How is Text Messaging Affecting Teen Literacy - Research Paper Example

? Research Report How is Text Messaging Affecting Teen Literacy? Table of Contents 6 Background 7 Study Objective 8 Study Purpose 8 Study Assumptions 8 Study Limitations 9 Research Methodology 9 Procedure 9 Measures 10 E-mail task: to measure the difference between the use of textism in formal and informal communication among students, an instruction was issued for the students to write a letter to their professor and friends. The autocorrect or grammar and spelling checker was off and the e-mails were presented randomly such that some participants began with writing to their friends and later to the professor while others began with their professor before eventually writing the letter to their friends. For each email, the number of errors, words and textisms were recorded. 10 Translation task: this task was aimed at measuring the text speak proficiency of the students. The task involved the translations of five sentences from standard language to text speak language. Entries from each participant were recorded and rated on a scale of five based on the translation of the underscored words. Similarly, students’ familiarity with text speak was measured via translation of five sentences from text speak to Standard English. 10 Spelling errors: this was aimed at measuring the negative effects textism has spelling of words that are commonly abbreviated in text speak. 10 Spelling: Woodcock Johnson III’s standardised Spelling subtest was employed where participants were asked to write down words with ascending difficulty levels. 10 The Survey 10 References 16 Appendix 17 Questionnaire 17 Hypothesis Statement Does texting and awareness of text message abbreviations affect the literacy attainment of teenagers? Abstract This paper provides a detailed report on a study that carried out an investigation into the relationship between the texting behaviour of teenagers and levels of attainment in written language skills. The study involved 18-20-year old students from the University of Wisconsin-Stout Freshman English 102, studying their messaging practices in relation to their traditional abilities of spelling, tested via the writing of an essay. 80 students were tested and their papers analysed using standard MSWord tools. The students’ messaging behaviour was polled based on the number of texts they send in a day, the hours spent on social networks, phone use and history details, and the hours spent while messaging instantly. Background As the microprocessor was being developed, information flow between people was at a higher speed and communication flourished (Barker 2007). The entry of the internet saw a change in the entire literacy face. People no longer read books, magazines and newspapers but they are reading online. Recent developments in internet technology have seen an emergence of different ways of communication. People no longer sit down and read lengthy novels as literacy has come to be characterised by short texts on phones and computers. A 2009 study of the University of Alabama found that “Text messaging has surely given our society a quick means through which to communicate, taking out the need for capitalisation, punctuation, the use and knowledge of sentence structure and the detail that make good statements great” (Text messaging 2009). The current world has seen literacy get its definition from the technology that is used to transfer it. A text message language differs from that of an email. Formal language may still be present in the 21st century but it is probably different from the formal language of the 1950s (Vosloo 2009). In the year 2011, the Oxford English Dictionary included an additional text speak lingo in its lexicon. They include LOL – laugh out loud, OMG – oh my god/gosh/goodness, FYI – for your information, BFF – best friends forever, and IMHO – in my honest/humble opinion. Furthermore, the study revealed that some of the expressions used have a history that shows different usage of the same acronyms. For instance, the study claims that “the expression OMG has had its history tracked all the way back to 1917, while LOL used to mean “little old lady” back in the ‘60s” (Savov 2011). Recent debates air their concerns about the effects of technology on the literacy levels of children with particular concern raised over their academic performance. A 2010 study by Pew Research Center revealed that 75% of teenagers who use cell phones had unlimited text messaging services (Savov 2011). The language used for texting is almost different from the traditional formal language. Today, websites have been created to help with translations from text-speak to formal English. As a result, a student well versed with both languages; regular English and text-speak, may be termed as bi-lingual (Fox 2003). Study Objective The major objective of the study is to address the effects of text messaging on the ability of students to write a formal essay. Numerous researches exist but with high-school students as the sample hence a need for the conduction of this research that accounts for higher education and/or college students. Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to find out the relationship between the texting habits of students and their ability to write an essay in formal English. Study Assumptions The writing instructions for every student were the same since all came from the English 102 class of the same semester lectured by the same professor. It was also assumed that students had knowledge of their personal texting behaviour and the responds they gave were valid. Text speak is an abbreviated form of writing with shortened abbreviated spellings that has its primary use in text messaging as well as instant messaging on cell phones and computers respectively. Study Limitations The study only took into account 37 students from the University of Wisconsin-Stout in the English 102 class with the same professor. Research Methodology The aim of this study is to find out the effects of text messaging and the use of social media on teenage students at the University of Wisconsin-Stout and their ability to write formal English. 