Jayel Kirby Sue Briggs English 1010 @ 10am November 7, 2013

What is the Effect of Texting on Literary Skills?

Introduction Reading and rhetorically analyzing David Crystals essay 2b or Not 2b? led me to wonder what effect texting has on an individuals literary skills. Having an affinity for words and communication in general, I was interested in finding out whether Crystals claim that all the popular beliefs about texting are wrong (336-7) had any validity. Crystal mentioned a study done by a team at Coventry University that supported his belief that texting had improved, rather than deteriorated, language abilities. I was curious - have similar studies been conducted with similar and/or conflicting results? Is there more to the issue than merely whether or not its good for us? For instance, does frequent text usage have a different effect on specific areas of language skills such as spelling, reading, or composition?

Source #1 Bloom, Adi. "Texting Aids Literacy: Study Confounds Popular Prejudice." The Times Educational Supplement.4874 (2010): 17.ProQuest. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. Summary: After performing a multitude of investigations into the literacy skills of heavy texters, researchers at Coventry University concluded that kids who texted more performed better on literacy tests than those who texted less. In fact, they found that the younger a child began texting, the better their skills were. In answer to complaints by many teachers that students

can no longer create essays for school without including textisms, the study reported that participants expressed their ability to know when it was appropriate to use texting language and when it was not. Rhetorical Analysis: This wasnt just some random survey carried out by high school students at a nearby shopping mall. The information in this periodical came from research that was done at Coventry University and was reported in The Times Educational Supplement, a trade journal. The article reports that the academics carried out several investigations into the literacy skills of prolific texters (Para. 5). I think theres some credibility to the facts and numbers that were recorded. Assessment: I was pleased to find research done by Coventry University, the same university that David Crystal referred to in his essay and that the findings were similar to the ones he reported. Im not sure whether it could be the same study he used, since his article came out two years prior to the publication of this report. Regardless, I was interested to find that texters scored higher than non-texters in a variety of areas of study: verbal reasoning, spelling, vocabulary, reading ability and knowledge of how written language works. It was exactly the information I was looking for.

Source #2 Colwell, Jamie. Connecting Old and New Literacies In a Transliterate World. Library Media Connection 32.1 (2013): 14-16. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. Summary: In her magazine article, Jamie Colwell explored the benefits of using four specific digital tools in the classroom to discuss literature: cell phones, Twitter, Ning networks, and Edmodo. Colwell reported that encouraging students to text in an academic setting for academic

purposes creates an environment that promotes writing and expression of thought (15). She explained that although texting doesnt always involve the use of traditional literary style and format, students who text in class are not only still engaged in the act of communicating via writing, but they can share their thoughts, ideas, and reflections about literature using a medium they are more comfortable with. Rhetorical Analysis: As an assistant professor of Literacy at Old Dominion University, Jamie Colwell, Ph.D., shares information she has acquired on how to use technology to aid students in the literary classroom. She does this using a how-to format, describing the process of using each digital tool in a logical and informative manner. One of her more convincing techniques was to share her observation that students who previously withdrew from classroom discussions felt comfortable participating via digital communication. While her timely information follows a logical format, the article lacks any evidence other than her own experiences. Assessment: For me, this was more than just another source indicating that texting improves a students literary skills; it provided a twist - using digital technology to educate literary students. Colwell wasnt as concerned with providing evidence that texting improves literary skills as she was interested in exploring how digital technology can connect old and new literacies (14). Yet, I appreciated how useful her insights were. By using technological tools, Colwell enabled students who had not typically participated in literary discussions before to become comfortable and even enjoy the experience digitally. This was something I hadnt considered. It helped me realize that the realm of texting offers educational advantages that arent customarily examined.

Source #3

Crystal, David. "2b or Not 2b?" They Say, I Say. 2nd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011. 335-45. Print. Summary: In response to multiple newspaper articles claiming that texting was leading to the decline of literary abilities, Crystals essay argued that texting actually benefitted students. He explained that purposeful misspellings and abbreviations, similar to those used when texting, have been used for centuries and that there is increasing evidence that it helps rather than hinders literacy (337). After a lengthy discussion of the universality of texting and comparing texting to literary forms that have been accepted for centuries, he concluded by referring to a study at Coventry University that supported the concept that texters score higher on intellectual tests. Rhetorical Analysis: Crystal used an intellectual tone with occasional short, fun sentences mixed in, to convey his message that texting is a cerebral, yet entertaining experience. His use of logic was overwhelming. He compared texting to literary forms that have stood the test of time and explained how the enjoyable aspect of texting encourages youth to play with language. By citing examples of intellectual texters from multiple locations around the globe, he developed his credibility, incorporating a sense of the universality of texting. Assessment: I found Crystals piece to be full of interesting ideas. I felt that his use of rhetorical techniques was brilliant, yet I was skeptical. He almost seemed to be a bit of a magician; I found myself wondering what was behind the curtain of smoke. A large portion of his lengthy essay listed examples of textings universality, yet failed to provide much evidence that it had educational value. Crystal claimed that five years of research has at last begun to dispel the myths (345) and mentioned the Coventry University study, but I wondered what other increasing evidence (337) was available.

