1

OMG txting is gr8!

by Christopher |  February 2, 2009 at 8:00 am

inShare

In a GOOD blog post (that happens to feature some

really clever photographs, too) titled "Text-pocalypse

Now?," Mark Peters interviews linguist and author David

Crystal about whether textese/textish/txt is ruining the

English language. Here's a portion of one of Crystal's

responses:

"People believe that a text message is “full” of

abbreviations, as in the classic c u l8r. In fact, when you

collect a corpus of messages and analyze them, the

average number of words per message that are

abbreviated is around 10 per cent. That means that

most words are in standard spelling. This is especially

true of messages between adults, now constituting

about 80 per cent of all text messages. Organizations

such as the stock exchange, colleges, broadcasting

stations and political parties (not least, Barack Obama)

now routinely text as a means of informing people

about things. Some actually ban abbreviations, because

of their possible unfamiliarity or ambiguity. Anyone who

believes that texting is just for kids is totally out of

date.

Hardly any of these abbreviations are new. Several are

hundreds of years old. Those adults who object to

initialisms such as bbl (’be back later’) forget that, once

upon a time, they did the same sort of thing themselves

- only without a cell phone. Remember SWALK on the

back of an envelope? Or the rebus puzzles in magazines

and Christmas annuals such as Y Y U R, Y Y U B…? 

There was a hoax school essay produced in 2003 which

was entirely written in texting abbreviations.

Unfortunately, millions were taken in by it. Such things

simply don’t happen. I work a lot with schools, and I

often ask teachers to show me examples of textisms in

schoolwork. They never can. I think I’ve been shown

one example over the past two years, and that was a

single instance of rushed writing. I ask the kids

themselves would they ever use textisms in their

writing. They look at me as if I’m nuts. “Why would you

ever want to do that?” said one to me. “That would be

stupid.” Quite so. You’d have to be pretty dumb to not

see the difference between texting style and essay style.

Or, putting this another way, teachers who let kids

think the difference doesn’t matter wouldn’t be doing

their job. And the same point applies to examinations.

I’ve asked many examiners whether they have seen

textisms in exam answers. The answer is always no. But

ask joe public if kids use textisms in schoolwork and

exams, and there is an almost universal yes. It’s

extraordinary how these myths take hold of the public

imagination.

A further myth is that texting is harming children’s

literacy. Well of course, once you see the reality, this

myth disappears. What is interesting is the recent

research which is showing that the more kids text, the

better their literacy scores. This shouldn’t surprise

anyone. Reading and writing improve with practice.

Texting provides that practice."

I'm not sure what to make of this, actually. I think I

would have pessimistically assumed that the more one

used textese, the more it would creep into non-phone

writing, too. But I have observed that this is not the

case with me. I completely reject the following textese:

LOL, lolcat, and pwned. Yet, I have been known to use

"u" instead of "you," or "gr8" instead of "great,"

especially when texting using my phone (it IS faster,

see). I also must admit to not only using, but actually

enjoying, the emoticon. Pretty frequently. :-| (That's my

robotic, this-is-no-joke face.) But has this caused me to

end professional emails with "pls call me" or "thx?" No.

I think people are smart enough to know how to adapt

their speaking or writing to different contexts. Your

thoughts?

The impact of text messaging language shortcuts on developmental students' formal writing skills

2Dissertation

Author: Sherry L. Rankin

Abstract:

The language shortcuts used in text messages are becoming

evident in students' academic writing assignments. This

qualitative study sought to determine if the use of the shortcuts

has an adverse impact on developmental students' spelling and

grammar skills. This research was based on the constructivist

theory, which rationalizes that students use what they are most

familiar with as they acquire new knowledge. The study was

directed by four research questions to understand (a) how

students use language shortcuts in their academic writing, (b)

how language shortcuts influence students' spelling and

grammar skills, (c) how well students are able to differentiate

between casual writing and academic writing, and (d) how the

use of language shortcuts influences the amount of writing

students do. A bounded single case study using a sample size

of 25 students included student interviews, a focus group,

observation of students during a writing assignment, and

analysis of students' graded compositions. Data collected from

the interviews and focus group were manually transcribed and

coded, and notes from observations and artifacts were used to

ensure validity of the interview findings. Consequently, four

themes emerged: (1) participants frequently used text

messaging and language shortcuts; (2) language shortcuts

commonly occur in students' academic assignments; (3)

students agreed that language shortcuts have hurt spelling

skills; and (4) the participants often have academic deficiencies

that go beyond errors presented through text messaging and

language shortcuts. The study's findings could influence positive

social change in that developmental students could become

more proficient writers if curriculum adjustments were made to

connect academic writing instruction with the method of

communication that students frequently use and understand.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction....................................................................................

..................................................1 Statement of the

Problem.........................................................................................

........................3 Nature of the

Study.............................................................................................

.............................5 Research

Questions......................................................................................

....................................5 Purpose

Statement......................................................................................

......................................6 Conceptual

Framework.....................................................................................

...............................7

Definitions......................................................................................

..................................................8 Scope of the

Study.............................................................................................

..............................9 Population and

Sampling........................................................................................

.....................9

Assumptions..................................................................................

.............................................10

Limitations.....................................................................................

............................................11

Delimitations..................................................................................

............................................11 Significance of the

Study.............................................................................................

..................11

Summary.......................................................................................

.................................................12

SECTION 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction....................................................................................

................................................13 Theoretical

Framework.....................................................................................

.............................14 Constructivist

Theory...........................................................................................

......................15 Developmental Writing

Classes..........................................................................................

...........18 Technology’s Influence on Writing

Skills.....................................................................................22

Text Messaging’s

Language.......................................................................................

................23 Text Messaging and the Writing

Curriculum.............................................................................24

3

Teachers’ Knowledge Base of

Technology...................................................................................

26 Research

Methods.........................................................................................

.................................29

Summary.......................................................................................

.................................................32

SECTION 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction....................................................................................

................................................34 Research

Design...........................................................................................

..................................34 Role of the

Researcher....................................................................................

...............................35 Research

Questions......................................................................................

..................................35 Study

Context..........................................................................................

.......................................36 Selection of

Participants....................................................................................

............................37 Checks for

Validity...........................................................................................

.............................38 Data

Collection.......................................................................................

.......................................40 Data Analysis

Plan...............................................................................................

..........................41

Summary.......................................................................................

.................................................42

SECTION 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction....................................................................................

................................................44

iv

Data

Collection.......................................................................................

.......................................45

Interviews......................................................................................

.............................................46 Focus

Group.............................................................................................

..................................48

Observations.................................................................................

..............................................50

Artifacts..........................................................................................

............................................53 Data

Analysis.........................................................................................

........................................54

Findings.........................................................................................

.................................................57 Discrepant and Nonconfirming

Data.............................................................................................5

9 Evidence of

Quality...........................................................................................

............................59

SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction....................................................................................

................................................61 Interpretation of

Findings.........................................................................................

.....................62 Implications for Social

Change..........................................................................................

............62 Recommendations for

Action.............................................................................................

...........63 Recommendations for Further

Study.............................................................................................

64

Reflections.....................................................................................

................................................65

Summary.......................................................................................

.................................................66

REFERENCES..............................................................................

................................................67

APPENDIX A: COOPERATION FROM COMMUNITY

RESEARCH PARTNER..................74 APPENDIX B:

INTERVIEW

SCHEDULE..................................................................................

75 APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW

4

GUIDE..........................................................................................

76 APPENDIX D: TRANSCRIPT

CODES.......................................................................................7

7 APPENDIX E: FOCUS GROUP

GUIDE.....................................................................................78

APPENDIX F: OBSERVATION

PROTOCOL............................................................................79

CURRICULUM

VITAE............................................................................................

