Spotlight on First-Year Writing

Texting and Writing

Michaela Cullington
Marywood University

It’s taking over our lives. We can do it almost anywhere—walking to class, waiting in line at
the grocery store, or hanging out at home. It’s quick, easy, and convenient. It has become a con-
cern of doctors, parents, and teachers alike. What is it? It’s texting!
Text messaging—or texting, as it is more commonly called—is the process of sending and
receiving typed messages via a cellular phone. It is a common means of communication among
teenagers and is even becoming popular in the business world because it allows quick messages to
be sent without people having to commit to a telephone conversation. A person is able to say what
is needed and the other person will receive the information and respond when it’s convenient to
do so.
In order to more quickly type what they are trying to say, many people use abbreviations
instead of words. The language created by these abbreviations is called textspeak. Some people
believe that using these abbreviations is hindering the writing abilities of students, some say that
textspeak has no effect on student writing, and still others argue that texting is actually having a
positive effect on writing. This is a great debate. Although some believe that texting has either a
positive or a negative effect on writing, it in fact seems likely that texting has no significant effect
on student writing.

Concerns about Textspeak

A September 2008 article in USA Today entitled “Texting, Testing Destroys Kids’ Writing Style”
summarizes many of the most common complaints about the effect of texting. It states that according
to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 25% of high school seniors are “pro-ficient”
writers. The article quotes Jacquie Ream, a former teacher and author of K.I.S.S.— Keep It Short and
Simple, a guide for writing better and more effectively. Ream states, “[W]e have a whole generation
being raised without communication skills.” She firmly believes that because of this lack of
communication skills, students do not have the ability to write well. She blames the use of acronyms
and shorthand in text messages for students’ inability to spell and ultimately write. Ream also points
out that students struggle to convey emotion in their writing because, as she states, in text messages
“emotions are always sideways smiley faces.” She also puts blame on teachers for not teaching their
students good critical thinking skills. She says kids learn only to “parrot” infor-mation they’re given
rather than use it to develop their own thoughts and ideas. Ream concludes that “there’s a whole
generation that can’t come up with new ideas—and even if they did have a breakthrough thought or
opinion of their own, they couldn’t share it with the rest of us.”
This debate became prominent after some teachers began to believe they were seeing a

90 Young Scholars in Writing

decrease in the writing abilities of their students. Many attributed this perceived decline to the
increasing popularity of text messaging and its use of abbreviations. Naomi Baron, a linguistics
professor at American University, worried by the rise in its popularity, blames texting for the fact
that “so much of American society has become sloppy and laissez faire about the mechanics of
writing” (“Should We Worry or LOL?”). Teachers report finding “2” for “to,” “gr8” for “great,”
“dat” for “that,” and “wut” for “what,” among other examples of textspeak, in their students’ writ-
ing. A Minnesota teacher of the seventh and ninth grades says that she has to spend extra time in
class editing papers and must “explicitly” remind her students that it is not acceptable to use text
slang and abbreviations in writing (Walsh). Other proponents of the argument contend that texting
is interfering with standard written English: students do not learn how to write correctly because
they are constantly texting their friends using textspeak. One English teacher believes that text
lan-guage has become “second nature” to her students (Carey); they are so used to it that they do
not even catch themselves doing it.
Many also complain that because texting does not stress the importance of punctuation, stu-
dents are neglecting it in their formal writing. Teachers say that their students are forgetting com-
mas, apostrophes, and even capital letters to begin sentences. Proper usage of grammar rules is
nec-essary for writing effectively. If it is true that students are indeed failing to follow proper
punctua-tion rules and correct spelling as a result of constantly texting, teachers will need to make
more of an effort to instruct students on proper writing.
Another complaint is that text messages lack emotion. Many argue that texts lack feeling
because of their tendency to be short, brief, and to the point. Communicating emotions through
words is an important aspect of writing. The reader should be able to very easily understand and
often even feel how the author is feeling. Because students are not able to communicate emotion
effectively through texts, some teachers worry, they may lose the ability to do so in writing.
To get a more personal perspective on the question of how teachers perceive texting to be
influencing student writing, I interviewed two of my former high school teachers—my junior-year
English teacher and my senior-year theology teacher. Both teachers stress the importance of writ-ing in
their courses. They maintain that they notice text abbreviations in their students’ writing often. To
correct this problem, they point out when it occurs and take points off for its use. They also remind
their students to use proper sentence structure and complete sentences. The English teacher says that
she believes texting inhibits good writing—it reinforces simplistic writing which may be acceptable for
conversation but is “not so good for critical thinking or analysis.” She sug-gests that texting tends to
generate topic sentences without emphasizing the following explanation. She also says that her
students are “woefully unskilled in critical analysis and interpretation.” According to these teachers,
then, texting is inhibiting good writing. However, their evidence is limited, based on just a few
personal experiences rather than on a significant amount of research.