37 18-20-year old college students were recruited to the study from the University of Wisconsin-Stout in the English 102 class attesting to their text messaging behaviors. Procedure Participants met with the experimenter individually to complete these tests: translations, e-mailing, word ID, spelling, and a questionnaire was issued for the survey. Measures E-mail task: to measure the difference between the use of textism in formal and informal communication among students, an instruction was issued for the students to write a letter to their professor and friends. The autocorrect or grammar and spelling checker was off and the e-mails were presented randomly such that some participants began with writing to their friends and later to the professor while others began with their professor before eventually writing the letter to their friends. For each email, the number of errors, words and textisms were recorded. Translation task: this task was aimed at measuring the text speak proficiency of the students. The task involved the translations of five sentences from standard language to text speak language. Entries from each participant were recorded and rated on a scale of five based on the translation of the underscored words. Similarly, students’ familiarity with text speak was measured via translation of five sentences from text speak to Standard English. Spelling errors: this was aimed at measuring the negative effects textism has spelling of words that are commonly abbreviated in text speak. Spelling: Woodcock Johnson III’s standardised Spelling subtest was employed where participants were asked to write down words with ascending difficulty levels. The Survey The questionnaire consisted of nine questions regarding cell phone usage, plans and behaviors. The information to be collected by the survey included the ownership details of the cell phone, unlimited texting plans, the use of social networks as well as instant messaging. Details of the survey are found in the Appendix section. Data Collection Data from the tasks carried out privately by the study participants were recorded based on a five-point Likert response format. The nine questions in the questionnaire also provided the study with sufficient data about the behavior of students with the use of text messages. Data Analysis Initial sample analysis was done via MS Word tools. The tool provided data regarding the number of words used, paragraphs, characters, and sentences. Results The data revealed that 43% of the participating students used text speak whereas the rest 57% did not, referred to as texters and nontexters respectively. The table below shows the average ages of participants and the standardised scores for levels of literacy among texters and non-texters. Texters Non-texters Measure Mean Mean Age 19 19 Word ID 67.8% 69.0% Reading Fluency 79.1% 79.2% Spelling 49.1% 49.4% Note. Non-texters n=46. Texters n=34. Word ID, Reading Frequency and Spelling are Woodcock Johnson III’s test battery subtests. Proficiency and Familiarity with Text Speak A number of instruments were used to measure the students’ proficiency and familiarity with the text-speak vocabulary where the use of 2 and ur was employed. The two words were used because they are among the most misused words both in textism and Standard English. In textism, 2 can be used to refer to ‘to’, ‘too’, or ‘two’ whereas in ur can be used to refer to ‘your’ or ‘you’re’. In Standard English, these words are often misused and misspelled and as a result have been listed among the twelve most misspelled words by the Purdue University (Baron 2004). The table below summarises the scores on the familiarity and proficiency of the texters and non-texters. Measure Texters Non-texters Total “you’re and your” 9.5% 9.3% Total “to, too, and two” 5.5% 4.9% Total correct textism 66.4% 52.3% Total time SE to text 6.3 min. 6.9 min. Total time text to SE 6.4 min. 7.2 min. This result shows that texters were better at translating of Standard English to text speak for instance, translating the word tonight to 2nyt. This was highly expected since the group (texters) is expected to have a vast access to vocabulary from text speak language as compared to non-texters. Another table also shows the errors made by students during the private tests. Measure Texters Non-texters Errors in Prof. email 1.1% 1.1% Errors in Friend email 1.6% 0.84% Texts in Prof email 0.31% 0.20% Texts in Friend email 1.8% 0.77% The table above shows that students writing the letter to the professor had little grammatical and spelling errors as per the standard MS Word tool. These results were consistent for both the texters and non-texters. In addition, tetxers appeared to slightly use more texts in their mails to friends as compared to non-texters. Discussions The objective of this study was to establish the effects of text speak on the levels of literacy among teenagers. The usage of text speak was tested using an analysis of self-reported and experimental usage of text speak, familiarity and proficiency. It is by no surprise that the students who indicated that they use text speak reported high standards of proficiency with the text speak vocabulary. On the other hand, students who had no prior use of text speak were familiar with text speak vocabulary; an indicator that the media’s assertion that text speak communication has been widely introduced into the general communications environment. Furthermore, the study was set to determine the usage of text speak in formal communications. The results show that students could differentiate between a mail designated to a friend and that for a professor. Furthermore, the