....................80

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

The popularity of the cellular telephone has become increasingly

evident among college students, just as important for many as

their pencils, notebooks, and textbooks. One of the most widely

used features of the phones text messaging service. Text

messaging has become a vital part of students’ social lives

(Harley, Winn, Pemberton, & Wilcox, 2007, p. 237). Today’s

youth are “avid users and consumers of wireless technology”

(Pitfield, 2004, p. 5). Students may prefer this form of contact

because it is often included within the cellular service package

for free or at a minimal charge and it allows students to consider

their responses before sending messages (Harley, Winn,

Pemberton, & Wilcox, 2007, p. 234). The students use text

messaging so frequently that an article by Carrington (2005)

referred to them as addicts: There is almost an unspoken

comment here that recreational use of txting (sic) may ultimately

lead to an addiction and a lowering of an individual’s ability to

shift between text types according to social context – that

increasing mastery and use of txt (sic) must ipso facto lead to

withering skills around other text forms embraced within the

parameters of Standard English (p. 167). This current research

led to the formation of the research question that guided this

study: How do text messaging language shortcuts influence

developmental students’ formal writing skills? In regards to the

research question about how text messaging language shortcuts

influence developmental students’ spelling/grammar skills, the

shortcuts allow students

2

the option to communicate by using shortened words, acronyms,

or codes to relay their meaning (e.g., L8R for later, B4 for

before, u for you). These conversational forms allow the senders

to construct their own meanings and, in a sense, a language of

their own (Pitfield, 2004, p. 32). The author further postulated

the following: The written message is an important object of

social value, as young people have ownership of, or have

immediate control over it. This raises the value of the text

message even more as the object exchanged represents not

only something that is personal, but also a symbol of young

people’s independence (Pitfield, 2004, p. 37). On the contrary,

the utilization of text messaging language in the classroom is

considered by many educators to be an inappropriate form of

language that is “infecting” Standard English and leading to

lower scores on writing examinations (Carrington, 2005, p. 168).

So the question arises as to whether this form of communication

interferes with developmental English students’ spelling and

grammatical skills, as well as their capacity to write

comprehensible, succinct sentences. Text messaging language

shortcuts have changed the way students approach and

complete writing assignments (Carrington, 2005, p. 171). This

point led to the following questions: How well are students able

to differentiate between casual writing and academic writing?

and How does the use of shortcuts influence the amount of

writing students do? A study by Schaller (2007) argued that

“students who were adept at text messaging were three times

more likely to be above standardized literacy rates” (p. 58). As

students embrace this popular form of technology, teachers are

finding that they must

3

learn to make adjustments to their writing curriculum. Teachers

who use constructivist methods of teaching may best be able to

connect this common form of technology to the students’ writing

5

assignments. According to Lambert et al. (2002), constructivist

learning involves posing questions on writing assignments that

prompt students to utilize what they can identify with, which

leads to more detailed writing assignments (p. 26). Teachers

cannot underplay the technological advancements and they

cannot discount the role technology plays in students’ everyday

lives (Cunningham, 2004, p. 25); therefore, professional

development would help them to keep up with the changes

(Rooney, 2007, p. 87). When teachers improve their skills and

knowledge about text messaging language shortcuts, students

have a greater chance to learn material in a way that is relevant

to them. Rakes, Fields, and Cox (2006) and Schroll (2007)

connected the constructivist theory to technology in the writing

classroom by asserting that when teachers use technology to

accompany instruction they can reinforce increased learning

skills (p. 411). Although technological methods do not replace

instructional methods in the writing class, they can enhance the

educational development of the students. More detailed

discussions about relevant current literature to support the

research questions appear in Section 2. Statement of the

Problem

The attrition of developmental English students’ formal writing

skills (Carlson, 2004) has resulted in some students using

language shortcuts common in text messaging within their

academic writing assignments (O’Connor, 2005, p. 2;

Carrington, 2005, 163; Schaller, 2007, p. 2). Carrington (2005)

described a student who wrote an entire essay in text

messaging language shortcuts and stressed the implications text

messaging has had

4

on the educational system and society in general. The students

seem to have become more dependent on the shortcuts, which

may have adverse consequences on the students’ formal writing

skills, according to Carlson (2004), who asserted that language

shortcuts and colloquial language are “reinforcing bad habits in

writing” (p. 1). The problem impacts Developmental English

students at Jackson State University because many of them

enter the university with deficient writing skills based upon their

substandard ACT English subtest scores. There are many

possible factors such as poor academic background and lack of

college preparatory courses contributing to this problem, but the

use of text messaging language shortcuts should be taken into

consideration as well. According to a study reported by Schaller

(2007), English students in high school in 2005 were 10 times

more likely to use nonstandard forms of English on written

exams than they were in 1980, opting instead to use the

language shortcuts commonly used in text messaging (p. 2).

This study contributes to the body of knowledge needed to

address this problem by examining the impact, if any, that the

language shortcuts have on the students’ formal writing skills.

This study presents current literature as it relates to the

prevalence with which students use common methods of

technology, the role developmental courses play in bolstering

students’ writing skills, and the constructivist theory of learning,

which contends that students relate their existing knowledge to

what they are learning (Lambert et al., 2002, p. 1). In this regard,

students who use the text messaging skills they are familiar with

to complete their writing assignments may, at times, produce

substandard compositions.

5

Nature of the Study

This study was a qualitative, single, bounded, within-site case

study that examined the impact text messaging language

shortcuts have on developmental students’ writing skills at

Jackson State University. The 25 participants were randomly

selected from a population of 89 students who were admitted to

the university through the Summer Developmental Program in

May 2009. To address the research question about how the

language shortcuts influence the participants’ academic writing,

the study consisted of interviews with the participants about their

use of the language shortcuts. For triangulation purposes, focus

groups also were conducted, the students were observed during

a writing assignment, and participants’ previous compositions

were reviewed. The interview instrument attempted to determine

6

how often the participants use text messaging and the language

shortcuts, and if the students’ use of the shortcuts occur in their

academic writing assignments. Interview data were coded to

identify themes in the participants’ responses (Creswell, 2003,

p.193). Triangulation of the data verified recurring themes

(Creswell, 2003, p. 196; Hatch, 2002, p. 92) to address the

research question. The data collection method will be explained

in greater detail in Section 3. Research Questions

The research question sought to determine if language shortcuts

have an impact on developmental students’ academic writing

skills. In addition, the question also sought to find out if these

language shortcuts affect the students’ spelling skills. In an

attempt to answer this question, four focus questions were

derived to address the contributing factors.

6

Research question: How are developmental students’ academic

writing skills influenced by text messaging language shortcuts?

Focus questions to address research question: 1. How do

students use language shortcuts in their academic writing? 2.

How do language shortcuts influence students’ spelling/grammar

skills? 3. How well are students able to differentiate between

casual writing and academic writing? 4. How does the use of

language shortcuts influence the amount of writing students

create? Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to assess the role

of text messaging language shortcuts in Developmental English

students’ academic writing skills at Jackson State University.

The instrumental case study permitted the researcher to study a

group of 25 students (Creswell, 1998, p. 62). The components of

this study helped to determine how the participants explain the

influence of text messaging on their writing skills. “Any tools that

can encourage the use of constructivist classroom practices and

encourage the development of thinking skills in students should

be considered important for all teachers and students,” (Rakes,

Fields, & Cox, 2006, p. 422) wrote in formulating the

explanation. The case study allowed the researcher to conduct

interviews and facilitate focus groups with the participants,

observe the participants in a natural setting, and analyze their

graded compositions (Creswell, 1998, p. 62) in an attempt to

determine if text messaging has any influence on the students’

writing skills.

