Can We Do It?: SMS in EDU
Dawn Hamilton – English 5001
May 28, 2009
Rhetoricians and educators have been trying for centuries to develop learning methods that encourage dialogic and participatory classroom settings. The struggle to create active- rather than passive-learners has been ongoing and volatile, the challenges changing with each new generation of students. Teachers today are faced with the battle of the cell phones. No longer are we worried about students being distracted with phone calls during class; now we have to fight the distractions of silent text messaging. Are we fighting a losing battle, or can we, as educators, use this new technology to our own advantage? I propose that text messaging (SMS, or Short Messaging Service) can and should be used as an acceptable format for learning and communication in the classroom.
Throughout history we have seen technological advances and their affects on society, economics, and politics. Every decade has some new gadget that younger generations can’t live without, and that older generations don’t understand. Before text messaging there was Instant Messaging on the computer. Before that, the use of cell phones was becoming prolific. Before that, pagers were the new gizmo. Before that there was E-mail. Regardless of the order or importance of past technological advancements, we are currently faced with the influx of cell phones in our primary and secondary schools. At this time, they are a distraction and a nuisance. Most instructors ask that cell phones be turned to silent and put away for the duration of class. The problem remains that many students now communicate better and more efficiently by text than they do through verbal discussion. I intend to look at the pros and cons of this new form of communication. With Generation Y in specific, I would like to show the effect that text messaging has had on the overall social consciousness of our youth.
Using the experiment on m-learning described in “m-learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words” by Cavus and Ibrahim, I will show the real possibility of using text messaging in classroom instruction. Also, there was an experiment done in a Chinese university, which used new technologies including SMS in the classroom. I will be referring to this article by Shen, Wang, and Pan to provide further examples of the possible success of technology use in schools.
As there is still much debate on this subject, I will be looking at the arguments against technology. Kaveri Subrahmanyam and Patricia Greenfield have done a well-researched article entitled “Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships”, which I would like to use to show some of these arguments.
In less specific context, I am interested in finding support for the use of SMS in extracurricular fields, such as work, politics, media, as well as social and family interactions. How we use language in our day-to-day lives has a significant impact on our brain function. How we see ourselves, how we see others, and how we relate to society is clearly being impacted by technology and SMS. This is evident not only in the media (i.e. TV shows, movies, music, books), but also in relationships between peers, child-parent, student-teacher, employee-employer, boyfriend-girlfriend, and even husband-wife. In researching the effects of SMS on the media and in these relationship dynamics, I hope to come across the answers to a few questions, including the following:
· Is text messaging the new Ebonics?
· Are there any classrooms which currently use text messaging as an acceptable means of communication?
· How has the use of SMS in the workplace affected an employee’s conception of acceptable formalities?
· Does constant use of SMS affect one’s intelligence?
· Does constant use of SMS cause one to become more susceptible to influences in media and pop-culture?
What I hope to prove is that the use of SMS will lead us into an era of “transforming the traditional classroom-based learning and teaching into anytime and anywhere education” (Cavus, 1). The result of my research will hopefully shed a new light on the possible directions of the education system. Historically, we have seen some changes in curriculum and pedagogy; I believe strongly that a new time of change is coming. There are so many more options for learning and instructing, and it is my earnest desire to see the realized potential of our ever-expanding technological resources.
Up in Arms
There is a battle raging between students and teachers in the United States. From Junior High through High School and all levels of college, there is a proliferation of cell phones. Results of an in-depth online study of two-thousand teens around the nation, was released in September of 2008 by CTIS – The Wireless Association along with Harris Interactive. In this study, it was found that “nearly four out of every five teens (17 million)” carry a cell phone. This number rose 40% in the four years prior to the study. In an article in The Reference Librarian, entitled “Text Messaging in an Academic Library: Integrating SMS into Digital Reference,” it was recorded that “there is a ‘record number of student cell phone owners’ as ‘5.2 million or nearly nine in ten college students nationally now own a cellular phone” (Hill, 18). By the time they are attending college, it is considered unusual for a student not to have one.
