RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

TEACHERS ON THE IMPACT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ON STUDENTS’ LITERACY

KEYWORDS: spelling, literacy, written language, school written language, language teaching, electronic communication.

INTRODUCTION

This article is the third in a series of articles examining Lithuanian-language teachers’ attitudes toward the teaching of spelling, the features of school written language, and the problems of student illiteracy that have become particularly pronounced in recent years, as well as their causes.

School written language is understood as a variety of standard Lithuanian used in the educational process when students complete various written assignments at school and at home. Students’ written language is a broader concept, since the same students also use written language in their free time, but this is private rather than school written language, and it has emerged over the past decade with the advent of extensive opportunities for electronic communication. Thus, unlike their parents’ generation in its day, today’s students use two varieties of written language almost equally (at least in terms of the time per day devoted to schoolwork and leisure)¹. They also differ in that students complete most school written assignments by hand, whereas in private written communication they rely almost exclusively on electronic communication devices with keyboards (mobile phones, computers, tablets). When studying students’ language and its changes, distinguishing between these varieties of written language is necessary in order to better highlight the characteristics of each and show how they interact.

The aim of this article is to confirm or refute the hypothesis, based on an analysis of the results of a survey of Lithuanian-language teachers, that spelling habits formed through the use of information technologies (hereafter IT) in students’ private written language have a marked effect on school written language.

First, the article briefly describes the nature of the survey conducted and the responses received. It then shows how teachers characterize the overall impact of IT on student behavior related to literacy, and examines in detail the manifestations of IT’s impact on school written language identified by teachers. These are compared with the features of students’ private written language. The article concludes with remarks summarizing the findings of both this article and the studies in the entire series.

¹ Interestingly, when describing the language their parents now use in electronic communication, teenagers see clear differences from their own language in the electronic environment: their parents use considerably fewer nonstandard forms, write very few abbreviations, and so on (for more, see Meškerėvičiūtė 2011: 10).

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 2

1. TEACHER SURVEY ON STUDENTS’ LITERACY PROBLEMS

At the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, while preparatory work was being carried out on the section of the educational computer game “Kieti riešutėliai”² designed to reinforce spelling skills, a mixed-format survey³ of Lithuanian-language teachers was conducted. Although this survey was not highly representative, since the teachers who responded to the invitation to participate were volunteers teaching children of various ages and nationalities, their detailed answers, supported by numerous examples, provide a picture of how teachers themselves describe and assess literacy problems in schools. Thus, the survey data can be used in preparing representative surveys on this topic. It should be emphasized that the teachers in this survey were asked about students’ written assignments completed at school and at home, rather than about their leisure-time electronic communication; consequently, their answers were based on data from school, not private, written language.

In one article in this series, teachers’ responses were used to examine how teachers assess their students’ spelling skills, what literacy differences they observe in relation to students’ age, and what electronic teaching tools they use to teach language (see Vasiliauskas 2013: 27–31). A second article examined teachers’ opinions on the reasons for the decline in students’ literacy (see Miliūnaitė 2013: 192–211). One such reason is the impact of information technology on students’ writing skills.

Why, in looking for signs of IT’s impact on written language at school, was a teacher survey chosen rather than a direct examination of students’ written work? Both approaches are important for investigating the problem in question, and each has its advantages. Teachers know their students best and can draw on their experience to compare the current state of literacy in schools with that of the past, since the problem itself is framed as the emergence of certain changes in a defined area of Lithuanian-language use. Teachers’ answers do indeed contain such comparisons, for example:

Yes, errors are appearing that I wouldn’t even have dreamed of ten years ago, e.g.: vaikuj⁴ (dative), keulė; they no longer write the little marks over ž, š, or the dots over ė.

Students omit the little marks over ž, š much more often than they did five years ago, fail to write nasal vowels at word endings (what? – galva, stala), and use the letter w.

Unlike a direct study of students’ language, teachers’ views on their students’ literacy characteristics make it possible not only to identify features of the students’ written language, but also to associate those features with the conditions that may have given rise to them, reveal the causes of changes in literacy, and thereby provide a more objective picture of all processes related to students’ literacy.

² For more information about the educational games in this series, see http://www.kalbosnamai.lt/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=36.

³ The eight questions in the questionnaire, published in 2012 on the Lithuanian Language Institute’s affiliated website “Kalbos namai,” received 120 responses from 95 Lithuanian schools of various types (see http://www.kalbosnamai.lt/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=143&Itemid=69).