7

Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework for this study

was taken from research that addressed students’ use of text

messaging and its relationship on students’ writing skills

(Carrington, 2005; Im, 2007; Pew Internet & American Life

Project Writing Report, 2008; Pitfield, 2004; Schaller, 2007; and

Tucker, 2009). Research revealed there was limited statistical

information regarding the use of text messaging and its influence

on students’ academic writing. The Pew Report (2008) provided

statistical data to outline the impact text messaging has on

society. This study revealed that as many as 85% of teens use

text messaging (p. ii), and the study by Schaller (2007)

connected students’ use of text messaging and their academic

writing skills. Schaller (2007) reported the extent to which

students’ use of text messaging overlaps into their academic

writing assignments (p. 2). This descriptive study also

demonstrated how the students use the language shortcuts by

abbreviating or using codes for words (p. 2). The purpose of

developmental education courses also was examined through

the research studies (Alden, 2007; Bennett-Kastor, 2004;

Department of Education, 2007; National Center for Educational

Statistics, 2003; Russell, 2008; Southard and Clay, 2004), and

developmental students’ writing skills were explored through

several studies (Brilliant, 2005; Attewell & Savell-Smith, 2004;

Huse, Wright, Clark, & Hacker, 2005; Reynolds & Bruch, 2002;

and Romeo, 2007) in an attempt to illustrate the foundation for

this current study. The researcher teaches developmental

English and has observed the students’ use of language

shortcuts in their writing assignments. Therefore, the research

8

7

studies formed the basis for support of what has been observed

in the researcher’s classroom. Definitions

Technology is continually advancing. As it becomes more

personal and commonplace, some terms have become quite

familiar. However, there are other terms that may not be as well

known. This section provides a list of terms relevant to this

study. Blog: Website that allows users to share written ideas

(Scott & Mouza, 2007, p. 231). Case study: An in-depth

qualitative research approach that studies a “bounded system”

or case(s) using various methods for data collection such as

interviews, focus groups, observation, and/or artifacts (Creswell,

1998, p. 249). Developmental students: Students who do not

meet college/university admission requirements but who are

allowed admission contingent upon them completing remedial

courses in writing, math, and/or reading prior to taking college-

level courses (Department of Education, 2007, p. 1). Instant

messaging: Digital interactive technology that allows users to

receive and send messages in real time via the Internet (Lewis &

Fabos, 2005, p. 473). Language shortcuts: Abbreviations,

shortened words or codes used to communicate short messages

with other cellular phone users (Schaller, 2007, p. 7). Text

messaging: A feature on cellular telephones that allows users to

receive and send short messages (maximum of 160 characters)

using the telephone’s alphanumeric keypad (Harley, Winn,

Pemberton, & Wilcox, 2007, p. 1).

9

Visual technology: Any form of electronic communication that

allows users to see what is being exchanged. Writing process:

The steps the students take to complete writing assignments

(Langan, 2008, p. 25). Scope of the Study

Population and Sampling

All students who were granted admission into Jackson State

University through the Summer Developmental Program in 2009

were considered the population. The program has existed on the

Jackson State University campus since 1994 and admits an

average of 80 students per year. The participants in the program

are all students who do not meet requirements for regular

admission to the university because of factors such as low ACT

scores, low grade point average, and/or deficient college

preparatory course requirements (Jackson State University

Undergraduate Catalog, 2005-2007, p. 75). The students within

this program apply for admission to the university from all over

the country and are referred to the program by the admissions

office based on their low ACT scores, low grade point average,

and/or deficient course requirements. The researcher sent

letters to all students who were participants in the Summer

Developmental Program in 2009 requesting their permission and

consent to be included in this case study. One group of

approximately 25 students was randomly chosen from those

consenting to participate in the study. All 25 students were

interviewed personally about their text messaging practices.

After the interviews, six participants were randomly selected for

inclusion in the second part of the study, the focus group. The

number of

10

participants for the focus group was based on information from

Hatch (2002), who wrote that most authors of qualitative

research recommend that the size of focus groups be kept to

about 6 to 12 participants to allow enough participants for

discussion, but not such a large number that everyone does not

get to speak (p. 135). The six participants discussed their use of

text messaging language shortcuts in a small-group setting with

the researcher serving as facilitator. The same six randomly

selected students were observed in classroom settings during a

writing assignment. The use of the focus group and observations

served as methods to triangulate the data obtained from the

individual interview sessions. In addition, previous writing

assignments were analyzed to establish an idea of the students’

writing styles, grammatical skills, and command of the language.

Assumptions

It was assumed that the participants in this study were

representative of all developmental students. Developmental

students are admitted to the university based on a variety of

8

deficiencies such as low grade point average, low standardized

test score(s), and/or absence of college-required core courses.

Based on these deficiencies, there is the assumption that

developmental students have less-than-average academic

writing and spelling skills. In addition, there is the assumption

that the majority of the research participants used the text

messaging feature on their cellular phones and the language

shortcuts commonly used with the method of communication.

Limitations

The findings of this qualitative case study could be subject to

other interpretations due to the participants’ proficiency of text

messaging language shortcuts as well as the

11

participants’ varied levels of academic writing skills. Also, the

study was limited to developmental students. As such, the

findings may not be applicable to the general population of

students at the university. Furthermore, some of the potential

participants were students in the researcher’s English class in

Summer 2009, and so a relationship had already been

established. Delimitation

The population for this study is all students who had been

admitted to Jackson State University through the Summer

Developmental Program. However, this within-site study focused

solely on the 2009 Summer Developmental Program

participants. The study was conducted during 2-months on the

university campus. Significance of the Study Today’s students

are a generation of learners who want things instantly, as

exhibited by the use of text messages and the language

shortcuts that are commonly used within the messages.

Teachers also must have an understanding of how these

students perceive their own academic writing skills. There are

several common characteristics among developmental writers

such as lack of confidence in their skills, discouragement caused

by prior assessments, a lack of understanding of their errors and

how to correct them, and a desire to write the perfect paper the

first time (Ries, 2005, p. 24). After teachers know to what degree

text messaging language shortcuts influence students’ writing

skills, adjustments can be made to the curriculum to factor in the

technological changes that may improve their deficient writing

skills. Rochford (2003) proposed how best to help

developmental students: “The less academically successful

students are, the

12

more important it is to accommodate their learning-style

preferences because these are the students who often are

placed into remediation and are unable to successfully negotiate

college-credit courses” (p. 667). Teachers in developmental

courses must find other ways, more relevant ways, to connect

with those students (Cunningham, 2004, p. 26). The use of text

messaging language shortcuts in the writing process may be

that connection. Summary

This section of the proposed study has focused on

developmental English students’ use of text messaging

language shortcuts in formal writing assignments by introducing

the research questions. It also looked at how the research

questions relate to the theoretical framework and current

literature. The remaining sections of this study will address the

relevant professional literature, the research design, and its

findings and conclusions, as well as recommendations for

further study.

SECTION 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction Writing teachers have encountered new challenges

as text messaging language shortcuts have made their way into

the academic writing classroom. A Pew Internet and American

Life Project Writing Report (2008) revealed that 85% of

teenagers use electronic communication, including text

messaging (p. 3), yet adults, and writing teachers in particular,

tend to frown upon students’ use of the practices because of the

substandard spelling and grammar used within the

communication (Jacobs, 2008, p. 203; O’Connor, 2005, p. 2;

and Schaller, 2007, p. 3). The literature reviewed within this

section explores how the constructivist theory supports the

9

notion of connecting what students know about text messaging

with what they do in their assignments. Specifically, the research

looks at how and why some students are using text messaging

language in their academic compositions. This section also

looks at the function of developmental writing courses and the

role they play in honing students’ writing skills and the

knowledge base of teachers regarding this form of technology.

Overall, the relevant literature sought to address the research

question about how text message language shortcuts influence

developmental students’ writing skills. This literature review

begins with an exploration of the role the constructivist theory

plays in the implementation of technology in the writing

classroom. It continues with a look at the purpose of

developmental courses in the university setting. Next, the study

delves into technology’s influence on the writing curriculum and

teachers’ knowledge of how to employ technology in the

classroom. Finally, this section reviews

14

the various research methods used in the scholarly studies. In

order to find relevant information for this section, it was

necessary to utilize various textbooks that dealt with educational

research as well as the Thoreau Multiple Databases search

engine available through the Walden Library. Key search terms

included “case study,” “cellular phone,” “constructivist theory,”

“developmental education,” “developmental writing,” and “text

messaging.” Theoretical Framework Previous generations of

English students were drilled about spelling, verb conjugation,

proper punctuation and the like in an attempt to learn the

components of a well-written composition. Applying B.F.