And while the battle involves cell phones, it’s SMS that teachers are fighting. The undeniable draw of cell phones and text messaging is how easy it is to communicate with anyone on a contact list. In the CTIS study, “Teens say texting has critical advantages because it offers more options, including multitasking, speed, the option to avoid verbal communication, and because it is fun – in that order. With more than 1 billion text messages sent each day, it is no surprise that 42 percent of teens say they can even text blindfolded.” In short, it’s note-passing on steroids. It has even become a necessity for syllabi to prohibit SMS while class is in session.
The phenomenon of text usage in the classroom is relatively recent, but handheld personal electronic devices have been popular for the past couple of decades. Teachers have been concerned with students being distracted by walkmans, pagers, game boys, mp3 players, palm pilots, cell phones, and now cell phones with Internet capability. Each new gadget that is released by companies nationwide falls right into the hands of Generation Y. They are techno-savvy unlike any other generation; they are accustomed to life being fast-paced and impersonal. In an interview with Marcus Buckingham, an entrepreneur with a desire to reach Generation Ys in the workplace, he was asked to give a rundown of Generation Y. “Generation Ys got prizes for graduating from first grade, for coming in eighth in a race, or just for just showing up. They are the most rewarded, recognized, and praised generation in living memory. So they walk into the workplace feeling massively entitled” (engaging, 27). The trouble, he says, is that this sense of entitlement can easily be seen, and treated, as a defect in most Generation Ys. Teachers and administrators in schools across the country are faced with an increased resistance by their students towards the current structure of classrooms, especially when they are expected to learn without the constant companion of technology. Susan Mernit, Director of New Media at react.com, says that when they are home, “Teens are typically on the phone, with the computer on, surfing the Web, instant messaging or chatting and either listening to music or watching the television, all at the same time. That’s just standard operating procedure for them” (Cheng). They are familiar with and most comfortable in a multi-electronic environment.
In the past decade we have seen a rise in the use of computers in the classroom. In high schools, some classes now take place in computer labs, with each student in front of their own PC. In colleges, computer labs are much more prolific and online discussion groups and homework submission is standard. Distance learning is now in much higher demand due to the ever-present access to the Internet According to The Sloan Consortium, in an article entitled “Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning”, “Nearly twenty percent of all U.S. higher education students were taking at least one online course in the fall of 2006” (1). In terms of the growth of online education, “The number of students taking at least one online course continues to expand at a rate far in excess of the growth of overall higher education enrollments” (5). Already, the face of education is changing in our colleges and universities.
So with all of the advancements we’ve made with computers, the Internet and communication via E-mail in our schools, why is there such a battle against students using cell phones and text messaging? To generalize, SMS is all-the-rage with Generation Y, and there are pros and cons to this craze. We will assess these in detail: SMS effects of writing and language skills; classroom etiquette; the desocialization of Gen Ys; digressing communication in relationships; family emergencies; the role of the parent; and the role of the teacher.
Ebonics and Teachers
Teenage vernacular is ebonicized in SMS, oftentimes looking like a language of its own. With many students, there already exists a struggle in identifying between their home-talk and academic-talk. Writing and literacy skills in schools require a knowledge of academic discourse, which is the formal use of English, proper syntax, grammar and punctuation. Students come from an array of cultural and economic backgrounds, some not even learning to speak English until they begin elementary school. Others are raised to speak English with an accent, or using cultural jargon and idioms. When these students are asked to produce an essay or read a novel, they sometimes find themselves struggling to learn a new dialect of English, while receiving little-to-no support at home. The SMS fad doesn’t appear to be helping with writing and language proficiency, as Gen Ys use mostly shorthand and abbreviations in order to text more efficiently. “A 2007 report from the Irish State Examination Commission found that text messaging use among teenagers was having a highly negative effect on their writing and, thus, reading skills” (Tucker, 17). In a recent study done on current electronics and our youth, it was found that SMS usage is at an all-time high. “Virgin Mobile USA reports that more than nine of ten teens with cell phones have text messaging capability; two-thirds use text messaging daily” (Subrahamanyan,122). To put this into perspective, the same study showed that “From October through December 2006, Verizon Wireless hosted 17.7 billion text messages, more than double the total from the same period in 2005” (122). Although all 17.7 billion text messages weren’t a result of only teenage users, we can see that the SMS rate has already been shown to be increasing in huge numbers. And these numbers guarantee that the majority of our students are fluent in the slipshod language of text messaging. If there is any hope of assimilating SMS into the classroom, we have to teach our students about language etiquette.