study showed that students knew it was inappropriate to use text speaks in formal writings, hence; it can be deduced that both texters and non-texters believe that the use of text speak language in formal writings is inappropriate. These were among the literacy measures and as a result, it is an indication that the text speak vocabulary use has no negative impacts on literacy levels in teenagers. Conclusion Previous research studies have yielded similar results to this study; no significant trends were realised that show any relations between textisms and literacy levels. However, the idea of multitasking has been raised to be of concern regarding poor academic performance (Crystal 2006; 2008). It is possible that students who engage in multitasking especially using electronic gadgets are directly influenced and are vulnerable to unintentional plagiarism. It is common to share someone’s material directly online. This mentality is believed to have adverse effects on texters as they are believed to be capable to carry it to their academic activities especially in cases where the information is being shared online while simultaneously working on a formal writing. Recommendations In general, this study results are a call for more research to be done in this area to answer the many unanswered questions. In particular, possible negative effects of text speak on levels of literacy needs to be longitudinally studied with a similar sample but for an elongated period of time. This study used a number of target words as a protocol rather than entirely depend on the standardised literacy measures as the dependent variables (Self 2009). Similarly, future studies should employ the use of more protocol target words to determine the levels of literacy since declines in literacy levels have the possibility of being seen in this area as compared to the standardised tests. Writing is a necessary skill for survival. According to Brooks (2011) “...Even students who are not going to stay in college need to know how to write. We’ve all gotten emails or cover letters where we’ve judged people based on the writing. It’s not an essay but its still communication and people fail at it all the time in profound and meaningful ways.” English teachers and professors are charged with the responsibility of ensuring students learn the correct skills in writing standard English despite the influence of texting and related social media. It is hard to teach or lecture when students are involved in other activities during the class sessions. Technology is the cause of all the textisms and as a result, teachers should look for easy ways in which to incorporate technology in learning activities inside the classroom (Wieder 2011). It may seem counterproductive including the problem cause in the eventual solution to the problem, new ideas are being developed to engage students via technology. Furthermore, there is a need for a research to be conducted for other populations, probably older. Since the text speak language is new and mostly used by teenagers, it is likely that the individuals in this sample had vast knowledge of the text speak as well as Standard English. Comparatively, in older populations, the opportunity for vast knowledge in text speak would not have been vast. References Barker, I. (2007) Txts r gr8 but not in exams. Times Educational Supplement, vol. 4723, p. 20. Baron, N. (2004) ‘See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging’ Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 23, pp. 397–423. Brooks, K. (2011) Death to high school English. Salon, viewed 3 Dec 2012 from . Carrington, V. (2004) ‘Texts and literacies of the Shi Jinrui’ British Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 25, pp. 215–228. Crystal, D. (2006) Language and the internet, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2008) Txtng: the gr8 db8, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, Inc. Ehri, L. C. (1986) Sources of difficulty in learning to spell and read. In M. L. Wolraich & D. Routh (Eds.), Advances in development and behavioral pediatrics (pp. 121–195). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press. Ehri, L. C., & Saltmarsh, J. (1995) ‘Beginning readers outperform older disabled readers in learningto read words by sight’ Reading and Writing - An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 7, pp. 295–326. Fox, R. (2003) News track. Communications of the ACM, 46(5), 9–10. Savov, V. (2011) OMG, FYI, and LOL enter Oxford English dictionary, foreshadow the apocalypse. AOL Tech, viewed 3 Dec 2012 from . Self, T. (2009) What if readers can’t read? Intercom, pp. 11-14. Text messaging and its effects on teens’ grammar. (2009) viewed 3 Dec 2012 from . Vosloo, S. (2009) The effects of texting on literacy: modern scourge or opportunity? Shuttleworth Foundation, viewed 3 Dec 2012 from . Wieder, B. (2011) Guilt is not enough to stop students from texting in class. The Chronicle of Higher Education, viewed 3 Dec 2012 from . Appendix Questionnaire Name______________________________________________________________ 1. How old are you? 18-19 19-20 N/A 2. Do you have a personal phone? Yes No 3. Is unlimited texting part of your cell phone plan? Yes No 4. If no unlimited texting in your phone plan, what does your plan entail?_____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. For how long have you been texting? < 1 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 < 6. On average, how many texts do you send in a day? < 25 25-50 50-99 100-149 150-249 250 < 7. How many hours of the day do you spend on facebook? < 1 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 < 8. How many hours of the day do you spend on instant messaging? < 1 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 < 9. How many hours of the day do you spend on twitter? < 1 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 < Thank you for your time. Read More