Skinner’s theory of behaviorism, the writing teacher would

provide instruction and model the compositions the students

were to produce, and the practice would be repeated until the

expected outcome was achieved (Irvin, 2001, p. 8). Students

would rely on their memories and routine practices to complete

writing assignments, and they possibly had no connection

between how they were learning and what or how they were

writing. Skinner’s concept of operant conditioning stressed the

reinforcement of responses to attain learning (Snowman &

Biehler, 2003, p. 227). Basically, the behaviorist theory allowed

the learner to react to what was going on in the environment

around him instead of allowing the learner to be actively involved

in the environment itself (Braathen, 2000, p. 21). But questions

arose as to whether the drills and repetition actually helped

students learn to write well. Graham and Perin (2007) suggested

that one way to combat the rigidity and repetitiveness of

15

writing instruction is for teachers to focus more on students’

expressions instead of their grammar and spelling (p. 22) during

the early stages of the writing process. Constructivist Theory As

education continually evolved, teachers moved beyond the

routine type of instruction to allow the students to be more

involved in their learning process. The constructivist theory

permitted students to be more in charge of their own educational

processes and development. Constructivism was created based

upon John Dewey’s belief that students increase their

knowledge as a result of their experiences and social activities

(Lambert et al., 2002, p. 28). Lev Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive

development expanded the idea of constructivism into the

sociocultural realm, which stressed social interaction as a

means of acquiring knowledge (Irvin, 2001, p. 9). The theorist

suggested that learners must be exposed to those with more

experience in order to promote advanced levels of learning

(Boland, 2009, p. 15). In that regard, students and teachers play

an active role in how knowledge is obtained and the tools used

to gather that knowledge (Falcon-Huertas, 2006, p. 21). The

constructivist theory is applied to the writing curriculum by

having the teacher present composition topics that are relevant

to the students and through which the students can write details

based upon their prior knowledge, beliefs, and experiences

(Lambert et al., 2002, p. 26). That writing instruction should also

focus on stretching students’ minds and honing their awareness

and creative thinking capabilities to produce compositions that

demonstrate their understanding of what they know (The

National Commission on Writing in American’s Schools and

Colleges, 2003, p. 13). Students’ use

10

16

of text messaging language shortcuts to prepare their writing

assignments is an example of social constructivism. It allows

students to gain meaningful knowledge using cultural items,

such as the cellular phone, to create a common understanding

with other students. In the modern classroom, writing

assignments are usually completed using a form of technology.

Adding technology to the curriculum is not a new approach.

Skinner proposed the use of teaching machines in the 1950s to

offer practice and drills in instruction (Nye, 1979; Snowman &

Biehler, 2003). The machines were designed to keep the

students actively moving through stages of instruction,

reinforcing their positive responses as they went through the

process (Nye, 1979, p. 56). Vygotsky connected the use of

technology and his theory of cognitive development, by applying

cultural knowledge, “conceptual tools,” and social interaction to

education (Snowman & Biehler, 2003, p. 59). Schroll (2007)

emphasized that when students are able to combine

technological skills and constructivist principles, they are then

able to improve their technology literacy skills in preparation for

advanced learning (p. 1). In reinforcement of that point, Clough,

Jones, McAndrews, and Scanlon (2007) conducted a study that

looked at the benefits and distractions of using mobile phones in

the learning process and found that people who frequently used

mobile devices and had working knowledge of their various

functions were more likely to increase their informal learning (p.

368). Constructive learning allows students to use their existing

knowledge to grasp and retain the new knowledge. Sherman

and Kurshan (2005) suggested that in order for classrooms to

produce engaging learning, they should have eight

characteristics for incorporating technology

17

using constructivist approaches. The authors recommend that

the classrooms should be active, interesting, “learner centered,

focused on real life,” social, time-conscious, and provide

frequent feedback and support (p. 39). When students are able

to process information internally they are then able to produce

assigned writing assignments with greater ease (Ruttle, 2004, p.

72). They are able to use what they have been taught through

instruction and blend it with their preferred method of self-

expression, which may be text messaging. Alvermann (2007)

reiterated the importance of connecting the technological

advancements students are familiar with to their assignments.

The author added that teachers need to embrace innovative

ideas that may be outside of the traditional style of teaching to

allow the students to be more involved in their educational

development (p. 18-19). O’Connor (2005) posited that popular

forms of technology such as text messaging can be used as a

learning tool if students are taught how to make the connection

between its form of writing and the formal, academic writing (p.

4). Research tends to support that technological methods can

enhance the learning process for students (Hertzog & Klein,

2005, p. 27). A study of the instructional use of text-messaging

practices by DeArment (2002) found that when pedagogical

practices were based on cognitive-constructivist theory, the

students were believed to be actively involved in the lesson.

They were able to “cognitively manipulate the course content”

and transform their thinking in order to gain more meaning from

the instruction (p. 203). Learning is a social activity (Lambert et

al., 2002). In order for constructivist learning to take place,

students must interact with others to obtain a full understanding

of a concept (Lambert et al., 2002, p. 27). Because writing is a

form of communication it is also a

Text messaging bastardizing language?

 Updated June 10, 2002 - 12:00am

  0    0   googleplus0    0  

Bastardizing language. This is what teachers have to say about

text messaging.

With the Philippines being tagged as the "texting capital of the

world," many wonder how the proliferation of mobile phones has

affected the Filipinos’ facility for languages.

Reading students’ essays with words like "4u or 2gthr yrs

18r" and looking at the signpost that reads "Ped Xing" (meaning

pedestrian crossing), one can tell that cellular text messaging or

11Short Messaging Service (SMS) has revolutionized the way

Filipinos talk, write and read. But doesn’t text messaging

further thwart or impede the facility for languages?

Assistant professor Mildred Rojo-Laurilla, of De La Salle

University-Manila’s Department of English and Applied

Linguistics (DEAL), attempts to provide answers in her research

titled A Preliminary Investigation on the Linguistic Aspects of

Text Messaging.

Using the Dell Hymes theory of "Ethnography of Speaking" that

studies how culture, language and society interact, Laurilla is

able to capture the existing and even underlying relationships

between and among variables examined.

Laurilla administered a questionnaire to 433 first-year English

students from the De La Salle University (297) and from the

University of the Philippines-Los Baños in Laguna(136).

Laurilla’s study establishes several facts. In the

Philippines, the cellular phone industry widely caters to the

younger market. The study shows that most of the respondents

aged 16 to 21, majority of them 17- to 18-year-olds, have cellular

phones (95 percent, DLSU; 71 percent, UPLB). Most of them

are prepaid phone users, with an average spending profile of

P400 to P500.

Texting is part of the youth’s cellular phone use, but

students are generally low frequency texters (54 percent, DLSU;

71 percent, UPLB). Early to late evenings are the most preferred

time for texting, owing perhaps to the fact that they are already

out of school and use their time on leisurely activities, including

texting.

Students admit to abbreviating (89 percent, DLSU; 100 percent,

UPLB), citing convenience as the number one reason for doing

so. Other reasons given: it is the "in" thing or fad, or that they do

not know the spelling of the words.

In terms of language use, the 150 respondents who participated

in the "actual texting," prefer to use "texted English" or the

abbreviated form of English if they send messages or reply to

messages that take the form of "pure" or straight English and the

texted or abbreviated English.

Fifty percent of the respondents did not respond to text sent to

them via "pure" Filipino and Filipino/English pure or texted code-

switched forms. The rest of the respondents had mixed

preferences for the language to be used whether in pure Filipino,

pure English or pure Filipino/English code-switched forms or

their texted forms when responding to text sent to them via pure

Filipino and English/Filipino pure or abbreviated code-switched

forms.

There seems to be ambivalence on the effects of texting on their

language competencies. Both DLSU and UPLB students believe

that texting has no negative effects at all on their language

competencies, such as grammar and spelling. Majority of both

DLSU and UPLB respondents have a positive attitude toward

texting (82 percent, DLSU; 79 percent, UPLB).

