Txt msg n school literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children's literacy attainment?

Plester, Beverly; Wood, Clare; Bell, V. A.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00489.x

Cited by 133 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Exceptions to this exist, as they do in class, but they are usually within the limits of the norm and with the expectation of teacher intervention if they do not. In contrast, communication in the sans-teacher groups is conducted in the youth's native "internet language" (Beverly, Wood, & Bell, 2008) and brings to the surface social conflicts and tensions in the peer group. It is also characterized by a sense of freedom, openness, lack of supervision, and sometimes even norm breaking.…”

Section: Teacher and Student Perspectives On Whatsapp Classroom Commumentioning

confidence: 99%

“WhatsApp, Teacher?” - Student Perspectives on Teacher-Student WhatsApp Interactions in Secondary Schools

Rosenberg

Asterhan

2018

JITE:Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: In this paper, we analyze the phenomenon of “classroom WhatsApp groups”, in which a teacher and students from a particular classroom interact with one another, while specifically focusing on the student perspective of these interactions. Background: The instant messaging application WhatsApp enables quick, interactive multimedia communication in closed groups, as well as one-on-one interactions between selected group members. Yet, very little is known about the extent, nature, and purposes of these practices, the limitations and affordances, the type of discourse and conflicts that develop in these spaces, and the extent to which it affects teacher-student interactions outside of WhatsApp (e.g., the social climate in class, the teacher’s status, teacher-student and student-student relations), especially from the students’ perspective. Methodology: Our methodology combines questionnaires, personal interviews, and focus groups with Israeli secondary school students (N = 88). Contribution: The present study adds to the expanding body of empirical research on social media use in educational settings by specifically focusing on a heretofore underexposed aspect, namely, secondary school student-teacher communication in the popular instant messaging application WhatsApp. We report on findings from the student perspective and discuss the advantages and limitations of this form of communication sphere, and on the social functions of the different classroom WhatsApp groups in secondary school students’ everyday life. Findings: The combined findings reveal that classroom WhatsApp groups have become a central channel of communication for school-related topics. It is used primarily for organizational purposes (sending and receiving updates and managing learning activities), as well as a means for teachers to enforce discipline. Students mentioned many advantages of WhatsApp communication, such as easy access, the ability to create communities, the ability to safeguard personal privacy, and the communication format (written, mediated, personal, or group). However, they also recognized limitations (i.e., communication overload) and challenged teacher ability to monitor and affect student interactions in social media, even when they are present in these WhatsApp classroom groups. Finally, we report on the role of parallel, sans-teacher WhatsApp groups, which are characterized as back stage discourse arenas that accompany the front stage offline classroom activities and the “official” classroom WhatsApp group. Recommendations for Practitioners: The combined findings of this study indicate how WhatsApp-based, joint teacher-student groups can serve a variety of educational purposes, namely, organizational, instructional, and educational-disciplinary. In addition, and in spite of teachers concerns, students are aware of the challenges inherent to the use of WhatsApp for communication with their teachers. Some of the main characteristics that prevent teachers from using other ubiquitous digital communication media, such as Facebook or Twitter, are not relevant when it comes to WhatsApp. Both teachers and students view WhatsApp as a favored channel of communication because of the low exposure to personal information and minimal invasion of privacy. Future Research: The qualitative methodology of this paper limits the ability to generalize the current findings to other contexts and population groups. Future research should preferably explore the generalizability of our findings to larger sections of teenage populations. It should also explore similarities and differences with other age groups. Finally, the present study was set in a particular country (Israel). Local norms of cellphone use and of appropriate teacher-student interaction, as well as locally developed media domestication patterns, may differ from country to country and/or from one cultural group to another. Future research should then include and compare the current findings with data from different countries and cultures in order to complete the picture.

show abstract

Section: Teacher and Student Perspectives On Whatsapp Classroom Commumentioning

confidence: 99%

“WhatsApp, Teacher?” - Student Perspectives on Teacher-Student WhatsApp Interactions in Secondary Schools

Rosenberg

Asterhan

2018

JITE:Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These abbreviations can now also be found in poetry and spoken communication, and there are even prizes for the best SMS message (e.g., the Golden Thumb). Early use of SMS is related to children's literacy development, as studies have shown that the more text abbreviations preteenage children use in their text messages, the higher they score on tests for reading and vocabulary (Plester et al, 2008). Despite their popularity, very little is known about the processing of shortcuts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electroencephalographic responses to SMS shortcuts

