Response #3

Jacobs, G. (2008). We Learn What We Do: Developing a Repertoire of Writing Practices in an Instant Messaging World. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(3), 203-211. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

This article discussed the use of instant messaging (IM) and cell phone texting by youth, as well as the concern of some teachers and parents on its potentially negative effect on the development of writing skills.  The author discusses both “in- and out-of-school” forms of literacy (i.e., IM and traditional/standard English writing), and how a “moral panic” arose in the late 1990s among adults because they feared that IM would stunt the development of traditional reading and writing skills, despite the lack of empirical evidence to support such a notion (204).  The main thrust of the article was to better understand the significance of IM to young people through a two-year case study of a teenage girl from New York, a high-achieving student and self-described “hardcore” IM user.  The author emphasizes the importance of context—including audience, purpose and community expectations—for successful communication in a given situation, from an IM conversation to a biology paper.  The girl’s proficiency in both IM and academic genres of writing was meant to illustrate the ability of youth to cultivate “separate worlds” and to suggest that IM, when understood and addressed appropriately, can be a positive factor in adolescent writing development (207).  The author maintains that teachers should view IM as an opportunity to reinforce student awareness of writing across genres and the different conventions associated with different forms of writing; they also should consider engaging with both IM and traditional writing on their own in order to better mentor their students and help them navigate both “old” and “new” literacies (204).

            While it was an interesting read, the article is intended to be only a thoughtful and brief entry into the issue of IM and academic learning, rather than an in-depth or authoritative research piece.  For example, the author’s use of “I” statements and allusions to her personal teaching experiences make the article feel more like an anecdotal case study than a meaningful qualitative inquiry.  Nevertheless, the author highlights a valid discussion about adolescent use of instant messaging and its relationship with the classroom and teachers.  Instant messaging and personalized forms technology are the ways that young people communicate today.  This type of communication is becoming more integrated into their daily behavior, modes of thinking and learning, and is showing no sign of stopping; if anything, it will accelerate in the years to come.  Rather than looking down on adolescent use of instant messaging or being too adversarial about its use, teachers and parents should attempt to understand its significance to youth culture in their eyes—what purpose it serves them and why it is so important.  The article did a good job conveying that IM is an important part of identity formation for young people going through the changes of adolescence, noting how most teenagers consider it “talking” and not writing (Jacobs, 2008, p. 207).  Given its importance to young people in cultivating thoughts, values and meaningful peer relationships, I think it is useful as a teacher to acknowledge this aspect of IM.  It is also important to recognize that such identity formation—however “unorthodox” one might consider the method—is crucial to healthy adolescent growth.  In turn, a healthy sense of self informs and enriches a student’s approach to writing.  The perspectives and voice s/he brings to a paper or assignment can be an asset to his/her writing.  Especially for humanities and English teachers, I imagine it is irksome to see errors and habits associated with messaging in students’ writing.  However, it seems that approaching youth use of IM constructively can help address the more negative byproducts of its practice.