⁴ In the teachers’ responses, words and letters whose spelling is discussed are indicated throughout in italics. Otherwise, the teachers’ language has not been edited (Ed.).

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 3

2. SURVEY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EFFECT OF IT ON STUDENTS’ LITERACY

A separate section of the survey was devoted to the issue of the effect of IT on students’ literacy:

Do you notice that habits and trends arising from information technologies (mobile phones, computers) affect students’ spelling? If so, what is this effect?

These questions cover two implicit aspects of IT’s effect on students’ written language: the technical tools used for electronic communication, and the social and psychological environment created by such communication.

In response to the first question—whether teachers notice the effect of IT on students’ spelling—87.5 percent of teachers answered yes. Thus, in teachers’ view, this effect is obvious and strong. Students of all age groups, including even elementary school pupils who already use IT, are affected negatively:

Since I teach elementary school children, the effect is not yet very noticeable, but I can see from my older daughter (she is in seventh grade) that the trend of writing differently is very widespread.

Children [second-graders] who often use mobile phones no longer write the letters ė, ž, š.

The teachers themselves rated IT’s effect on students’ literacy (although they were not asked to do so in the survey questionnaire) on a scale from strongest to none: “a devastating effect—children are practically illiterate,” “has a very strong effect,” “the influence is enormous,” down to “has no effect.”

However, only two teachers note that IT’s effect on the decline in literacy is small:

The students themselves acknowledge that a few years ago the effect of information technologies was very great. At present, some students try to write text messages and online comments correctly.

But lately I have not really noticed spelling getting worse because of IT; young people do this among themselves, while with older people they try to write as they should, especially if the teacher draws their attention to it.

These few responses suggest that these are rather notable exceptions, apparently depending largely on the individual teacher’s ability to influence students’ thinking and habits in the opposite direction.

Some teachers’ responses were brief, merely confirming IT’s negative effect on students’ spelling:

The effect is definitely negative.

Yes, it has a strong, negative effect.

They no longer know how to write correctly.

Negative; disregard for spelling rules.

A very marked decline in overall literacy.

Most of the answers to this question were much more detailed, for example:

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 4

It has a strong effect. They bring in a text typed on a computer and know it will not be graded, so there are no dots over ė, it doesn’t matter what i, u, there are no ogoneks at the end, and they shorten words lb (labai, “very”), mum, jum, tuom, kuom.

It seems that even the elementary word tuojau (“right away”) is now difficult for pupils to write without mistakes, because they are accustomed both to shortening words and to using non-Lithuanian characters in their messages. Sometimes, when writing, pupils already ask what a particular letter looks like, because they have simply forgotten it... And it is not only fifth-graders who do this.

In response to the second question—what effect IT has on pupils’ spelling—teachers identified various features of written school language which, in their view, are associated with pupils’ use of IT for electronic communication, for example:

It is much harder to teach the spelling of long and short vowels, the use of ogoneks in word roots, and case endings, because once pupils have learned a rule and applied it in practice in class, they hardly ever use this knowledge anywhere else, not even online or when communicating by mobile phone.

Rarely, but there are a few pupils who write “text messages” in their notebooks too.

The article goes on to examine these teachers’ responses. They were written in free form, so after the initial analysis all the features of pupils’ writing that teachers identified as having emerged as a result of IT’s influence were selected, and the frequency with which they were mentioned was statistically calculated.

3. THE IMPACT OF IT ON STUDENTS’ BEHAVIOUR RELATED TO LEARNING SPELLING

In their responses, teachers often point not only to specific linguistic features of students’ written work, but also try to link them to students’ behaviour, which is influenced by IT becoming part of their lives from an early age. Drawing on their extensive work experience, teachers compare today’s students with those of earlier times and say that this behaviour has changed. Several of its most characteristic features can be distinguished.

Teachers note that students’ writing habits have changed:

students have developed a habit of writing quickly. There is more distraction and more omitted letters.

[Students] drop vowels from words and in all sorts of other ways “speed up” their writing.

Yes, of course, there is an effect. First of all, rushing. Students feel great displeasure when they have to look for a mistake and explain why we use that punctuation.

I would venture to say that this is not a matter of fashion, but a harmful habit. Especially after longer holidays, for example summer, you have to struggle for nearly a month to get children back to the level they were at before the holidays.

