response 1

In his recent work, Clive Thompson questions the future of student’s literary capabilities due to increased social networking by comparing two opposing views. He begins with a satirical compilation of reasons why some believe that student’s writing capabilities decrease with a corresponding increased in their use of networking devices; these include Facebook, texting, blogging, and numerous other systems that encourage shorthand text and slang. The “pundits,” as Thompson calls them, argue that the use of such devices encourages narcissistic blabbering, dehydrates language and turns carefully crafted essays short, bleak and shorthanded. The second side of the argument examined by Thompson, is the work of Andrea Lunsford. Lunsford conducted research examining if any correlation was evident between the use of social networking devises and a decline in the quality of written work students submitted. Her work concluded that no relation is prevalent and that, on the contrary, social networking has encouraged students to write more than ever before for non-academic purposes. One implication of Thompson’s treatment of the opposing group hints that his personal views on the matter fall with Lunsford, that the increase in writing, regardless if shorthand, gives students more practice for what most academic essays test on.

My personal view on the matter is that students are indeed profiting from use of these social networks. As Thompson points out, when writing on a blog or posting a comment on someone’s page, people are writing for an audience of hundreds who are able to critique. This realization puts pressure on the author to not come off as unintelligent. Though I agree that texting does reinforce shorthanded writing, I believe that this style only pertains to texting and other one-on-one forms of communication. Students are able to distinguish between an academic piece of writing that will face a judging audience and a casual message to a friend reminding them not ‘ 2 b l8t.’