Statistical tests show that there are no significant differences in

the grammar and spelling scores of both cellular phone owners

and non-owners. It can be implied that the students’

performance in terms of their language skills or competencies is

independent or not related at all to the fact that they own cellular

phones.

Among cellular phone owners, their frequency of texting has no

effect on their grammar and spelling scores. Similarly, it can also

be implied that language skills or competencies are independent

of the extent they use the technology.

Despite the respondents’ overexposure to the cellular

phone technology, it does not, in any way, cause them to do

poorly in class, especially in grammar and spelling.

Laurilla suggested that "real" or more recognizable effects of

texting on students’ grammar and spelling competencies

may be seen if the respondents were the more vulnerable ones

like high school or elementary students who are just beginning

to develop language and communication skills.

Laurilla partly dispelled the popular observation that cellular

phones may bring more harm than good to students. Results of

her study indicate that college students are able to discern the

formal language – the kind that is used in the classroom

– from the non-conventional texted English.

Indirectly, the technology serves as an "image maker" for the

youth, who are impressionable and are finding their own

identities. The college students are mature enough to know their

personal academic capabilities and what the technology means

12to them.

(Laurilla finished M.A. Communication Studies at the University

of North Iowa in the United States. Aside from language and

technology, she also specializes on gender studies, popular

culture, mass communications, mediated discourse and

sociolinguistics. She is currently completing her Ph.D. in Applied

Linguistics at DLSU-Manila.

The paper will be presented at the 52nd Annual International

Communication Association (ICA) Conference on July 15-19 in

Seoul, Korea.)

Source: Breakthrough, DLSU

Text messaging is described as the exchange of short text

messages. Text messages can be sent via mobile phones,

fixed-line phone, and portable or fixed devices over a network.

Originally, text messaging only referred to Short Message

Service (SMS) messages but as technology improved, text

messaging also includes Multimedia Message Service (MMS)

messages. While SMS is only text-based, MMS messages

contain pictures, sound, images, animation, and video. The

person who sends a text message is called a “texter” and

separate regions may have different colloquialisms. In Australia,

India, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and North America,

text messaging is simply known as a text. In other parts of

Europe, it’s SMS, and in Asia and the Middle East, it’s SMS or

TMS. Since it’s very easy to send a text, many people find it very

convenient to use SMS or MMS for communication, alerts,

business, and so on. Nowadays, famous people like

entertainers, sports personalities, politicians, and other

influential people can use text messaging to reach their fans via

the Twitter platform.

History

The history of text messaging began when Sema Group test

engineer Neil Papworth sent a text message to Richard Jarvis

through the Vodafone network by using his personal computer.

Sent on December 3, 1992, the message simply read “Merry

Christmas”. The limit of a standard SMS message is 140 bytes

per message. With 7-bit encoding, a texter can send a maximum

of 160 characters if the English alphabet is used. In the early

days, text messaging was not so popular and one GSM

customer only sent an average of 0.4 messages per month in

1995. Since the operators were not up to speed in setting up

charging systems and eliminating billing fraud, the general public

was not too enthusiastic to use text messaging. Now, SMS is

available on 3G networks as well as a wide range of other

networks and it’s the most popular mobile data service. At the

end of 2007, 74 percent of mobile phone users around the world

are active users of SMS. More than 85 percent of the population

in countries like Finland, Norway, and Sweden use SMS. At the

end of 2008, close to 60 percent of North Americans and about

80 percent of Europeans are known to be active users of SMS.

In the Philippines, subscribers send an average of 27 text

messages a day.

History of Text Messaging

History of SMS

The History of Texting

SMS History

The First Texter

What is SMS?

Uses

Text messaging is highly popular with private mobile users

because they can communicate with each other even when they

cannot use voice communication. SMS is also widely used in

regions where it’s much cheaper to send a text message than to

make a voice call. SMS is used in home automation systems to

control certain appliances so users can switch them on or off.

Flash SMS is suitable to be used to warn people of an

emergency and it can also be used to send a one-time password

to protect the confidentiality of the user. Nowadays, text

messaging is used for various purposes so users have access to

sports updates or scores, news, alerts from companies,

infotainment, banking services, ticket booking, mobile billing,

and the like. Companies also use SMS to deliver Premium-rated

Short Messages where subscribers have to pay premium rates

for receiving financial information, news alerts, ringtones, logos,

and more. Businesses use SMS to provide updates, reminders,

time-critical alerts, content, and run mobile campaigns,

competitions, media voting, mobile social networking services,

dating services, and so on. SMS is particularly popular in Asia,

Australia, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States. In 2001,

subscribers in China sent some 18 billion text messages but the

champion text messaging country must surely be the Philippines

where subscribers sent about 142 billion text messages per

year.

Text Messaging (PDF)

7 Productive Uses

Improving Social Presence

Uses of Text Messaging (PDF)

More than Just an Add-On

Americans & Text Messaging

Social Impacts

One of the social impacts of text messaging is the effect on

language. Due to the small phone keypad and the charges for

sending messages, users have come up with a number of

adaptations and abbreviations like “lol” for “laugh out loud”, “brb”

for “be right back”, “HMU” for “hit me up”, and “OTOH” for “on

13the other hand”. Sometimes, texters may use CamelCase so

they may write something like “ILoveToText”. According to a

2009 Rosen report, young adults who regularly used

abbreviations or adaptations in daily writing performed worse in

formal writing as compared to young adults who used less

abbreviations or adaptations. There are also concerns that

texters may “forget” how to communicate in real life since they

can “speak” to other people without using voice communication.

In the real world, avid texters may feel awkward about talking to

real people but it’s not something that they cannot get used to.

Effects on Teen’s Grammar (PDF)

Text Messaging (PDF)

Text Message Shorthand

Text Messaging Abbreviations

Teenage Social Networks, Text Messaging, and IMing

Social & Psychological Effects (PDF)

Problems

Texting while driving is a great distraction and it’s extremely

dangerous. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute conducted

an 18-month study in 2009 and the results showed that it’s

texting can increase the risk of crashing by 23 times. In schools,

texting has made it easier for students to cheat in exams. Text

“bullying” is also a great concern because a gossip or rumor can

be spread quickly and it can cause distress to the victims. There

are also security concerns about texting because the network

operator has access to the content. In this sense, texting may

not be suitable for secure communications.

Texting While Driving

Getting Drivers to Stop Texting

A Tool for Cheating (PDF)

Cheating Goes Digital

Dealing with Text Bullying

Abusive Text Messaging

The Future

The volume of global SMS has grown every year and it’s

forecasted to reach about 3,700 billion in 2012. SMS is perfect

for companies that want to launch a mobile campaign because

it’s reliable and affordable. Furthermore, all mobiles are enabled

to receive and send text messages and the majority of the world

population own mobiles. As more and more people switch to

smart phones, some people observe that the use of SMS will

decline. According to a recent study by CTIA in 2010, the

volume of texts was still increasing but the rate of growth had

slowed down. For the younger generation, SMS may be

considered old-fashioned, and there are indications that the use

of text messaging may decline in the future.

Future of SMS

Enhanced Messaging Service

The Future of SMS Messaging

Future in Business Communication (PDF)

Texting Cools Off

SMS’s Slow Decline

 

Content Created and Provided By Charlotte Gray

 

Text Messaging: Basically Addictive or Essentially

Additive?

DECEMBER 12, 2011 BY LESLEY LANIR 2

COMMENTS

inShare1

US Teens send over 6 text messages per waking hour -

Photo by Darkstream

Considering the popularity of text messaging, what role

do textisms and textese play in the overall literacy or

illiteracy of young people today?

Interested in texting, and its affects on literary skills,

Clare Wood, Sally Meachem, and their research team

investigated text messaging and spelling ability in

children aged 8-12 years in 2011.

The team concluded from the results of their study that

the use of ‘textisms,’ or text-message spellings, does

affect spelling performance, but when strong

phonological skills are present, spelling skills remain

intact.

