Text Speak in the Classroom
Since the spark of texting in the 1990's text-speak has rapidly increased around the world, and in some cases is being used by students in situations where Standard English has traditionally been accepted. Educators need to respond to this digital rise within the classroom. This can be achieved by helping students understand the need to code-switch in different writing contexts, by helping them understand the differences between text-speak and Standard English mechanics, and by helping them find identity in both text-speak and Standard English discourse communities.
David Crystal describes in his book, "Txting: The Gr8 Db8," how short message service, or SMS, was launched as a part of the Global System for Mobile Communications network in the mid-1980's. Around the 1990's phone companies began to fully develop the commercial possibilities, introducing pagers that allowed only 20 characters initially. The first experimental text messages were sent in Finland in 1992-1993, and from there the slow rise began. Once phone companies found an appropriate way to charge for their new phone service, texting became popular. In 2001, in the UK alone, 12.2 billion text messages were sent. This doubled in 2004 (Crystal, 3-4).
There are several distinct features found in text messages that are unique for this type of written speech. Crystal sites several, the first being pictograms and logograms. Pictograms are when visuals, pictures, or shapes come together to represent a word or concept. An example of this would be ";)" representing "wink." Logograms are the use of a single letter, symbol, or numeral to represent a whole word, or part of a word. An example of this would be the word "today," written in text-speak as "2day." Another notable feature of texting is the use of initialisms, or the reduction of words to their first, initial letters. An example would be "GF" representing "girlfriend." Omitted letters, or the clipping of words, is also popular in text speak. An example of this would be the use of "msg" in place of the word "message." Texting also uses nonstandard spellings, often in ways that shorten the intended word. For example, " love" could be shortened to "luv" (Crystal, 37-52). Lieke Verheijen adds to this list in her article, "The Effects of Text Messaging and Instant Messaging on Literacy," explaining that excessive use of punctuation, apostrophes, or capitalization is often used to show emphasis in texts. On the other hand, however, the complete omission of these elements is also common. Texters also tend to repeat letters in order to lengthen or put emphasis on sounds (Verheijen, 584).
These aspects come together to describe the written language form known as text-speak. There are many theories as to how, and why, these written features came to be. Crystal argues that many of the stylistic features of text-speak are a direct response to the limited amount of space available in text messages. Overtime, texters naturally developed systems that abbreviated their message without losing intelligibility. Throughout the history of written language, abbreviations were used when a quick, intelligible message needed to be written. Texters therefore, transferred the systems and abbreviations they learned from other settings to the communication on their mobile devices (Crystal, 67-70). Another reason these features of text-speak have developed is a result of the human intuition towards language play. Crystal highlights how about 80% of the language used by a child in their first year is playful by nature. Riddles, puns, rhymes, inventing new words, accents, and other forms of language play are fun (71-72). Therefore, language play is another reason the use of text-speak is so appealing. John McWhorter describes the formation of text-speak as the written form of spoken language. He explains that the language we use in speech and the language we use in writing are different. Text-speak is the new, emerging form of writing that actually encompasses the features of speech (McWhorter).
While there are many linguistic explanations for the formation of text-speak, there have also been many linguistic, and educational, reasons voiced against the use of text-speak. The American Federation of Teachers, for example, put out this statement on the use of text-speak: "Text and instant messaging are negatively affecting students’ writing quality on a daily basis, as they bring their abbreviated language into the classroom. As a result of their electronic chatting, kids are making countless syntax, subject-verb agreement and spelling mistakes in writing assignments....[M]any teachers believed that students’ wide use of 'text speak' was a key factor in their students’ negative performance. ... [T]ext speak is a problem" (Verhiejen, 585). Several other examples have made headlines, prophesying text-speak to be the cause of children's spelling and punctuation issues, students poor marks in school, and the general population's future inability to write proper English (Crystal, 151).
