The texting myth

One of the most prolific urban myths in recent years is that teenagers' cellphone texting is seriously damaging their writing skills. Tales of students handing in school assignments full of text abbreviations are passed around the net but is there any truth behind them?

It's refreshing to get the answer from one of the most respected authorities in language and communication, David Crystal in his new book; the aptly named Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. There's an interview with him in Visual Thesaurus, David Crystal on the myth of texting where he states that the texted assignment was really a hoax put out on the net to stir up feelings and then became a truth that people were only too willing to believe. Internet myths are much stronger than myths of the past since they can become global "truths" in a matter of hours.

Abbreviations are used in SMS-texting and, indeed, in the more adult arena of Twitter due to space restrictions. We're forced to cut out all embellishments and focus on the bare bones. Teenagers, argues Crystal, are able to cope easily with different registers of language and realize clearly when texting language is appropriate. Interviews with many teenagers reveal that they can't believe how anyone would use texting abbreviations in school work. It simply doesn't belong there and they all realise that. In addition, by analysing large amounts of text messages Crystal found that only around 10% of words were abbreviated at all, thereby deflating the whole debate.

There's nothing new with abbreviated forms of course. I certainly used them in my note-taking at lectures at university and they certainly didn't get reproduced in my essays. Property terms like des res, all mod cons (desirable residence, all modern conveniences) have been with us for many tears without any fears for estate agents' literacy skills. Somehow the use of devices that many adults still feel uncomfortable with makes old habits suddenly seem threatening.

Distractions and their price

My favourite themes at present seem to be multitasking and backchannels and I return to the former once again. New and interesting articles on multitasking just keep coming and the latest one to catch my attention is new research into the effects of pop-ups on our computer screens. In this case it's not the brash, flashing pop-up ads that explode in your face on sites of a dubious nature, it's the pop-up alerts we get to tell us that a new e-mail, tweet or Facebook update has arrived. How much do such interruptions disturb our concentration?

That's the theme of research by Dr Helen Hodgetts and Professor Dylan Jones of Cardiff University entitled Now, where was I? Cognitive models and support mechanisms for interrupted task performance. They show that these interruptions break our cognitive focus and it can take a minute or two to get back on track even when the interruption was of little significance. Not surprisingly the louder or more obvious the alert the greater the disturbance. Evidently discrete audio warning alerts can give us time to decide whether to notice or ignore the coming message and thereby maintaining concentration. The moral of the story is that alerts should be as discrete as possible and that we should be able to personalize them according to situation.

I also plead guilty to allowing alerts to interrupt me while trying to concentrate on reading or writing (right now, though, I've only got background music). I think most of us find it difficult to turn off the e-mail, instant messaging, Twitter, cellphone etc when we really need to concentrate. I really must shut them down more often even if it is fun to communicate.

For more on this research read a report on Live Science, Workers should turn off visual alerts, and from Wales Online, Curse of the computer pop-up costs us so dear.

Backchannel guide

After several recent posts about the pitfalls of back channel communication at conferences I was pleased to find that someone has written a practical guide to this area. It's called The Backchannel Book and is a community wiki full of information on the various tools you can use (Twitter, Jammer, various IM tools, document sharing etc.), how to use them and related articles.

One page in particular that caught my attention with regard to the recent reports of Twitter heckling and disruptive behaviour, is the Backchannel Agreement. This is a list of guidelines outlining a conference code of conduct aimed at organisers, presenters and participants. A very relevant checklist for any conference and, with some adaption, the base of a code of conduct for any class as well.

Terms of participation

Howard Rheingold is a guy I'd like to meet but until that happens I enjoy watching his video contributions and therefore paste in his latest thoughts on digital literacy, The internet as playground and factory.

The Internet as Playground and Factory - Howard Rheingold from Voices from The Internet as Play on Vimeo.

Read also an article by him on Encyclopedia Britannica Blog, Is multitasking evil? Or are most of us illiterate?

So what line of work are you in then?