Text Messaging and Spelling Research

Over the last ten years, several researchers have

studied the effect of text messaging extensively, coming

to a variety of conclusions, some of which appear to

support this most recent research.

Back in 2003, Dr. Crispin Thurlow, an expert in

language and communication, described the

language of text messaging to be ‘adaptive and

additive rather than necessarily subtractive,’

meaning that texting can have positive linguistic

advantages. However, Thurlow’s remarks were

made almost a decade ago and research

highlights substantial increases in young people’s

use of computer-mediated communication (CMC)

and shows that text messaging is one of the most

widespread digital practices.  A 2010 study clearly

14

supports this by revealing that US teens alone

send over 6 text messages per waking hour, and

send and receive and average of 3,339 texts

monthly.

In 2009, Beverly Plester and Clare Wood, taking

interest in the question of the influence of texting

on literacy, focused on the use of text messaging

by pre-teen British children. In this study, the

researchers paid specific attention to the

abbreviations and characteristic language used

within text messages, also known as ‘textese’ and

‘textisms.’ Their results did not conclusively

support the negative reports surrounding cell

phone use and texting. Quite the reverse, they

discovered that textese and textisms assisted the

development of literary skills.

Plester and Wood’s findings, in particular, appear

surprising, since over the years, research has shown

that the mental template of a written word, although

supported by the sound system of a language, is

established principally through exposure to whole word

formats. A survey of research of over more than two

decades supports this by revealing that producing, or

being shown, misspelled words can adversely affect

spelling skills.

Link Between Texting and Literary Skills Explained

Texting and literary - additive or subtractive? Photo by

lipajr

Although unexpected, text messaging’s positive affect

on literary skills seems plausible when you consider

more deeply Wood and Meachem’s  claim that strong

phonological skills may be one of the contributing

factors of the of text message senders continued

spelling accuracy in traditional written language

exercises. This result lends support once again to the

theory of the strong role of phonological awareness and

perception in orthographic processing and spelling

ability, and partially answers the question of how

texting can improve literacy.

Texting Both Needs and Strengthens Phonological Skills

Conceivably, texting and phonological skills have a reciprocal

relationship dependant primarily on highly-functioning

phonological ability.

Textese and textisms  permit more linguistic

information to be condensed into the 160 characters

allowed per message than conventional spelling would

allow. In order to create textisms, such as ‘l8r,’

‘inorite,’ and ‘b4,’ text message creators and receivers

need to be able to accomplish a number of language

tasks.

Text composers must break words down into

syllables, and understand  that words are a stream

of compressed distinct language sounds.

Composers of a text message must identify

graphemes which represent phonemes, isolate the

individual phonemes, deconstruct words into

individual phonemes, and. construct a word from

a string of single phonemes.

Text message users must be familiar with the

acceptable phoneme-grapheme mappings in

written English, and must differentiate the

sequence of the discrete language sounds or

phonemes in a word.

Texting proves and improves phonemic awareness -

Photo by hollywata

Texting – Essentially Phonemic Exercises

For decades, reading research has focused on

phonological awareness and reading attainment.

Researchers have shown repeatedly that children who

receive explicit phonological awareness instruction

eventually improve their literary skills.  More

importantly, much textism depends upon senders and

receivers having good linguistic abilities and some

acquired linguistic skills for successful texting to take

place. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, texting,

through its text manipulations and creations, provides a

platform for young people to create and practice

phonemic activities that enhance phonemic awareness.

This vital skill is eventually readily transferred to

reading and writing acquisition, and furthers literacy

development. So, texting is not necessarily detrimental

and, in some cases, actually adds to the literary skills of

15

those children whose innate phonological capabilities

are functioning normally.

Sources

Nielsen Wire. U.S.TeenMobileReport: Calling

Yesterday, Texting Today, Using Apps

Tomorrow. (October 14, 2010). Accessed December 12,

2011.

Plester, B. & Wood, C. Exploring Relationships between

Traditional and New Media Literacies: British Preteen

Texters at School.  Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication. Volume 14, Issue 4, 1108–1129. (July

2009). Accessed December 12, 2011.

Thurlow, C.  Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of

young people’s text-messaging. Discourse Analysis

Online, 1(1). (2003). Accessed December 12, 2011.

Wood, C., Meachem, S., et al. A Longitudinal Study of

Children’s Text Messaging and Literacy

Development. British Journal of Psychology. Aug;102

(3):431-42. (2011). Accessed December 12, 2011.

Resources

Brown, A. Encountering misspellings and spelling

performance: Why wrong isn’t right. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 80 (4), (1998): 488-495.

Accessed December 12, 2011.

Burt J.S. & Long J. Are word representations abstract or

instance-based? Effects of   spelling   inconsistency in

orthographic learning. Canadian Journal of

Experimental Psychology. Sep;65(3) (2011): 214-428.

Accessed December 12, 2011.

Dixon, M. & Kaminska, Z. Is it Misspelled or is it

Misspelled? The Influence of Fresh Orthographic

Information on Spelling. Readingand Writing. An

Interdisciplinary Journal. 9 (1997): 483-498.

Ehri, L. Reading by Sight and by Analogy in Beginning

Readers. In C. Hulme & R.M. Joshi (Eds.),Readingand

Spelling: Developmental and Disorders Lawrence

Erlbaum Assoc., (1998b):  87-112.

Ehri, L. Learning to Read and Learning to Spell: Two

Sides of a Coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3)

(2000): 19-36.

Folk, J., Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. The Interaction of

Lexical and Sublexical Information in Spelling: What’s

the Point? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19 (7) (2002):

653-671. Accessed December 12, 2011.

Jacoby, L., & Hollingshead, A. Reading Student Essays

may be Hazardous to your Spelling: Effects of Reading

Incorrectly and Correctly Spelled words. Canadian

Journal of Psychology, 44(3) (1990): 345-358.

FILED UNDER: LINGUISTICS TAGGED

WITH: LITERACY, PHONOLOGY, TEXTING

The language shortcuts used in text messages are becoming evident in students' academic writing assignments. This qualitative study sought to determine if the use of the shortcuts has an adverse impact on developmental students' spelling and grammar skills. This research was based on the constructivist theory, which rationalizes that students use what they are most familiar with as they acquire new knowledge. The study was directed by four research questions to understand (a) how students use language shortcuts in their academic writing, (b) how language shortcuts influence students' spelling and grammar skills, (c) how well students are able to differentiate between casual writing and academic writing, and (d) how the use of language shortcuts influences the amount of writing students do. A bounded single case study using a sample size of 25 students included student interviews, a focus group, observation of students during a writing assignment, and analysis of students' graded compositions. Data collected from the interviews and focus group were manually transcribed and coded, and notes from observations and artifacts were used to ensure validity of the interview findings. Consequently, four themes emerged: (1) participants frequently used text messaging and language shortcuts; (2) language shortcuts commonly occur in students' academic assignments; (3) students agreed that language shortcuts have hurt spelling skills; and (4) the participants often have academic deficiencies that go beyond errors presented through text messaging and language shortcuts. The study's findings could influence positive social change in that developmental students could become more proficient writers if curriculum adjustments were made to connect academic writing instruction with the method of communication that students frequently use and understand. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]

The Impact of Text Messaging Language Shortcuts

on Developmental Students' Formal Writing Skills

Author: Sherry L Rankin

Publisher: ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml 2010-00-00

16Edition/Format:

Book : English

Database: ERIC The ERIC database is an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education.

