Friday, April 27, 2012

Technology in the Classroom


A ravishing debate in the area integrating technology and society is the presence of technology in our schools and classroom. This debate has been ongoing over the past decades as scholars and administrators argue the benefits and draw backs of placing technology inside the classroom. There are already schools that have integrated one to one laptop programs, essentially providing one laptop for every student in enrollment (Lei, 2010), and in the past ten years the U.S. alone has invested more than $66 billion in school technology (Quality Education Data, 2004). Likewise, there are other programs across the world that has the same aim. China is one of the leading proponents of technology in the classroom spending over 40 billion annually on the cause (Okokok Report, 2004). These are old numbers and with technology advancing faster than ever, we can assume that these figure could be on the rise.
            Now some world economist would postulate that if we don’t want our children to be behind in yet another area of public education, we should invest the money into education with haste. However, as always we shall look at what the research has to say on whether this is helping or a hindering in the public education system.  However, there are many sides of this issue that need to be considered including public policy, costs, teachers opinions, as well as what research may say is best for the students.
One of the most popular and cost effective ways to introduce technology to the public school system is cellphones. Cell phones have for as long as I can remember been banned from every public school I have ever attended, in fact, they are banned in 69% of classrooms nationwide (Commonsense, 2010). Public schools have many fears about openly allowing the use of cell phones in the classroom by students.  These seem obvious to anyone who has ever worked or attended a school – kids can use the phones to cheat (CommonSense, 2010; Strom & Strom, 2007), they could use textese instead of Standard English (for a refutation of this fear see my previous blog post)( Brouin & Davis, 2009; Lee, 2002; Lenhart, Arafef, Smith, &, Macgill, 2008), and there is also the fear of cyber bullying (Beran & Li, 2005; Feinberg & Robey, 2008; Long, 2008; Obringer & Coffey, 2007) and sexting in schools (Boucek, 2009; Car- roll, 2004; Soronen, Vitale, & Haase, 2010). These fears have been allowed to disregard that todays cell phones are inexpensive mobile computing devices with access to a large range of applications that could be beneficial in the classroom. The bonus to this is that most teens already own a cell phone and are proficient in their use of the technology. Youthbeat (2009) reported that 84% of teens between the ages of 15-18 years old have a cell phone, and 85% of those use their cell phones for texting. Additionally, 70% of these teens are already using texting for school work (Lenhart, Ling, Campell, & Purcell, 2010). Let me make it clear – I am not saying these fears are without merit, but I am saying that they are based mostly on anecdotal evidence, and ignore that fact that while cell phones may make it easier for students to engage in these behaviors, they are far from the cause.
In this post, I will attempt to address all of these concerns as well as show potential academic uses for cell phones in the classroom. In addition, I will highlight some research that not only shows that using technology is not hurting kids, but in fact may be providing them with benefits seen beyond the classroom.
First, one of schools main concerns about allowing phones in the classroom is that students would find it difficult to code switch between textese and Standard English. My previous post deals entirely with refuting this misinformation and anecdotal evidence. To summarize, Drouin (2011) found that textese is not hurting people’s knowledge of Standard English, and it could actually be improving literacy rates. Basically, as speech and language therapist Veenal Raval notes:   
“The fear that has been put across in the media is that children don’t understand the need to code switch-that is, switch between Standard English grammar for an exam or essay and what is acceptable when you are communicating on a social level. In fact, they are capable of that switch, just as bi- or tri-lingual children might speak English at school and mother or father tongue at home (Ward, 2004).”
Secondly, schools are worried about students using their phone to cheat. In fact, a recent study by Common Sense Media (2010) found that one0third of high school students reported using their cell phones to cheat. While this is an alarming statistic, we must remember that the practice of cheating is not a result of the cell phone. In 1980, before mobile phones, 75% of students reported cheating in school (Baird, 1980). Twenty-five years later, 74% of students reported cheating in school (Pickett & Thomas, 2006). Teenagers are teenagers, and it seems that the same percentage cheats no matter the technology. Therefore, removing the opportunity to use cell phones will hardly fix this issue. A better resolution would be for students to check in their phones at the beginning of a testing period and retrieve them when they leave the room (Thomas & McGee, 2012).
            Thirdly, a concern for schools is cyberbullying. The act of bullying has always been in schools, and anywhere that young people gather. Cyberbullying is just a new way that kids have found to hurt fellow students. The Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 26% of teens have been harassed through their mobile phone either by calls or text messages (Lenhart et al., 2010). However, banning cell phones is not going to stop bullying nor has it in the past. Rather, teachers, students, and parents need to be educated about bullying and digital behavior, how to build empathy and understanding, teach online safety skills, and equip young people with strategies to reject digital bullies (Holladay, 2010). This fear also connects with the next concern: sexting.
            As David Crystal (2008) says in Txting: The Gr8 Db8, much of the fear associated with cell phones and texting is a creation of the media. This is no more relevant than with sexting. As many as one in five teens have reported sending a nude or semi-nude photo of themselves to someone in a text message and 22% report having received such an image from someone else (National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy). Again, teenagers have been talking and writing about sex since the dawn of humanity. There is nothing new in technology that supports this behavior. Rather, it is just the result of lack of guidance and mentoring on what is and is not appropriate behavior (Thomas & McGee, 2012).
            Teaching technology in schools is analogous to teaching driver’s education in schools. Just as the driver’s education instructor teaches students how to properly drive a vehicle, educators should be teaching students the appropriate use of technologies if for no other reason than they are, “learning to do something very important that carries some inherent and significant personal and social dangers” (Hargadon, 2008). An alarming number of students are injured or killed in traffic accidents each year, but no one blames the car for these tragedies. It is accepted that driver error, and not the car itself, is at fault. The same is true of cell phones used for inappropriate activity (Thomas & McGee, 2012).
            The fear of texting in schools goes beyond student to student interacts. Some fear that texting may lead to inappropriate relationships between teachers and students. Some states such as Louisiana have banned electronic communications between students and teachers, including texting (LaMonte, 2009; Watters, 2011).  Wolfe (2007) admits that technologies such as texting have the potential to be invasive, but so does email or the landline phone. He states that teachers who follow the proper guidelines can use any technology in a professional manner. 

