The title of this post references neither a call for additional violence in media nor an admiration of the violence that does exist. Rather, the first part refers to the upcoming season of celebration and gift-giving. It is a time when money is spent on movies, music, and games. This year, the holiday season coincides with the release of two major gaming systems (Playstation 4 and Xbox One) and an increased availability of low-priced and improved mobile (e.g. tablets and smart phones) and stationary media players (e.g. large screen 3D devices). 

photo credit: firewhenede via photopin cc

The second part of the title refers to a newly published research article titled “Gun Violence Trends in Movies” that was released in Pediatrics by Bushman, Jamieson, Weitz, and Romer (2013). The researchers coded violence in films since 1950 and gun violence since 1985. The selection of 1985 was purposeful; it referenced the first full year of the PG-13 rating. The authors provide evidence that violence in films has doubled since 1950. Their data also suggests gun violence in movies has tripled since 1985. The existence of violence in other forms of media is obvious (e.g. Schmierbach, 2009).

When combined, the title highlights a season when the likelihood of purchasing violent media increases. The title is also a tongue-in-check reference to the fact that whenever such a report gets released, there seems to be an onslaught of articles, newspaper headlines, blog posts, twitter feeds, etc., that take one side or the other on the debate of media violence and its impact on its viewers, players, or listeners. One group highlights the link between video game and media violence with aggression (e.g. Ferguson, 2013); the other camp focuses on the weak, inconclusive, and negative impact research (e.g. www.christopherjferguson.com/APA%20Task%20Force%20Comment1.pdf). 

Such reports and debates may seem inconsequential to literacy research. However, there is obviously a strong link between media and literacy. In some cases, this link may be the use of media to teach literacy skills (e.g. Wepner & Cotter, 2002).  It could refer to literacy skills or outcomes that highlight existing engagement with media (e.g. Weis & Cerankosky, 2010; Gee & Hayes, 2010). There is the direct connection to 21st century digital literacies and New Media (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek & Henry, 2013). Finally, there is a current call by the Common Core State Standards for students to use technology and digital media strategically and capably (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

Because of this connection, there are potentially negative outcomes related to the findings on media violence that could impact the work on literacy instruction, acquisition, and research. Regardless of whether research supports or fails to provide substantial links between media use and violence, the omnipresence of the concerns of media impact studies that could influence at least four areas of technology and literacy.

1. Administrators, teachers, and parents limit access to technological tools, partially in response to negativity in the press. This can originate at the district or school level; it can also come from parents who push districts to limit access. One report suggested that 65% of administrators said they were unlikely to allow students to use their own mobile devices in schools (Project Tomorrow, 2012). The report highlights how students’ desires for technology are different than those offered or desired from schools. This is not necessarily a direct outcome of the reports of media negativity; however, schools are often afraid to try technologies that go beyond what is considered traditional educational technologies (e.g. video projectors, electronic white boards, etc.).
2. These studies often present an underlying notion of what is right and what is wrong with technology integration. No one would say that a person who uses violence in media to create their own path of destruction is a "good thing." However, negative reports often set the stage for explicit or implicit definitions of good and bad uses of technology. A great example comes from California with their recent $1 billion dollar iPad deployment (Watters, 2013). Students quickly hacked the security on the iPads in order to use it for social media, music, and web browsing. This is not to suggest that students who disobey school rules should always be praised. However, the underlying assumption is that coding gets punished instead of rewarded. There is also an implicit belief that access to social media and other tools currently used by students is ‘bad" if it doesn’t directly relate to what a teacher has created for his or her lesson plans. Such outcomes not only prevent social media use and connected learning, they disregard the value of creativity with and through technology. In an era of coding competitions to promote STEM engagement and 21st century digital literacy acquisition (http://hammertowncoderdojo.org/), schools have implicitly set the stage for what are right and wrong uses of technology.
3. These studies highlight the role of technology as something we consume. Most of the reports, research articles, and media posts, whether highlighting the good or focusing on the bad, seem to present technology as something we solely consume. If a child "plays" this game, this positive or negative outcome might happen. If they watch "this movie," they may show aggression. Any notion of production is either ignored or relegated to the teacher who then produces things to be consumed by the student. Our children and students are living in an area of multimodal composition. They create movies, music, photos, and presentations. They play games and simulations (e.g. Minecraft or The Sims) where they will spend hours doing nothing but creating and sharing. These studies discursively position talks about media access and use around consumption and often fail to appreciate not only the potential for these tools but also the existing use by students.
4. These media and research reports often juxtapose the student vs. the teacher or the student vs. the parent. Research and media outcomes on the use of technology often set the stage for what parents or teachers should allow. The unstated assumption here is that parents and teachers do not consume or produce media on their own. In an era of family-based video games (e.g. Wii) and at a time when the average age of gamers is 30 (ESA, 2013), it is more likely that a teacher or parent is also someone who listens to music, plays games, creates movies, and is a part of social media. Melnick (2011) suggests that one of the most critical factors in addressing the impact of media is engagement by parents (and perhaps by teachers). 

