Introduction
Several of my siblings, their friends, and other teenagers I know regularly confuse homophones and use unconventional punctuation in their text messages and on their Facebook statuses. It has been suggested that perhaps these young adults display casual language in their informal writing, yet their formal writing (e.g. school assignments or work submissions) reflects Standard English; while I have seen only their informal writing (text messages, Facebook statuses, Skype chat, e-mail), based on what I know of these adolescents I think they just don’t know the complexities of conventional English grammar. My action research project is designed to test my theory and to construct ways to make “the rules” of grammar easy to absorb and remember.
Problem Statement
Students are unfamiliar with standards of conventional English, such as which form of they’re/their/there to choose, or when NOT to add an apostrophe next to an “s.” While everyone studies “the rules” of grammar in school, I think that many students zone out at the complexity of the structure of language. What influence does the widespread use of texting have on students’ understanding of grammar?
Research Questions and Research Methods
- How can I teach high-school students to recognize and correctly choose the appropriate word when confronted with homophones?
- How can I present information so students retain it?
I will conduct research by meeting with several teenagers in at least two states through Skype to investigate whether using an interactive format that involves visual, auditory, and kinesthetic exercises to create vivid mental pictures to use in “pegging” new information to existing knowledge aids students in absorbing and remembering standard English (in this case, specifically homophones).
Students will complete the various exercises individually, in pairs, and through presentations to the entire class. Then, students will submit exit tickets identifying what they learned. I will also conduct a follow-up survey regarding which of the exercises/methods of presentation were most effective and helpful.
Significance of Study
While I’m convinced that teenagers understand the messages they’re communicating to each other despite their unconventional use of grammar, neglecting the use of standard English in formal writing might influence their admission to or standing in college or career choices since an unconventional use of English often brands people as intellectually inferior. My concern is that since teenagers write in text lingo exponentially more often than in standard English, it might be difficult for them to remember “appropriate” word choices for formal writing.
I plan to teach a lesson on homophones (based on this website) as part of a unit that uses the following sources to teach grammar, punctuation, writing, and the significance of language:
Grammar:
Woe is I, by Patricia O’Conner
Grammar Girl (use search bar)
The Oatmeal grammar comics (contains potentially-offensive content)
Punctuation:
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, by Lynn Truss
Writing:
The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White
On Writing Well, by William Zinsser
On Writing, by Stephen King (contains potentially-offensive content)
Sin and Syntax: How to Craft Wickedly Effective Prose, by Constance Hale
Anguished English, by Richard Lederer
“Politics and the English Language,” by George Orwell
Just for Fun:
Ella Minnow Pea, by Mark Dunn
Literature Review
The State of Grammar in the 21st Century
School, the grocery store, the workplace, the home—so many contexts, each with a variety of formal writing demands and informal conversations. In the last century, messages have traveled through pencil and paper, telegraph, telephone, the Internet and e-mail, cell phone, and now texting. How has literacy been influenced by these changing modes of communication? What are the implications of these changes for life in the 21st century?
Paul Budra, Associate Dean of Arts and Social Sciences at Simon Fraser University, urges the importance of teaching basic grammar skills in classrooms, claiming that today’s high school graduates are unprepared “to make themselves consistently understood in writing” (Budra, 2012).
Students seem to have absolutely no idea what an apostrophe is for. None. Absolutely none. I get their essays and I go, ‘You obviously don’t know what a sentence fragment is. You think commas are sort of like Parmesan cheese that you sprinkle on your words’ (Budra, 2010).
Budra cites the editors of Best Practices in Writing Instruction regarding modern students’ ill-preparedness for the demands of formal writing:
The writing of approximately two thirds of students in elementary, middle, and high school [is] below grade-level proficiency. Moreover, one in five first-year college students requires a remedial writing class, and more than half of new college students are unable to write a paper relatively free of errors (Graham, MacArthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007, p. 3).
What’s the big deal about being able to write in conventional English? Unlike casual speaking, “writing stands by itself and must, therefore, be more precise than verbal communication or it risks becoming confusing” (Budra, 2012, n.p.). The goal of transmitting messages is to be understood, and this requires adherence to an agreed-upon set of language guidelines. If students could understand just two grammatical ideas—1. A sentence is a complete thought, and 2. The difference between dependent and independent clauses—Budra asserts that “six of the most common and confusing writing errors” would be eliminated (sentence fragments, run-on sentences, comma splices, and incorrect use of commas, semicolons, and colons)(Budra, 2012, n.p.). Teaching correct apostrophe use and agreement between verbs and pronouns would even better equip modern students to avoid unclear communication (Budra, 2012).
