Professors, Linguists, and even parents have been arguing for many years about the pros and cons of texting, some might argue and say it decreases the students’ ability to use proper grammar and vocabulary, letting students butcher English words freely but others believe it enhances the way we learn about Vocabs and the English language in general. So, the question is, does texting ruins literacy skills? I believe the answer is NO, it doesn’t, and here’s why!

“Texting” By Asterfolio, Unsplash

In the book Bad Ideas About Writing, author Christopher Justice explains the misconception about texting, The title of his essay, and the topic that he signifies the idea that texting destroys one’s ability to have literacy skills. According to,” Texting Ruins Literacy Skills,” Justice argues that it’s just a myth, and stresses that it’s crucial to end this myth.   

Justice gives a reason why it’s crucial “One reason is that in many contexts, texting allows writers more time than speech to formulate their thoughts, and like other types of electronic media, texting also allows ample opportunities to revise and organize one’s thoughts. Second, the sudden and rapid popularity of texting is radically disproportionate to illiteracy rates.” (Justice, 310) In another word, a writer can express their ideas or feelings more efficiently by just texting than through talking Furthermore, texting provides clarity of someone’s thoughts. In his second reasoning, the author states, since everyone is texting and most people do not think texting hurts our literacy, if that was true, the literacy rate would’ve decreased and we would’ve stopped texting. Also, it is worth mentioning, this generation is by far literate than any other generation that lived before it. 

“Text Notification” by Jamie-street, Unsplash

In Jessica Gross’s TED blog post, “Texting as a “miraculous thing”: 6 ways our generation is redefining communication“, Jessica paraphrases the TED Talk speaker and linguist John McWhorter by writing “texting shouldn’t be categorized as a written language –but as [a] speech.”, Through a linguist perspective, McWhorter strongly believes that texting encourages a strong form of communication through writing, as brief as it may be.

 “Message Apps” By Adem AY, Unsplash

There are dozens of slang words and phrases many students text in their everyday communication, such as FYI, WYA, BTW, etc. Justice explains that those abbreviations are not new in the linguist world people have been using abbreviations for many years and we shouldn’t be surprised. Justice further explains “Ultimately, the abbreviated language that characterizes texting discourse is a continuation of a historical trend that reveals how people have creatively used language for conciseness and efficiency,” what he saying is, it’s just a generation difference and creativity that made people think it’s a new trend but history shows that’s not true.

In conclusion, Christopher Justice, Jessica Gross, and Jhon McWhorter’s ideas came together in the essay “Texting Ruins Literacy Skills” on Bad Ideas About Writing. Texting not only improves users’ ability to read and write it is also one of the fastest ways to convey information to others. By texting, one learns how to spell words regularly which enhances one’s Literacy skills. 

Works Cited

Justice, Christopher. “Texting Ruins Literacy Skills” in Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E.Ball and Drew M. Loewe, 30-33.

Jessica Gross’s TED blog post, “Texting as a ‘Miraculous Thing’: 6 Ways our Generation is Redefining Communication”

“Myths Word on Card Index Paper,” SinARTCreative, Unsplash.

Similar to many other false rules discredited in the book Bad Ideas About Writing, the idea that the English passive voice should be avoided at all costs is highly emphasized in writing culture. In Collin Gifford Brooke’s essay “The Passive Voice Should Be Avoided,” he addresses faults in arguments urging the use of the passive voice and proposes a better alternative. With the help of Geoffrey K. Pullum’s “Fear and Loathing of the English Passive,” Brooke concludes that teaching its appropriate uses and allowing writers’ discretion in its usage is a better alternative to avoiding the passive.

One of the most prevalent criticisms leveled at the passive voice is the inexactness it may lend. Because of its ambiguity, the passive voice is often used to label writing as weak and inferior. Brooke explains that “when we consider a single sentence, more often than not, the most direct version will appear to be the better option.” (141). Arguments against the passive fail to consider the reality that writing is often extensive and surrounding sentences are related to one other. Sentences within paragraphs provide context that allows for the appropriate usage of the passive voice, which introduces variety and improves the quality of a writing.

AlexLMX, Unsplash.

Furthermore, advice to choose active over passive for its assertiveness ignores the fact that not “every sentence is supposed to come at you like a punch in the gut…” and erroneously assumes that “passive clauses can’t deliver a gut punch.” (Pullum 19). When writers are fully educated on the proper context for employing the passive voice, they can recognize and recreate these conditions in their work to skillfully integrate the passive. In addition to being able to identify situations where they prefer the passive, they can maintain control over the nuance and subtlety of their work without adhering to the hard and fast rule of always employing the active voice.