While several negative connotations have developed regarding text-speak there have also been several positive insights. It has been theorized that writing in text form is actually beneficial to the development of students' language abilities. Vosloo argues in his text, "The Effects of Texting on Literacy: Modern Scourge or Opportunity?" that in order for students to use the features of text-speak, such as being able to abbreviate, combine, or writing in a shortened form, they must have phonological awareness (4). Also, writing within a limited span of characters forces individuals to be creative, concise, and meaningful within their writing. While texting, students also have the chance to play and be creative with the language they are learning in school (Vosloo, 4). In addition, texting provides students with "increased exposure to text," giving them more experience coding and decoding language symbols and their meanings (Verheijen, 586). Text-speak, and the language play that goes along with it, is also fun and could increase student motivation to read and write (Verheijen, 586).
John McWhorter, a linguist who has described text-speak as "fingered speech," also pushes back on arguments against text-speak by describing the phenomena as an "emerging complexity, " where new structures are in formation. These new systems are rule governed and meet needs specific to this quick, non-verbal type of communication. For example the use of "slash" in text-speak was developed in text speak to signal a sudden change in subject. McWhorter explains that students are constantly in a juggling act, switching between their standard forms of writing, to text-speak. He also points to evidence showing that speaking two or more dialects is actually cognitively beneficial, meaning that when students switch dialects in their writing the same stimulation is likely to occur (McWhorter).
While there are several clear arguments for and against the use of text-speak, research does not provide a clear picture of whether it positively or negatively affects students' literacy and language skills. Verheijen for example, introduces several studies that have showed both the positive and negative correlations between texting and literacy development. One study conducted by Beverly Plester, Clare Wood, and Puja Joshi examined the relationship between textisms and literacy attainment in children. The children in the study had to pretend they were in different situations and then respond to that situation with text messages. These texts were then recorded and the "density of textism" was measured. This was calculated by taking the ratio of textisms to the total words used. The children were also given standardized tests to measure different aspects of literacy. This study found a positive correlation between textism density and reading, vocabulary, and phonological awareness. This continued to be true even when controlling for individual differences in age, short term memory, vocabulary, phonological awareness, non-word reading ability, and how long the child owned a phone (Verheijen, 588). Another study conducted by Sarah De Jonge and Nenagh Kemp found the opposite. The study produced "overwhelmingly negative" results, showing a negative correlation between textism usage (defined in this study as the number of messages sent per day, the textism density, and the number of textism features used) and low literacy scores in spelling, reading, non-word reading, and morphological awareness (Verheijen, 595).
The impact of texting on academic writing will continue to be researched and debated, for now it is vital that teachers understand and respond to its structures and use in the classroom. David Crystal touches on this need in his book "Txting: The Gr8 Db8," exclaiming that, "In the end, whatever the strengths and weaknesses of texting as a variety of language, it is in the classroom that matters need to be managed. If there are children who are unaware of the difference between texting and Standard English, then it is up to the teachers to make them aware" (165).
When a child uses text-speak in their academic writing, the root of their error is a misunderstanding of the audience they are writing for. Jacobs describes in her article, "We Learn What We Do: Developing a Repertoire of Writing Practices in an Instant Messaging World," a case study done on a student named Lisa. Lisa was both an avid Instant Messager and a highly esteemed writer in high school. After both observing and surveying Lisa, the author came to the conclusion that Lisa was successful in both IM and Standard English discourse communities. Lisa's success came because she was aware of the differences in both mechanics and purpose for both types of writing (207-208). Jacobs suggests that "working with students to develop this metacognitive awareness of how they switch language and literacy practices according to context may contribute to a decrease in the crossover of IM conventions in school-based writing" (208). This requires teachers to thoughtfully develop pedagogical methods that will foster this metacognitive awareness in their students.