Source #4 Kemp, N., and C. Bushnell. Childrens Text Messaging: Abbreviations, Input Methods And Links With Literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27.1 (2011): 18-27. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. Summary: This journal article reported the results of an extensive study that explored different texting methods (predictive vs. multi-press) and how efficient students were at reading and writing those varying methods as opposed to their efficiency with reading and writing traditional language. Included in the study were tests to determine whether the popular belief that texting usage leads to a decline in literary skills. Instead, results tended to support the opposite: that the use of textisms improved literary skills. The author reasoned that language proficiency is likely buoyed by the enjoyment that students find playing with words and their spellings when they text and that they employ textese to create and maintain discourse communities (25), which accelerates their language usage and in turn improves their language skills. Rhetorical Analysis: As an academic journal reporting the results of extensive research, this article is full of credibility. It describes in depth the methods used, who the participants were, what materials were utilized, and how the procedure was carried out. A multitude of charts were included and explained in detail. Authors assumptions, based on the findings of their research and the studies of others, are occasionally mentioned, but most information is strictly based on fact. Assessment: Not only did the results of this study support David Crystals suggestions that the use of textese can improve a students literary abilities, and that children enjoy playing with

words and spelling when they text, but the author specifically mentioned Crystal and how the research agreed with his essay on both issues. The findings were also specific as to which areas of literary ability were shown to improve with texting: verbal reasoning, spelling, word reading ability, and phonological awareness. No areas were listed as having suffered from the use of textese. Interestingly, discussion of the results mentioned a possible link between children of higher socio-economic status (SES) and higher literary skills in general. If this link exists, and if children from a higher SES background have access to cell phones at an earlier age than their lower SES peers, additional testing may be required in order to determine whether it is texting or SES that improves literacy.

Source #5 Thompson, Clive. "Family: My 250 Texts a Day: Is Online Socialising Bad for Teenagers? No, Says Clive Thompson, it Helps them to Function Better in the Real World." The Guardian: 1. Oct 05 2013. ProQuest. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. Summary: Clive Thompsons main objective was to show how using technology prepares teens for living in the real world as an adult. He also addressed concerns about texting specifically, refuting teachers complaints that texting is affecting students literary abilities. Thompson provided research information to support the concept that texting can improve a childs literacy and added that texting is not as prevalent as some adults assume, nor do texting teens use as many textisms in their messages as one might think. He admits that the number of children who are avid readers has declined over the years, but attributes that to cable TV in the 1980s, even though the numbers have continued to decline by 5% in the twenty-plus years since then.

Rhetorical Analysis: This article by Clive Thompson appeared in The Guardian five years later than David Crystals, confirming that research still shows that texting improves literacy, in spite of continual claims by teachers that texting influences students to write poorly. Thompson took a more casual approach than Crystal, incorporating a number of personal interviews with texting teens and adding his observations as a parent. He didnt supply information on the subjectivity of his interviews, but he did back up his conclusions with research findings. Assessment: While Thompsons essay was similar to Crystals in that it was published in The Guardian, referenced a university study, and insisted that texting is educationally helpful, Thompsons piece focused on how texting and participating in other digital communication can prepare teens for success as an adult. This gave me a broader idea of how use of todays technology can boost our childrens future possibilities. I also appreciated his candor in admitting that textings greatest threat to academics is the prevalence of its distractibility. Carrying on text conversations late into the night hours or during time set aside for completing homework is not going to boost a students grade point average. While this information may be obvious, I think its an important point to keep in mind.

Conclusion I was surprised that I couldnt find any credible sources to support claims that texting negatively affects literary skills, or that specific literary areas were affected differently than others. I had truly expected to come across more evenly balanced views. I did find some interesting side points, like how technology can be used to discuss printed literary works or to prepare youth for the future. But I felt that the overall message was clear, as Kemp reported, concerned teachers and parents can be reassured that textese use does not appear to have

detrimental impact on childrens ability to read and spell conversationally, and that any links are actually positive ones (26). Although socio-economic influences could be looked at more closely, and parents definitely need to continue to set boundaries to counter distractibility, I tend to think that theres a definite advantage in the way that texters enjoy playing with language. As I come to think of it, my teenage daughter despises reading, yet shes constantly reading texts. Theres got to be a degree of academic improvement going on there. I hope so, since I recently reviewed our cell phone statements for the past four months and found that the number of her text messages has doubled every month from the month before. What I also noticed, though, while looking at the history of the text messages shes sent me, is that she rarely uses textisms or misspellings. I recall that Crystal and Thompson claimed that most teens use textisms less often than is commonly believed. As I reflect on this, I am curious about how often an average teen does text and what percentage of those texts uses proper grammar and spelling. I suppose thats an idea for further research. Perhaps I will be surprised again.