That does not mean all is well for literacy and communication in the future. It isn’t clear whether all children are comfortable shifting from one form of written communication to another. A lack of opportunity to develop in multiple language modes could cause language to develop in one way among one group and make those kids unable to communicate with those who have developed multiple literacies.

Ironically, the problem may be prevented not by closing the digital divide by ensuring access to text technologies but by providing access to more traditional forms of literacy, like books. “Text messaging and instant messaging have grown exponentially among kids, and that is likely a positive development,” says Shanahan. “While I see the value of all of this new communication technology, I would argue that we need to protect time for more cognitive or intellectual technologies–those technologies that do more to help us think more deeply rather than those aimed at more-immediate social sharing of information–as well.”

Having multiple literacies, however, does not only mean being comfortable composing with a variety of media; it also means understanding how to use different facets of language in each situation.

For many years educators and parents have blamed texting for two ills: the corruption of language and a degradation in spelling. Teachers are even complaining about textisms creeping into schoolwork. This has led many to wonder if it is possible that texting can have any positive influence on learners’ language development.

If it seems like American teens are texting all the time, it’s probably because on average they’re sending or receiving 3,339 texts a month. That’s more than six per every hour they're awake – an 8 percent jump from last year. Using recent data from monthly cell phone bills of more than 60,000 mobile subscribers as well as survey data from over 3,000 teens, The Nielsen Company analyzed mobile usage data among teens in the United States for the second quarter of 2010 (April 2010 – June 2010). No one texts more than teens (age 13-17), especially teen females, who send and receive an average of 4,050 texts per month. Teen males also outpace other male age groups, sending and receiving an average of 2,539 texts. Young adults (age 18-24) come in a distant second, exchanging 1,630 texts per month (a comparatively meager three texts per hour).

there are strong reactions from the public, media, and language experts that the use of textisms can transfer to formal writing in the form of deterioration of spelling and misuse of language.

  According to the study, the students’ use of text speak was determined using five different measures, which included: Use of textisms in formal versus informal communications Text speak proficiency: Translating Standard English to text Text speak familiarity: Translating text speak to Standard English (SE) Literacy processing speed: Speed of translation to and from SE Spelling errors: Translating target textisms to SE The students were also administered a standardized literacy, which was determined using two different measures: Reading: Woodcock Johnson III Achievement test, letter-word identification and reading fluency subtests. Spelling: Woodcock Johnson III, spelling subtest

Spell-check: Through our research we discovered that many students rely too heavily on spellcheck to correct their spelling, and as a result, have poor spelling skills.  In the following video, a high school girl describes her spelling problems from dependency on spellcheck.  It also addressed the problems that arise from text speak.

Other negative effects of technology on learning: -Technology makes it easier to cheat and plagarize -Decrease in critical thinking -Decrease in analysis skills -Decrease in imagination -Don’t process as much during class, easily distracted

Sources: Are Digital Media Changing Language? http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/mar09/vol66/num06/Are_Digital_Media_Changing_Language¢.aspx Is Technology Producing a Decline in Critical Thinking and Analysis? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128092341.htm Today Show clip: