In Clive Thompson’s article, he says that electronic writing, like text messaging and emailing, has increased the quality and quantity of writing among young people. His opinion is based off of research done by Andrea Lunsford. Her study was done “from 2001 to 2006, [in which] she collected 14,672 student writing samples.” She found that young people were writing more and they were better attuned at getting their point across. This article is in favor of text messaging and technological writings as it is bettering students’ writing as opposed to destroying it with poor grammar and informal language. However, in my opinion the study that was conducted was too narrow to be conclusive as it focused only on first-year Stanford students and it doesn’t take into consideration general emails that are sent on a daily basis that do not convey proper tone or a clear message.
Lunsford’s opinions are based off data gathered from students at Stanford, an Ivy League school whose first-year students are already prepared for academic writing. Therefore comparing that group of individuals to the young population in general is too big of a leap to make such a conclusion. At one point she says, “The first thing she found is that young people today write far more than any generation before them.” Who does she mean by young people? Are they 17? Or are they 40 and happen to be in their first-year at Stanford? What are the other demographics of the students in this case study? The age and demographics of the sample group is vague. How can one make a comparison off a single study group, especially coming from an Ivy League school? What about other first-year students from a community college? How would that affect the study? “When Lunsford examined the work of first-year students, she didn’t find a single example of texting speak in an academic paper.” Potentially, this is because she was working with an academically knowledgeable group of Ivy League students. There are a variety of young people coming from different environments who might not be as successful in academic writing. Their use of text writing could potentially lower their ability to assess their audience or get their point across. However, we can’t tell due to Lunsford’s narrow study.
At another point in this article the author introduces the idea of kairos-“assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across,” insinuating that young people can better convey themselves to others; however, this is not commonly true with emails seen in the corporate world. A Director at my work place sent out a general email regarding current layoffs, which carried a tone that was misread as insensitive. Everyone has a common story in which they have received or sent out an email or text message that was interpreted incorrectly. Whether you are talking about professionals in the workplace or young people, the fact still remains emails nor text messaging has increased the idea of kairos in writing. Lunsford once again is over generalizing making a conclusion that people are writing better because people are writing more. Every generation is writing more due to accessibility, but that does not make an individuals writing clear or concise.
In conclusion, based on the sample group that Lunsford based her study and the fact that kairos continues to elude most writers of emails or text messages, I have great difficulty accepting Clive Thompson’s article. In order for people to accept studies more data and a wider perspective is needed. As for me, I am going to continue to refine my formal writing because I don’t believe that text messaging my friends is going to help me gain the writing skills that I need to be successful in life.