Students’ writing culture and neatness have deteriorated; they do not understand what “write further from the margin” means; “more and more often, one has to remind them that there are margins.”

Students no longer make an effort to learn; a “tendency to write any old how” can be observed, and they feel no need to improve:

They no longer think about how to spell correctly; the habit is not being fostered.

they do not put a “little bird” [caron] or a dot above the letter and excuse themselves by saying that it does not matter—they just forgot.

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 5

Teachers often remark on finding a marked error: “But it’s just a little dot...”

students are more indifferent to spelling and correct their written assignments carelessly.

Less effort is made to express thoughts precisely and correctly.

Thus, in teachers’ eyes, students have become more indifferent to learning, distracted, inattentive, and prone to doing everything hastily, carelessly, and perfunctorily. As a result, they do not develop a need for neatness or understand the purpose of correct writing. Correct writing is becoming unfashionable, because “thanks to information technologies, they have created their own spelling systems.” Such changes are not accidental; judging by the survey responses, they can be described as a marked trend.

4. MANIFESTATIONS OF IT’S IMPACT ON STUDENTS’ LITERACY

Research in Lithuania on language used in electronic communication is still very scarce and fragmentary (cf. publications on the language of IRC chat messages – Zelenkauskaitė, Herring 2006: 1–17; text-message spelling – Nevinskaitė 2010: 275–296; spelling in the Skype program – Meškerevičiūtė 2011: 9–15). When examining the impact of IT on written language more broadly, the foreign literature identifies the following as the most prominent signs of this impact (for more detail, see Androutsopoulos 2011: 145–159):

1) writing becomes a transcription of spoken language, that is, one writes as one speaks;

2) writing is used to compensate for the expressive features of face-to-face communication (using special signs to indicate facial expressions, gestures, emotions, and intonation);

3) the fast pace of electronic communication encourages a language-economy strategy (the form of expression is shortened in various ways).

This is characteristic primarily of informal electronic communication; however, as will be evident from the teachers’ responses to the survey under discussion, school writing also exhibits many of these features, or at least their beginnings.

4.1. General signs of IT influence (incorrect spelling habits)

Many features of school written language identified by teachers arise from the direct transfer of electronic communication skills to written assignments (sometimes including those written on a computer), cf.:

[Students write differently] not because they do not know the rules, but because they are used to writing SMS messages this way.

They use a lot of “shorthand” spelling, and this is already becoming a serious problem: they no longer write diacritics, use many abbreviations, drop vowels from words, and otherwise “speed up” their writing.

Some students even dare to explain to me, when submitting written assignments, that their computer does not have “Lithuanian letters”...

Yes, on their phones and computers they write without periods or commas, and use slang. Then they write that way in their notebooks too. [...] when they only have to fill in missing letters in a test, children usually do not make such mistakes.

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 6

It is apparent that the characteristics of students’ written language in general are largely shaped both by the habit of rushing and by the limited technical capabilities of the electronic communication tools they use. This clearly affects school written language; teachers describe this influence using specific examples.

In teachers’ responses, features of school written language that have emerged under the influence of IT are grouped according to more than one logical criterion, making them rather difficult to systematize. This article does so only minimally, since the present concern is to report teachers’ own observations about how frequently they occur in school written language.

4.2. Non-use of Lithuanian letters with diacritical marks

This tendency was mentioned by teachers most often—98 times. A teacher’s responses may indicate several features, for example:

[...] if we take a QWERTY keyboard, then in practice the ąčęėįšųūž row does not function.

ICT has done young people a disservice—the letters ė, ū, and the nasal vowels have disappeared; substitutes for š and ž, sh, zh, have become “fashionable”.

In many cases, the tendency not to use diacritical marks was specified in more detail.

1) Nasal vowels are not written⁵ (48 mentions):

they get used to writing without nasal vowels

they forget the nasal vowels at word endings (e.g., genitive – raide, mielaji, knyga, etc.; participles, singular and plural – pareję, suskubęs, šaląs, vešias, and so on).

when writing coherent text, they increasingly omit nasal vowels (ę, į, ų).

2) Carons (haceks) are not written above the letters č, š, ž (40 mentions, or a quarter of the teachers who participated in the survey):

they pay less attention to the carons

they write without diacritics; they begin to write in unaccented text

s is confused with š, and ž with z

The habit of writing š and ž is disappearing.