The Emergence of a New Language
While students’ formal writing might be rusty, their informal writing—in the mode of texting—is proficient. The first cell-phone-based text message was sent in 1993 by a Nokia employee (Drouin & Davis, 2009). Since then, the popularity of texting has exploded throughout the world. In 2009, a national survey (Nielsen Mobile) found that adolescents and young adults sent an average of 2,899 text messages each month (Rosen, Chang, Erwin, Carrier, & Cheever, 2010). By 2010, the same survey identified that the number of text messages had increased to an average of 3,339 per month, the equivalent of one text message “every 10 minutes, almost around the clock” (Trubek, 2012, p. 49). Teens text far more than they talk on their cell phones, and “a national survey of teens” (Harris Interactive, 2008) showed that 47% of teens can text blindfolded (Rosen et al., 2010, p. 421).
Because text (“short messaging system”—SMS) messages are limited to 160 characters, words are often abbreviated, with texters adding symbols, acronyms, and emoticons, while omitting punctuation and capitalization (Drouin & Davis, 2009; Rosen et al., 2010); this new form of language is called “text speak.” Text speak has been compared to a form of shorthand, useful for “communicat[ing] big ideas using few words” (Trubek, 2012, p. 51). Digital natives, people who have grown up around computers and modern technology, “write, and perhaps even think, in this alternate speech” (Turner, 2009, p. 60).
Is there a connection between this proficiency in text speak and students’ performance on grammar assessments and in situations where formal language is required?
The Connection Between Proficiency in Text Speak and in Grammar
In a study of 228 6th-, 7th-, and 8th-grade students in central Pennsylvania, researchers Drew Cingel and S. Shyam Sundar discovered a connection between the text-speak proficiency of middle-school students and their scores on a grammar assessment test. Students were tested only on “verb-noun agreement, use of correct tense, homophones, possessives, apostrophes, comma usage, punctuation, and capitalization,” the equivalent of 6th-grade grammar topics (Sparks, 2012, p. 13). The researchers discovered that “the more students sent text messages using text-speak, the worse their grammar” (Sparks, 2012, p. 13). In fact, Sundar concluded that “frequent texting negatively predict[ed] the test results, but both sending and receiving text adaptations were associated with how poorly [students] performed on the test” (Swayne & Messer, 2012, n.p.).
“When tweens write in techspeak [language adaptions], they often use shortcuts, such as homophones, omissions of non-essential letters and initials, to quickly and efficiently compose a text message” (Swayne & Messer, 2012, n.p.). Through his research, Cingel observed that “using these shortcuts may hinder a tween’s ability to switch between techspeak and the normal rules of grammar” (National Science Teachers Association, 2012, p. 24). Indeed, 64% of teens polled in the 2008 Pew American & Internet Life Project acknowledged their use of informal writing styles for school assignments, “with 50% removing capitalization and punctuation, 38% using [acronyms], and 25% using emoticons” in their formal writing (Rosen et al., 2010, p. 422).
The media, researchers, teachers, and parents disagree about whether texting cripples learning. Proposals of retroactive interference and decay theory warn that later learning can interfere with earlier learning, eventually causing neural connections to “deteriorate from disuse” if text speak supersedes Standard English in frequency (Drouin & Davis, 2009, p. 51). However, the psychologist H.P. Bahrick counters that it is unlikely that digital natives will forget the “common words” they are abbreviating through text speak, since these words have been “overlearned”; in addition, it will be difficult to forget uncommon words that lack text-speak abbreviations, since they “have to be spelled out” anyway (Drouin & Davis, 2009, p. 64).
Plester, Wood, and Joshi (2009) assert that higher ratios of text speak to Standard English actually identify higher levels of reading, vocabulary, and phonological awareness (Rosen et al., 2010). Trubek agrees that a greater grasp of literacy is required to manipulate language into text speak: “To abbreviate message as msg or tonight as 2nite, you have to understand how sounds and letters work, or how words are put together” (Trubek, 2012, p. 50). Furthermore, Trubek compares the 160-character limit of a text message to the metrical constraints of traditional poetry, asserting that brevity “promotes creativity” as texters endeavor to make themselves understood despite space constraints (Trubek, 2012, p. 50).