Responses to Concerns about Textspeak

In response to these complaints that texting is having a negative impact on student writing,
oth-ers insist that texting should be viewed as beneficial because it provides motivation to write, a
chance to practice writing skills, and an opportunity for students to gain confidence in their writ-
ing. For example, Sternberg, Kaplan, and Borck argue that texting is a good way to motivate stu-
dents. Teens enjoy texting, and if they frequently write through texts, they will be more motivated

Cullington 91
to write formally. Texting also helps to spark students’ creativity because they are always coming
up with new ways to express their ideas (417).
In addition, because they are engaging in written communication rather than oral speech, tex-
ting teens learn how to convey their message to a reader in as few words as possible. In his book
Txtng: The Gr8 Db8, David Crystal discusses a study which concludes that texting actually helps
foster “the ability to summarize and express oneself concisely” in writing (168). Furthermore,
Crystal explains that texting actually helps people to “sharpen their diplomatic skills . . . [because]
it allows more time to formulate their thoughts and express them carefully” (168). One language
arts teacher from Minnesota believes that texting helps students to learn an “element of writing,”
letting students develop their own “individual voice” (Walsh). Perfecting such a voice allows the
writer to offer personal insights and express feelings that will interest and engage readers.
Supporters of texting also argue that it not only teaches elements of writing but provides extra
practice to those who struggle with the conventions of writing. As Crystal points out, children
who struggle with literacy will not choose to use a technology that requires them to do something
that is difficult for them. However, if they do choose to text, the experience will help them learn
to write. Through this experience, teenagers can “overcome their awkwardness and develop their
social and communication skills” (Txtng 171). Shirley Holm, a junior high school teacher,
describes texting as a “comfortable form of communication” (Walsh). Teenagers are used to tex-
ting, enjoy doing so, and as a result are always writing. Through this experience of writing in
ways they enjoy, they can learn to take pleasure in writing formally. As Derek Anderson, a
composition and literature teacher, explains, “[A]ny writing is good writing, as long as you get
your point across” (Walsh). Writing skills improve with time and practice. If students are
continually writing in some form, they will eventually develop better skills.
Furthermore, those who favor texting explain that with practice comes the confidence and
courage to try new things, which some observers believe they are seeing happen with writing as a
result of texting. Teenagers have, for example, created an entirely new language—one that uses
abbreviations and symbols instead of words, does not require punctuation, and uses short, incom-
plete phrases throughout the entire conversation. It’s a way of speaking that is a language in and
of itself. Crystal, among others, sees this “language evolution” as a positive effect of texting; he
seems, in fact, fascinated that teenagers, who are so young, are capable of creating such a phe-
nomenon. He describes it as the “latest manifestation of the human ability” (Txtng 175). David
Warlick, a teacher and author of books about technology in the classroom, would agree with
Crystal. He believes students should be given credit for “inventing a new language ideal for com-
municating in a high-tech world” (Carey).

Methods
I decided to conduct my own research into this controversy. I wanted to get different, more
personal, perspectives on the issue. First, I surveyed seven high school and college students on
their opinions about the impact of texting on writing, which provided a personal account of how
students believe texting is affecting them. Second, I questioned two high school teachers (as noted
above). Finally, in an effort to compare what students are actually doing to people’s perceptions
of what they are doing, I analyzed student writing samples for instances of textspeak. 1
To let students speak for themselves about how their texting habits were influencing their writ-ing,
I created a list of questions for seven high school and college students, some of my closest and