Instructional Benefits
           
            Text messaging can support numerous types of participant interactions such as student to student, student to teacher, student to content, and teacher/school to parent communication (Thomas & McGee, 2012).  Students are already using their cell phones to text one another about school- work. In fact, 76% of girls and 64% of boys text about school work (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010). This shows us that students are already using text messages as an informal way to collaborate on homework assignments; however, teachers can use them for more formal assignments.  For example, Nick Schultz, a high school Latin teacher sent students text messages in Latin and they were expected to respond in Latin. There is a growing body of research that supports that this kind of communication is helpful when teaching languages (Thomas & Orthober, 2011).
            Texting can also be seen as a way to assess students in the classroom such as with pop quizzes, spelling and math tests, and to poll student responses (Prensky, 2005). Whattananarong (2006) found that cell phones can be an effective form of test taking. Companies like Kaplan and the Princeton Review have already adopted this research, and offer text based test preparation for the SATs and other standardized tests. Additionally, texting can be used for taking attendance and for polling student responses on sites such as Poll Everywhere (polleverywhere.com), which allows cell phones to be used as a response system. These answers are anonymous and provide fast responses on classroom material, and can facilitate discussion among class members (Roschelle, 2004; Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004).
            Text messaging can also be used by teachers and school administrators to communicate with parents. Research has demonstrated that providing students and parents with regular communication about assignments leads to a high completion rate (Si-Chu & Williams, 1996), and open communication between schools and parents is directly related to student achievement (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). 
            Finally, texting allows for greater student reflection. They can use texting to add to class discussions after class has already end for the day (Markett et al., 2003), and it could also allow shier students to participate more in class discussions (Davis, 2003).
            Cell phones can also use cell phones to create digital images and podcasts for projects, as well as used for Internet access and educational applications (such as a graphing calculator app for math class) (Thomas & McGee, 2012).

