Children's text messaging: abbreviations, input methods and links with literacy.
This study investigated the effects of mobile phone text-messaging method (predictive and multi-press) and experience (in texters and non-texters) on children's textism use and understanding. It also examined popular claims that the use of text-message abbreviations, or textese spelling, is associat...
| Published in: | Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Vol. 27; no. 1; pp. 18 - 28 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Feb2011
|
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=104851536&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 104851536 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 02664909 6M1 jtl: Journal of Computer Assisted Learning issn: 02664909 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Feb2011 vid: 27 iid: 1 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 104851536 2010912421 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00400.x 104851536 ppf: 18 ppct: 10 formats: tig: atl: Children's text messaging: abbreviations, input methods and links with literacy. aug: au: Kemp, Nenagh Bushnell, C. affil: School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia; nenagh.kemp@utas.edu.au sug: subj: Reading Spelling Wireless Communications Utilization Analysis of Variance Child Clinical Assessment Tools Comparative Studies Human Literacy P-Value Post Hoc Analysis Writing Child: 6-12 years ab: This study investigated the effects of mobile phone text-messaging method (predictive and multi-press) and experience (in texters and non-texters) on children's textism use and understanding. It also examined popular claims that the use of text-message abbreviations, or textese spelling, is associated with poor literacy skills.Asample of 86 children aged 10 to 12 years read and wrote text messages in conventional English and in textese, and completed tests of spelling, reading and non-word reading. Children took significantly longer and made more errors when reading messages written in textese than in conventional English. Further, they were no faster at writing messages in textese than in conventional English, regardless of texting method or experience. Predictive texters were faster at reading and writing messages than multi-press texters, and texting experience increased writing, but not reading, speed. General spelling and reading scores did not differ significantly with usual texting method. However, better literacy skills were associated with greater textese reading speed and accuracy. These findings add to the growing evidence for a positive relationship between texting proficiency and traditional literacy skills. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|