92 Young Scholars in Writing

most reliable friends. Although the number of respondents was small, I could trust my knowledge
of them to help me best interpret their responses. In addition, these students are very different
from one another, which I believed would allow for a wide array of thoughts and opinions on the
issue. I was thus confident in their answers regarding reliability and diversity, but was cautious
not to make too many assumptions because of the small sample size.
I asked the students how long they had been texting; how often they texted; what types of
abbreviations they used most and how often they used them; and whether they noticed themselves
using any type of textspeak in their formal writing. In analyzing their responses, I looked for com-
monalities to help me draw conclusions about the students’ texting habits and if/how they
believed their writing was affected.
I also wanted some teachers’ opinions. Had they seen textspeak in their students’ writing?
Did they believe texting is hindering their students’ writing? I created a list of questions for the
teach-ers similar to the one for the students and asked two of my high school teachers to provide
their input. I asked if they had noticed their students using textspeak in their writing assignments
and, if so, how they dealt with it. I also asked if they believed texting had a positive or negative
effect on writing. Next, I asked if they were texters themselves. And, finally, I solicited their
opinions on what they believed should be done to prevent teens from using text abbreviations and
other texts-peak in their writing.
I was surprised at how different the students’ replies and opinions were from the teachers’. I
decided to find out for myself whose impressions were more accurate by comparing some
students’ actual writing vis-à-vis students’ and teachers’ perceptions of that writing. To do this I
looked at twenty samples of student writing—end-of-semester research arguments written in two
first-year college writing courses with different instructors. The paper topics varied from
increased airport security after September 11 to the weapons of the Vietnam War to autism, and
ranged from eight to ten pages. This sample gave me a firsthand look at whether or not students
were in fact incor-porating textspeak into their formal writing assignments. To analyze the papers
for the presence of textspeak, I looked closely for use of abbreviations and other common slang
terms and sayings, especially those usages which the students had stated in their surveys were
most common. These included “hbu” (“How about you?”); “gtg” (“Got to go”); and “cuz”
(“because”). I also looked for the numbers 2 and 4 used instead of the words “to” and “for.”

Discussion of Findings
My research suggests that texting actually has a minimal effect on student writing. It showed
that students do not believe textspeak is appropriate in formal writing assignments. They
recognize the difference between texting friends and writing formally and know what is
appropriate in each situation. This was proven true in the student samples, in which no examples
of textspeak were used. Many experts would agree that there is no harm in textspeak, as long as
students continue to be taught and reminded that a formal language occasion is not the place for it.
As Crystal explains, the purpose of creating the abbreviations used in text messages is to allow for
more space, not to replace language. In a standard text message, the texter is allowed only 160
characters for a com-munication: abbreviations were created to shorten words and use less space
in each message (“Texting” 81). Texting was not created to replace the English language, but
rather to make quick communications shorter and easier.
Dennis Baron, an English and linguistics professor at the University of Illinois, has done much

Cullington 93
research on the effect of technology on writing, and his findings are aligned with my own study.
In his book A Better Pencil: Readers, Writers, and the Digital Revolution, which examines how
tech-nology has changed the way people write, he concludes that students do not use textspeak in
their writing. In fact, he suggests students do not even use abbreviations in their text messages
very often. The students I surveyed stated that they rarely, if ever, use abbreviations even in their
texts. Barron says that college students have “put away such childish things, and many of them
had already abandoned such signs of middle-school immaturity in high school” (qtd. in “A Better
Pencil”). He also observes that “writers learn to adapt their style to the demands of their audience
and the conventions of the genre in which they’re writing.” His conclusions are surprising
because most people assume that texting is affecting student writing. But Baron’s findings
directly oppose that assumption.
In surveying the high school and college students, I found that most have been texting for a
few years, usually starting around ninth grade. They said they generally text between thirty and a
hundred messages every day. I also found that they use abbreviations only occasionally but the
most common are “lol” (“Laugh out loud”), “gtg” (“Got to go”), “hbu” (“How about you?”),
“cuz” (“because”), and “jk” (“Just kidding”). Each student admitted to using abbreviations in
writing on occasion but did not believe they were acceptable in formal writing. Most students,
including those I surveyed, report that they do not use textspeak in formal writing. As one
Minnesota high school student says, “[T]here is a time and a place for everything,” and formal
writing is not the place for communicating the way she would if she were texting her friends
(Walsh). Another student admits that she sometimes finds herself using these abbreviations.
However, she notices and corrects them before handing in her final paper (Carey). One teacher
reports that, despite texting, her students’ “formal writing remains solid” (Walsh). She
occasionally sees that a student has used an abbrevi-ation; however, it is in informal, “warm-up”
writing. She believes that what students choose to use in everyday types of writing is up to them
as long as they use standard English in formal writing (Walsh).
In analyzing the student writing samples, I found no evidence of textspeak. This contradicts
suggestions that texting is having a negative influence on the writing abilities of students. This
also discounts the teachers’ worries that textspeak may appear in student writing. In both the
reports from students and the writing samples, it is evident that students recognize context: in
texting, as in conversations with their friends, they can use more casual language. However, when
writing for-mally, they know they must use standard written English.
Also supporting my own research findings are those from a study which took place at a mid-
western research university. These results dispel the belief that the use of text abbreviations hinders
students’ spelling abilities. This study involved eighty-six students who were taking an Introduction to
Education course at the university. The participants were asked to complete a ques-tionnaire that
included questions about their texting habits, the spelling instruction they had received, and how
proficient they were at spelling. They also took a standardized spelling test. Before starting the study,
the researchers reasoned that texting and the use of abbreviations would have a negative impact on the
spelling abilities of the students. However, after analyzing the data they found that the results did not
support their hypothesis. The researchers also remarked that while their study did not support the belief
that texting is affecting the spelling abilities of students, the use of text messaging as a common means
of communication is becoming increasingly popu-lar; therefore, this issue should continue to be
examined (Shaw, Carlson, and Waxman).