Two teachers note that the absence of carons is sometimes compensated for by using the digraphs sh, zh, although this would seem unlikely in school written assignments⁶:

⁵ Understandably, nasal vowels may also be omitted for another reason—lack of knowledge of spelling rules. However, at this stage of the research, it is not possible to distinguish when this feature is caused by habits created by IT and when by functional illiteracy. In general, it can be assumed that both causes are in fact intertwined and influence one another.

⁶ Cf.: “Teenagers are characterized by creativity and a desire to stand out from others when interacting with one another. But I really don’t believe that our children deliberately leave out Lithuanian diacritics in Lithuanian lessons or replace the letter „š“ with the digraph „sh,“—the representative of the VDU academic community said with conviction.” (Interview by Arnoldas Aleksandravičius with Ineta Dabšanskienė. Available online: http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/kas-labiausiai-grauna-lietuviu-kalbos-sistema.d?id=61597537#ixzz2sXppYzBR). However, there is little reason to be very surprised, since spelling is an automated process in many cases, one that is subject to little conscious control; if a person is accustomed to swearing every day, a swear word sometimes slips out involuntarily, even on television.

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 7

instead of š, sh, zh appear

š, ž are replaced by sh, zh.

When typing on a keyboard without Lithuanian letters, this phenomenon is not uncommon, except in text messages, where people try to use as few characters as possible (cf. Nevinskaitė 2010: 285).

3) The letter ū is omitted and confused with u (7 mentions):

there is a tendency to omit ū altogether

confuses the vowels u and ū.

4) Dots are omitted over the letters ė, i, į, j in handwritten work (35 mentions):

cases of writing without dots over ė, i, į, j are becoming more frequent (they forget them)

does not consider the dot over ė a serious matter

does not put dots over ė and does not even want to agree that e and ė are different letters

Most affected [by IT] is spelling with ė (sedeti, skrybele; atvejis).

[Because of typing on computers or phones] they (here I am referring to the more capable students) often no longer see the difference between e and ė.

It is understandable that omitting dots over i and j can be regarded as a matter of fashion, which is not very dangerous to the spelling system itself⁷. Quite another matter is failing to distinguish the letters e and ė, which represent different sounds and correspond to different phonemes that distinguish words (cf. meta and mėta, atves and atvės).

Another consequence mentioned by teachers, which is beginning to become apparent as a result of spelling without diacritical marks, should not be overlooked. Spelling affected by IT, in turn, affects students’ pronunciation:

Probably [IT] affects the spelling of the accusative and genitive endings. Children do not even read these cases correctly. They say: matau knyga. Likewise, although they still write ė, they tend not to pronounce it. Such things have been noticeable for about 2–3 years.

4.3. Non-Lithuanian characters used w, x (8 mentions):

instead of v, w is written; instead of ks, x

w appears in written assignments.

Although, judging from the survey responses, such cases are not numerous, they show that pupils sometimes transfer into schoolwork elements of an entirely different system—a foreign alphabet—with which they became familiar while using IT; thus, they are unable to switch from one writing system to another.

⁷ Cf. the document “Assessment Criteria for the Lithuanian Language and Literature State Matura Examination Task,” approved in 2013 by the Director of the National Examination Centre, which gives the following explanation: “Errors in grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation are not counted twice and are treated as separate errors, except in the following cases: a) when the dots are omitted over i, j, this is considered one error throughout the whole paper; however, if the dots are omitted over ė, each error is counted separately.” Available online: http://www.egzaminai.lt/failai/3938_instrukcija_LIT_VBE_2013-11-15r.pdf.

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 8

4.4. j is written instead of į, especially at the end of a word j (5 mentions):

they themselves acknowledge that it becomes difficult not to write ej in the dative case instead of the required ei

tai, paskui, kai, taj, vaikuj

the diphthong ui [they begin] to write as uj

Frequent j spelling at the ends of words: tajp, taj.

This feature can be explained both as a kind of fashion and as having arisen from writing by ear. Internet usage shows that in pupils’ private communication, j sometimes also appears in the middle of a word, for example, vaikas.

4.5. Various abbreviations are used⁸ (28 mentions):

abbreviate words lb (very) and sentences

when writing essays, use abbreviations (lb, nzn, kdl and others)

leave out vowels

vowels and consonants are omitted

write abbreviations: nzn, ok, gr and others

word abbreviations unsupported by any rules occur, such as tj (that), atvž (come over).