Do you have the same problem as I have when people ask what you work with? Explaining distance learning can be hard enough since a lot of people have no idea it exists but how do you start explaining social media and how they can be relevant for education? It can be quite a shock to the system to meet people who have no idea of what you're talking about. How do you get the message across clearly, briefly and without frightening them away?

I had such an experience today and I fear that in my enthusiasm to enlight I just succeeded in confusing. Most people still see the classroom as the model for all education and the net as, at best, a source of entertainment. The connection between the two is unclear. Many such people are teachers, working hard and teaching well in most cases. But the potential of the net for accessing knowledge and connecting with others hasn't become apparent to them. How to start explaining?

Then I saw an excellent blog post by Shelly Terrell called Most teachers don't live there which provides a convincing and positive set of arguments for teachers who are doubtful of the value of the net in education. If we are educators shouldn't we participate in discussions with our colleagues around the world? Shouldn't we compare our own work with others and learn from each other? Shouldn't we help students use the net responsibly? To do this we need to be out there reading and writing blogs, participating in forums and sharing our knowledge.

"Technology is not the enemy and ignorance is not bliss. If we don’t show students how to use social media and technology, then we cannot complain when they use this in unhealthy ways."

Let's talk

The debate on the misuse of Twitter back channels at conferences continues and I have to mention another good post on the subject from a participant at the Web 2.0 Expo, Michelle Riggen-Ransom, Web 2.0 Expo: Harshtags, Twecklers and the Silence of the Death Star. She suggests that Twitter flows at conferences should not simply be beamed up on the screen behind the speaker, there should be a moderator function. Admittedly the hecklers would still be able to send their wise cracks but at least they wouldn't be magnified on the big screen.

The other main point in this post is also worrying. The participants were so engrossed in their laptops and cellphones that there was very little direct conversation, one of the main attractions of going to a conference in the first place. I've had the same experience a few times; at break times you look around for people to meet but everyone is too busy typing to notice you. In the end you just find a corner and start typing, look as if you're busy.

Are we hiding behind our devices, afraid of real human contact? Social media can certainly extend the reach of a conference and I have "participated" in several via Twitter, Second Life or web meeting. We can also bring the delegates closer together by providing a pre-conference community site to make contacts. But the main event is actually meeting all these net contacts face to face and discussing over a coffee or an evening drink.

As Michelle concludes:
"Next time you’re at a conference, try putting away the iPhone or the Blackberry during breaks. If you disagree with a presenter, seek them out afterwards, write a thoughtful blog post or contact them via Twitter to start a conversation. Say hello to people. Be open. You could meet someone IRL (!) who could become a friend, a mentor or business partner, or even start a project that makes the world a better place for your being in it."

Spam spam spam

I read recently that over 90% of all e-mail in the world is spam. Despite this it's still the most popular means of written communication. I suppose the world's spam filters must be doing a good job otherwise we would have given up by now. However, even if the spam count is low many people feel engulfed by the sheer volume of non-spam e-mail. It's a long time since we actually enjoyed getting e-mail.

If e-mail has become passé then we get our pleasure in other services. I still think it's fun getting a comment on my blogs or someone mentioning me on Twitter (sad, I know). However there are signs that the spammers are taking over even there. There's a good post on James Clay's blog E-learning Stuff called Ten reasons why Twitter will eventually wither and die. He lists ten threats to Twitter mostly to do with spamming and sabotage which is already creeping in. The sheer openness of the service makes it extremely vulnerable to attack and if your identity gets used for spamming or worse you will of course stop using Twitter (or whatever other service). Similarly bloggers give up when their blog gets bombed by abusive spammers.

Could the openness of the social web be its ultimate downfall? The potential for constructive collaboration is enormous but also the potential for sabotage and trashing. How to we protect our net freedom without restricting it in some way?

Tweckling II, the speaker's view

The use of Twitter to digitally shout down a speaker at the recent Web 2.0 Expo (see previous post) has produced a lot of welcome debate about how the relative anonymity of the net allows some people to behave in a thoroughly disrespectful manner. The speaker at that conference, Danah Boyd of Microsoft Research, has written an admirably honest analysis of the presentation on her blog Apophenia, Spectacle at Web 2.0 expo ... from my perspective.