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the popularity of sending messages electronically increases, so does the necessity of conveying messages more efficiently. One way of increasing efficiency is to abbreviate words and expressions by combining letters with numbers such as gr8 for "great," using acronyms, such as lol for "laughing out loud," or clippings such as msg for "message." The present study compares the processing of shortcuts to the processing of closely matched pseudo-shortcuts. ERPs were recorded while participants were performing a lexical decision task. Response times showed that shortcuts were categorized more slowly as nonwords than pseudo-shortcuts. The ERP results showed no differences between shortcuts and pseudo-shortcuts at time windows 50-150 ms and 150-270 ms, but there were significant differences between 270 and 500 ms. These results suggest that at early stages of word recognition, the orthographic and phonological processing is similar for shortcuts and pseudo-shortcuts. However, at the time of lexical access, shortcuts diverge from pseudoshortcuts, suggesting that shortcuts activate stored lexical representations.© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords:SMS shortcuts N400 Lexical decision task IntroductionThe idea of Short Message Service (SMS) was born as part of the development of the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) network in the mid-1980s (Crystal, 2008). SMS had a slow start with only 0.4 text messages per month being sent in the late 1990s, but at the beginning of 2001, about 12.2 billion messages per year were sent in the United Kingdom alone (Crystal, 2008). Gartner, the industry analysts, predicted that the total number of SMS sent per year would reach 2.4 trillion by 2010 (Crystal, 2008). As the popularity of sending SMS and communicating online increased, numerous abbreviations were introduced to facilitate the generation of messages. Some abbreviations are combinations of letters and numbers, such as gr8 for great, others are acronyms, such as lol for laughing out loud, yet others are clippings, such as msg for message. These abbreviations can now also be found in poetry and spoken communication, and there are even prizes for the best SMS message (e.g., the Golden Thumb). Early use of SMS is related to children's literacy development, as studies have shown that the more text abbreviations preteenage children use in their text messages, the higher they score on tests for reading and vocabulary (Plester et al., 2008). Despite their popularity, very little is known about the processing of shortcuts. Using shortcuts is efficient and convenient for the sender of the message. However, is it also beneficial for the reader? It had been shown that reading sentences that consisted almost exclusively of SMS language was slower than reading conventionally written sentences (Berger and Coch, 2010;Perea et al., 2009).However, when shortcuts are used sparingly in a sentence, they appear to cause difficulties only in early stages of word

show abstract

“…Moreover, little research has been done on the effects of the use of text speak on literacy. In the few studies that have been done (e.g., Plester, Wood, & Bell, 2008), researchers examined text speak and literacy in younger populations of students and found no links between text speak proficiency and lower standardized literacy scores. Thus, this study was designed to explore both the usage of the text speak vocabulary among American college students and the relationship between the use of text speak and literacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

R u txting? Is the Use of Text Speak Hurting Your Literacy?

Drouin

Davis

2009

Journal of Literacy Research

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent negative media attention surrounding the use of text speak (shorthand abbreviations of words such as gr8 for "great") and the potentially detrimental effects of text speak on literacy prompted this study of texting and literacy in 80 college students. Thirty-four text speak users and 46 nontext speak users were assessed on their proficiency and familiarity with text speak as well as their standardized literacy levels and misspellings of common text speak words. Results showed that while text speak users were more proficient with the vocabulary, both groups showed familiarity with text speak. More important, there were no significant differences between the two groups in standardized literacy scores or misspellings of common text speak words. Thus, our analyses showed that the use of text speak is not related to low literacy performance. Nonetheless, more than half of the college students in this sample, texters and nontexters alike, indicated that they thought text speak was hindering their ability to remember standard English. These conflicting findings are discussed within a framework of future directions for research.

show abstract

Txt msg n school literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children's literacy attainment?

Cited by 133 publications

References 12 publications

“WhatsApp, Teacher?” - Student Perspectives on Teacher-Student WhatsApp Interactions in Secondary Schools

“WhatsApp, Teacher?” - Student Perspectives on Teacher-Student WhatsApp Interactions in Secondary Schools

Electroencephalographic responses to SMS shortcuts

R u txting? Is the Use of Text Speak Hurting Your Literacy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About