Thompson Reading Response

In Clive Thompson’s recent article “The New Literacy,” Thompson has suggested that today kids’ writing abilities have improved instead of being damaged, as others might assume. Thompson claims that ‘online media is pushing literacy into cool directions,’ and because of technology today, young people have captured the most crucial factor of writing - knowing who your audience is and why you’re writing.

Although Thompson does not say directly, it is apparent that he assumes that our online media accounts (like Facebook, Twitter, and discussion boards) do, do us a great deal of good and have sharpened our writing skills and abilities to a possible greater potential then that of an assigned in-class essay.

Some will argue that all our online accounts and texting has “dehydrated language into bleak, sad shorthand” as stated by Professor John Sutherland in the article “The New Literacy,” and has rendered the student’s ability to hold a full, intelligent conversation.

In some cases, it’s a possibility. But by focusing on the downside of the matter I believe we are overlooking the upside - what it has given us. As writers, the ability to assess our tone so clearly, that our online audience is able to not only see, but feel our reaction and emotion towards the conversation, is immeasurable, in terms of writing. Imagine what a student is capable of when placed in front of a classroom? Being able to convey your emotions and connect with your audience is what constitutes good writing. Technology has given students the means to do so and the ability to put these learned tools to work more clearly than sitting in a classroom, quite possibly ever has.

Another fear is that these writing styles will leak through to academic writing and wash away what teachers have worked toward all these years. I view this may be the most prominent of all worries; however, I don’t believe that one bad apple ruins the whole bunch. Although, writing short, quick responses has become almost second nature to most of us, we were taught the rights and wrongs of academic writing by our teachers. Students know that assigned papers will be looked over and graded; therefore they resort back to clear, formal writing. One example would be when Lunsford explains that she examined the work of her first-year students and found no examples of texting speak in their papers. All students, have been taught, shown and practiced the correct, basic moves of formal academic writing and are capable of retaining their studies and know when it’s the right time to express their selves in the correct manner, as shown by Lunsford’s study.

I go to Graff and Birkenstein’s book “They Say, I Say,” where there is a sentence that states, ‘that a writers ability to express interesting thoughts is what makes him a master of the trade,’ so I ask, why would you condemn something that has given students all of the right tools that teachers have tried to press upon for so long?