4.6. Proper nouns are written with lowercase letters, while common nouns are sometimes capitalized (6 mentions):

It is sad, but they increasingly often make spelling mistakes with proper nouns; sometimes they even write their own name in lowercase, let alone Lithuania...

spelling of proper and common nouns (Lithuania, Lithuanians).

4.7. Sentences after a period begin with a lowercase letter (7 mentions):

begins a sentence with a lowercase letter

sometimes writes the next sentence after a period with a lowercase letter

does not distinguish sentence boundaries

no longer distinguishes sentence boundaries and does not use punctuation marks.

⁸ Lithuanian teacher Aldona Šventickienė also notes this peculiarity in a 2014 interview: “When I began teaching the current class of high school seniors, I was very surprised to see that in 11th grade they wrote half-words in their essays—as they do in text messages. I insisted that the whole word had to be written, so this year that problem is gone; however, at the beginning of 11th grade it really was like that” (Smolskienė 2014).

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 9

4.8. Writing as one hears:

1) e and ia are confused e ir ia, for example, writing čė, keulė (2 mentions).

2) j is written where it does not belong (1 mention):

Most often, they write jieško instead of ieško (I find this kind of spelling in text messages odd, since instead of shortening, one more letter is written).

3) errors are made because of consonant assimilation (4 mentions):

ts disappears, immediately replaced by c, e.g.: aciprašau.

4.9. Non-alphabetic signs used in electronic communication (4 mentions):

In written assignments, they try to express emotions using symbols; a smiley often appears instead of a period at the end of a sentence.

4.10. Features of the informal electronic communication style are transferred into school writing:

1) a pronounced influence of the informal electronic communication style (18 mentions). Some teachers note that students’ intensive use of IT “greatly affects not spelling, but the language style itself” and the ways texts are composed; the style of essays is deteriorating, and students are adopting their “own” spelling style. The most characteristic features of this altered student style are:

a) a shrinking range of expressive language resources, especially vocabulary:

vocabulary is impoverished

limited vocabulary

Their language is impoverished. They no longer know what “gust” or “storm” means...

[IT] affects vocabulary—it impoverishes it greatly.

they use few adjectives

students’ vocabulary is becoming very limited;

b) sentence structures are becoming simpler:

They find it harder to formulate sentences.

sentence structures are becoming banal

they cannot expand sentences in essays; the most common linking word is which, repeated several times in a sentence

Rarely, but there are a few students who write “messages” in their notebooks too;

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 10

c) short forms of cases and persons used in the wrong place:

shortens the words mum, jum, tuom, kuom

shortens words, e.g., infinitives (laikyt, būt, sveikt, etc.);

2) slang and barbarisms are used (7 mentions):

non-Lithuanian interjections

uses more barbarisms

many slang words appear

writes in slang.

4.11. Summary of the Features of School Written Language Identified by Teachers

The reviewed features of school written language show that changes in written form are only one characteristic of this changing variety of language. The decline in literacy (in the narrow sense) is discussed most often because this phenomenon is probably the most readily and clearly observable; however, more fundamental changes are also taking place, relating to the quality of the language used and pupils’ inability to make full use of the possibilities offered by language.

Table 1 presents the main features of school written language identified by teachers as resulting from the impact of IT (responses in individual cases identified still more). They are arranged in descending order according to how often they were mentioned in answers to the questionnaire.

¹ TABLE. Summary of the features of school written language resulting from the impact of IT, according to teachers

No.

Features of school written language affected by IT

Number of mentions (out of 120 responses)

1.

Nasal letters are omitted

48

2.

Carons are omitted from the letters č, š, ž

40

3.

Dots are omitted from the letters ė, į, ų, j

35

4.

Various abbreviations are used

28

5.

Strong influence of the style of informal electronic communication

13

6.

Non-Lithuanian characters w, x are used

8

7.

Instead of ū, u is written

7

8.

Words are written as they are heard

7

9.

Sentences after a full stop begin with a lowercase letter

7

10.

Use of slang and barbarisms

7

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 11

No.

Features of school written language affected by IT

Number of mentions (out of 120 responses)

11.

Proper nouns are written with lowercase letters, while common nouns are written with uppercase letters

6

12.

