Textism Theory ( Rosen, Larry D)

This theory states that Instances of non-standard written language such as 4ever (forever) is .
Previous studies have shown that textese has a positive effect on children’s literacy abilities. In
addition, it is possible that children’s grammar system is affected by textese as well, as grammar
rules are often transgressed in this register. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to investigate
whether the use of textese influences children’s grammar performance, and whether this effect is
specific to grammar or language in general. Additionally, studies have not yet investigated the
influence of textese on children’s cognitive abilities. Consequently, the secondary aim of this study
was to find out whether textese affects children’s executive functions. the effects of text messaging
and instant messaging on literacy to determine whether they positively or negatively affect literacy.
Although the majority of studies found a positive correlation between texting and/or instant
messaging and literacy, others found a negative correlation, while still others report conflicting
findings or no significant correlation at all. The studies reveal that literacy scores may correlate
differently with frequency of texting, use of textese/textisms and knowledge of textisms; that there
may be different correlations for reading, writing and spelling; and that the correlations may differ
for formal and informal writing.

With children’s increasing use of mobile phones, concerns have been raised about its influence
on their literacy skills. One well-known feature of children’s text messages is that they do not
always adhere to conventional written language rules and use a register that is called textese. In
this register, children make use of phonetic replacements, such as ur instead of your and
acronyms, such as lol and drop words (e.g. stfu, ikr, smh, skl ). This has led to the assumption that
characteristics of SMS may leak into children’s general writing, ultimately resulting in language
deterioration. However, this is in sharp contrast to findings from several studies showing that
children who used textese frequently did not perform poorly on spelling and tasks measuring
literacy abilities. More recently, this research has been expanded to the effect of textese on
children’s grammar abilities in written language. Outcomes of some studies suggest a negative
influence of textese on grammar . Nevertheless, variability in coding of textese between studies
and use of written tasks, which do not strictly represent grammar, may have masked the effect of
 textese on children’s grammar abilities. Therefore, the main aim of the present study is to
ascertain whether use of textese influences children’s grammar performance in spoken language.

Constructivist Theory (Jerome Bruner)

According to Bruner, learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or
concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. The learner selects and transforms information,
constructs hypotheses, and makes decisions, relying on a cognitive structure to do so. Cognitive
structure (i.e., schema, mental models) provides meaning and organization to experiences and
allows the individual to “go beyond the information given”. As far as instruction is concerned, the
instructor should try and encourage students to discover principles by themselves. The instructor
and student should engage in an active dialog (i.e., socratic learning). The task of the instructor is
to translate information to be learned into a format appropriate to the learner’s current state of
understanding. Curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so that the student continually
builds upon what they have already learned. Bruner’s constructivist theory is a general framework
for instruction based upon the study of cognition. Much of the theory is linked to child
development research (especially Piaget ). The ideas outlined in Bruner (1960) originated from a
conference focused on science and math learning. Bruner illustrated his theory in the context of
mathematics and social science programs for young children (see Bruner, 1973). The original
development of the framework for reasoning processes is described in Bruner, Goodnow & Austin
(1951). Bruner (1983) focuses on language learning in young children.

The language shortcuts used in text messages are becoming evident in students' academic
writing assignments. This qualitative study sought to determine if the use of the shortcuts
has an adverse impact on developmental students' spelling and grammar skills. This
research was based on the constructivist theory, which rationalizes that students use what
they are most familiar with as they acquire new knowledge. The study was directed by four
research questions to understand (a) how students use language shortcuts in their academic
writing, (b) how language shortcuts influence students' spelling and grammar skills, (c)
how well students are able to differentiate between casual writing and academic writing,
and (d) how the use of language shortcuts influences the amount of writing students do. A
bounded single case study included student interviews, a focus group, and observation of
students during a writing assignment, and analysis of students' graded compositions. Data
collected from the interviews and focus group were manually transcribed and coded, and
notes from observations and artefacts were used to ensure validity of the interview findings.
Consequently, four themes emerged: (1) participants frequently used text messaging and
language shortcuts; (2) language shortcuts commonly occur in students' academic
assignments; (3) students agreed that language shortcuts have hurt spelling skills; and (4)
the participants often have academic deficiencies that go beyond errors presented through
text messaging and language shortcuts. The study's findings could influence positive social
change in that developmental students could become more proficient writers if curriculum
adjustments were made to connect academic writing instruction with the method of
communication that students frequently use and understand.
 RATIONALE

The aim of this research was to investigate the possible effects of text
messaging on students writing skills. English, like the other languages, is a very complex system
of rules in which sound structure and meaning are integrated for the purpose of communication.
The language follows general principles called rules of grammar. These rules guide the
combinations of words that convert complex meanings according to the ordering of such words.
There are suppositions and apprehensions among literate adults, language educationists and
linguists that the SMS language is a serious threat to standard written English. Indeed, there is a
great debate over the question and a great deal of arguments and counter arguments have been
offered to contribute to this hot debate. Detractors of the SMS language argue that technologically
mediated communication and its resulting languages (netspeak, netslang, SMS languages and the
like) constitute a veritable curse as they impact very negatively on student communicational skills,
particularly on their writing skills. This school of thought argues that regular use of the technology
affects the writing reflexes of the texter (in the long term) and influences him/her to use the SMS
language even in formal context.

Scope and Delimitations

The study had a number of limitations. First, it was targeted only toward freshman
college students from one institution. The students at this college were not the most ethnically
diverse and were predominantly between the ages of 18 and 24. Second, the study only averaged
two months of text message volume during the two months before the time students took the SAT
for their monthly mean texting average in this correlation. These limitations were set to encourage
student participation by not overwhelming them with a larger amount of data to present to the
researcher.

Further limitations included the fact that test results from the last time the students
took the SAT exam could have been up to two to three years old, at a time where the students may
not have had a cell phone. The study was limited in scope in that it only set out to seek a
relationship between monthly text message volume and one validated writing instrument with the
SAT writing score.

Other limitations included not examining the students’ text message sent and received totals
separately, because at the time of the study some providers did not separate these totals on their
monthly statements. Also, the study did not examine the students’ cell phone plans (e.g. the number
of free talk minutes or any text message limits they may have been restricted to following each
month). Lastly, the study did not examine the students’ cell phone capabilities (e.g. whether they
had a Blackberry, other smart phone, or a phone with a keyboard interface that could result in
easier texting).