Whyde 1

Ryan Whyde
Professor Granillo
English 101
18 October 2018
Texting Causes Poor Writers: Research Tells a Different Story

Three hours into writing a six-page essay, while reviewing I notice that I wrote the

shortened-for-text version of though, “tho.” It is unlikely that I am alone in making the mistake

of writing as if I were in an instant messaging conversation, of course, we are quick to fix these

mistakes, but do these mistakes lead to a larger problem with our writing? Currently, some

literary scholars' debate over the relevance of text messaging when it comes to the development

of our writing skills. Michaela Cullington is motivated to write the article, “Does Texting Affect

Writing,” to find a conclusive answer as to whether texting leads to poor writing skills, as well as

being motivated by her field of study; relying largely on logos, her argument provides a more

facts-driven answer to the topic at hand. Cullington is correct in her assessment of the effects of

texting, but her research contains some flaws; further research provides insight that Cullington

grazes over, for instance, her small sample size and focus on an older demographic. Texting

doesn’t link to poor literacy skills, so rather than condemning the new norm of communication,

teachers should try to adapt it into their lessons; all the while enforcing the distinction between

texting and writing formally.

Cullington is determined to understand if students are negatively affected by texting in

their writing. She wishes to understand the issue through personal experience, rather than

external research (Cullington 466). She can read countless articles on the controversy, but her

needs require personal experience to find a conclusive answer to the query; Cullington has the

perspective of seeing is believing. The issue influences her more personally, given her

credentials. Cullington is a speech and language pathologist and has master's degree in a field of
 Whyde 2

the same name (Cullington 462). Speech and language pathologists work with people to treated

problems with speech and literacy skills; so, knowing how this common medium of

communication, instant messaging, affects our reading and writing is imperative to her line of

work. The cause of her article leads to a line of research-driven reasoning.

While Cullington evokes ethos by establishing both sides of the debate, her most

pronounced use of rhetoric is logos. Her research consists of testing students, discuss with the

teachers about the general literary skills of the students, and scanning for texting lingo in the

writing (467). Her methods of examination are meant to compare perception versus reality. In

doing so, it adds credibility to her research, making the results less intuitive and more calculated.

The transparency she demonstrates adds to the credibility of her results. Cullington explains that,

“… [Students] recognize the difference between texting with friends and writing formally and

know what is appropriate for each situation” (468). Students are smarter than some give them

credit; texting has no clear negative effect on the writing of students, according to Cullington.

Her investigation solidifies a clear answer to her title, although at times a student may make a

mistake and text speak, they are quick to fix it and often avoid it. With that said, there is a

problem with Cullington’s argument.

To put it bluntly, Cullington’s research consists of a relatively small sample sized.

Naysayers will be quick to point out this fact, and they are correct to do so. She acknowledges

that she is working with a small but diverse group but believes that they are reliable enough to

represent the society at large. (467). While the sentiment is endearing, it takes away from her

findings, due to the sheer fact that with so many differentiating factors in people, seven aren’t

enough to make a conclusive statement on the subject at hand. Luckily for her, outside research

adds to her argument.

 Whyde 3

Leslie M. Janin-Starr writes a compelling scholarly journal, titled An Examination of

Texting's Impact on Writing, which discusses to what extent texting affects writing. She, in

contrast with Cullington, works with a much large sample size, she writes, “This research

incorporated the results of 10 professor interviews, 10 student interviews, and 105 online survey

responses” (Janin-Starr iv). Rather than exclusively having sample questions for the educators

and students, Janin-Starr conducts interviews with both, in addition to a much larger number of

participants answering sample questions. Her larger net of examines gives her the credibility that

Cullington lacks. So, when Janin-Starr explains there is little to no correlation to texting and

writing, readers are compelled to agree. After her research, Janin-Starr finds that “There is no

statistically significant relationship between the frequency of texting and student performance on

writing examinations” (82). Her research largely shows that college students don’t have poor

writing skills because of their texting habits, because college students rarely use shortened or

abbreviated terminology. As a student matures, their writing becomes more complex, less

dependent on the crutch of emojis and slang. Janin-Starr comes to a similar conclusion as

Cullington, the main distinction is the amount of field research each author conducted. If

Cullington were to supplement her own findings with that of Janin-Starr, the flaws in her paper

could have been circumvented. Through this newly found knowledge, Cullington would now

have a, more solid, platform to stand on to support her argument. Although the quantity of

research would be covered, the specificity of the paper’s demographic still holds it back

While we see adults have little issue with transitioning from texting to formal writing, it

may very well be a different story with children. Ahmed Al Shlowiy brings up this potential

problem in his article “TEXTING ABBREVIATIONS AND LANGUAGE LEARNING”, where

he determines, “Adolescents and teenagers use texting language extensively to communicate.

