The Negative Effects of Texting on School Formal Writing
Does texting affect writing by Michaela Cullington explores the possible outcome of teen texting on school formal writing. Cullington outlines three different theories scholars model about the connection between the two: the ones who criticize texting for its bad effect on writing, the ones who think texting is actually an important exercise in writing, and the ones who see no correlation at all. Cullington starts her study with the top theory, through quotations from concerned teachers, referencing the abnormal statistic that “only 25 percent of seniors from high school are ‘writers’ who are ‘proficient’ (363) and the addition of testimony from two of her previous teachers.
Cullington then discusses the second view on texting and writing through the provision of testimony which is contrasting from other teachers who thought that texting is a gift to their pupils’ writing. Cullington attains backup for these two opposing beliefs from previous studies and interviews. To explain the belief that texting is unimportant to formal writing, nevertheless, she conducts her personal research, obtaining outcomes from two teachers, seven students, and an analysis of written work from students. Notwithstanding the testimonial proof against and in the backup of texting, results from Cullington show that texting poses “no effect, good or bad, on the writing of a student as a result of texting” (367).
Even though her finding supports the theory that texting and writing possess no correlation to one another, Cullington (and other scholars whose work she examined) notices the importance of new technology and the evolving communication modes in the society. She notes, “The application of text in messaging as a frequent mode of communication is becoming increasingly known; thus, this problem should be examined continuously” (94). Unsurprisingly, the texting popularity has developed since the duration of Cullington’s writing and so too has researched on its outcomes on student writing. The issue that Cullington may not have foreseen, nevertheless, are the means whereby texting itself has developed. How could innovations for example Internet access, different “apps,” and advancements in software have developed texting in the just two years since 2011 where Michaela Cullington published her essay?
One of the unique differences between the present and two years back is the decreasing prevalence of the use of acronyms and abbreviations. When rapid messaging and text messaging were first introduced, there was not a phrase or word in the language of English that could not be abbreviated or shortened. Although similar ability may still be available today, the real presence of such phrase as “u” (you) and “gtg” (got to go) has widely diminished.
So, even if consistent or, as said by Cullington, “anecdotal,” the impression of these phrase in formal writing should be, in theory, diminished as well. This decreasing in the popularity of the acronym may in the large section be because of the smartphone vast popularity. The Blackberry, Android, iPhone, and similar gadgets are all from the smartphone group, recognized possessing “functionality that is advanced in addition to the normal functionality present on a feature device” (AT&T). The magnitude of work beyond the simple act of giving a phone call is crucial to the integrity of a smartphone; nevertheless, what has kept the device to be so distinctive is because texting has literally become “smarter.” Individuals with smartphones have the help of autocorrect, spellcheck, autocompletion, reference “apps,” and lately, voice control capability (commonly known as “Siri,” the iPhone’s response voice from its voice-control system).
Previously, text messages were basically instant, electronic types of a brief note written down on a note’s Post-it and left on the door for the owner. There was inadequate reason or time for revision and minimal space in which to write the message. There was no grammatical or spelling errors judgment, nor was there misunderstanding about contrive shorthand; recipients and senders alike noted the restrictions of this means of communication. In summary, there was a purpose for creating messages in a style like the “Post-it” for example “c u 2nite”. It was this type of texting that stimulated concern and discontent in the interviewed teachers by Cullington. Although rational for the educators of the first normal texters, that fear is currently outdated.
When going through a paper from a word processor, one thing a pupil will try to find is that red line under a phrase or word showing its flawed spelling. Mostly, writers who apply spell check correctly rectifies majority of the spelling mistakes; in addition, when the red lined word has constantly plagued similar word in a paper, the author of the paper may even educate himself from his mistakes, consequently making spell-check not only for assisting but also an educator.
One simplest texting and the most important new tool is the spellcheck. It works similarly, red line, notifying texters to their spelling mistakes, including intentional acronyms and abbreviations, and likely planting the seed for tomorrow correctness.
In addition, Web access has an enormous effect on individuals with smartphones. These people have so many data at their hands; they can get the solution to nearly any problem in a matter of time. The belief that this receptiveness may have a good outcome on writing is not debatable, and although all Internet users should be careful on relying on the data they get, the fact that issues can be cleared, debates can be solved, and the periodically attained acronym can be elaborated (GOE is “God over everything”) more conveniently than ever before is extremely important. The texters ability to learn more is, at the last part, not affecting their ability to write properly.
What is more openly an advantage of smartphone Internet service is the accessibility to millions of applications, short form “apps.” Apps are important tools for the smartphone functions the smartphone user never knew he needed but currently cannot live away from. Buried under the store that is the “App Store” are applications (apps) that are important to pupil. By easily accessing a dictionary application and tapping the thumbs on the surface of the screen, the individual who keeps his phone to himself which currently is almost everybody can now get what the meaning of desideratum is just seconds after it is uttered in passing conversation. Perhaps he will even apply it on a paper. Or else he will even apply it to his next text.
While an Internet connection and a spellcheck seem to be beneficial, not all of the innovations of cell phones are necessarily advantageous to the writing and texting process. Actually, there is a possibility that there might be some “improvements” that are indeed harmful. Two detrimental and known smartphone-associated innovations on texting are autocomplete and autocorrect. Autocorrect identifies a misspelled phrase or word and automatically substitute it with what is probably to be the phrase or word intended; likewise, autocomplete substitutes a word that is incomplete with what is probably to be the word.
In multiple ways, autocorrect and autocomplete are very important as far as efficiency is concerned; nevertheless, it is reasonable to have an assumption that they have a contradicting outcome of the spell-check on learning. The alternative of issuing a texter the desire need to change his or her mistakes, autocorrect notifications are very brief that the person texting is rarely aware of a problem before it is removed from existence altogether. In giving perfectly spelled text, the person texting fails to notice her mistakes and therefore will continue misspelling similar words continuously. Obviously, autocorrect is not directly the reason for mistakes by writers; nevertheless, its ability to enhance a behavior by covering it up with correction is almost worse compared to leaving the mistake and failing to identify at all (as in during the early process of texting). Word processing doesn’t possess autocorrect, generally.
Michaela Cullington opened the door for future pupils to research this topic, and it is essential that they progressively do so. Texting has its benefits and costs now similar to 2011, but the development of those factors has positively changed since then. Because of technological innovations, what was once a means of efficiency is currently no more efficient compared to writing phrases and words in their original, expanded forms, and the application of shorthand and texting lingo is far less ordinary; on the other hand, grammatical and spelling and errors, as well as some acronyms and abbreviations still in use, are not prevented.
If formal writing is struggling, the relation to texting may be changed in the cloak of autocorrect services. Regardless of these transforming observations, what looks both obvious and consistent over time is the fact that, irrespective of what we educate or how innovation is done, texts will remain texts. The iPhones, one of the “brightest” devices in the industry, nor yet autocorrects nor provides red lines on “TGIF” (thank God it’s Friday) and “lol” (laugh out loud). Currently, our present answer is limited: we can educate to be intellectual people who do not depend on widgets and notifications to find the tomorrow of our writing qualities; or, we can effortlessly notify Siri to correct our acronyms into their real phrases (POTUS to President of the United States).