Imagine. Susie and Jake are in a sophomore health science class at their high school. Their teacher has been given permission to use SMS in the classroom for communication and group work purposes. Since the two students are in a group together, they often discuss homework and class projects during the time the class meets. Outside of class, however, they rarely see each other, so they text message whenever one or the other has an idea associated with the class. They have also been given access to the teacher via SMS, to ask questions or receive updates about the curriculum. Both Susie and Jake have been text messaging since junior high, when they both received their cell phones from their parents. Here’s an example of an SMS conversation they have one afternoon:
S: wuts th nam uv movie frm class?
J: IDK. smthg bulimia i thk.
S: k. wuz thkng uv rentng it 4 r prjct.. wanna see gin?
J: wen
S: IDK. mbe tom?
J: bsy. tnite@8?
S: k. cm l8r.
J: k. cya.
Generally, in an SMS conversation, words are either shortened or spelled phonetically. And while it may have taken me ten minutes to type up this example, Susie and Jake would have had the entire conversation in probably less than a minute. Now, let’s take Susie’s next SMS conversation with her teacher, in order to find out the name of the movie shown in class. In this example, Susie must follow the teacher’s guidelines for proper SMS language etiquette, which include correct spelling and no acronyms. Sentences may be abbreviated for the sake of saving space.
S: Hi ms. Jenkins. it’s Susie. what’s the name of the movie in class from last week?
T: Hi Susie. It’s called Dying to be Thin. A NOVA special.
S: Thanks. Do you know where i can get it?
T: Try the public library if you need it now. I can’t loan it to you until next week.
S: ok. i’ll let you know if i can’t find it. thanks. bye.
T: See you in class on Monday. Bye.
This conversation likely would have taken much longer for Susie to text than the last, because she has to use complete words and she must clarify each question in order for her teacher to respond accurately. Without the SMS guidelines in this class, the teacher would have to become skilled at communicating in several different dialects of shorthand home-talk. Instead, she is requiring her students to practice academic-talk in an academic setting, albeit text messaging. This requirement would be essential in any Junior High or High School classroom setting where SMS is used, if only for reasons of etiquette and respect for the teacher.
In order to gain the perspective of a teaching assistant who uses SMS in her classroom, I’ve interviewed Kathy Rowley of California State University, Stanislaus. Beginning in 2007, Rowley introduced her students to SMS in the classroom in her Freshman composition class. Already accustomed to the use of text messaging with her previous employer and her five children, Rowley felt that it would be advantageous to use it with her students. Reasons for using SMS vary. Occasionally a student will be late to class, or may need to be absent, and they are able to send a quick and unintrusive text message to Rowley with an explanation. If it’s the weekend or on a day between class sessions, she has had students send her text messages asking for her feedback on an essay they are working on; they are able to text her an FYI saying that they’ve just sent her an E-mail with their paper attached. Rowley has also assigned out-of-class group work where the students must send her updated information about their project via SMS. “It helps me know they have respect for me in the class,” Rowley said in regards to the many ways her students communicate with her by text messaging. When asked if she has ever had problem with her students using SMS inappropriately, she stated that in the years that she has used this program, “I’ve not had anything that hasn’t been totally appropriate or useful in the classroom.” In her experience, Rowley believes that the key to successfully incorporating SMS into the classroom, is trust. There must be mutual trust and respect between teacher and student. In such a setting, students have the advantage. They are given the freedom to communicate with the teacher on their own terms, without fear or intimidation.
