Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

This study is focused on the relationship between text messaging and literacy for children. N. Kemp and C. Bushnell(2011) inquired into the influence of text-messaging and its experience on children using and understanding Textism. They also test the popular claims that text-messaging abbreviations and textese spelling contribute to poor literacy skills. (p.18)

In this study, “86 children (26 boys, 60 girls) with a mean age of 11.5 years from three largely middle-class Australian schools” (p.20) consisted of participants and all of them speak English fluently and use English as the only language for texting. Those 86 children were asked to use Nokia model 6219 phone, which “used the most popular method of predictive texting, to text messages within 30 target words in both conventional English version and textese version. Furthermore, 86 children were also tested by the Wide Range Achievement Test for their ability of spelling, real-word reading and nonword reading.

According to the conclusion, although, children seems to make errors when reading or writing in textese than in conventional English, they show faster speed in writing textese. That also can explain why children desire to use textese--time and screen-space saving. The test results between predictive texting and multi-press texting suggest that no matter using textese or not, children who are predictive texters text faster. Moreover, they are also faster in reading. After we compared multi-press texting students with non-texters, we can find that practice helps promoting the speed of text messaging and “greater general exposure to textese may also give children recognition knowledge of many textism”(p.25). Last and most important result of this study is previous concerns about a negative role of textese was wrong.

The exploration of difference between predictive texters and multi-press texters impressed me a lot, because I think predictive texting is an important feature of message texting and relates to spelling in literacy. However, I cast some doubts about the gender ratio in participants. The ratio of 1:2 may lead some inaccuracy in study’s results. After all, I can use this study as positive evidence of text messaging for children’s literacy abilities.

Kemp, N., & Bushnell, C. (2011). Children's text messaging: Abbreviations, input methods and links with literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 18-27. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00400.x