Summary: The language shortcuts used in text messages are becoming evident in students' academic writing assignments. This qualitative study sought to determine if the use of the shortcuts has an adverse impact on developmental students' spelling and grammar skills. This research was based on the constructivist theory, which rationalizes that students use what they are most familiar with as they acquire new knowledge. The study was directed by four research questions to understand (a) how students use language shortcuts in their academic writing, (b) how language shortcuts influence students' spelling and grammar skills, (c) how well students are able to differentiate between casual writing and academic writing, and (d) how the use of language shortcuts influences the amount of writing students do. A bounded single case study using a sample size of 25 students included student interviews, a focus group, observation of students during a writing assignment, and analysis of students' graded compositions. Data collected from the interviews and focus group were manually transcribed and coded, and notes from observations and artifacts were used to ensure validity of the interview findings. Consequently, four themes emerged: (1) participants frequently used text messaging and language shortcuts; (2) language shortcuts commonly occur in students' academic assignments; (3) students agreed that language shortcuts have hurt spelling skills; and (4) the participants often have academic deficiencies that go beyond errors presented through text messaging and language shortcuts. The study's findings could influence positive social change in that developmental students could become more proficient writers if curriculum adjustments were made to connect academic writing instruction with the method of communication that students frequently use and understand. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] Read less

Rating: (not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

 

Borrow / obtain a copy

 Find a copy in the library

We were unable to get information about libraries that

hold this item.

 Details

Document Type: Book

All Authors / Contributors: Sherry L Rankin

ISBN: ISBN-978-1-1243-0929-3

OCLC Number: 748840998

Language Note: English

Accession No: ED521906

Awards:

Description: 90

Abstract:

The language shortcuts used in text messages are

becoming evident in students' academic writing

assignments. This qualitative study sought to determine

if the use of the shortcuts has an adverse impact on

developmental students' spelling and grammar skills.

This research was based on the constructivist theory,

which rationalizes that students use what they are most

familiar with as they acquire new knowledge. The study

was directed by four research questions to understand

(a) how students use language shortcuts in their

academic writing, (b) how language shortcuts influence

students' spelling and grammar skills, (c) how well

students are able to differentiate between casual writing

and academic writing, and (d) how the use of language

shortcuts influences the amount of writing students do.

A bounded single case study using a sample size of 25

students included student interviews, a focus group,

observation of students during a writing assignment,

and analysis of students' graded compositions. Data

collected from the interviews and focus group were

manually transcribed and coded, and notes from

observations and artifacts were used to ensure validity

of the interview findings. Consequently, four themes

emerged: (1) participants frequently used text

messaging and language shortcuts; (2) language

shortcuts commonly occur in students' academic

assignments; (3) students agreed that language

shortcuts have hurt spelling skills; and (4) the

participants often have academic deficiencies that go

beyond errors presented through text messaging and

language shortcuts. The study's findings could influence

positive social change in that developmental students

17could become more proficient writers if curriculum

adjustments were made to connect academic writing

instruction with the method of communication that

students frequently use and understand. [The

dissertation citations contained here are published with

the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is

prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations

may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600.

Web page:

http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/i

ndividuals.shtml.]

OMG: Researchers say text messaging really is leading to a generation with poor grammar skillsBy MARK PRIGGPUBLISHED: 13:58 GMT, 27 July 2012 | UPDATED: 16:04 GMT, 27 July 2012

Comments ( 24 ) Shareooo

Text messaging is having more of an effect of young people's grammar skills than previously thought, researchers believe.They say 10-12 year old children, known as tweens, who constantly rely on shortened words and phrases such as OMG, LOL and amazeballs, struggle in grammar tests.'Tweens who frequently use language adaptations -- techspeak -- when they text performed poorly on a grammar test', said Drew Cingel, a former undergraduate student in communications, Penn State, and currently a doctoral candidate in media, technology and society at Northwestern University.

Children who text frequently were found to perform badly in grammar tests'They may use a homophone, such as gr8 for great, or an initial, like, LOL for laugh out loud,' said Cingel. 'An example of an omission that tweens use when texting is spelling the word would, w-u-d.'Mr Cingel said the use of these shortcuts may hinder a child's ability to switch between techspeak and the normal rules of grammar.He gave middle school students in a central Pennsylvania school district a grammar assessment test. 

More...

Why can't we all just stop texting and have an actual face-to- face conversation for once?

'Innits' and aints' drive me insane! Emma Thompson hits out at teenagers' sloppy English after visit to her old schoolThe researchers, who report their findings in the current issue of New Media & Society, then passed out a survey that asked students to detail Not only did frequent texting negatively predict the test results, but both sending and receiving text adaptations were associated with how poorly they performed on the test, according to Sundar.

'In other words, if you send your kid a lot of texts with word adaptations, then he or she will probably imitate it,' Sundar said. 'These adaptations could affect their off-line language skills that are important to language development and grammar skills, as well.'

Text concerns: Researchers believe that children who text frequently and shorten words have poor grammar skillsTypical punctuation and sentence structure shortcuts that children use during texting, such as avoiding capital letters and not using periods at the end of sentences, did not seem to affect their ability to use correct capitalization and punctuation on the tests, according to Sundar.

The researchers suggested that the tweens' natural desire to imitate friends and family, as well as their inability to switch back to proper grammar, may combine to influence the poor grammar choices they make in more formal writing.Sundar said that the technology itself influences the use of language short cuts. Tweens typically compose their messages on mobile devices, like phones, that have small screens and keyboards.'There is no question that technology is allowing more self-expression, as well as different forms of expression,' said Sundar. 'Cultures built around new technology can also lead to compromises of expression and these restrictions can become the norm.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2179808/OMG-Researchers-say-text-messaging-really-leading-generation-poor-grammar-skills.html#ixzz2Q0zQPWhS Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Friday, April 27, 2012

Text Messaging and Literacy

Many of us fear that text messaging and the use of

“textese” may be adversely affecting children and

adults’ use of Standard English.  The media has

promoted these fears with anecdotal reports given

by educators of children using textisms in their

formal writing, and, in some cases, by supervisors

showing concern for their employees’ use of these

abbreviations in their professional writing (Lee,

2002; Barker, 2007; Rogers, 2008). According to

recent research on the topic, these individuals may

be the outliers, and texting and textisms may

actually serve as a way to increase reading skills,

literacy, and spelling fluency.

18

Or does it?

What is textese? What is a textism?

  Textese is an abbreviated vocabulary that

includes initialisms, letter/number homophones,

contractions or shortenings of words or phrases,

emoticons (symbols for representing emotions such

as  for sad), and the deletions of unnecessary

words, vowels, punctuation, and capitalization

(Thurlow, 2003; Carrington, 2004; Varnhagen et al.,

2010). This vocabulary stems from text messages

originally only being able to contain up to 120

characters, and forcing users to form a more

economical mode of communication within this

limitation. Abbreviations such as “2nite” for tonight

and “gr8” for great are common occurrences in this

abbreviated language. The language does not end

with just words, but some of the most common

“textisms” are often whole phrases, such as “lol” for

laugh out loud, “C u l8r” for see you later, or even

“omw” for on my way. These abbreviated phrase

can even be as complicated as “idc wots ur add

cwot” meaning I don’t care what your address is –

complete waste of time.  Maybe phrases such as

this one are why scholars deemed to give these

communications the name textese, because it

reads almost like a language of its own.

            To some these may seem quite foreign and

a complete bastardization of the language we

speak on a daily basis, but increasingly it is

becoming more and more common for people to

communicate using these textisms. Text messaging

surpassed voice calls in popularity as a means to

communicate while mobile in 2008, and has been

on the rise ever since (Reardon, 2008; Drouin,

2011).

Research Theories

            The research having been done on texting

and literacy is not vast, nor clear cut. There are

several theories that attempt to explain the impact

that texting and the use of textese is having on

adults and children’s reading, spelling, and

language fluency. Some theories related to

psychological theories on memory.

Drouin and Davis (2009) suggested that

the theories of retroactive interference and decay

may be at play. This was hypotesized when the

research was assumed to follow the anecdotal

evidence provided by the media. Retroactive

interference suggests that information presented at

a later time may interfere with information

presented at an earlier time (McGeoch, 1932; Britt,

1935). Meanwhile, decay theory states that learned

information that is not accessed may be less

19

accessible over time (Brown, 1958). Dourin and

Davis (2009) applied this to the scenario of textisms

and hypothesized that exposure to the textism

might make is more difficult to remember the

Standard English spelling of words. Alternatively, in

cases where the Standard English version of a

word is not accessed over a long period of time, it

would become more difficult to remember.  There

theory gained initial support for previous research

examining processes with regard to spelling in

adults has shown that even a single exposure to a

misspelled word can have a detrimental impact on

future spellings of that word (Jacoby &

Hollingshead, 1990; Dixon & Kamiska, 1997; Kratz

& Frost, 2001). Further, this effect is especially

pronounced when a misspelled word is a plausible

phonological alternative (or it looks the way it

sounds) (Kratz & Frost, 2001). Thus, it could indeed

be possible that continued exposure to textism

(interference) could lead to forgetting (or decay) of

the Standard English presentation.

