Study Suggests That Texting Improves Literacy

[Logan Westbrook]

Study Suggests That Texting Improves Literacy

Tabloid newspapers would have you believe that the proliferation of texting and 'textspeak' are destroying our beloved English language, but new research suggests that those fears may be unfounded.

The study, performed by researchers from Coventry University, looked into the impact of texting on the language skills of 88 children aged between 10 and 12 years old. The children were given ten different scenarios and asked to write about them in text messages. These messages were then analyzed for their use of language alongside more traditional class work. The study, published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology, found no detrimental link between texting and linguistic development, saying in their report: "Children's use of textisms is not only positively associated with word reading ability, but it may be contributing to reading development."

Dr Beverly Plester, the lead author of the report and a senior lecturer at Coventry University, laid the blame for the negative views of text messaging squarely at the feet of sensationalist media outlets: "The alarm in the media is based on selected anecdotes but actually when we look for examples of text speak in essays we don't seem to find very many ...The more exposure you have to the written word the more literate you become and we tend to get better at things that we do for fun."

Contrary as it is to popular opinion, the study backs up research done by the University of Toronto into a similar scenario, that of teenagers using instant messengers, and more than that, it makes sense when considered logically; after all, to be able to understand a short hand, you have to understand the long hand behind it.

Source: BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7910075.stm]



Permalink

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

I'm going to disagree with the article. Not the findings, which I believe entirely accurate, but the undercurrent of "Everything is under control." Texting does indeed promote communication, and as a textual medium, also promotes a form of literacy.

The problem lies in where this form of literacy is applicable. While the texting proves that the children were quite linguistically capable of analysis, but were doing so in a format that was unusual for the material. Supplant that into a formal setting and a strong resume with good information and positive references will instantly become a weak resume due to the informal language.

Formality and grammar supplant the (albeit misleading) connotation of intelligence, and practiced art that will be entirely missing if not practiced. Without backing in MLA, an essay would be graded equally if they were weak in content or weak in grammar. A journalist would not be published if s/he is not strong in AP-style.

Without formal grammar, those who cannot deviate from the texting language will be deemed unintelligent. That is where the problem in texting lies, not in literacy. Sadly, presentation has as strong an importance as intelligence in modern society.

If it didn't, I certainly wouldn't wear a suit to job interviews.

 

[Labyrinth]

I read this with scepticism. True to say that you can get studies to prove just about anything when it comes to human nature. They often contradict each other as statisticians are paid to make numbers dance and ignore certain demographics.

The explanation I can think of here is that having textwords in the mind is like knowing a wide range of synonyms for the same words. It's like understanding newspeak can change your writing style, or knowing a different language will strengthen your first.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

So they trade an increase in reading for a decrease in spelling.

 

[EeveeElectro]

'luv 2 c u l8r m8.'

If I ever read that in a book, I think I'll burn it.

Oh, and I used to have that phone in the image. Nokia 3210, I think. Yay.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

'luv 2 c u l8r m8.'

Considering that I had friends in school who wrote essays like this, I wouldn't say texting is helping so much.

 

[EeveeElectro]

'luv 2 c u l8r m8.'

Considering that I had friends in school who wrote essays like this, I wouldn't say texting is helping so much.

Please tell me you're joking...

I glanced a girl in my English classes essay when we were handing them in, she had wrote something like, "Heathcliff is like, well in love with Cathy and stuff and we see dat in da way he speaks, yeah."

I face palmed so hard I nearly lost an eye!
I wonder why she took English for A-Level...

 

[CAPPINJACK]

Sure they can read, but can they read/write words like: four, too, to, two, see, you, are, etc...? Or my personal favorite: tell the difference between "there, they're, and their". This article is bunk, kids today are dumber than they've ever been and the whole texting thing is one of the reasons for that.

 

[Sigenrecht]

This just in: a recent study suggests that a recent study suggesting texting improves literacy was TALKING OUT OF ITS ASS.

More at eleven.


To follow up, if anything, texting encourages adolescent and adult alike to shorten coherent sentences into strings of letters and numbers that fill me with impotent rage for their... INCOHERENCY and FOREIGNNESS TO MY COMPLEX AND INTELLIGENT WORLD. This isn't a 1984 scenario where a faceless totalitarian regime is killing vocabulary to sterilize our ability to express feeling; therefore, everyone must just be getting a combination of lazier and stupider.

 

[Trivun]

'luv 2 c u l8r m8.'

Considering that I had friends in school who wrote essays like this, I wouldn't say texting is helping so much.

You know it's your duty to rid the world of their taint, correct?

Burns Max to death as his screams reach his Puerto Rican buddies, they laugh at his Nokia choice

I like explodey doom .

I do not use a Nokia.
My phone is even smaller and less comfortable to use.
No you don't.
We will not derail this thread. It is a thing which must not be done.

Simply to annoy you I'm going to slightly derail this thread. On a lighter note, how was the psychiatrist today, Max? Still doing well, I trust?

I read this with scepticism. True to say that you can get studies to prove just about anything when it comes to human nature. They often contradict each other as statisticians are paid to make numbers dance and ignore certain demographics.

I'm studying a Statistics module as part of my Maths course and this is something that was touched upon in recent lectures. Basically, we had pressed upon us the idea that correlation between different sets of data don't necessarily imply a connection. For example, we know that swallows migrate for winter. Data may show that there are more swallows in a given location during summer than winter. Other evidence can back our original claim but the data here wouldn't prove anything about swallow migratory patterns. The example given in class was that crime rates in Leeds change over time, and so do the number of lecturers at Leeds University. As more lecturers turn up, the crime rate falls. This, however, does not imply that more lecturers causes lower crime rates. This same logic is easily applied to any set of data, and seems to have often been applied to the idea that texting is a negative influence on people's literacy. However, in this situation there is also common sense telling us, as well as reports of people using text-speak in exams, that this scenario is true and that people who text more do have lower literacy rates. In my old high school we had in the English department posters on the wall showing recent newspaper articles that gave examples of what people had written in exam papers. A lot of cases looked at involved times where people had written in English exams entire essays and short stories in text-speak. Needless to say, these people generally failed the exams. Quite epically, in fact...

P.S. Apologies for the wall'o'text.