Teaching students that writing varies based on content would require a lesson or discussion that specifically looks at the differences in language between formal and informal settings. Kristen Turner describes one way this can be taught in her article, "Flipping the Switch: Code-Switching from Text Speak to Standard English." In Turner's lesson, students are asked to identify different people, and settings, in which they communicate. The teacher then chooses four different examples from the list, ranging from formal to informal, and asks the students to translate a greeting into each of the four settings. For example the standard, "Hello, how are you today?" might be translated as, "Hey, waz up?" in text-speak. This activity then opens the opportunity for the class to discuss the similarities and differences between the types of communication. Turner then suggests a similar activity to be done in both groups and individually. Vosloo advocates for this type of activity as well, claiming that it allows students to "demonstrate their comprehension of writing and to create a form of multilingual focus, similar to how learning a foreign language tends to enhance a student's understanding of his or her native tongue" (5). A lesson such as this is important because it helps students learn the importance of code switching, while also giving them practice with writing for distinct contexts.
Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) is a popular program in schools, and is another way teachers can introduce code switching. Herrington and Moran introduce this program in their book, "Genre Across the Curriculum." WAC programs rose around the 1970's and 1980's. The program has two main strands: "writing to learn and writing in the disciplines" (7). Through WAC, students learn the distinct genres and styles present within each content area. For example, students learn the features of a science report in their science content classes, and are able to describe how this genre differs from that of a book report. Through WAC students develop the ability to make choices in their writing based on its purpose and its intended audience. They also learn that different types of writing exist, and get practice switching between these genres. Jacobs advocates for writing within the content areas, arguing that this, "allows students to see how writing changes depending upon context and thus strengthens metacognitive awareness of genre" (209). Students will be able to take this new awareness and transfer it into their understanding and use of text-speak.
Once students understand the importance of context and audience, it is important for them to develop linguistic awareness regarding the components of language in text-speak and Standard English. By comparing and contrasting the mechanics of the two genres, similar to their exploration of genres in WAC programs, students will be able to develop concepts or usage guides for each variety. This metacognitive awareness will help students better differentiate between text speak and Standard English
One way teachers can begin developing metacognitive awareness of the English language is to explore with students how language has evolved over time. In his article, Vosloo describes one teacher who shows students texts from Old English, Middle English, contemporary English, and a MySpace page and uses them to showcase the evolution of language (4). Doing an activity similar to this will allow students to understand how text speak is a part of the larger evolution of language over time.
Once students understand the basic evolution of language it is appropriate to explicitly teach them the mechanics of text-speak. After students understand its mechanics, they can then apply this knowledge to their own writing. Turner suggests that teachers and students create a "checklist" together for editing papers (63-64). This checklist would provide a list of common text speak mechanics that show up in the students' Standard English writing. The students would then work individually or in writing groups to pinpoint instances where text speak occurs within their Standard English writing. Another way to expand students' linguistic awareness of these two styles is to have them translate from one variety to the other. For example, the teacher could provide students with a digital text and ask them to translate it into Standard English, and vice versa (Turner, 63). This would truly test students' ability to differentiate between the two varieties.
It is important here to note the role identity plays in making students feel a part of both the Standard English and text speak discourse communities. Jacobs article cites research that indicates school age students often feel tension when learning a new literate identity. This tension comes from having their "home" dialect labeled as "wrong" in the school environment. It also comes from students not understanding their roles in each discourse community. Students from minority backgrounds may feel a loss in voice, a distance from home community, and a changed identity as they are forced to take up Standard English in the classroom (Jacobs, 209). Instead of creating tension, teachers need to help validate students’ identity in both discourse communities in order to help them fully succeed in both varieties.
One way to help students feel a part of the discourse community of Standard English is to provide them with authentic experiences where the use of Standard English is necessary. Encouraging students to enter contests, write to online publications, and write for social action are just a few ways the writing they do in school can be connected to the world outside of school. By having students write for a variety of authentic purposes, a teacher can help students find identity and purpose in Standard English (Jacobs, 209). Tension will continue if teachers only validate Standard English, therefore, helping students find their identity in text speak is also important. Turner explains how bringing text speak into the classroom will, "privilege the students' language, giving it space in the curriculum" (63). This can be done is by allowing students to use text speak in their journals, brainstorming, and rough drafts (Turner, 63). These activities mainly require students to get their ideas down on paper. If students do this more effectively through text speak, than teachers should encourage its use. Vosloo describes another teacher who has organized an online chat room where the students meet once a week to discuss literature and writing. This allows students to use text speak, while still engaging in intelligent conversation (5). Teachers can also teach students how methods of text speak can be used to help them take quicker, more effective notes. By bringing text speak into the classroom, in some fashion, teachers are able to validate students' home discourse community, while also giving them more explicit instruction on situations where it should and shouldn't be used.
