Chan 1 Adrian Chan Professor Eayrs Writing 2210G 6 April, 2011 The Influence of Text Messaging on Childrens Literacy

Text messaging is a technological phenomenon that is a part of a typical youths daily life. It is so crucial that 47% of American teenagers say that their lives would be worse without a cell phone and 57% credited their mobile device as improving their lives (Cell Phones Key to Teens Social Lives). Up from 45% of teenagers in 2004, 75% of teenagers in 2010 owned cell phones and 1 in 3 teenagers text messaged more than 100 times per day (Two-Thirds of Teens & Tweens now Mobile). It is no wonder that so many concerns from educators and parents have manifested as a result of this new digital obsession. One of the central concerns of constant text messaging is: will text messaging hurt a childs literacy skills? This fear is supported by its highly distracting nature and use of textisms such as c u l8ter and LOL in not only texts, but also in oral speech. Although not much research is dedicated to this controversy due to its young nature, there are studies that show either a positive association or no association between text messaging and literacy skills in children. It should be understandable that texting would not hinder children's literacy skills since texting and applying textisms show they are able to adapt their writing style in different situations, analyze sound combinations to abbreviate words (such as "8" for "ate"), and articulate their thoughts into words in a quick and efficient manner. There are many similarities between text messaging and formal writing. They both require writers to organize their thoughts into words, form logical sentences, and apply different types of prose such as informative, persuasive, and narrative. By practicing these processes in

Chan 2 text messages, children can improve their written literacy. For example, a study conducted by researchers from Coventry University in the United Kingdom examined 88 British 10-12 year olds' knowledge of textisms and their performance on standardized literacy tests (Plester, B. et al., 2009, 145-161). The children were given 10 different hypothetical scenarios and were told to write a text message in those situations. Their text messages were analyzed by calculating the ratio of textisms to total words and types of textisms ("bro" would be considered a "shortening" and "swimmin" a "G-clipping"). After this first assessment, all children were subjected to 3 sessions of standardized British literacy tests of approximately 20 minutes over the span of a week. The results show a correlation between textism use and phonological awareness, which makes sense since many textisms, such as "2nite", show a child's ability to dissect the sounds that make up the word "tonight". In addition, word reading ability and reading development were positively correlated with textism use while there was no relationship to the children's spelling. It is also interesting to note that the younger the child received his first phone, the higher his scores on the literacy tests. This data refutes the misconceived view of textisms affecting a child's spelling, despite being exposed to improper grammar. In addition, the implications for these results show that the children can still follow the orthographic rules of English. For example, "rite" as an alternative to "right" does not break any English phoneitcal conventions since it is similar to how "bite" is written and pronounced. Another study conducted by the University of Tasmania in Australia supported Plester's data (Kemp, N., and Bushnell, C., 2011, 18-27). They drafted 86 children with a mean age of 11.5 years old and instructed them to read and write 2 text messages. Between writing text messages, they were subjected to standardized literacy tests. They were told to write one text message as if they were writing to a friend, and another one using proper English. They were

Chan 3 then asked to read each message. The reading and writing tests were timed. The results showed that the faster and more accurate the child was able to read standard English and text language, the higher his scores on the tests. These findings agree with Plester's data and explanations for these positive associations. By pairing a literacy activity with a fun method of communication, children are motivated to explore different forms of text and manipulate it to their needs. The researchers from Coventry University performed a subsequent study similar to the one they did 2 years ago. They recruited 114 children aged 9 to 10 who had never owned a cell phone before, and only gave half the group a cell phone (Wood, C. et al, 2011, 28-36). Their cell phone usage was restricted to text messaging on weekends only for 10 weeks, and the children were then given similar literacy tests as the previous study. Their results showed that between the control and mobile phone groups, there was no significant difference between their scores on reading, writing, and spelling assessments. The researchers were surprised to see no positive association as they did previously, but there were some flaws in their experimental design. The duration of their experiment may have been too short, especially since the children recruited had never owned a cell phone before. Their inexperience with the technology, contrasting with the children in the previous study who previously owned a cell phone, may have prevented them from becoming familiar with textisms and different forms of text. In fact, the researchers noted the textism density of these children were much less then the children from 2 years ago. Although this data does not show an advantage of text messaging, it does show that the children's scores on the standardized tests were not negatively affected, hinting again that text messaging does not harm children's literacy. There have only been a couple of studies conducted that showed negative correlation between texting and literacy, but the results can be explained. The same researchers from

