In 'The New Literacy' by Clive Thompson, a
controversial issue is whether today's technology is to
blame for students not being able to write.Two example
professors referenced in this writing have two very
different opinions on this matter. One of these professors
even conducted a research project on the issue to further
support her opinion. This being such an important issue
it's a hot topic for debate, whether you're a professor,
student or parent.
On the one hand English professor John Sutherland
argues that today's technology (facebook, twitter, texting,
etc.) is dehydrating language into "bleak, bald, sad
shorthand" (Professor John Sutherland). In other words he
is saying all of the texting shorthand used by students in
their everyday personal writing is tarnishing their
academic writing.
On the other hand Andrea Lunsford, professor of
writing and rhetoric at Stanford University, contends the
opposite. "I think we're in the midst of a literacy
revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since Greek
civilization," says Lunsford. In making this comment,
Lunsford argues that technology is not only reviving our
ability to write it is pushing it in cool new directions.
Although Thompson does not come right out and
declare it directly, he indubitably sees eye to eye with
professor Andrea Lunsford. Thompson himself writes, "It's
also becoming clear that online media are pushing literacy
into cool directions." The essence of Thompson's argument
is that technology isn't slaying our ability to write. He
goes on to state, "What today's young people know is that
knowing who you're writing for and why you're writing might
be the most crucial factor of all." Basically, he is saying
all of the texting short forms used in students personal
writing is not impairing their academic writing.
My personal opinion is that technology is the only
thing keeping a large majority of students engaged in
writing. Professor John Sutherland makes a good point, that
texting is sad shorthand. I couldn't agree more! All the
abbreviations and smileys I really don't know what to call
it, it's like a language of it's own. However, professor
Andrea Lunsford's project called 'Stanford Study of
Writing' a huge project taken from 2001 to 2006. In the
five year span she collected over 14,000 writing examples
from Stanford students, and not just their academic
writings but all of their writing; blogs, texts, chats,
etc. In her findings Lunsford resolves this whole debate if
you ask me. First of all it shows that students today write
way more than any generation before us. Granted 38% of this
took place outside the classroom, but does that really
matter? The answer is no! Another great point made in her
study is that this other language students are using in
texting and other online writing, is not transferring into
their academic writings. Finally and really the most
important factor of this whole piece, is that students
today know the most crucial factor of all. Which is knowing
your audience and writing to it! To conclude I agree 110%
with Clive Thompson and Andrea Lunsford. I feel as long as
students keep their audience in mind when writing this
other language used in texting and other online writings
will not be a problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"What today's young people know is that knowing who you're writing for and why you're writing might be the most crucial factor of all."
ReplyDeleteThey talk about how writing has major parts and the one that students of the generation now realises the most in how the audience changes. I made the conection to how the Texting and Twittering had it's own audience, but the connection to academic writing having a completely different audience was made clear when I your post. Yes texting may be sloppy and shorthand but as long as it's kept seperate from what students write for academics, the way to write is just a easier way to talk to friends and that.