Since its start in the 1990's the use of text speak has increased dramatically. Researchers and linguistics have not clearly found whether texting positively or negatively affects student literacy. However, mechanics of text speak have been showing up in students' Standard English constructions. Teachers ought to respond to this new student need in three ways: by teaching students to code-switch in varying contexts, by teaching the differences between text speak and Standard English mechanics, and by helping students find their identity in both discourse communities. Texting is not going to disappear, teachers need to actively address the use of text speak in their classroom in order to help students navigate this new variety of written English.
Bibliography:
Crystal, David. Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Herrington, Anne, and Charles Moran. Genre Across the Curriculum. Logan, UT: USU Press Publications, 2005. Print.
Jacobs, Gloria. "We Learn What We Do: Developing a Repertoire of Writing Practices in an Instant Messaging World." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 52.3 (2008): 203-211. Web. <http://igenlit.pbworks.com/f/JAAL-52-3-Jacobs.pdf>.
McWhorter , John. "Is Texting Actually Advancing Language?." TEDTalks, Feb. 2013. Web. 29 Apr 2014.
Turner, Kristen. "Flipping the Switch: Code-Switching From Text Speak to Standard English." English Journal. 98.5 (2009): 60-65. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. <http://hstrial-christinavoss70172.homestead.com/Flipping_the_Switch.pdf>.
Verheijen, Lieke. "The Effects of Text Messaging and Instant Messaging on Literacy." English Studies 94 (): 582-602. Print.
Vosloo, Steve. "The Effects of Texting on Literacy: Modern Scourge or Opportunity?." Shuttleworth Foundation. (2009): n. page. Web. <http://www.siu-voss.net/Voslo__effects_of_texting_on_literacy.pdf>.
David Crystal describes in his book, "Txting: The Gr8 Db8," how short message service, or SMS, was launched as a part of the Global System for Mobile Communications network in the mid-1980's. Around the 1990's phone companies began to fully develop the commercial possibilities, introducing pagers that allowed only 20 characters initially. The first experimental text messages were sent in Finland in 1992-1993, and from there the slow rise began. Once phone companies found an appropriate way to charge for their new phone service, texting became popular. In 2001, in the UK alone, 12.2 billion text messages were sent. This doubled in 2004 (Crystal, 3-4).
There are several distinct features found in text messages that are unique for this type of written speech. Crystal sites several, the first being pictograms and logograms. Pictograms are when visuals, pictures, or shapes come together to represent a word or concept. An example of this would be ";)" representing "wink." Logograms are the use of a single letter, symbol, or numeral to represent a whole word, or part of a word. An example of this would be the word "today," written in text-speak as "2day." Another notable feature of texting is the use of initialisms, or the reduction of words to their first, initial letters. An example would be "GF" representing "girlfriend." Omitted letters, or the clipping of words, is also popular in text speak. An example of this would be the use of "msg" in place of the word "message." Texting also uses nonstandard spellings, often in ways that shorten the intended word. For example, " love" could be shortened to "luv" (Crystal, 37-52). Lieke Verheijen adds to this list in her article, "The Effects of Text Messaging and Instant Messaging on Literacy," explaining that excessive use of punctuation, apostrophes, or capitalization is often used to show emphasis in texts. On the other hand, however, the complete omission of these elements is also common. Texters also tend to repeat letters in order to lengthen or put emphasis on sounds (Verheijen, 584).