While the college setting is more likely to integrate text messaging into the classroom, there would be a large number of students in both high school and college who would be eager enough to use it as a main form of communication with their teacher and peers. Using the current trend in E-mail communication as an example, we look at a case study on the effects of E-mail in the college setting. Taken as a quote in 1992, P.V. D’Souza, a researcher in the field said that, “E-mail creates a non-threatening, two-way communication link between student and instructor . . . [and] promotes students’ ability to express themselves more freely to the instructor” (Duran, 160). The idea of communication being threatening is relatively recent. There is limited research on the effects of technology on face-to-face social interaction, mostly because the facts for comparison are not available. “The best design for assessing how technology affects relationships would probably be a historical one, in which social patterns were documented before the advent of technology; there are undoubtedly parts of the world in which this is still possible, but the United States is not one of them” (Subrahamanyan, 136). We need to be able to provide quantitative evidence of a shift away from face-to-face interaction as a result of an increased use of electronics. As of today, this is merely a theory. In a 2009 survey by the Consumer Electronics Association, a group of U.S. youth, ages 12-17 were interviewed about their technology use. Overall, 77 percent felt that technology helped them to interact with their friends. About 90 percent of all interviewed agreed that they are comfortable with technology and feel that it makes their lives easier. And only 25 percent felt that technology reduced the amount of time they spent with other people (Tucker, 16). These numbers, in the most up-to-date article I was able to find, provide an extremely accurate reflection of the feelings of Generation Y on the importance of social interaction and technology. These feelings can easily be used to the advantage of both students and teachers by the inclusion of SMS in the classroom. In a way, Short Messaging Service is merely an abbreviated form of E-mail. It is not a far-off goal to move SMS into our schools in the same way as E-mail.
Social and Family Ties
Stepping away from the classroom for a bit, I’d like to focus on another con of text messaging. In the same study by the CEA, the percentage of teenagers who felt that technology helped them to communicate with their family was only just over half of the group, at 53 percent. And while qualitative research on technology and general socialization is not possible, there have been studies on the effects of technology on family interaction, particularly between parents and teenagers. “A study by Gustavo Mesch found that family time was not affected when adolescents used the computer for educational purposes; only when they used it for social purposes was family interaction negatively affected” (Subrahamanyan, 135). A study on teens on cell phones in Norway “found that teens used the cell phone to establish generational boundaries (for example, screening calls from parents into voice mail) and also that cell phone use undermined family rituals, such as mealtimes and vacations” (Subrahamanyan, 135). Although this last bit of research was done in another country, it may strike a nerve with some of my readers. There are a surprising number of parents who would tell you the same story about their teenagers during the last family holiday: cell phone constantly in hand, head down, thumbs going a hundred miles per hour. Personally, my experience with my teenage niece and nephew during the last Christmas get-together included a lot of text-exchange. My 13 year old niece was sitting in one corner of the room, uninvolved in the board game I was playing, with her phone in hand text messaging anyone who was in the room. She relished in the luxury of having private and secretive conversations about the overt social interactions taking place all around her. Her brother, 15, spent the entire weekend in conversation with friends from school via text messaging, but still chose to keep his attention on the family as much as possible. These examples show two very different ways of incorporating the use of SMS in family-time. They also show how SMS can be used within limits, and not disturb or inhibit familial relations.
Thus far we have weighed many cons of SMS, trying to discern how those may be overcome in order to bring texting into the classroom. In terms of community, it would take effort on all fronts in order to maintain the balance and structure needed to ensure the academic standards are met. In the same way that parents are encouraged to monitor homework to encourage students in the quality of their work, it may be necessary – at least in secondary education – for parents to also keep tabs on their child’s academic texting through communication with the teacher. The role of the parent is multifaceted in the cult of SMS. Currently, the parent is minimally involved in the cell phone habits of their teenagers. It is almost inevitable, however, that this minimal involvement will increase within the next few decades, as Generation Ys become parents themselves. In a 2008 USA Today interview of a techno-savvy family, the parents and their teenage daughter all felt closer, they said, because of technology. The mom, “a longtime techie, loves it, too. Her husband, Fred, likes to Twitter. Her whole family stays in touch electronically. ‘We’re a very close-knit family,’ says Joanne Wilson. ‘But it takes the connection to a whole other level. There’s a constant connection’” (USA Today). Perhaps the more that parents become involved in their children’s technological lives, the more those children will want to share in the values of their families. The result can be more respect for themselves, their peers, their teachers, and better academic participation.