She was unable to see the Twitter flow during her presentation but felt increasingly uncomfortable as members of the audience laughed without apparent reason. Unaware of the wisecracks and derogatory remarks going on behind her back her presentation suffered accordingly. The back channel had taken centre stage and she was powerless. Of course if someone had actually asked a question or made a direct comment she could have reacted and dealt with the issue but that didn't happen.

The issue is of course one of respect. If you're using Twitter or other such tools professionally isn't it best to include a photo of yourself and adopt a name that is close to your own. I don't see the point of hiding your identity, especially at a conference where the whole point is to interact and meet people. If you are identifiable you are accountable for your comments and people can easily see who is disrupting the session.

This topic has certainly sparked off a debate and Danah's blog post has so far received 105 comments.

Not waving but drowning

I finally got a Google Wave invitation and logged in a couple of weeks ago. That's it - so far. It's still in quarantine until I have time to work out what to do with it. I'm not sure why I'm keeping it at arm's length since it must be one of the most awaited (and hyped) applications of all time and I've read plenty of rave reviews from people I trust. I think I got a bit turned off by the whole business of sending out a limited number of invitations (according to Google anyway) and letting the world fight over them. Talk about creating demand. Very clever marketing of course.

Already I have a few contacts in my Wave box and I clicked on one of the conversations. It was a long column of messages and embedded dokuments resembling a long chat session. I immediately felt stressed. Google claim that this will sweep away e-mail and I welcome that. The trouble is that right now I have so many communication channels that I can't find room for yet another, especially one with only a select band of users. When Wave is ready to incorporate my e-mail as well as contacts in Facebook, Skype, Twitter etc then I'll be really interested but I really don't want yet another communication app open on my screen.

Wave is not the first app I've kept in quarantine a while. I signed up for Twitter months before I even sent my first tweet. I signed up and then watched it sit there for a while as I tried to think of something useful I could do with it. Now it's one of my favourite tools and a great source of information. Maybe I need time to adjust and Wave will be a hit when I finally decide to examine it.

If you're already using Wave you will realize that I still haven't learned the basics yet but I suppose I am experiencing the same feelings many teachers and colleagues get when they hear me waxing lyrically about the wonders of Web 2.0 etc. Interested yet hesitant to open Pandora's box and let all the demons out. Good to get a reality check basically.

Tweckling - the negative side of conference back channels

I have previously written about public discussion forums which are often sabotaged by self-styled experts who enjoy humiliating any new members who dare to ask a simple honest question. These are nearly always anonymous users hiding behind a deliberately cryptic name and a picture of a cartoon character. Anonymity can foster brutality

Now we have a new term to add to the dozens already spawned by Twitter: namely tweckling. This means heckling a speaker by Twitter, especially at conferences. Many conferences use Twitter as an effective channel for audience participation, allowing participants the chance to comment on speakers, provide links to more information on the topic under discussion and for networking. However the tool can be used in a more destructive manner as described in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Conference Humiliation: They're tweeting behind your back. Here a speaker was criticized openly on the conference Twitter flow and was basically subjected to digital heckling. The audience can sit silently and apparently attentive whilst shouting down the speaker in the digital space. In some cases the presentation can be silently drowned out by the flow of wise cracks. The speaker, not having time to read the steady flow of comments, is powerless. Further examples of Twitter in class, both positive and negative, are in another Chronicle article, Teaching with Twitter: not for the faint of heart.

Of course it's not the fault of the tool, Twitter, but rather another example of the confusion between private and public communication. There's a big difference between writing a quick note to my neighbour that I don't think much of the speaker and broadcasting my views to the whole auditorium and the world. Let's keep the discussion respectful and open. If we're using social media professionally we should not hide our identity.

As a PS to this post I have just seen an article on CNN (Can the law keep up with technology?) discussing the problems the legal world is having dealing with developments in the digital space and in particular offensive remarks made on Twitter.