These aspects come together to describe the written language form known as text-speak. There are many theories as to how, and why, these written features came to be. Crystal argues that many of the stylistic features of text-speak are a direct response to the limited amount of space available in text messages. Overtime, texters naturally developed systems that abbreviated their message without losing intelligibility. Throughout the history of written language, abbreviations were used when a quick, intelligible message needed to be written. Texters therefore, transferred the systems and abbreviations they learned from other settings to the communication on their mobile devices (Crystal, 67-70). Another reason these features of text-speak have developed is a result of the human intuition towards language play. Crystal highlights how about 80% of the language used by a child in their first year is playful by nature. Riddles, puns, rhymes, inventing new words, accents, and other forms of language play are fun (71-72). Therefore, language play is another reason the use of text-speak is so appealing. John McWhorter describes the formation of text-speak as the written form of spoken language. He explains that the language we use in speech and the language we use in writing are different. Text-speak is the new, emerging form of writing that actually encompasses the features of speech (McWhorter).
While there are many linguistic explanations for the formation of text-speak, there have also been many linguistic, and educational, reasons voiced against the use of text-speak. The American Federation of Teachers, for example, put out this statement on the use of text-speak: "Text and instant messaging are negatively affecting students’ writing quality on a daily basis, as they bring their abbreviated language into the classroom. As a result of their electronic chatting, kids are making countless syntax, subject-verb agreement and spelling mistakes in writing assignments....[M]any teachers believed that students’ wide use of 'text speak' was a key factor in their students’ negative performance. ... [T]ext speak is a problem" (Verhiejen, 585). Several other examples have made headlines, prophesying text-speak to be the cause of children's spelling and punctuation issues, students poor marks in school, and the general population's future inability to write proper English (Crystal, 151).
While several negative connotations have developed regarding text-speak there have also been several positive insights. It has been theorized that writing in text form is actually beneficial to the development of students' language abilities. Vosloo argues in his text, "The Effects of Texting on Literacy: Modern Scourge or Opportunity?" that in order for students to use the features of text-speak, such as being able to abbreviate, combine, or writing in a shortened form, they must have phonological awareness (4). Also, writing within a limited span of characters forces individuals to be creative, concise, and meaningful within their writing. While texting, students also have the chance to play and be creative with the language they are learning in school (Vosloo, 4). In addition, texting provides students with "increased exposure to text," giving them more experience coding and decoding language symbols and their meanings (Verheijen, 586). Text-speak, and the language play that goes along with it, is also fun and could increase student motivation to read and write (Verheijen, 586).
John McWhorter, a linguist who has described text-speak as "fingered speech," also pushes back on arguments against text-speak by describing the phenomena as an "emerging complexity, " where new structures are in formation. These new systems are rule governed and meet needs specific to this quick, non-verbal type of communication. For example the use of "slash" in text-speak was developed in text speak to signal a sudden change in subject. McWhorter explains that students are constantly in a juggling act, switching between their standard forms of writing, to text-speak. He also points to evidence showing that speaking two or more dialects is actually cognitively beneficial, meaning that when students switch dialects in their writing the same stimulation is likely to occur (McWhorter).
While there are several clear arguments for and against the use of text-speak, research does not provide a clear picture of whether it positively or negatively affects students' literacy and language skills. Verheijen for example, introduces several studies that have showed both the positive and negative correlations between texting and literacy development. One study conducted by Beverly Plester, Clare Wood, and Puja Joshi examined the relationship between textisms and literacy attainment in children. The children in the study had to pretend they were in different situations and then respond to that situation with text messages. These texts were then recorded and the "density of textism" was measured. This was calculated by taking the ratio of textisms to the total words used. The children were also given standardized tests to measure different aspects of literacy. This study found a positive correlation between textism density and reading, vocabulary, and phonological awareness. This continued to be true even when controlling for individual differences in age, short term memory, vocabulary, phonological awareness, non-word reading ability, and how long the child owned a phone (Verheijen, 588). Another study conducted by Sarah De Jonge and Nenagh Kemp found the opposite. The study produced "overwhelmingly negative" results, showing a negative correlation between textism usage (defined in this study as the number of messages sent per day, the textism density, and the number of textism features used) and low literacy scores in spelling, reading, non-word reading, and morphological awareness (Verheijen, 595).