Instead of i, especially at the end of a word, j is written

5

13.

Use of non-alphabetic electronic communication symbols

4

If we compared the features of text-message language (as identified in Laima Nevinskaitė’s article, see Nevinskaitė 2010: 284–293) with those indicated by teachers, we would see considerable overlap (see Table 2); only the variety of specific expressions of these features and the extent to which they occur would differ, as would cases determined by whether the text is handwritten or typed on a keyboard (for example, the presence or absence of spaces—a relevant feature in text messages when saving the limited number of characters⁹).

TABLE 2. Comparison of features of students’ school and private written language associated with the impact of IT

No.

Features of students’ written language associated with the impact of IT

School written language

Text-message language

1.

Use of diacritical marks

There is a fairly frequent tendency not to use them

An exceptionally strong tendency not to use them¹⁰

2.

Unusual and incorrect spelling of words (v replaced by w; ks replaced by x; i replaced by j; spelling words as they sound, etc.)

occurs rather infrequently, but does occur

occurs not so infrequently

3.

Word shortening

is not a very rare phenomenon

very common graphic abbreviations of words and combinations of numbers and letters

4.

Incorrect use of uppercase and lowercase letters

a tendency is noticeable, though it is not particularly pronounced

usual spelling rules are often not observed

5.

Text punctuation

instances of nonstandard punctuation occur, which can be explained by the transfer of electronic communication skills

unusual punctuation and new ways of dividing text are often observed

6.

Spaces between words and punctuation marks

this is not relevant when writing by hand

there is a tendency to omit spaces to save characters

⁹ One response noted that pupils do not know the rules for dividing words at the end of a line. Understandably, this may be associated both with a lack of knowledge of the rules for hyphenation themselves and with the influence of IT, since words are not divided when typing on a keyboard; this feature is probably not so pronounced in school written assignments, or teachers did not attach too much importance to it.

¹⁰ Since each feature is discussed descriptively in L. Nevinskaitė’s article, the features are paraphrased in this table. At present, it is possible to compare quantitatively how the features occur in different varieties of students’ written language only very approximately.

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 12

Table 2 shows that the interaction between students’ school and informal writing encompasses a broad range of written-language features. Comparative statistical studies are therefore both possible and necessary (L. Nevinskaitė’s article does not provide such data) to determine how intensively the indicated features occur. Such studies would also make it possible to compare the dynamics of these features’ functioning over time.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Compared with the pre-digital era, students’ written language is now used much more widely and in more varied forms. To understand how and why students’ literacy levels are changing, it is important to examine the domains in which students use informal written language and whose influence on school language is undeniable.

When examining students’ written language, IT should be viewed both as a technical means of electronic communication (encompassing the electronic devices themselves as well as the capabilities provided by their software) and as a social and psychological environment in which distinctive fashions, habits, and ways of communicating flourish, inevitably affecting students’ spelling skills.

Teachers’ survey responses revealed features of school written language associated with the use of IT. The teachers’ reflections and the examples they provided show that the system of students’ spelling skills (not spelling itself!) has become unstable and unbalanced.

The effects of IT on school written language can be described in four ways: psychological, social, technical, and functional. Habits from informal electronic communication are carried over into school written language, primarily changing students’ conduct related to spelling and learning to spell (haste, inattention, carelessness, etc.). It has become more difficult to instill a need for neatness, because students accustomed to writing any old way do not understand the point of writing correctly. A new way of communicating—electronic communication—as well as computer equipment not fully adapted to the Lithuanian language (which makes it difficult to type letters with diacritical marks)¹¹ has a considerable effect on writing mechanics—the form of spelling—which is also carried over into school written language:

a) diacritical marks, dots above letters, and capital letters are omitted; non-Lithuanian characters and other forms have appeared;

b) various abbreviations are carried over from electronic communication;

c) non-traditional signs—that is, signs characteristic of electronic communication—are used.

This shows that students are not always able to switch from one spelling system to another.