Chan 4 Coventry University conducted an initial study where sixty-five 11 and 12 year old children were instructed to translate one message in text language to standard English and vice versa (Plester, B,. 2008, 137-144). Afterwards, they were given a standardized literacy test called the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT). Their results showed some contradictory implications. The children who sent more than 3 texts a day scored lower on the standardized tests than the children who sent none. However, the children who used more textisms scored highest on spelling and writing measures. These contradictory results could be due to the difference in familiarity the children had with cell phone technology, their knowledge of textisms, and/or texting behaviour. For example, the median text messages sent by each child was 3.0, which is low and perhaps not enough to elicit the expected result. The researchers noted that there may have been some confounding variables involved, such as cultural differences in the sample size. The study lacked control measures for these confounding variables, so the negative association cannot be strong evidence. It simply demands more research, stronger experimental design, and longitudinal studies. To address this flaw, the researchers conducted a second study to further explore how use of textisms positively correlated with spelling and writing tasks. They initially assessed thirtyfive 10 and 11 year olds on their spelling and writing. They then asked the children to do what the previous study's children did; translate a message from text language to standard English and vice versa. Interestingly, there was a significant correlation between the spelling and writing scores and the amount of textisms used when translating a message from standard English to text language. The main conclusion from these two studies is that although more research is needed, there is no significant evidence that texting reduces the literacy of students.

Chan 5 Contrastingly, a pair of researchers from the University of Tasmania published a paper in 2010 that showed negative association (Jonge, S., and Kemp N., 2010). In this study, 52 high school students aged 13 to 15 years old and 53 undergraduate students aged 18 to 24 years old were asked to translate standard English sentences into text language by both writing it down and typing it into a cell phone. They found that there was a negative correlation between reading and spelling scores and the use of textisms. Although these results do merit concern, there is a major problem with this data in accordance to the theme of this essay. The study used adolescents and young adults, not children. However, this study is still discussed here because although there is a lack of studies showing negative associations with children, an example of negative association should still be investigated. Some reasons why young adults who use textisms frequently may not score better on literacy tests are because they are already literary-developed. Therefore, they require more extensive writing activities to improve their literacy skills, such as writing courses and workshops. Consider this analogy: children who play with educational toys learn as they play and it helps to develop them intellectually. However, if teenagers were given children's toys, the same result would not occur and would instead dull their intellectuality because the exercise is too simple. Also, it could be that the young adults' enthusiasm for writing and using textisms has declined over the years. This could be due to desensitization or a poor psychological history with writing and writing exercises. This implies that children, who are still developing academically, can benefit from texting because they are being exposed to new forms of text that require them to use their phonetic skills. There are many myths and unsupported theories surrounding texting and textisms. The previous scientific studies show that textisms benefit a child's literacy, yet it still receives criticism from people like John Humphrys, a columnist for the Daily Mail, which is a British