The impact of texting on academic writing will continue to be researched and debated, for now it is vital that teachers understand and respond to its structures and use in the classroom. David Crystal touches on this need in his book "Txting: The Gr8 Db8," exclaiming that, "In the end, whatever the strengths and weaknesses of texting as a variety of language, it is in the classroom that matters need to be managed. If there are children who are unaware of the difference between texting and Standard English, then it is up to the teachers to make them aware" (165).
When a child uses text-speak in their academic writing, the root of their error is a misunderstanding of the audience they are writing for. Jacobs describes in her article, "We Learn What We Do: Developing a Repertoire of Writing Practices in an Instant Messaging World," a case study done on a student named Lisa. Lisa was both an avid Instant Messager and a highly esteemed writer in high school. After both observing and surveying Lisa, the author came to the conclusion that Lisa was successful in both IM and Standard English discourse communities. Lisa's success came because she was aware of the differences in both mechanics and purpose for both types of writing (207-208). Jacobs suggests that "working with students to develop this metacognitive awareness of how they switch language and literacy practices according to context may contribute to a decrease in the crossover of IM conventions in school-based writing" (208). This requires teachers to thoughtfully develop pedagogical methods that will foster this metacognitive awareness in their students.
Teaching students that writing varies based on content would require a lesson or discussion that specifically looks at the differences in language between formal and informal settings. Kristen Turner describes one way this can be taught in her article, "Flipping the Switch: Code-Switching from Text Speak to Standard English." In Turner's lesson, students are asked to identify different people, and settings, in which they communicate. The teacher then chooses four different examples from the list, ranging from formal to informal, and asks the students to translate a greeting into each of the four settings. For example the standard, "Hello, how are you today?" might be translated as, "Hey, waz up?" in text-speak. This activity then opens the opportunity for the class to discuss the similarities and differences between the types of communication. Turner then suggests a similar activity to be done in both groups and individually. Vosloo advocates for this type of activity as well, claiming that it allows students to "demonstrate their comprehension of writing and to create a form of multilingual focus, similar to how learning a foreign language tends to enhance a student's understanding of his or her native tongue" (5). A lesson such as this is important because it helps students learn the importance of code switching, while also giving them practice with writing for distinct contexts.
Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) is a popular program in schools, and is another way teachers can introduce code switching. Herrington and Moran introduce this program in their book, "Genre Across the Curriculum." WAC programs rose around the 1970's and 1980's. The program has two main strands: "writing to learn and writing in the disciplines" (7). Through WAC, students learn the distinct genres and styles present within each content area. For example, students learn the features of a science report in their science content classes, and are able to describe how this genre differs from that of a book report. Through WAC students develop the ability to make choices in their writing based on its purpose and its intended audience. They also learn that different types of writing exist, and get practice switching between these genres. Jacobs advocates for writing within the content areas, arguing that this, "allows students to see how writing changes depending upon context and thus strengthens metacognitive awareness of genre" (209). Students will be able to take this new awareness and transfer it into their understanding and use of text-speak.
Once students understand the importance of context and audience, it is important for them to develop linguistic awareness regarding the components of language in text-speak and Standard English. By comparing and contrasting the mechanics of the two genres, similar to their exploration of genres in WAC programs, students will be able to develop concepts or usage guides for each variety. This metacognitive awareness will help students better differentiate between text speak and Standard English
One way teachers can begin developing metacognitive awareness of the English language is to explore with students how language has evolved over time. In his article, Vosloo describes one teacher who shows students texts from Old English, Middle English, contemporary English, and a MySpace page and uses them to showcase the evolution of language (4). Doing an activity similar to this will allow students to understand how text speak is a part of the larger evolution of language over time.