A variety of language that has developed and functions autonomously in informal electronic communication also noticeably affects the style of school written language. Transferred into students’ written assignments—

¹¹ The technical impact of IT is primarily related to IT capabilities, which do not always provide the necessary conditions for writing in Lithuanian characters, as well as to the inconvenient arrangement of Lithuanian letters with diacritical marks on the most commonly used type of keyboard. Cf.: “The occurrence of errors when typing letters with diacritical marks depends on the keyboard: the more difficult it is to type a letter, the more often it is replaced with a letter without a diacritical mark. This is characteristic of various languages that use the Latin script and have letters not found in the basic part of the Latin alphabet (the English-language alphabet)” (for more details, see Grigas, Pedzevičienė 2009: 204). Incidentally, computer equipment also poses many difficulties for the Chinese, who write in characters: an increasing number of young people can no longer write or read them (for more details, see: The blow of modern technologies to tradition—Chinese can no longer recognize their own characters, www.15min.lt, 2014-08-27, available online: http://www.15min.lt/mokslas/straipsnis/technologijos/moderniu-technologiju-smugis-tradicijai-kinai-nebeat-pazista-savo-hieroglifu-646-449371?cf=df).

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 13

The characteristic features of students’ informal written language are a limited vocabulary, simplified sentence structure, colloquial forms, slang, and so on.

Some features identified by teachers (for example, omitting nasal-vowel letters or spelling by ear regardless of spelling rules, as well as being unable to hyphenate words correctly at the end of a line) may have arisen for reasons other than the influence of IT; however, in this survey, the teachers themselves classified these features in that way. This is understandable, since writing habits fostered by IT encourage and reinforce these features to a greater or lesser extent, even when they have arisen for other reasons.

Although foreign researchers often argue that the language used in electronic communication does not affect standard school language, because students are able to distinguish the contexts in which different varieties are used (see Androutsopoulos 2011: 145–159, Nevinskaitė 2010: 281–283, and the studies reviewed there), a survey of Lithuanian-language teachers showed that the interaction between two written-language varieties—the informal electronic variety and the school variety—is undeniable and not insignificant.

The teachers’ survey revealed that improving students’ literacy requires taking into account not only the direct impact of IT on students’ spelling, but also IT’s much broader impact on students’ behavior related to spelling and the learning process in general. It should also be remembered that there are other causes of illiteracy identified in an earlier article in this series. First are external causes: negative societal attitudes toward language; an unfavorable general linguistic environment in which the standard language model functions poorly; low levels of reading; and inappropriate education policy. Among the internal causes, teachers mention the complexity of spelling rules and the abundance of exceptions; the gap between students’ pronunciation and spelling norms; a failure to understand language as a system; and an inadequate vocabulary. All these factors show that the problem of literacy is one of the most complex challenges ever faced by today’s school.

With the goal of educating literate students in mind, it is important to continue investigating the interaction between the two varieties of students’ written language—the school variety and the informal variety—in order to find ways to reduce the latter’s negative impact on the former, while recognizing that students will continue to use private written language with its own fashions and habits.

The overall findings of the survey of teachers’ opinions show that efforts should be made to eliminate some factors that cause illiteracy, while reducing the negative impact of others, directing efforts above all toward spelling instruction methods under the new conditions shaped by IT. IT itself should be harnessed in ways that strengthen, rather than weaken, correct spelling skills.

LITERATŪRA

Androutsopoulos J. 2011: Language change and digital media: A review of conceptions and evidence. – Standard languages. Ed. by T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland. Oslo: Novus Press, 145–159. Prieiga internete: http://lanchart.hum.ku.dk/research/slice/publications_and_news_letters/publications/standard_languages/Androusopoulos_-_Language_change_and_digital_media_A_review_of_conceptions_and_evidence_-_p_145-159.pdf.

Grigas G., Pedzevičienė S. 2009: Klaviatūros įtaka rašybos klaidoms, susijusioms su rašto ženklų vartojimu. – Informacijos mokslai 50, 200–204.

Meškerevičiūtė A. 2011: Paauglių rašybos elektroniniame diskurse ypatumai. – Gimtoji kalba 1, 9–15.

Miliūnaitė R. 2013: Raštingumo problema interneto bendruomenės ir mokytojų akimis. – Kalbos kultūra 86, 192–211. Prieiga internete: http://www.lki.lt/LKI_LT/images/Periodiniai_leidiniai/Kalbos_kultura/Straipsniai/086/KK_86_192_211_Miliunaite.pdf.

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 14

Nevinskaitė L. 2010: Trumpųjų žinučių rašybos bruožai. – Kalbos kultūra 83, 275–296.

