Transcript LOL? The impact of text messaging on writing, speaking and

An Exploration of the Use of Text Messaging
by College Students and Its Impact on Their
Social and Literacy Behaviors
Kenneth J. Weiss, Ed.D.
([email protected])
Associate Professor
Department of Reading and Language Arts
Central Connecticut State University
New Britain, CT
Presented at the 22nd World Congress of
The International Reading Association
San Jose, Costa Rica
July 29, 2009
1
Sit bac, rlax, nd nta d wrld of txt
msgn!
 Id lk 2 welcom ll of u
2 my presentaiton.
 Im abt2 presnt my
findings frm d stdy.
2
• Hw mne of u fnd dat yr studnts r
“sneaking” tx abbreviations n2 their
4mal rytn n yr classes?
• Hv y evr noticd dat sumtyms students’
spech patterns reflect d conventions of
on9 ch@?
3
Purpose of the study
• Recently, research has emerged concerning the various
uses of the Internet, and in particular, Text Messaging
(TM), as a means of alternative communication among
children and adults alike.
• While teaching both my undergraduate and graduate
courses, I have noticed an increase in text message
abbreviations being used in students’ formal writing.
• This includes students’ emails, on line discussions for
class, as well as in the oral language patterns used by some
students.
• Subtle differences were noted in some of my students’ inclass collegial behaviors (“texting” under the desk).
4
Purpose of the study - continued
• As a direct result of these observations, and with
the appearance of various lay press and
professional journal articles surfacing about text
messaging, I was interested in building on this
body of research, particularly looking at the
impact of Text Messaging on the social and
literacy behaviors (spelling, vocabulary) of college
students.
5
Purpose of the study - continued
• The current generation of both traditional and nontraditional students has had the use of this technology for
several years and, for many of them, it has become second
nature, replacing the “older” technology of using
telephones for extensive ORAL conversations (as opposed
to quick text messages), as well as written forms of
communication.
• Some research has focused on the many uses of new
technologies as a further means of communication.
6
Purpose of the study - continued
• Just recently, the Pew Internet & American Life Project
issued a report entitled Writing, technology and teens
(2008).
• In a section of this report, Lenhart, Arafeh, Smith and
Rankin Macgill (2008) indicate that “many educators and
observers have expressed concern that the abbreviated
language styles of text messaging, email and wall posts are
filtering inappropriately into formal school writing” (p.
21).
7
Purpose of the study - continued
• In addition Lenhart et al. (2008) reported that “young
adults generally do not believe that technology negatively
influences the quality of their writing, but they do
acknowledge that the informal styles of writing that mark
the use of these text-based technologies for many teens do
occassionally bleed into their school work” (p. 21).
8
Purpose of the study - continued
• Lewis and Fabos (2005) provided a study concerning
instant messaging that addressed issues of social identities
among grade school students.
• Alvermann (2002) looked at adolescents’ literacy activities
in the digital age.
• Leu (2000) reported on the consequences for literacy
education in an information age.
• The interest in these newly developing technologies is
significant in terms of their impact on social as well as
educational issues.
9
New literacies
• Formal vs informal writing
• Opportunities using TM talk and writing to get
to know more about our students’ interests
• University initiatives to capitalize on TM for
mass communication of messages,
admissions contacts, etc.
• The use at VA Tech [and other institutions] to
“spread the word” (NY Times, April 17, 2007).
10
In the news…
• A recent high school contest winner
who text messaged the word
“supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”
in less than 15 seconds and stated that
she text messages over 8,000 messages
per month.
11
Recent AT&T Wireless Ad
• Advertising
campaigns such as
this one, where
multi-generations
are text messaging,
brings to the
forefront the level of
acceptance and
usage of TM
12
Research Questions
•
1. How might understanding the
•
3.How will pre- and in-service
teachers deal with the infusion
of text message language and
use in their own classroom
assignments and papers?
•
4.What roles do we, as university
faculty play, if any, in working
with these changes in both written
and oral communication? What are
our ethical obligations, if any?
nature and use of Text Messaging
allow us to better understand the
communicative skills of our
students and consequently, to be
better able to communicate with
them?
•
2. How might the use of electronic
conversations interplay with the
need for understanding face-to-face
conversation in the college
classroom?
13
Methods and Procedures
– The study employed a mixed research methodology that
included both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
– I modified an open-ended multi-question survey (Lewis
& Fabos, 2005) to better explore my pre- and in-service
college students’ use of Text Messaging.
– I explored past and present experiences, reasons and
frequency of its use, and what college students
perceived as the value of using this method of
communication.
14
Methods and Procedures - continued
• The questionnaire consisted of 42 open-ended questions in
a downloadable Word document.
• Surveys were made available in all of my classes and were
also distributed to other professors throughout selected
courses at the university who expressed their interest in
helping secure additional data on my behalf.
• Post-survey interviews were conducted with 31 students.
15
Data Coding and Analysis
•
•
85 surveys were returned (approx. a 22% return rate)
– out of a possible 382, 175 were distributed to my own
students
These surveys were coded using NVivo7 qualitative data analysis
survey that allowed for grouping responses according to a set of
coding criteria that I chose to identify.