94 Young Scholars in Writing

 I myself am a frequent texter. I chat with my friends from home every day through texting. I
also use texting to communicate with my school friends, perhaps to discuss what time we are
going to meet for dinner or to ask quick questions about homework. According to the cell phone
bill, I send and receive around 6,400 texts a month. This may seem like a lot, but compared to
many tex-ters it is a relatively low number. In the messages I send, I rarely notice myself using
abbreviations. The only time I use them is if I do not have time to write out the complete phrase.
However, some-times I find it more time consuming to try to figure out how to abbreviate
something so that my message will still be comprehendible to the reader.
Since I rarely use abbreviations in my texting, I never use them in my formal writing. I know
that they are unacceptable and it would make me look unintelligent if I included acronyms and
symbols instead of proper and formal language. I also have not noticed an effect on my spelling as
a result of texting. I am confident in my spelling abilities and even on the occasion that I use an
abbreviation, I know what it stands for and how to spell it. Based upon my own research, expert
research, and personal observations, I can confidently state that texting has no effect on writing
abilities.
The issue of whether texting is affecting students’ writing and, if so, whether it is a positive
or negative influence is much debated. It is very interesting to look at the dynamics of the
arguments. Teachers and parents who claim that they are seeing a decline in the writing abilities
of their stu-dents and children mainly support the negative impact argument. Some teachers and
researchers suggest that texting provides a way for teens to practice writing in a casual setting and
thus helps prepare them to learn to write formally. Ultimately, however, experts and students
themselves report that they see no effect, positive or negative, on their writing as a result of
texting. Teachers’ personal anecdotal experiences should not overshadow the actual evidence,
which shows that tex-ting is not interfering with students’ use of standard written English.

Note
1 All participants in the study have given permission for their responses to be published.

Works Cited
“A Better Pencil.” Inside Higher Ed., 18 Sept. 2009: n. pag. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
Baron, Dennis. A Better Pencil: Readers, Writers, and the Digital Revolution. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Carey, Bridget. “The Rise of Text, Instant Messaging Vernacular Slips into Schoolwork.” Miami Herald 6 Mar.
2007: n. pag. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.
Crystal, David. “Texting.” ELT Journal 62.1 (2008): 77–83. Wilson Web. 8 Nov. 2009.
———. Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
Shaw, Donita M., Carolyn Carlson, and Mickey Waxman. “An Exploratory Investigation into the Relationship
between Text Messaging and Spelling.” New England Reading Association Journal 43 (2007): 57–62.
Wilson Web. 8 Nov. 2009.
“Should We Worry or LOL?” NEA Today Mar. 2004: 12. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.
Sternberg, Betty, Karen A. Kaplan, and Jennifer E. Borck. “Enhancing Adolescent Literacy Achievement through
Integration of Technology in the Classroom.” Reading Research Quarterly 42 (2007): 416–20. Wilson Web.
8 Nov. 2009.
“Texting, Testing Destroys Kids’ Writing Style.” USA Today Sept. 2008: 8. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web.
9 Nov. 2009.
Walsh, James. “Txt Msgs Creep in2 class; Some Say That’s gr8.” Star Tribune 23 Oct. 2007: n. pag. Academic
Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.

Cullington 95