“Deception,” Gustavo Muñoz Soriano, Unsplash.

Another common allegation about the passive voice is that it obscures accountability. Critics claim that because the passive voice does not explicitly indicate the subject of the actions within a sentence, it buries the subject and obscures their involvement. This accusation is related to that of the previous paragraphs in that it is derived from poor examples of passive usage. It is not wholly baseless as the passive voice can be used to obscure responsibility, but so can the active. Pullum addresses this in his article, noting that “Omission of the passive complement (not simply use of the passive) permits agents to be left unspecified. … They are not the slightest bit sneaky or evasive when the identity of the agent is either thoroughly irrelevant or entirely unknowable.” (18-19). He explains that ambiguous agents are caused by inappropriate use of the passive, not by the passive itself. Reinforcing the premise that with proper education on how to use the passive voice, writers would not have to obey the rigid rule of avoiding the passive voice. 

Brooke also indicates agreement with this in his essay. “The passive voice can certainly be abused, but in the hands of a skilled writer (like Rockmore), it is an invaluable strategy.” (Brooke 143). Additionally, this feature is a grammatical concept that can be employed to ensure cohesive flow and refine a writer’s skill set. Teaching proper passive usage enables writers to make the most of this concept in its proper circumstances. For example, it can be used to introduce elements of suspense to a work of fiction. 

“Two People Shaking Hands,” Cytonn Photography, Unsplash.

Throughout their articles and with the help of various examples, both authors make it clear the allegations against the passive voice can be summed up to oversimplification and incorrect understanding/usage of its suitable contexts. Well-meaning advisors and advice recipients are uneducated on the actual context required by the passive; the blind leading the blind. The rational solution is to shed light on effective and befitting passive voice usage by properly teaching it. Both authors are also unified in this conclusion. “We should be teaching writers the skilled application of the passive voice, rather than teaching them to avoid it altogether. Understanding sentences in context rather than isolation would allow writers to take up questions of cohesion and coherence.” (Brooke 143). Brooke suggests that teaching applications of the passive would be more advantageous than avoiding it. “The standard teaching about shunning the passive should be abandoned entirely. … Intelligent discussion of how non-canonical clauses fit into discourses just might have beneficial effects on the work of novice writers…” (Pullum 22). Pullum reinforces the alternative deliberate approach to teaching what situations are appropriate for the passive voice.

Ultimately, the passive voice, like the active, can be used in deceptive ways. Nonetheless, it is useful in its respective settings and can significantly enhance the quality of a writing. It would be more beneficial to teach the proper usage of the passive voice and empower writers to choose which voice they believe works best in any situation.

Works Cited

AlexLMX. “Human Stomach With Boxing Glove,” Unsplash, Unsplash, 5 December 2018, unsplash.com, Accessed 06 December 2021.

Brooke, Collin. “The Passive Voice Should be Avoided.” Bad Ideas About Writing, edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, Digital Publishing Institute, 2017, textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf. pp. 139-43 Accessed 09 Nov. 2021.

Cytonn Photography. “Two People Shaking Hands,”  Unsplash, Cytonn Photography, 23 March 2019, unsplash.com, Accessed 06 December 2021.

Pullum, Geoffrey. “Fear and Loathing of the English Passive.” Science Direct, Science Direct, 22 January 2014, sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271530913000980. Accessed 09 Nov. 2021.

SinARTCreative. “Myths Word on Card Index Paper,” Unsplash, Unsplash, 26 April 2018, unsplash.com, Accessed 06 December 2021.

Soriano, Gustavo. “Deception,” Unsplash, Unsplash, 24 May 2020, unsplash.com, Accessed 06 December 2021.

As of 2021 there are many changes in this country, but many problems still occur. Such as discrimination, not just towards grown adults but to students too. Pattanayak begins to shine light on the problem by writing the essay “There is One Correct Way of Writing and Speaking”. Her bad idea about writing was that America makes foreigners believe that English must be perfected and if not, the person will be treated less then. At the end of this essay, she lists some sources that have more insight on this matter. The source that will be used is “Growth Mindset: How to Normalize Mistake Making and Struggle in Class” by Katrina Schwartz. This article explains how “productive failure” can help children with their process. This is a better idea since it helps kids better learn and understand that failing does not mean that student is bad. As this idea has been tested on several students it has had an impact on students mindset. Since it teaches them to try different methods when they are stuck.