One Study

            Adapting technology for the classroom can have several benefits for students. Lei (2010) assessed student technology use in a school that had highly integrated technology to a one to one laptop to student ratio. This study divided technology use into five different categories: (1) Subject-specific uses; (2) social-communication; (3) construction-technology uses, such as using technology to create websites or editing pictures; (4) exploration/entertainment technology uses, such as playing games or using new technology; and (5) general technology which included technology that can be applied to any content area and for any purpose such as taking notes or surfing the web. This study also measured technology use as it was related to student academic achievement, technology proficiency, learning habits, and developmental outcomes.
            The survey was distributed to 237 seventh and eighth graders twice, once at the beginning of a school year and once at the end. Achievement data was collected from GPAs in school records. It assessed demographic information including SES and gender, all the technology areas listed above, time spent on technology, GPA, and technological proficiency (Lei, 2010).
            The study found that there was no strong association between quantity of technology use and student GPA (Lei, 2010). This supports previous research that students who use computers more frequently at school did not perform better than those who used technology less frequently (OECD, 2005). However, we must remember that this pertains only to overall computer use, and does not in any way assess how students are interacting with the technology, or how/if they are using it as a tool for schoolwork.  Similarly, when not taking into account student interactions with technology and only looking at quantity of technology use, there was no significant relationship between technology proficiency and developmental outcomes (Lei, 2010).
            However, we see remarkably different results when assessing types of technology use. For instance, Lei (2010) found that using technology for social-communication purposes had some positive effect on student GPA. This was most likely due to the students using these communication technologies to communicate with teachers regarding assignments and questions on lectures (Lei, 2010). These technologies also provided students with more avenues to ask questions. This could be particularly helpful for students who are too shy to ask questions in class. In fact, Lei (2010) had several teachers report that shy students were the one most likely to take adavantage of these communication pathways most frequently.
            Lei (2010) also found that using technology for entertainment and exploration was negatively associated with student achievement. This is likely the result of students using their study time for gaming and other entertainment technologies. The more time students spent engaged in these technologies, the less time they had for learning. Further, subject-specific technologies had a negative influence on student technology proficiency. This is likely caused by technologies developed for specific subjects do not have a wide range of tasks, and so they give students little cause to use exploratory techniques. Also, the limited manner in which they provide access to technology does not translate into using more common software such as Microsoft Office or Adobe Suite. However, general technology use was found to be positively associated with student technology proficiency. Also, in addition to being slightly positively associated with student academic achievement, social-communication technology use had a significantly positive impact on student developmental outcomes. It is arguable that the more students use technologies for social-communication, the more they feel socially connected, which is very important in teenage development (Wighting, 2006).
            As one would expect from the earlier finding discussed, entertainment-exploration technology use significantly influenced student’s learning habits. Early we reported that a high quantity of use in entertainment-exploration technology was negatively associated with student achievement outcomes. However, it seems that some exposure can be helpful in helping students follow project directions and organize and prioritize schoolwork. This advantage can be far outweighed if one spends too much time on entertainment and gaming on computers.
           
Implications

            As you can see, there are many benefits to students using technology in the classroom as supported by research. Like with every topic I cover, I encourage you to go out there and look at the research yourself. I choose to review the one study that I did by Lei (2010) because I felt it was the most encompassing study that hit on what I wanted to cover. However, as with any research, it is not perfect. There are limitations to assessing technology use in the classroom, as well as barriers to implementing them.
            As one teacher pointed out in Lei’s (2010) study, student learning with technology is difficult to measure because much of learning is hidden. Students now have the opportunities and resources to explore far beyond the borders of what is presented in the classroom. This points to one of the main arguments with this research, the validity of measuring student academic achievement by GPA. Tests with paper and pencil were used to measure learning in traditional setting such as with a lecture and notes. If we are pushing our classrooms beyond this, then maybe we need to push our assessments there also. Also, this should not be the only variable by which we measure technological integration with. We should further take into account other student outcomes in future research such as student behavior, attitude, self-esteem, digital literacy, and career aspirations (Lei, 2010).
            Further, we need to keep in mind realistic expectations for technological integration in schools. Our public school systems are full of problems, and technology is not the answer to all of them. No student outcomes will be fully mediated by technology. Other predictors of outcomes are environmental factors, the users, and as Lei (2010) shows the type of technology plays an important role. It would be unrealistic then, to expect dramatic changes with the integration of one or two specific technologies. I do, however, think that this research gives us an idea of where our schools and education systems may be headed to in the future.