 Whyde 4

Smartphone possession has been growing at a speed rate. These facts generate some concerns

about the effects on children's language” (Al Shlowiy). It is unclear if children respond

differently to the poor grammar that comes with communication through texting and social

networks. From one perspective, constant emojis and abbreviations may confuse a younger

audience. Cullington’s field research neglects this younger demographic; under the

circumstances that her research covered the effects on texting on multiple age groups, here

message would have a much greater impact due to her acknowledging the variability in people.

There are clear potential negative aspects of text-based writing; we do see an equal number of

positive. To counter his previously stated problem, he points out that, “Creating such

abbreviations [such as "2day" for "today"] with a phonetic basis shows a high level of

phonological awareness. It proves the positive side of the texting language … by linking

phonological awareness and skills of spelling and writing” (Al Shlowiy). Knowing how to make

shortened versions of words shows a deeper understanding of how reading and language works.

Al Shlowiy explains that by being able to take out vowels of words or replacing portions with

readable numbers or symbols, strengthens the ways we create connections with reading and

language. He later explains that children more easily accomplish the task of abbreviation. The

strength in children shows in this field leads some to see that textspeak may open youth’s ability

for cognitive thinking. Because of the nullifiable aspects of texting, it is safe to embrace the

medium, in order to enrich the curriculum of classes.

Due to instant messaging’s neutral effect on student’s writing, as previously described, it

is safe to engage in the texting style in a classroom setting; doing so will aid in their work.

Sheelah Sweeny writes in the article, "Writing for the Instant Messaging and Text Messaging

Generation: Using New Literacies to Support Writing Instruction," to explain how the texting
 Whyde 5

style of writing benefits students. One example of the adaptation she gives is, “students are

required to make a minimum number of tweets each week, which may or may not be related to a

specific assignment. The goal is to create a sense of belonging in the education setting” (Sheelah

Sweeny). Having student’s temporarily abandon their academic voice allows them to connect

with the class. This connection leads to them to ease into their writing, less self-conscious about

their underdeveloped writing style. When students can freely make mistake, they get the

opportunity to correct said mistakes, an ability made more possible due to the comfort and

“belonging” Sweeny describe. Cullington definitively states that texting doesn’t hurt the writing

of students, but the reality is, texting connects students with writing on a casual basis. Cullington

is correct and deserves to know that texting influences young scholars beyond the paper.

Cullington claims that student’s messaging habits do not affect the way they form pieces

of literature; furthermore, research in support of her argument not only tells us that she is correct,

but that her clam extends to most other students. This deeper dive into the subject drives us to

agree with her notion on the subject matter, and even propel some to enforce academia with this

new method of communication. These daring few choose not to shame students for

communicating through their own means, and instead find a way to use their norms to connect

with the class. Other educators must be open to change, especially when technology is

concerned, for doing so acknowledges the differences in upbringing between the recent

generations and that of our own. To act as doom-sayers that preach about how texting is ruining

the literacy of our youth is to denounce the apparent good it brings. We can choose to fallow the

times or be left behind; the choice is ours

 Whyde 6

Works Cited

Al Shlowiy, Ahmed. (2014). TEXTING ABBREVIATIONS AND LANGUAGE

LEARNING.International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7(3), 455-468. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.canyons.edu:2048/login?

url=https://ezproxy.canyons.edu:2457/docview/1644634482?accountid=38295

Cullington, Michaela. “Does texting Affect Writing”. They Say / I

Say, Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst, 4th Edition, Norton, 18 April 2010, pp

462 – 473.

Janin-Starr, L. (2014). An Examination of Texting's Impact on Writing (Order No.

3628617). Available from ProQuest Central. (1560258231). Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.canyons.edu:2048/login?

url=https://ezproxy.canyons.edu:2457/docview/1560258231?accountid=38295

Sweeny, Sheelah M. "Writing for the Instant Messaging and Text Messaging

Generation: Using New Literacies to Support Writing Instruction." Journal of Adolescent

& Adult Literacy, vol. 54, no. 2, 2010, pp. 121-130. ProQuest,

http://ezproxy.canyons.edu:2048/login?

url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/757809515?accountid=38295,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.2.4.