What exactly is the problem? Well as Pattanayak has mentioned this is a problem with the education system. It is designed for middle class white students and not for foreigners that would also want to expand their education. But this mentality has changed as teachers have been finding new methods to better educate children. Schwartz has mentioned that some Stanford psychologists have found that when children know that they can craft their brain to work better, they have a better time understanding new matrerial. The method productive failure (created by,Dr. Manu Kapur) helps give hope and chance to improve their mistakes. When people are stuck, many people would just like to give up. By teaching children that being stuck does not mean failure it gives encouragement of doing better. After some time people begin to realize continuing after failure gives good effect, well teaching young children this will also be a life skill. Pattanayak says in her essay that minority student has trouble communicating and that can effect opportunities such as jobs. As this makes students feel un-needed, many give up and lose their student visa. Therefore Schwartz method would help with the struggling, but instead of getting kicked out of the whole class there could be extra time given. Extra help could be provided in a way the student could cooperate with, instead of just studying.

Growth mindset can help students grow in many ways as they learn their potential in learning. Schwartz mentions Infei Chen as she has found that new research that “Intelligence is Not Fixed” and when students learn this they are more likely to succeed. Pattnayak would agree that letting students fail will end up giving students better mental stability. Pattanayak says, “This understanding of writing is rooted called current traditional rhetoric, which focuses on a prescriptive and formulaic way of teaching writing that assumes there is only one way to write (or speak) something for it to be correct.” (Pattanayak, pg.82) This quote can be used to back up Schwartz method of learning as she believes that being perfect is not a reality.

Pattnayak would agree that letting students fail will end up giving students better mental stability. Pattanayak says, “This understanding of writing is rooted called current traditional rhetoric, which focuses on a prescriptive and formulaic way of teaching writing that assumes there is only one way to write (or speak) something for it to be correct.” (Pattanayak, pg.82) This quote can be used to back up Schwartz method of learning as she believes that being perfect is not a reality. The experiment that shows an example of this method. Which was orchestrated by Maricela Montoy-Wilson when teaching the students this new method she says “Everyone is going to feel stuck,” The students need to use different muscles of their brains to figure it out but it also makes them feel like they are putting in the work to get the answer. Pattanayak speaks more about how foreigners are taught to speak differently because the way the way they speak is wrong. But this new method of productive failure will give people a new perspective of what is write or wrong. Schwartz whole point of this new method is to show its not always about being correct but instead of a person trying because sometimes the reward is the amount of effort you put in.

Schwartz talks about how Maricela Montoy-Wilson asks her students to ask for specific types of help. This will help students start asking questions in class, but to also not be shy about not knowing the answer. Which is what pattanayak insinuates that this is a good idea as this gives students the benefit of doubt to be wrong instead of the student fearing being wrong. Pattanayak would agree with this since the foreign students were always taught to be perfect by using this method at a young age does not make a student be afraid to fail sometimes. This can encourage doing better and more improvement. If this is not done the students will be to scared and will start cheating just to be perfect. Learning this method young can make the mind more expanded, Pattanayak and Shwartz both have this understanding that children can be taught by their failures.

Citations

Schwartz, Katrina. “Growth Mindset: How to Normalize Mistake Making and Struggle in Class” KQED, 24 Aug. 2015.

Pattanayak, A. (2017). THERE IS ONE CORRECT WAY OF WRITING AND SPEAKING. In C. E. Ball & D. M. Loewe (Eds.), Bad Ideas About Writing (pp. 82–98). essay, West Virginia University Libraries Digital Publishing Institute

Chen, Ingfei. “New Research: Students Benefit from Learning That Intelligence Is Not Fixed.” KQED, Ingfei Chen, 16 July 2014, https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/36603/new-research-students-benefit-from-learning-that-intelligence-is-not-fixed

“Give Work That Encourages Mistakes: See It in Action, Celebrate Mistakes.” Mindset Kit, https://www.mindsetkit.org/topics/celebrate-mistakes/give-work-encourages-mistakes-see-action

“Praising the Process: See It in Action, Praise the Process, Not the Person.” Mindset Kit, https://www.mindsetkit.org/topics/praise-process-not-person/praising-process-see-action

Nowadays, reading and writing play an essential role in communication and educational success. People often believe the idea that reading and writing are not connected, but the question is if that opinion is correct or not? In the “Reading and Writing Are not connected” essay from “Bad Ideas About Writing” book, Ellen C. Carillo takes the time to address why this is a bad idea and what she believes is a more appropriate idea for students to gain in-depth and comprehensive literacy skills. She works to prove that the connection between reading and writing is inarguable by explaining how good the result of teaching writing and reading simultaneously, compared to the old problematic separation’ cause.