Sources
Baird, J. S. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psy- chology in the Schools, 17, 515–522
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 265-277.
Boucek, S. G. (2009). Dealing with the nightmare of “sex- ting”. Education Digest, 75(3), 10-12.
Brouin & Davis, 2009;
Carroll, C. A. (2004). Camera phones raise whole new set of privacy issues. Education Week, 23(23), 8.
CommonSense Media (2010). Hi-Tech Cheating: Mobile Phones and Cheating in Schools: A National Poll. Retrieved from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/ hi-tech-cheating
Crystal, D. (2008). Textng: the gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feinberg, T., & Robey, N. (2008). Cyber bullying. Princi- pal Leadership, 9(1), 10-14.
Hargadon, 2008 Hargadon, S. (2008). Moving toward Web 2.0 in K-12 Education. Encyclopedia Britannica Blog. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/10/movingtoward-web-20-in-k-12-education/
Henderson & Mapp, 2002 Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave
of evidence. The impact of school, family, andcom- munity connections on student achievement. Annual synthesis. Austin, TX: National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections.
LaMonte, 2009; LaMonte, F. (2009). Louisiana joins “technophobia” craze with restraints on teacher-student communications. Student Press Law Center. Retrieved from http://www. splc.org/wordpress/?p=308
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010)Teens and Mobile Phones. Pew
Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Wash-ington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx
Long, C. (2008). Silencing Cyberbullies. NEA Today, 26, 28-29.
Markett, C., Sanchez, I. A., Weber, S., & Tangney, B. (2006). Using short message service to encourage in- teractivity in the classroom. Computers and Education, 46, 280-293.
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M.(2004). Literature review in mobile
technologies and learning, FutureLab Report II. Retrievedfrom http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/docu-ments/lit_reviews/Mobile_Review.pdf
Obringer, S. J., & Coffey, K. (2007). Cell phones in American high schools: A national survey. The Journal ofTechnology Studies, 31, 41-47.
Prensky, M. (2005). What can you learn from a mobile phone? Almost anything! Innovate, 1(5). [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index. php?view=article&id=83
Roschelle, J. (2004). Unlocking the learning value of wire- less mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 260-272.
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2007). Curbing cheating, raising integrity. The Education Digest, 72(8), 42-50.
Sui-Chu, E., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126-141.
Ward, L. (2004). Texting is no bar to literacy. The Guardian. December 23, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/dec/23/schools.mobilephones
Ward, L. (2004). Texting is no bar to literacy. The Guardian. December 23, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/dec/23/schools.mobilephones
Whattananarong, K. (2006). Experiment in the use of mobile phones. Bangkok, Thailand: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http:// etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12606048/index.pdf
YouthBeat: A Syndicated Report. (2009). C & R Research.Retrieved from http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/2be698e9#/2be698e9/1
Okokok Report (2004). “2005 Market Report of China’s Educational Technology Development and IT Application Trends’. Retrieved from http://www.okokok.com.cn/Shop/Class41/200411/167.html
Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. R. (2008). Writing, Technology and Teens. Retrieved from http:// www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Writing_Report_FINAL3.pdf.
Davis, S. (2003). Observations in classrooms using a net- work of handheld devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 298-307.
Soronen, L. E., Vitale, N., & Haase, K. A. (2010). Sexting at School: Lessons learned the hard way. Inquiry and Analysis: National School Boards Association Council of School Attorneys. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/SecondaryMenu/COSA/Resources/InquiryAnalysis/ IA-Feb-10.aspx
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011). Using Text-Messag- ing in the Secondary Classroom. American Secondary Education, 39(2), 55-76.
Drouin, M.A. (2011). College students’ text messaging, use of textese, and literacy skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27, 67-75. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00399.x
Thomas, K. M., & McGee, C. D. (2012). The only thing we have to fear is… 120 characters. TechTrends 56, 19-33.

Text Messaging and Literacy


Many of us fear that text messaging and the use of “textese” may be adversely affecting children and adults’ use of Standard English.  The media has promoted these fears with anecdotal reports given by educators of children using textisms in their formal writing, and, in some cases, by supervisors showing concern for their employees’ use of these abbreviations in their professional writing (Lee, 2002; Barker, 2007; Rogers, 2008). According to recent research on the topic, these individuals may be the outliers, and texting and textisms may actually serve as a way to increase reading skills, literacy, and spelling fluency.