Parents definitely feel more comfortable with their teenagers carrying cell phones while at school. A couple of easily-to-identify reasons for this are: 1) it may ease a parent’s mind to feel that they can be in touch with their child at any time of the day. This is especially useful for parents who exercise the chaperone feature on their child’s phone, which acts as a GPS. Parents are able to track the whereabouts of their child via the Internet. And 2) just in case of an emergency at home or at school, the child has the advantage of modern-day communication.
Teachers, feel differently. Four years ago, the National Education Association (NEA) took a survey on whether or not cell phones should be banned from schools. Of the six personal references given, all were from teachers at the secondary level and below. Two of those against cell phones in school gave the reason of students being distracted regardless of whether or not the phones were in use. The third gave a very valid concern with cell phones; in his own words, “Until this year cell phones were banned from school here in Maryland. This year, cell phones are allowed for safety reasons–in case of an emergency, students can call for help (e.g., Columbine). Well, our students have now figured out that they can cheat on quizzes and tests by ‘texting’ each other. Not only are phones distracting, but now they are a cheating tool” (NEA Today, 42). However, this gross violation of the school cheating policy does not need to be a deciding factor in schools considering incorporating SMS into the classroom. During testing, cell phones are not permitted in any way. This simple rule has been applied to the cheating policy in schools and universities across the nation.
But teachers have another, more complex role in the SMS movement, aside from rule-makers and phone wardens. They must be willing to be accessible to their students via text messaging at certain hours of the day. This is somewhat akin to office hours. They must also be willing to endure the training involved if they are not accustomed to using SMS. This also means establishing new policies on appropriate usage of SMS, okay times to use their cell phones during class, and expected academic-talk between teacher and student. In another light, Kathy Rowley, mentioned earlier, feels that there is no need to even mention the prohibition of cell phones during class time. She states that by telling students that they are not to use their cell phones in class, especially at the college level, this labels the phones as a problem. “As long as they’re working on their projects, I didn’t have an issue with a student answering a text message in class…. That’s where trust comes in.” If the teacher begins the semester communicating respect to the students, they are more than likely to show the same in return.
Money
School administrators may have a strong opinion in the management of a program using SMS. It’s probably not very common for most teachers and professors to have a cell phone plan with unlimited text messaging capability. While this is a requirement for most teens, adults find it to be an unnecessary expense. Strictly speaking, unlimited SMS plans add between $10 and $20 per month to the existing minutes usage balance. If a high school were to go completely SMS-capable with their teachers, they’re looking at spending between $1,000 to $2,000 per month on teacher reimbursements for the program, depending on the size of the school. This is clearly a crucial factor to consider. At the college level, however, reimbursements for texting plans would be unlikely. It would be the prerogative of the instructor whether or not they wish to use SMS in their classroom. The program would be on an individual, not school wide level.
An alternative, cost-effective way to integrate SMS into an entire school is with the use of a computer program. In the following examples of SMS programs and projects across the world, we will be discussing a Louisiana college’s library service, which uses an Australian wireless technology company to provide “text messaging numbers and ‘e-mail/SMS’ conversion hardware and software” (Hill, 22). In the program, “students text a question to the Library’s number. The message then goes to the redcoal.com server in Sydney, Australia. It is converted to an e-mail message and sent to the Library’s ‘Ask A Librarian’ e-mail account. The librarian at the reference desk reads the question using the Library’s e-mail client (Eudora) and either uses Eudora’s reply option or opens redcoal’s “e-mail/SMS” tool to reply to the question” (Hill, 22). In less technical terms, a student sends an SMS, which is converted to E-mail form for the librarian to read. The librarian then responds to the text message as if responding to an E-mail and presses “Send.” The student receives a reply via SMS on their cell phone. In this way, the student has the convenience of sending and receiving a text message, while the librarian is able to utilize their computer’s E-mail program for the same purpose.