Books are infinity sources of humanity knowledge

It’s hard to realize that the way we read and write is not the same but they improve each other through this difference. That’s the reason why educators and instructors need appropriate strategies in teaching writing and reading. In Carillo’s chapter of “Bad Ideas About Writing”, she explicates her perspective about the importance of teaching writing and reading alongside each other in many ways. One of the most notable is when she emphasizes the idea that reading and writing are not two separate skills: “What is often neglected in these public debates about the best way to teach literacy at the college level is that reading and writing are connected practices and, as such, the best way to teach them is together. It is a bad idea to continue privileging writing at the expense of reading” (Carillo 38). Carillo further explains that: “… research has shown that students learn to read and write better when they are instructed in both simultaneously. This is reinforced when children practice both reading and writing the same words” (Carillo 38-39). This one more time affirms Carillo’s idea that reading and writing are connected through the learning process and they have a close relationship.

Although this problematic separation is eliminated, the journey to earn that achievement is not easy. It took educators and curricula developers decades to figure out that children can learn how to read and write alongside each other in their early school years. Students are usually taught to read articles, books or essays then write feedback about feeling or understanding content and theme of reading materials. In this way, students can be flexible in thinking and expressing ideas not only in academics but also in social situations. Carillo explains that:” When one writes, one is creating meaning by putting words and ideas together. When one reads, the same thing happening” (Carillo 40). What she’s identifying is the supports for the idea that writing and reading have a close relationship, they support each other when teaching them alongside together. Besides, both reading and writing sharpen students’ mental ability while putting words and ideas together which helps them become better thinkers. Especially in college-level classrooms, reading and writing should be taught alongside each other than any elsewhere. College students can be fully aware of genres or types of books then read them collectively. They connect their own life experiences with the content of the sources they read to create their unique outcome, which can be considered valuable material to be a good writer. Carillo states in her essay:” Few people might read the same novel but each takes something different from it. That personal transaction with the text has affected how each reader creates meaning.” (Carillo 40). In other words, reading helps students to have their perspective about something that makes them different from others and day by day widen their writing sources.

“Writer” by Nattakorn Maneerat. Unsplash

Along with Carillo, many scholars support the idea of teaching reading and writing simultaneously. Author of “Reading, Writing, and Learning in Classroom”, David Bloome states that “Reading is typically viewed as used for gaining information. One reads a book to gain information to do so” (Bloom 23). Indeed, reading is always the most effective way to collect information. There are so many sources that we can not count, and every source has its value to contribute to human knowledge’s “warehouse”. As a certain thing, a good writer is always one who read a lot of information before they sit down and start writing.

Michael Bunn an author of “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and Writing) in the composition classroom” uses his writing to look at the close relationship of reading and writing and how important they are to student’s success. He states in his article:” Teaching reading in terms of its connections to writing can motivate students to read and increase the likelihood that they find success in both activities. It can lead students to value reading as an integral aspect of learning to write. It can help students develop their understanding of writerly strategies and techniques. Most of us firmly believe that reading improves writing.” (Bunn 512) This is one of the conclusions Bunn has after finishing his survey about the connection between reading and writing. He explains that if students know what the purpose of their reading is about, they will be motivated and take the reading process effective as a joyful activity hence improving writing’s outcome. Most important, he asserts the value of teaching writing and reading alongside together, which can improve each other day by day.

In short, all three authors have come together to a common idea about the essence of teaching reading and writing at the same time. Nowadays, strong communication skills are a priority in many corporate recruitments, in this case, communication is identified by reading and writing skills. Therefore, students should practice both reading and writing regularly and simultaneously, to enhance communication skills as well as critical thinking.

Work Cited

Ellen C. Carillo. “Reading and Writing Are Not Connected.”  | in Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe. Bad Ideas About Writing. West Virginia University Library, Digital publishing Institute, Morgan Town, WV.PDF. https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf

Bunn, M. (2013). Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and Writing) in the Composition Classroom. College Composition and Communication, 64(3), 496–516. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43490768

Bloome, D., & Theodorou, E. (1985). Reading, Writing, and Learning in the Classroom. Peabody Journal of Education, 62(3), 20–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1492584