Or does it? 
What is textese? What is a textism?
  Textese is an abbreviated vocabulary that includes initialisms, letter/number homophones, contractions or shortenings of words or phrases, emoticons (symbols for representing emotions such as L for sad), and the deletions of unnecessary words, vowels, punctuation, and capitalization (Thurlow, 2003; Carrington, 2004; Varnhagen et al., 2010). This vocabulary stems from text messages originally only being able to contain up to 120 characters, and forcing users to form a more economical mode of communication within this limitation. Abbreviations such as “2nite” for tonight and “gr8” for great are common occurrences in this abbreviated language. The language does not end with just words, but some of the most common “textisms” are often whole phrases, such as “lol” for laugh out loud, “C u l8r” for see you later, or even “omw” for on my way. These abbreviated phrase can even be as complicated as “idc wots ur add cwot” meaning I don’t care what your address is – complete waste of time.  Maybe phrases such as this one are why scholars deemed to give these communications the name textese, because it reads almost like a language of its own.
            To some these may seem quite foreign and a complete bastardization of the language we speak on a daily basis, but increasingly it is becoming more and more common for people to communicate using these textisms. Text messaging surpassed voice calls in popularity as a means to communicate while mobile in 2008, and has been on the rise ever since (Reardon, 2008; Drouin, 2011).

Research Theories
            The research having been done on texting and literacy is not vast, nor clear cut. There are several theories that attempt to explain the impact that texting and the use of textese is having on adults and children’s reading, spelling, and language fluency. Some theories related to psychological theories on memory.
Drouin and Davis (2009) suggested that the theories of retroactive interference and decay may be at play. This was hypotesized when the research was assumed to follow the anecdotal evidence provided by the media. Retroactive interference suggests that information presented at a later time may interfere with information presented at an earlier time (McGeoch, 1932; Britt, 1935). Meanwhile, decay theory states that learned information that is not accessed may be less accessible over time (Brown, 1958). Dourin and Davis (2009) applied this to the scenario of textisms and hypothesized that exposure to the textism might make is more difficult to remember the Standard English spelling of words. Alternatively, in cases where the Standard English version of a word is not accessed over a long period of time, it would become more difficult to remember.  There theory gained initial support for previous research examining processes with regard to spelling in adults has shown that even a single exposure to a misspelled word can have a detrimental impact on future spellings of that word (Jacoby & Hollingshead, 1990; Dixon & Kamiska, 1997; Kratz & Frost, 2001). Further, this effect is especially pronounced when a misspelled word is a plausible phonological alternative (or it looks the way it sounds) (Kratz & Frost, 2001). Thus, it could indeed be possible that continued exposure to textism (interference) could lead to forgetting (or decay) of the Standard English presentation.
However, recent research has not been able to lend support to these theories of memory interference, and, in fact, it has shown just the opposite to be the case, text messaging may actually be positively associated with children and adult literacy (Plester et al., 2008, 2009). There have been two broad theories to explain these findings. First, Plester et al. (2009) suggested that texting can allow people access to a form of written language which is not constrained by standard grammer and spelling or produced for the purposes of formal learning practice in school, but rather as a means of easy communication with frieds. Crystal (2008) and Leake (2008) further hypothesized that this freeing from conventional constraints and the additional necessity of brevity to fall within the character limit allows children and adults to use reading and writing in a much more playful way.  
            These theories postulate that there may be something about the very nature of texting and textisms that help with literacy (Powell & Dixon, 2011). In order to read or produce textisms, one has to have a good level of phonological awareness, that is, sensitivity to the underlying sound structure of spoken language. The fact that texting could be mediated by phonological processes suggests that it may be linked to phonological awareness, which had been repeatedly shown to predict literacy measures (Powell & Dixon, 2011; Adams, 1990).

Two Research Studies
            Dixon and Powell (2011) conducted a study using 94 undergraduate students where participants were exposed to misspellings, correct spellings, and textisms. Participants were given a pre- and post- test measure on spelling ability. During this one exposure, significant positive effects on posttest scores could be seen in both the correct spelling exposure group and the textism exposure group. This study provides experimental evidence that even a single exposure to textisms can have a positive effect on knowledge of words and standard spellings.
            Drouin (2011) conducted another study that had some other interesting findings. In this study, 152 undergraduate students engaged in grammar exercises, literacy tasks measuring reading, reading fluency, and spelling, followed by a survey on the use of text messaging, textese use in different contents, and access to social networking sites. The results show that participants in this study reported using textese more often as compared to previous research by Drouin and Davis (2009). However, although the overall use of textese may have increased in the past couple of years, they continued to mediate use of textese by context. For example, participants reported using textese more often in text messages and emails to friends, but rarely on social networking sites and in emails to professors (Drouin, 2011). These results suggest that people are making conscious decisions on whether or not to use textese.
            This study supports an interesting notion: that people are constantly able to make the conscious decision to switch between textese and Standard English without one interfering directly with the other. Some have suggested that this is the equivalent of a bilingual person switching between two languages, while there may be some crossover an individual is easily able to correct any mistakes (Drouin, 2011).  It may also help to note that most of the crossover experienced by bilingual person is in speech, and as textese is almost a purely written language these effects should be limited.
            So why are we still seeing textese in formal writing and in emails to professors? In Drouin (2011), there was a significant correlation among participants that used textese more on social networking sites and in emails to professors and lower reading accuracy scores. This suggests that those without a comprehensive understanding of Standard English are the ones most likely to commit these context faux pas. Additionally, this mediated use by context supports another interesting notion. Participants reported that their reason for not using textese on social networking sites or in emails to professors was that the context was not appropriate. Therefore, those who do use textese in these contexts may not view them as inappropriate, indicating a more limited pragmatic knowledge (Drouin, 2011).       
            These research finding show that it is not texting or textese itself that is causing a decline in language standards, but maybe a more fundamental educational flaw. These results support that if a child or adult has a strong basis in Standard English it is hard to reverse that knowledge with the use of textese. Additionally, it may actually be beneficial for remembering the correct spelling of a word, and continuing in lifelong reading fluency skills. There is also research that supports texting and textism as a basis for teaching the founding principles of Standard English, but more on that later.

Sources
Adams M.J. (1990) Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learn- ing about Print. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Barker, I. (2007). Txts r gr8 but not in exams. Times Educational Supplement 4723, 20. 9 Feburary. Retrieved from: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2341958
Britt S.H. (1935) Retroactive inhibition: a review of the litera- ture. Psychological Bulletin 32, 381–440.
Brown J. (1958) Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 10, 12–21.
Carrington, V. (2004). Texts and literacies of the Shi Jinrui. British Journal of Sociology Education 25, 215-228. Doi: 10.1080/0142569042000205109.
Crystal D. (2008) Txting: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Dixon M. & Kaminska Z. (1997) The spell of misspelled words: susceptibility to orthographic priming as a function of spelling proficiency. Reading and Writing: An Interdisci- plinary Journal 9, 483–498.
Drouin M. & Davis C. (2009) R U txting? Is the use of text speak hurting your literacy? Journal of Literacy Research 41, 46–67.
Drouin, M.A. (2011). College students’ text messaging, use of textese, and literacy skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27, 67-75. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00399.x
Jacoby L.L. & Hollingshead A. (1990) Reading student essays may be hazardous to your spelling: effects of reading incor- rectly and correctly spelled words. Canadian Journal of Psychology 44, 345–358.
Katz L. & Frost S.J. (2001) Phonology constrains the internal orthographic lexicon. Reading and Writing: An Interdisci- plinary Journal 14, 297–332.
Leake J. (2008 May 25) Texting boosts children’s literacy. The Sunday Times. Available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3998970.ece
Lee, J.  (2002). Nu shortcuts in school r 2 much 4 teachers. The New York Times 19 September. Retrieved from:  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/technology/circuits/19MESS.html#
McGeoch J.A. (1932) Forgetting and the law of disuse. Psychological Review 39, 352–370.
Plester B., Wood C. & Bell L. (2008) Txt msg n school literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbrev- iations adversely affect children’s literacy attainment? Lit- eracy 42, 137–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008. 00489.x.
Plester B., Wood C. & Joshi P. (2009) Exploring the relation- ship between children’s knowledge of text message abbre- viations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 27, 145–161. doi: 10.1348/ 026151008X320507.
Powell, D. & Dixon, M. (2011). Does SMS text messaging help or harm adults’ knowledge of standard spelling? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27, 58-66. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00403.x
Reardon M. (2008) Text messaging explodes in America. CNET Tech News. 23 September. Available at: http:// www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/23/tech/cnettechnews/ main4471183.shtml
Rogers, D. (2008). We know what u mean, m8. Innit? The Times Educational Supplement. 12 December. Retrieved from: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6006244
Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text messaging. Discourse Analysis Online. Retrieved from: http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html




Varnhagen C.K., McFall G.P., Pugh N., Routledge L., Surnida-MacDonald H. & Kwong T.E. (2010). Lol: new language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and Writing: An Interdisiplinary Journal 23, 719-733. Doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9181-y.