Researchers who do work directly on the use of media in literacy acquisition and instruction need to be able to understand how negative research outcomes might prohibit access to technological tools that could inform student learning or teacher professional development. Addressing the implicit assumptions that are being made in the media and in research studies does not involve trying to convince parents, schools, or teachers that literacy can only be achieved when students have unadulterated access to all media. However, they can present alternative viewpoints that do not cut off access to all media resources. Scholars who are more theoretically involved in media literacy, 21st century digital literacy, and New Literacies can help this conversation by addressing how to best research these needs. What happens to media literacy when teachers and parents co-play and co-create? What happens to literacy acquisition when students create rather than just consume? How do we promote 21st century literacy acquisition when those goals seem to conflict with schools’ desires to secure access at all costs? These important questions are critical to educational technologists and literacy educators who will find such decisions impacting their current and future work in schools and with teachers and students.

References

Bushman, B. J., Jamieson, P. E., Weitz, I., & Romer, D. (2013). Gun violence trends in movies. Pediatrics, peds.2013-1600, 1014-1018, published online November 11, 2013. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/11/06/peds.2013-1600.full.pdf+html

Entertainment Software Association. (2013). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Retrieved from http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf

Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. American Psychologist, 68(2), 57.

Gee, J. P. and Hayes, E. (2010). Women and Gaming: The Sims and 21st Century Learning. New York: Palgrave Press.

Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L.A. (2013). New Literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, and R.B. Ruddell (Eds.) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (6th Ed.). International Reading Association: Newark, DE.

Melnick, M. (2011). Why parents should play video games with their daughters. Retrieved from http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/01/why-parents-should-play-video-games-with-their-daughters/

Project Tomorrow. (2012). Mapping a personalized learning journey — K-12 students and parents connect the dots with digital learning:  Speak Up 2011 National Findings K12 Students and Parents. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU11_PersonalizedLearning_Students.pdf

Schmierbach, M. (2009). Content analysis of video games: Challenges and potential solutions. Communication Methods and Measures, 3(3), 147-172.

Waters, A. (2013). Students are 'hacking' their school-issued iPads: Good for them. The Atlantic, October 2, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/students-are-hacking-their-school-issued-ipads-good-for-them/280196/

Weis, R. & Cerankosky, B. C. (2010). Effects of video-game ownership on young boys’ academic and behavioral functioning: A randomized, controlled study. Psychological Science, 21(4), 463-470.

Wepner, S. B. & Cotter, M. (2002). When do computer graphics contribute to early literacy learning. Reading Online, 5(6), n6.

Dr. Richard E. Ferdig is the Summit Professor of Learning Technologies and Professor of Instructional Technology at the Research Center for Educational Technology, Kent State University, rferdig@gmail.com.

This article is part of a series from the International Reading Association Technology in Literacy Education Special Interest Group (TILE-SIG).