• Students’ identification was kept anonymous and they were only
identified by the following criteria: Male/Female;
Undergraduate/Graduate; and Age.
16
Data Set
N = 85
– UG Females
66
– UG Males
7
– GR Females
11
– GR Male
1
17
Age of participants
• Age range 20 – 42
• Average age = 23
18
Average number of years using
TM:
• 7.8 years
• Mode = 11 years
• Low = 6 months (42 year old parent just to communicate with
freshman daughter going to school across country)
• high = 14 years
19
A closer look at some responses
• Responses to questions # 21, 40, 42
were extremely revealing in terms of
participants’ perceptions.
• Please refer to the handout for a copy of
the entire survey and for a list of
selected responses to these three
questions, in particular.
20
Sample responses
•
Question 21. How would you describe the students you know who use TEXT
MESSAGING?
•
Question 40. Has using TEXT MESSAGING in any way changed the way you
write with paper and pen? If so, how?
–

“No” (outright and emphatically no!!!) = 55 of the 85 respondents
Question 42: Do you find yourself using TEXT MESSAGING abbreviated
words when you spell on paper?
– NO = 26
– YES (with no elaboration) = 21
– Sometimes = 6
21
Moreover…
• Examination of my students’ written work point to
inconsistencies between reported use of TM in
formal writing and classroom talk versus actual
writing samples and/or classroom observations.
• Many respondents indicated that they do NOT use
TM in their writing, and yet, here are three examples
of actual respondent’s writing:
22
Sample from an undergraduate’s literacy
autobiography:
• “When I wz a kid I was drawn 2 teach.
I had 3 younger siblings hu quickly
bcam my studnts. I wz happy 2
share…”
23
Graduate student’s reflective
response:
• “I dnt care w@ levl my students r
on as long as they are readn. “
24
Post-baccalaureate student’s
response journal:
• “F students had that filled out
ahead of tym it wd mak mor sense
2 conference with ea other.”
25
RESULTS
26
How might understanding the nature and use of Text Messaging
allow us to better understand the communicative skills of our
students and consequently, to be better able to communicate with
them?
• First and foremost, is the emerging reality that we are
beginning, and will continue to see changes in the way our
students present formal writing in our classrooms.
• As educators, and especially as teacher educators, we must
decide how to respond to this non-traditional writing.
• We must also find ways to use this new technology and
form of communication to encourage an open discussion of
our students’ ideas.
27
and…
• Having stated that, I see these as major opportunities to
accept our students’ use of TM language for informal
writing, but also for modeling and requiring conventional
use of language when writing is more formal.
• In turn this may help students to recognize their use of TM
and when it might or might not be appropriate.
28
How might the use of electronic conversations interplay with
the need for understanding face-to-face conversation in the
college classroom?
• Data from the surveys indicate that many of
my students question the tone and
undertone of many text messages.
• This leads to the importance of finding
more ways for students to interact face-toface in the college classroom
– To get to know their colleagues
– To hear their ideas aloud
29
How will pre- and in-service teachers deal with the infusion
of text message language and use in their own classroom
assignments and papers?
Students (graduate and undergraduate) in our own classrooms
Our pre-service student teachers
• a. in terms of their lesson plans and their modeling
in classrooms
In-service teachers
• a. modeling
• b. expectation of their own students’ writing
and speaking
• c. communications with other stakeholders
30
What roles do we, as university faculty play, if any, in
working with these changes in both written and oral
communication? What are our ethical obligations, if any?
• Proponents of the “new literacies” such as Leu, warn us of
the need as educators to teach our students how and under
what circumstances they could be using all these new
technologies.
• Do we correct our students’ own written work to reflect
accepted standards of written communication?
• Do we embrace this new writing?
• How do we guide our own students to quality decision
making when it comes to not only their own formal
writing, but when their students submit writing using
elements of text messaging?
31
Conclusions
• The use of text messaging is here to stay. Our students
now entering our education programs have been exposed
to and have used this form of communication on a regular
basis.
• It is up to us, as educators and mentors, to help our
students see the benefits and limitations of using this form
of communication in their formal writing and the writing
of their own classroom students.
• As in most educational decisions, we need to explore what
the benefits and limitations might be with the acceptance
of text messaging writing in more formal situations.
32
A GREAT Web Site…
• http://www.lingo2word.com/translate.php
• Translates text messages from Lingo
to plain English, or from plain
English to lingo.
33
TY 4 yr tym n intrst -- nw -- go
gntLy N2 d wrld of txt msgN
For additional information, please contact me at
[email protected]
34
Selected References
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. New York:
Peter Lang.
Kurkjian, C., Abadiano, H.R., & Weiss, K.J. (1999). Electronic exchanges across
campuses: Facilitating forums for concerns and issues surrounding selection and use of
multicultural literature. In Carl A. Grant's (Ed.) Proceedings of the National
Association for Multicultural Education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.,
Chapter 17, pp. 338-358.
Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A. & Rankin Macgill, A. (2008). Writing,
technology and teens. Washington, DC: Pew/Internet. Available from:
http://www.pewinternet.org.
Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy
education in an information age. In M. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, &
R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. III, pp. 743-770. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lewis, C. & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities.
Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 470-500.
35