Cyprus, Shanghai, and Louisiana
Let’s take a look at a few programs that are currently in place in classrooms using SMS. In 2007, a case study was published in the British Journal of Educational Technology that used a concept called m-learning to prove that the use of SMS with students actually improved their memory skills. M-learning is described as “learning that takes place with the help of portable
electronic tools” (Cavus, 79). I’ll summarize the procedure and results of the study, and will provide the noteworthy conclusion by the researchers. The experiment consisted of 45 volunteer 1st year undergraduate students at Near East University, all who had full access to personal SMS-capable cell phones. Over the course of a semester, the students received technical English-language words and their meanings via SMS. They were given a pretest and posttest to determine whether there was a significant learning curve with the SMS system. As a result of the experiment, the students showed a remarkable improvement in the posttest, revealing that the text messages provided a sufficient means of communicating learning material, without using valuable lecture time. These 45 students were also surveyed on the experiment, in order for the researchers to include constructive feedback. Of the students surveyed, “88.9% said ‘yes’ to the question ‘Would you like to receive the summaries of lecture notes on your mobile phone?’, which again supports students’ preferences to use their mobile phones for learning. Majority of students (75.4%) also preferred to receive nonlecture-based material such as adverts, exam results, etc through their mobile phones” (Cavus, 88). Another surprising result of the survey was “In response to the question ‘Would you like to receive words at the weekends?’, the majority (73.3%) responded positively. This result shows that students enjoyed learning with their mobile phones even at weekends” (Cavus, 88). Regarding the financial aspect, the authors felt that “most mobile phone service provider companies usually offer reduced cost services for educational use, and such a scheme will greatly reduce the implementation costs of this project” (Cavus, 89).
In China, an experiment was conducted at the e-Learning Lab and Network Education College of Shanghai Jiaotong University. I’ll describe this project using generalizations of similar programs here in the States. Published in 2008, the study captured the workings of a 1000-student blended class on English language. (The size of the class may seem astounding to Americans.) Of the thousand, 250 were on-site, and 750 were online via computers and cell phones. Imagine a distant learning class with cell phone participation capability. The m-learning program that the educators in China used allowed for live video and audio feed of the class session, as well as an interface including the current curriculum. Students were encouraged to participate via their phones by sending text messages to the teacher with questions or comments about the subject matter. They were also sent quizzes via text and responded via text. The results of this experiment were revealing. “When asked about their perceptions on mLearning, 85% of the 1000 students did not wish to study using cell phones or PDAs, because of their unfamiliarity with this format of study and the cell phone costs. When asked hypothetically about what course content they like to receive on their cell phones or PDAs, the answers include real-life case studies, interesting stories, and quizzes” (Shen, 1081). The size of the class in China is astounding. It’s granted that the universities across the Pacific differ greatly from those here in the United States. However, the results of the experiment still show that students are interested in receiving some of their class information via text message. In both of the studies shown so far, students are not timid about using SMS for learning.
Bringing it back to the states, we’ll look at Southeastern Louisiana University. “In spring 2005, Sims Memorial Library at Southeastern Louisiana University initiated ‘Text A Librarian,’ a service that enables Southeastern students, faculty, and staff to use the text message feature of
their cell phones to send questions to and receive answers from the library” (Hill,17). In its first year of operation, the service only received 6 percent of inquiries via SMS. The remaining 94 percent of questions came by chat or E-mail. The university is working on getting the word out about the program, and will continue to offer the SMS option for students and teachers. Creators of this program hope to see more colleges adopt SMS learning, or any form of m-learning on their campuses.
Conclusion
It may be clichéd to say that history has proven any pattern in technology, education, adolescence, or a combination of the three. But I am a willing subject of such a cliché when it comes to the matter of using SMS in the context of the classroom.
It is evident now, and history has proven it to be true, that human character is conditioned by environment. And during adolescence, a period of intense change and adjustment of body and mind, a teenager is much more likely to become assimilated into their surrounding culture than when they are past the early stage of growth. In times such as these, when technology has become the defining factor of American society, economy, and politics, it is our youth – born into this new era – who are the natives.
As parents, teachers, administrators, and bosses, there is hope of building a long-lasting bridge across the generational gaps that separate the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. While the purpose of this paper does not extend to the disparity between the two former generations, it does capture the reality that each age group has assimilated differently into this society, and that there are surprising similarities among each age group.