Once students understand the basic evolution of language it is appropriate to explicitly teach them the mechanics of text-speak. After students understand its mechanics, they can then apply this knowledge to their own writing. Turner suggests that teachers and students create a "checklist" together for editing papers (63-64). This checklist would provide a list of common text speak mechanics that show up in the students' Standard English writing. The students would then work individually or in writing groups to pinpoint instances where text speak occurs within their Standard English writing. Another way to expand students' linguistic awareness of these two styles is to have them translate from one variety to the other. For example, the teacher could provide students with a digital text and ask them to translate it into Standard English, and vice versa (Turner, 63). This would truly test students' ability to differentiate between the two varieties.
It is important here to note the role identity plays in making students feel a part of both the Standard English and text speak discourse communities. Jacobs article cites research that indicates school age students often feel tension when learning a new literate identity. This tension comes from having their "home" dialect labeled as "wrong" in the school environment. It also comes from students not understanding their roles in each discourse community. Students from minority backgrounds may feel a loss in voice, a distance from home community, and a changed identity as they are forced to take up Standard English in the classroom (Jacobs, 209). Instead of creating tension, teachers need to help validate students’ identity in both discourse communities in order to help them fully succeed in both varieties.
One way to help students feel a part of the discourse community of Standard English is to provide them with authentic experiences where the use of Standard English is necessary. Encouraging students to enter contests, write to online publications, and write for social action are just a few ways the writing they do in school can be connected to the world outside of school. By having students write for a variety of authentic purposes, a teacher can help students find identity and purpose in Standard English (Jacobs, 209). Tension will continue if teachers only validate Standard English, therefore, helping students find their identity in text speak is also important. Turner explains how bringing text speak into the classroom will, "privilege the students' language, giving it space in the curriculum" (63). This can be done is by allowing students to use text speak in their journals, brainstorming, and rough drafts (Turner, 63). These activities mainly require students to get their ideas down on paper. If students do this more effectively through text speak, than teachers should encourage its use. Vosloo describes another teacher who has organized an online chat room where the students meet once a week to discuss literature and writing. This allows students to use text speak, while still engaging in intelligent conversation (5). Teachers can also teach students how methods of text speak can be used to help them take quicker, more effective notes. By bringing text speak into the classroom, in some fashion, teachers are able to validate students' home discourse community, while also giving them more explicit instruction on situations where it should and shouldn't be used.
Since its start in the 1990's the use of text speak has increased dramatically. Researchers and linguistics have not clearly found whether texting positively or negatively affects student literacy. However, mechanics of text speak have been showing up in students' Standard English constructions. Teachers ought to respond to this new student need in three ways: by teaching students to code-switch in varying contexts, by teaching the differences between text speak and Standard English mechanics, and by helping students find their identity in both discourse communities. Texting is not going to disappear, teachers need to actively address the use of text speak in their classroom in order to help students navigate this new variety of written English.
Bibliography:
Crystal, David. Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Herrington, Anne, and Charles Moran. Genre Across the Curriculum. Logan, UT: USU Press Publications, 2005. Print.
Jacobs, Gloria. "We Learn What We Do: Developing a Repertoire of Writing Practices in an Instant Messaging World." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 52.3 (2008): 203-211. Web. <http://igenlit.pbworks.com/f/JAAL-52-3-Jacobs.pdf>.
McWhorter , John. "Is Texting Actually Advancing Language?." TEDTalks, Feb. 2013. Web. 29 Apr 2014.
Turner, Kristen. "Flipping the Switch: Code-Switching From Text Speak to Standard English." English Journal. 98.5 (2009): 60-65. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. <http://hstrial-christinavoss70172.homestead.com/Flipping_the_Switch.pdf>.
Verheijen, Lieke. "The Effects of Text Messaging and Instant Messaging on Literacy." English Studies 94 (): 582-602. Print.
Vosloo, Steve. "The Effects of Texting on Literacy: Modern Scourge or Opportunity?." Shuttleworth Foundation. (2009): n. page. Web. <http://www.siu-voss.net/Voslo__effects_of_texting_on_literacy.pdf>.