While texting encourages communication, it is detrimental to students’ proficiency in demonstrating Standard English rules of grammar in formal writing (Rosen et al., 2010). In two studies of 718 young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 years old, researchers noticed that those who “who reported using more shortened words in their electronic communications had worse formal writing” (Rosen et al., 2010, p. 432). Using more “linguistic textisms,” “the lowercase ‘i,’” and “simultaneous IM conversations” also correlated with inferior formal writing abilities (Rosen et al., 2010, p. 432). Interestingly, the only exception was that people who used more “smilies” in their text speak were also more adept at expressing themselves through formal writing (Rosen et al., 2010, p. 433). While text speak complicates formal writing assignments, proficiency in using abbreviated language has been demonstrated to significantly improve people’s informal writing skills (Rosen et al., 2010, p. 433).
What Does The Connection Between Texting and Literacy Mean for Educators?
In their quest to train students to recognize and remember Standard English grammar and style, educators are not clamoring for a return to the Dark Ages before texting and technology. Instead, since the abbreviated language of text speak is here to stay, teachers need to explore ways to use the engaging, interactive, continuously-changing format of technology to train students in “well-organized, well-reasoned writing” (Stirling, 2008, p. 12). In contrast to the traditional view of textbooks as depositories of knowledge and worksheets containing discrete grammar facts as the primary vehicles for learning, I propose that our view of language acquisition expand to include websites, comic strips, videos, and even text messaging as far more engaging ways to place grammar within its context using formats students understand. Making practical language connections through vivid animations and group activities that reflect students’ leisure pastimes of viewing YouTube videos, reading comics, and creating content is a familiar vehicle for teaching abstract grammar concepts.
How the Literature Review Impacts the Design of the Action Research Project
According to the research contained in this literature review, texting proficiency develops students’ informal writing skills, but not their formal writing ability. I think that if students can learn, experiment with, and practice conventional grammar in a similar method as how they practice texting (user friendly and readily available), “the rules” of Standard English will become just as familiar as the abbreviations of text speak. By whisking grammar from the hallowed halls of academia and integrating it into students’ daily lives in interactive, engaging formats that use visual, auditory, and kinesthetic activities, conventional English will be inseparably woven into students’ subconscious minds, yielding fewer aberrations from Standard English even in informal writing and coaxing formal writing into friendship.
In keeping with my goals of presenting English grammar in an interactive, engaging format that reflects students’ leisure activities, the original students whose unconventional use of grammar and punctuation piqued my interest in a search for an understandable way to acquire grammar skills will be invited to participate in collaborative, inquiry-based exercises based on my website, http://homophones.yolasite.com/. To integrate the use of texting in learning homophones, I will explore the possibilities of texting polls (which I create related to concepts on the website) to students through a website such as www.polleverywhere.com. I also plan to investigate https://studyboost.com and cel.ly to find a forum for discussing topics through group text. Using the familiar mode of texting might help students to make permanent connections between abstract, complex, unfamiliar grammar concepts.
References
Budra, P. (2010). The Abysmal Grammar of Generation Text. Maclean’s, 123(5), 19.
Budra, P. (2012). The Case for Teaching Grammar. Education Canada, 52(4). Retrieved 26 October 2012 from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/case-teaching-grammar.
Drouin, M., and Davis, C. (2009). R u texting? Is the Use of Text Speak Hurting Your Literacy? Journal of Literacy Research, 41(1), 46-67.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., and Fitzgerald, J. (2007). In Best Practices in Writing Instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2012). Texting May Lead to Poor Grammar Skills. Science Teacher, 79(7), 24.
Rosen, L. D., Chang, J., Erwin, L., Carrier, L. M., and Cheever, N. A. (2010). The Relationship Between “Textisms” and Formal and Informal Writing Among Young Adults. Communication Research, 37(3), 420-440.
Sparks, S. D. (2012). Duz Txting Hurt Kidz Gramr? Absolutely, a New Study Says. Education Week, 31(37), 13.
Stirling, R. (2008). The Trouble With Txt. Technology & Learning, 28(10), 12.
Swayne, M., and Messer, A. (2012). No LOL matter: Tween texting may lead to poor grammar skills. EurekAlert!. Retrieved 26 October 2012 from http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-07/ps-nlm072612.php.
Trubek, A. (2012). Txting 2 Lrn. Instructor, 121(5), 49-51.
Turner, K. H. (2009). Flipping the Switch: Code-Switching from Text Speak to Standard English. English Journal, 98(5), 60-65.
#bookhenge
w0rdlvr 