Jayel Kirby Sue Briggs English 1010 @ 10am December 5, 2013

What is the Effect of Texting on Literary Skills?

In response to multiple newspaper articles claiming that texting was leading to the decline of literary abilities, David Crystal wrote 2b or Not 2b, an essay that appeared in The Guardian. He argued that texting actually benefitted students, explaining 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). I found Crystals piece to be full of interesting ideas and I felt that his use of rhetorical techniques was brilliant, yet I was skeptical. A large portion of his lengthy essay listed examples of textings universality, yet failed to provide much evidence that it had educational value. Crystal mentioned a study done by Coventry University that supported the concept that texters scored higher on intellectual tests (345), but I was curious - had similar studies been conducted with similar and/or conflicting results? Was there more to the issue than 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? As I searched for studies that had been conducted on texting, I was surprised that I couldnt find any credible sources to support claims that texting negatively affected literary skills. Two thorough studies made it quite clear that 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 (Kemp and Bushnell, 26). The first of these studies appeared in an academic journal, titled: Childrens Text Messaging: Abbreviations, Input Methods and Links with Literacy by Kemp and Bushnell. Full of credibility, this article thoroughly explained the details of their study. It described in depth the methods that they used, who the participants were, what materials were utilized, and how the procedure was carried out. A multitude of charts was included and expounded upon. What surprised me the most, though, was that the authors specifically mentioned Crystals essay in two distinct places. The first time, they referenced his piece twice while discussing how some authors have suggested that the use of textisms might actually improve childrens literacy skills (Kemp and Bushnell, 19). Later, they referred to his work again while suggesting that textese may provide the chance to play with words and their spellings (25). Upon seeing his name referenced multiple times in an academic journal, I felt that Crystal had more credibility than I had first supposed. As I continued my quest for additional research, I was further surprised to find Adi Blooms report, Texting Aids Literacy: Study Confounds Popular Prejudice, dated January 2010, on a study done by Coventry University, the same school that had conducted the findings that Crystal had mentioned in his essay in 2008 (345). Again, texters had scored higher than nontexters in a variety of areas of study: verbal reasoning, spelling, vocabulary, reading ability, and knowledge of how written language works (3-4). It was becoming obvious that I was not going to find any research that conflicted with Crystals claims. Perhaps it was time to branch out. If prevalent texting improved a students

literary ability by engaging them in wordplay, how was digital communication affecting their intellect in other ways? Was there more to the issue than I was considering? In my search for broader answers, I ran across another essay in The Guardian. In Family: My 250 Texts a Day , Clive Thompson reported that research still supported the literary virtues of texting (5). While his 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 help prepare teens for success as an adult. For example, Thompson referenced a Stanford University study showing that while freshman composition papers have not increased in errors since 1917, student essays have blossomed in size and complexity. Why? Computers have vastly increased the ability of students to gather information, sample different points of view and write more fluidly (5). This gave me a broader idea of how use of todays technology can boost our childrens future possibilities. I also appreciated Thompsons 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 (6). While this information may be obvious, I think its an important point to keep in mind. Another point that may not be quite so obvious is that texting can be used as a means of communicating within the literary classroom. In her article, Connecting Old and New Literacies In a Transliterate World, Jamie Colwell, assistant professor of Literacy at Old Dominion University, reported that encouraging students to text in an academic setting for academic

purposes creates an environment that promotes writing and expression of thought (15). 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, she had enabled students who had not typically participated in literary discussions before to become more comfortable and even enjoy the experience digitally. Imagine: a small group of students sitting in the same classroom and carrying on a discussion via text! Colwell helped me realize that the realm of texting offers educational advantages that arent customarily examined. As I came to the conclusion of my research, I realized that Crystal mustve been more on target than I had originally thought. All evidence supplied by Bloom, Kemp, and Thompson refuted the general belief held by parents and teachers that texting is deteriorating students language skills. No evidence was found to support popular suspicions. And although specific areas of literary skills were tested individually, there wasnt a significant difference in textings affect on them (Kemp and Bushnell, 20). Instead, studies showed that texting provides children with an entertaining mode of playing with language, as both Crystal (341) and Kemp (25) explained. Additionally, Colwell and Thompson described how digital technology can be used both in and out of the classroom to help prepare children for the world that will be theirs as adults. It seems that the results were what we call Crystal clear.

Works Cited

Bloom, Adi. "Texting Aids Literacy: Study Confounds Popular Prejudice." The Times Educational Supplement.4874 (2010): 17.ProQuest. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. 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. Crystal, David. "2b or Not 2b?" They Say, I Say. 2nd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011. 335-45. Print. 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. 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.