Smolskienė L. 2010: Mokytoja Aldona Šventickienė: vienuoliktokai rašinius rašo ir kaip trumpąsias žinutes. – www.15min.lt, lapkričio 29 d. Prieiga internete: http://www.15min.lt/naujiena/svietimas/karstos-zinios/vienuoliktokai-rasinius-raso-ir-kaip-trumpasias-zinutes-234-469937?cf=df.

Vasiliauskas S. 2013: Ar mokytojai patenkinti savo mokinių raštingumu? – Gimtoji žodis 1, 27–31.

Zelenkauskaitė A., Herring S. C. 2006: Gender encoding of typographical elements in Lithuanian and Croatian IRC. – Proceedings of Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication 2006 (CATaC’06), Tartu, Estonia, 1–17. Prieiga internete: http://info.ils.indiana.edu/~herring/catac2006.pdf.

Gauta 2014 12 07

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 15

TEACHERS ON THE EFFECT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ON PUPILS’ LITERACY

Summary

The article analyses current written school Lithuanian language in terms of problems related to the effect of the information technologies (IT) on pupils’ literacy. The concept of written school language is defined as distinct from private written pupils’ language used in computer-mediated communication; the necessity of researching into the interaction between these two forms is grounded.

Written school language is understood as a form of standard Lithuanian language used in the teaching process and in various test papers assigned to pupils both at school and at home. Written pupils’ language is a wider concept as the same pupils also use written language during their free time, yet the latter is private, having formed in the context of wide possibilities offered by computer-mediated communication that have occurred in the last decade. Thus, present day pupils, unlike their parents’ generation in their times, use two forms of written language almost equally (at least in terms of time dedicated for studying and leisure). The comparison of these forms of written language is necessary for the research of pupils’ language in order to better highlight their individual peculiarities and demonstrate their interaction.

The basis of the research is constituted by data obtained through mixed-mode surveys of teachers of Lithuanian language in 2012. One of 8 parts of the survey consisted of two questions: Have you noticed that habits and fashions emerging due to information technologies (mobile phones, computers) have an effect on pupils’ writing? If so, could you describe this effect?

These questions allow viewing IT both as technical means of computer-mediated communication – comprising electronic devices and opportunities offered by their software – and as a social environment where unique fashions, habits and communication styles thrive, which undoubtedly has an effect on pupils’ written language.

120 detailed answers with examples of pupils’ written school language were obtained. 87.5 per cent of teachers gave affirmative answers to the first question (whether teachers notice IT effects on pupils’ writing), which means that, according to teachers, this effect is evident and strong. Answers to the second question allowed identifying ways that teachers describe the attributes of written school language connected to the IT effects.

The IT effect on written school language can be described fourfold: as a psychological, social, technical, and functional one. Habits of free computer-mediated communication are transferred to the written school language; therefore, pupils’ behaviour connected with writing and learning thereof was the first to change (hastiness, inattentiveness, absent-mindedness, etc.). It has become harder to promote the need for order as pupils are used to writing as they please and do not realise the meaning of grammatical writing. The new mode of communication (computer-mediated communication) and incomplete – with regard to the Lithuanian language – software (making it more difficult to type letters with diacritic signs) has a remarkable effect on the writing technique. The form of writing used in the computer-mediated communication is transferred to the written school language: 1) diacritic signs, dots, capital letters are missing, foreign signs occur, etc.; 2) various abbreviations are transferred from the computer-mediated communication; 3) untraditional – i.e. characteristic to computer-mediated communication – signs are used.

The form of language that has emerged and is functioning autonomously in the free computer-mediated communication also has an effect on the style of the written school language. The following attributes of the free pupils’ written language are transferred to pupils’ test papers: scarce vocabulary, simplified syntax, spoken language word forms, jargon, etc.

The altered form of writing is merely one of characteristics of the changing written school language. A decline in literacy (in its narrow sense) is mostly discussed because it is the most prominent, yet there are more crucial changes connected to the quality of language used and pupils’ incapability to

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ. Mokytojai apie informacinių technologijų poveikį mokinių raštingumui | 16

take full advantage of the opportunities offered by language. The written school language attributes indicated by teachers can be referred to in further research of pupils’ language and in search of ways to mitigate the negative effects of the free written language on the written school language in particular and on pupils’ literacy in general.

KEYWORDS: orthography, literacy, written language, language acquisition, computer-mediated communication.

RITA MILIŪNAITĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 87 (2014)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204