at the University of Illinois. His post entitled "Researchers: IM definitely infectious, but associated linguistic damage short-lived, haha" concludes that the English language is intact and that students can adequately distinguish appropriate times to use "internet language" so that it is not detrimental to academic performance. By contrast, in "The More IM Use, the Worse Test Scores," Dr. John M. Grohol, CEO and publisher of PsychCentral.com, discusses the adverse effects of instant messaging, as proved through test scores in a study. I have commented on both external posts, but have also included my input below for convenience.

"Researchers: IM definitely infectious, but associated linguistic damage short-lived, haha"
Comment:
I am very interested by your post about instant messaging, especially the points that made me reconsider my overall negative views of online abbreviations. For example, you say that high-school-aged users may sometimes add an "OMG" while typing, but "such alphabetisms inflict no more linguistic damage than Ben Bernanke mentioning 'NGO’s' at a meeting of the Fed." This is a valid point; no one would criticize Bernanke for shortening "non-governmental organization" because an abbreviation in this situation makes him sound credible and informed in the field. Similarly, doctors in an emergency room say "run an EKG," to express themselves quickly, whereas repeating "electrocardiogram" is inefficient if a patient is experiencing heart failure. Although a term like "OMG" clearly is not as important as "EKG" in my previous example, people use condensed speech to make a point in a timely manner, despite its frivolousness. Condensing English in such a way does not appear detrimental as long as it is used accordingly and the individual knows the phrase's elongated meaning. The English language might be transforming, for better or for worse, as a consequence of rapidly-moving lifestyles that cause humans to shorten words. I would be more concerned if individuals grew up exclusively using terms like "ttyl" and "omg" because those abbreviations would have become a substitute for the four-word and three-word phrases, respectively. If a succession of letters like these begins to take on a meaning in and of itself, problems would undoubtedly arise, for example while trying to translate words when learning another language, or having a foreigner learn English. I suppose it could be viewed as a sort of slang used regionally, just as colloquial Spanish is different in Mexico, El Salvador, and Spain. What are your thoughts regarding the transformation of the English language? Do you think such abbreviations would ever merit addition to a traditional dictionary? As evidence that English is undergoing change, you reference a Pew Internet Project study citing that 85% of American teens message digitally, while "38% incorporate shortcuts like LOL in their book reports, and fewer still, about 25%, use emoticons like the smiley face, in the essays." This does not seem to concern you, but I believe this is worrisome. When you state that teens are "cued in to enough linguistic nuances" that they can distinguish "what's appropriate for some kinds of writing may not be appropriate for others," but this is an alarmingly high number using internet-speak in a very unfitting situation.

"The More IM Use, the Worst Test Scores"
Comment:
Thank you for your post regarding the recent study about instant messaging acting as a distraction for comprehending an online passage. It was inarguably foreseeable that this online communication would increase the time taken to complete an assignment because multitasking stretches attention in many directions. This interference could have been anything though, so the following statement might also apply to television, video games, and the like: "The study also found that the more time participants reported spending on IM in their everyday lives, the significantly lower their comprehension scores and their Grade Point Average (GPA)." If students are spending mass amounts of time doing activities other than studying, it seems bound to affect their academics negatively. By contrast, if GPAs are actually lower due to instant messaging, I question whether it is a result of this kind of communication, or because of the way they use the web. Internet surfers tend to skim and are accustomed to constant visual stimulation. Do you think students who use the web more frequently are at a disadvantage in school because it is more difficult for them to immerse themselves in a traditional novel? It seems likely that their online habits would translate into their daily lives away from the computer. Even if it proves false and internet practices do not persist outside, do you believe that because participants took this test on the web, they did not comprehend the reading well because they do not usually read deeply for content on this medium? But going beyond comprehension, I am curious about the affects of instant messaging abbreviations on students. You say that "People who IM more than others may not do as well on a test of a person’s knowledge, especially if that test has fill-in-the-blank or essay questions (as opposed to multiple choice)." It seems as though students who are used to writing very informally on the internet may struggle when asked to complete essay-type questions, especially while online because one's personal chatting may become confused with the task at hand, seeing as they both originate from the same screen.

The Brain: Improved by the Internet?