As was just mentioned, Generation Y speaks a new language (and fluently!). From E-mail to twitter, blogs, instant-messaging, and SMS, the direction of our society is technological. And while the education system in the United States has been progressing at a glacial speed, we have seen a few sporadic, individual changes. I believe my research has shown that there are both pros and cons to incorporating SMS into the context of the classroom. However, in looking closely at the examples of studies done and programs currently in place, I feel that the chances of success in this venture far outweigh any negative repercussions.
We need to use SMS to our advantage instead of fighting a losing battle. On a secondary education level, this will require much more administrative involvement, as few teachers would be encouraged to attempt SMS communication with their students outside of the classroom; the personal-professional line is not one to be crossed at the high-school level because of the minor age of the students. In college, the rules change. Teachers and assistants have much more freedom in their extra-curricular communication with their students. And students have much fewer boundaries socially, financially, and personally. Cell phones are more prolific in college than in high school. And because college is a voluntary and independent venture taken on by the student, they are constantly looking for ways to bring more efficiency into their education. What better way to encourage a college student than providing them with the ability to speak a language they already know, with their teacher?
A large percentage of students file into the college system knowing limited academic language. Yet they are expected to learn how to speak and write academically by the time they submit their first paper in their first class of their first semester. This is a challenge faced by hundreds and thousands of incoming freshmen each year in America. Whether they are ESL students with poor grammar, or African Americans who speak Black English Vernacular, or underprivileged whites from Louisiana who speak a form of Southern American English, these and many other students from non-academic cultural backgrounds have a disadvantage in speaking or writing academically. They must learn how to read and write in a new dialect, with limited encouragement from their teachers. The reason I say limited encouragement is because few teachers will be able to truly communicate in a way these students can understand. However, if these students are all part of Generation Y, there is a fair chance that most of them are familiar with SMS communication. And if not specifically SMS, they have more than likely that they are comfortable using technology. If we, as teachers, are able to open up at least one avenue of communication in which these students are comfortable, that may well be all the encouragement our students need to succeed.
Generation Y needs to be heard. And while there may be dozens of ways to create that line of communication, I believe that the most efficient and effective in through technology. Using text-messaging in our schools is a relatively easy way to build the bridge that will allow for students to be encouraged, trusted, respected, and successful in education.
Works Cited
Cavus, Nadire, Irahim, Dogan. “m-learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words.” British Journal of Educational Technology. 40:1 (2009): 78-91.
Cheng, Kipp. “Setting Their Sites on Generation ‘Y’.” MediaWeek. 9:31 (1999): 46.
Duran, Robert L., Kelly, Lynn, Keaten, James A. “College Faculty Use and Perceptions of Electronic Mail to Communicate with Students.” Communication Quarterly. 53:2 (2005): 159-176.
“Electronic Learning.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 15 Apr. 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_classes>.
“Engaging Generation Y.” Interview with Pat Galagan. American Society for Training and Development Aug. 2006: 27-30.
Hill, J.B., Hill, Cherie Madarash, Sherman, Dayne. “Text Messaging in an Academic Library: Integrating SMS into Digital Reference.” The Reference Librarian. 47:1 (2007): 17-29.
Kornblum, Janet. “Text messaging taps out a family-friendly result.” USA Today 20 Oct. 2008.
“Milestones in the Evolution of Today’s Internet.” Congressional Digest. 86:2 (2007): 38.
“National Study Reveals How Teens are Shaping & Reshaping Their Wireless World. Study Sheds New Light On Teens’ Cell Phone Habits, Expectations & Dream Phone Wishes.” CTIA – The Wireless Association ®. 12 Sept. 2008 <http://ctia.org/media/press/body.cfm/prid/1774>.
Shen, Ruimin, Wang, Minjuan, Pan, Xiaoyan. “Increasing interactivity in blended classrooms through a cutting-edge mobile learning system.” British Journal of Educational Technology. 39:6 (2008): 1073-1086.
“Should be ban cell phones in school?” NEA Today. 22:5 (2004): 42.
Subrahamanyam, Kaveri, Greenfield, Patricia. “Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships.” The Future of Children. 18:1 (2008): 119-146.
Thurber Jr., Karl T. “Buried bytes: A history of the personal computer.” Popular Electronics. 12:4 (2005): 36.
Tucker, Patrick. “Hooked Up or Just Hooked.” The Futurist. (2009): 16-17.