Chan 6 newspaper. He laments, "They [texting] are destroying it [English]: our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped (Humphrys, J., 2007)." He approves with abbreviating words like "tks" for "thanks and "u" for "you", but one of his arguments is that textisms have become obscure and ambiguous. For example, he always assumed "lol" stood for "lots of love" instead of "laugh out loud," and was extremely baffled by obscure textisms such as "imho u r gr8," which stands for, "in my humble/honest opinion, you are great." He claims that these abbreviations are problematic as they hinder understanding and slow down communication, which is the exact opposite of why textisms are used. Although it is true that some abbreviations are vague, that does not necessarily mean textisms in general are useless. English has very old and obscure words as well, such as "sciapodous," which is an adjective for having large feet. If a person uses this word in a sentence, the recipient would be clueless to its meaning, and so the writer would have to revise. This is the same with texting: it is common for some people to not understand some textisms so the sender would simply re-write the sentence. This is adapting to the audience and all writers do this; this is not unique to texting itself. Humphrys also refers to a personal experience where a person he knew texted constantly, and on the day of her exam she had forgotten how to write. This is most likely a hyperbole, but people like Humphrys are, like the media, supporting their arguments with exaggerated personal anecdotes which have no scientific backup. Perhaps that person texted all night and was too tired to articulate her thoughts into words. This does not mean the act of texting is harmful; it is the obsession with it, like any modern technology. The general public perceives texting and textisms as the beginning of the deterioration of the English language. This belief cannot be elucidated clearly, especially since people are exposed to media outlets who exaggerate the consequences of texting using only anecdotal and

Chan 7 personal evidence. Also, it seems logical; being constantly exposed to misspellings and improper grammar must have some sort of detrimental effect, especially on children who, at this age period, are easily influenced. However, there is no scientific evidence to prove that texting and using textisms erodes children's ability to read, write, and spell. The research that has been conducted on this subject suggest that textisms can improve the literacy of children. The studies have either shown a significant positive association or no association, but rarely a negative association. These findings should not be surprising, as a child's ability to use abbreviations of words in a quick manner requires them to first master the phonetics of English and be comfortable with their vocabulary. Of course, there are problems with texting, but they are social and psychological rather than linguistic. For example, a study conducted by the University of Leuven in Belgium found that text messages interrupted the sleep of teenagers where, among 13 year olds, 13.4% reported being woken up 1 to 3 times per month due to text messages (Van den Bulck, J, 2003, 263). This study does not prove, or suggest at all, that the linguistic nature of texting harms student literacy, yet the public perceives studies like these to suggest that texting leads to poor academic performance. It is important for people to realize that the social aspects of texting do not equate to textisms in general leading to poor literacy. On the other hand, the scientific data compiled from various researchers have shown that textisms enhance a child's literacy, rather than deteriorate it. Although texting can be taken to the extreme, it does serve the useful purpose of uniting people and forming tight bonds among friends. This communication is central to humans as socially active creatures, and should not be condemned as an uneducated manner of expressing oneself but rather as a way to supplement ones forms of communication.

Chan 8 Works Cited Cell Phones Key to Teens Social Lives, 47% Can Text with Eyes Closed. Marketing Charts. n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2011 De Jonge, S. and Kemp, N. (2010), Text-message abbreviations and language skills in high school and university students. Journal of Research in Reading, no. doi: 10.1111/j.14679817.2010.01466.x Humphrys, John, " I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language." Daily Mail [United Kingdom], 24 Sept 2007. Web. Kemp, N., and Bushnell, C. (2011), Children's text messaging: abbreviations, input methods and links with literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 18-27. Plester, B., Wood, C. and Bell, V. (2008), Txt msg n school literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children's literacy attainment?. Literacy, 42: 137 144. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00489.x Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009), Exploring the relationship between childrens knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145-161. Two-Thirds of Teens & Tweens now Mobile. Qwasi News. 2 July 2010. Web. 14 Feb. 2011 Van den Bulck, J. (2003), "Text messaging as a cause of sleep interruption in adolescents, evidence from a cross-sectional study", Journal of Sleep Research, 12, 263. Wood, C., Jackson, E., Hart, L., Plester, B. and Wilde, L. (2011), The effect of text messaging on 9- and 10-year-old children's reading, spelling and phonological processing skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27: 2836. doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2010.00398.x