In October 2008, Science Daily published an article entitled "Searching The Internet Increases Brain Function" which summarizes a high-profile and unique study. Dr. Gary Small of the University of California, Los Angeles performed the research at the Semel Institute of Neuroscience and Human Behavior. He concluded, "emerging computerized technologies may have physiological effects and potential benefits for middle-aged and older adults," specifically by promoting complex brain activity through online searches. When scientists juxtaposed brain action during reading with that of online browsing, the former was stifled in comparison, evident in the picture above. This research is preliminary, though, and should not yet be generalized across older adults because they grew up solely reading books and were introduced to the internet with an established foundation of reading skills. By contrast, Generation Y has always lived with the pairing of traditional books and the internet, so it is difficult to deem whether or not the study's results would also be true of individuals with a different educational background. With that in mind, the neuroscience research is promising, but may be problematic if there is a resulting emphasis on cyberspace over conventional reading.

In examining the procedures of this study, a skeptic may question research practices before accepting the results as true. Twenty-four volunteers ages 55 to 76 participated, half of whom had previous experience exploring the internet. Twelve participants per group does not seem sufficient to make a conclusion about the entire population of adults within this age range based on the laws of sampling in statistics. However, one must also consider that because this research is cutting-edge, it is looking for trends to study more in-depth in the future. The twelve individuals who had previous experience with searching the internet "registered activity in the frontal, temporal and cingulate areas of the brain, which control decision-making and complex reasoning," the article recounted. But this is not surprising, according to Dr. Liz Zelinski, professor of psychology and gerontology at the University of Southern California. Zelinski offers the following analogy: "If you wanted to study how hard people can exercise, and you take people that already exercise and people that don't exercise, aren't they going to be different to start out?" It appears the human brain is trained to engage more deeply in previously encountered tasks; just as a muscle grows bigger once it has experienced weight-lifting, the brain establishes more connections within itself after having repeated a specific activity, like searching on the internet.

This study emphasizes that the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan revealed nearly two-and-a-half times more connections between tiny brain units (called voxels) while perusing cyberspace in adults with internet search experience as compared to those without. A psychology student blogger seems to accept this study and deduces, if "older adults show increased activation after using the internet for about 10 years, then imagine the activation the young adults of today will show when they are 55 (after using the internet for over 40 years)." While this research may have merit, thinking of this nature is alarming. As people begin to believe that their brains will benefit more from using the internet than from reading, they are likely to spend less time doing the latter. Evidence of negative consequences already exists. Dr. Karen Shue explains that as "we are changing our info-intake habits and info-use habits, we are indeed re-wiring our brains," and because people usually skim online, traditional reading attention-spans suffer. Stated concisely, "use it or lose it, applies to the brain's networking world." As an example, in an Atlantic Monthly article entitled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" writer Nicholas Carr describes his own experiences with the effects of frequent internet use on his reading capabilities. He says something is "tinkering" with his brain; he was once able to immerse himself in a lengthy book. Now though, restlessness causes him to struggle because he has become accustomed to excessive online stimulation. The average web-surfer spends less than sixty seconds on one site before moving to the next, so it is not surprising that Carr and many others feel uneasy while trying to comprehend a novel.

The avoidance of traditional reading due to a waning enjoyment involves threatening costs to the qualities that make us human. As the brain's make-up changes, it seems as if people are becoming wired to mimic the perpetrator--the computer (see right). Because of recent technology, participants under age thirty remembered fewer personal details than those ages fifty and above, according to a poll of 3,000 individuals by Ian Robertson. Computers and cellular devices enable external storage, and Clive Thompson of Wired Magazine observes that "without noticing it, we've outsourced important peripheral brain functions to the silicon around us." For example, one-third of youngsters were not able to remember their own telephone number. Accordingly, people do not feel pressure to retain other knowledge because the internet acts as an infinite pool, quickly accessible using a search engine such as Google. Relating this back to traditional reading, what is the purpose of immersion in a Shakespeare classic when a plot summary can appear online in seconds? This mentality may cause individuals to deprive themselves of many irreplaceable qualities of these texts: in-depth plots and subplots, exposure to an expansive vocabulary, a getaway to a fictional land, and most importantly, room for the imagination to fill any voids. Carr recognizes that his mind now mirrors the net by receiving information "in a swiftly moving stream of particles." He used to be "a scuba diver in the sea of words," but he now "zip[s] along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." With all of this considered, reading can slow the pace of a hectic life, and it is essential that humans do not completely begin to avoid this art and its grounding qualities. Although the internet may have mental benefits and is a necessary tool for mass communication and information sharing, it must be balanced with traditional reading to avoid a society of human computers.