However, recent research has not been

able to lend support to these theories of memory

interference, and, in fact, it has shown just the

opposite to be the case, text messaging may

actually be positively associated with children and

adult literacy (Plester et al., 2008, 2009). There

have been two broad theories to explain these

findings. First, Plester et al. (2009) suggested that

texting can allow people access to a form of written

language which is not constrained by standard

grammer and spelling or produced for the purposes

of formal learning practice in school, but rather as a

means of easy communication with frieds. Crystal

(2008) and Leake (2008) further hypothesized that

this freeing from conventional constraints and the

additional necessity of brevity to fall within the

character limit allows children and adults to use

reading and writing in a much more playful way.  

            These theories postulate that there may be

something about the very nature of texting and

textisms that help with literacy (Powell & Dixon,

2011). In order to read or produce textisms, one

has to have a good level of phonological

awareness, that is, sensitivity to the underlying

sound structure of spoken language. The fact that

texting could be mediated by phonological

processes suggests that it may be linked to

phonological awareness, which had been

repeatedly shown to predict literacy measures

(Powell & Dixon, 2011; Adams, 1990).

Two Research Studies

            Dixon and Powell (2011) conducted a study

using 94 undergraduate students where

participants were exposed to misspellings, correct

spellings, and textisms. Participants were given a

pre- and post- test measure on spelling ability.

During this one exposure, significant positive

effects on posttest scores could be seen in both the

correct spelling exposure group and the textism

exposure group. This study provides experimental

evidence that even a single exposure to textisms

20

can have a positive effect on knowledge of words

and standard spellings.

            Drouin (2011) conducted another study that

had some other interesting findings. In this study,

152 undergraduate students engaged in grammar

exercises, literacy tasks measuring reading,

reading fluency, and spelling, followed by a survey

on the use of text messaging, textese use in

different contents, and access to social networking

sites. The results show that participants in this

study reported using textese more often as

compared to previous research by Drouin and

Davis (2009). However, although the overall use of

textese may have increased in the past couple of

years, they continued to mediate use of textese by

context. For example, participants reported using

textese more often in text messages and emails to

friends, but rarely on social networking sites and in

emails to professors (Drouin, 2011). These results

suggest that people are making conscious

decisions on whether or not to use textese.

            This study supports an interesting notion:

that people are constantly able to make the

conscious decision to switch between textese and

Standard English without one interfering directly

with the other. Some have suggested that this is

the equivalent of a bilingual person switching

between two languages, while there may be some

crossover an individual is easily able to correct any

mistakes (Drouin, 2011).  It may also help to note

that most of the crossover experienced by bilingual

person is in speech, and as textese is almost a

purely written language these effects should be

limited.

            So why are we still seeing textese in formal

writing and in emails to professors? In Drouin

(2011), there was a significant correlation among

participants that used textese more on social

networking sites and in emails to professors and

lower reading accuracy scores. This suggests that

those without a comprehensive understanding of

Standard English are the ones most likely to

commit these context faux pas. Additionally, this

mediated use by context supports another

interesting notion. Participants reported that their

reason for not using textese on social networking

sites or in emails to professors was that the context

was not appropriate. Therefore, those who do use

textese in these contexts may not view them as

inappropriate, indicating a more limited pragmatic

knowledge (Drouin, 2011).       

            These research finding show that it is not

texting or textese itself that is causing a decline in

language standards, but maybe a more

fundamental educational flaw. These results

support that if a child or adult has a strong basis in

Standard English it is hard to reverse that

knowledge with the use of textese. Additionally, it

may actually be beneficial for remembering the

correct spelling of a word, and continuing in lifelong

reading fluency skills. There is also research that

supports texting and textism as a basis for teaching

the founding principles of Standard English, but

more on that later.

21

Sources

Adams M.J. (1990) Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learn-

ing about Print. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Barker, I. (2007). Txts r gr8 but not in exams. Times

Educational Supplement 4723,20. 9 Feburary.

Retrieved from: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?

storycode=2341958

Britt S.H. (1935) Retroactive inhibition: a review of the

litera- ture. Psychological Bulletin 32, 381–440.

Brown J. (1958) Some tests of the decay theory of

immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of

Experimental Psychology 10, 12–21.

Carrington, V. (2004). Texts and literacies of the Shi

Jinrui. British Journal of Sociology Education 25,

215-228. Doi: 10.1080/0142569042000205109.

Crystal D. (2008) Txting: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford University

Press, Oxford, UK.

Dixon M. & Kaminska Z. (1997) The spell of misspelled

words: susceptibility to orthographic priming as a

function of spelling proficiency. Reading and

Writing: An Interdisci- plinary Journal 9, 483–498.

Drouin M. & Davis C. (2009) R U txting? Is the use of text

speak hurting your literacy? Journal of Literacy

Research 41, 46–67.

Drouin, M.A. (2011). College students’ text messaging, use

of textese, and literacy skills. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning 27, 67-75. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2729.2010.00399.x

Jacoby L.L. & Hollingshead A. (1990) Reading student

essays may be hazardous to your spelling: effects

of reading incor- rectly and correctly spelled

words.Canadian Journal of Psychology 44, 345–

358.

Katz L. & Frost S.J. (2001) Phonology constrains the

internal orthographic lexicon.Reading and Writing:

An Interdisci- plinary Journal 14, 297–332.

Leake J. (2008 May 25) Texting boosts children’s

literacy. The Sunday Times.Available

at

:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education

/article3998970.ece

Lee, J.  (2002). Nu shortcuts in school r 2 much 4

teachers. The New York Times 19 September.

Retrieved

from: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/technolo

gy/circuits/19MESS.html#

McGeoch J.A. (1932) Forgetting and the law of

disuse. Psychological Review 39,352–370.

Plester B., Wood C. & Bell L. (2008) Txt msg n school

literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbrev-

iations adversely affect children’s literacy

attainment? Lit- eracy 42, 137–144. doi:

10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008. 00489.x.

Plester B., Wood C. & Joshi P. (2009) Exploring the

relation- ship between children’s knowledge of text

message abbre- viations and school literacy

outcomes.British Journal of Developmental

Psychology 27, 145–161. doi: 10.1348/

026151008X320507.

Powell, D. & Dixon, M. (2011). Does SMS text messaging

help or harm adults’ knowledge of standard

spelling? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

27,58-66. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00403.x

22

Reardon M. (2008) Text messaging explodes in

America. CNET Tech News. 23 September.

Available at:

http:/

/www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/23/tech/cnette

chnews/ main4471183.shtml

Rogers, D. (2008). We know what u mean, m8. Innit? The

Times Educational Supplement. 12 December.

Retrieved from:http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?

storycode=6006244

Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation txt? The sociolinguistics of

young people’s text messaging. Discourse Analysis

Online. Retrieved

from

:http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow

2002003-paper.html

Varnhagen C.K., McFall G.P., Pugh N., Routledge L.,

Surnida-MacDonald H. & Kwong T.E. (2010). Lol:

new language and spelling in instant

messaging.Reading and Writing: An Interdisiplinary

Journal 23, 719-733. Doi:10.1007/s11145-009-

9181-y.Posted by Amanda K.   at 6:50 PM 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

1 comment:

1.

Push Daddy January 9, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Text messaging is an effective way for small business owners to communicate with their clients. This is called text messaging marketing, the trend for many businesses today.

Gainesville mobile marketing strategy

Reply

Newer Post Older Post Home

http://ageofthesmartphone.blogspot.com/2012/04/text-messaging-and-literacy.html