The Impact of Technology and Social Media on Writing Voice in the Writing Center
Perhaps the clearest advantage of peer tutoring programs is their subversion of the often intimidating barriers of hierarchy that traditionally separate tutor and tutee. For example, a large age gap invites generational differences to obstruct eye-to-eye communication. Peer tutoring is vital in contemporary academia because of the stylistic divide that has formed between generations of writers as a result of the information technology. The dawn of the info-age created a generation whose formative experiences with written communication are influenced by the use of technology and social media. These differences in voice can create conflict between students and teachers due to the subjective, time-sensitive nature of language and meaning. For this reason, peer tutoring programs are beneficial to both teachers and students
Texting, social media posting, and other digital content are contextually different from traditional prose writing; the written content of a text message is a digital rendition of the creator’s speaking voice. “Writing on social media does encourage us to write and spell words in a way that reflects speech — at least while we’re using social media. A 2013 study of 114 million tweets found that people weren’t simply abbreviating words — they were abbreviating and contracting them in ways that mirror how they abbreviate and contract them when they speak ” (Funnell). This phenomenon is present among generations who were introduced to information technology during their formative language acquisition age. These stylistic differences vary tonally, grammatically, and contextually. In this composition, this phenomenon will be referred to henceforth as Digital Dialect. Digital Dialect can be generally defined as “noticeable stylistic components of writing voice, influenced by prolonged use of technologies that prompt users to alter their writing voice to satisfy a given context.”
Current and future generations are experiencing exponential rate of growth for the expectation of information consumed in a given period of time. Greater information consumption in less time is becoming the norm (Stewart). Rapid transfer of digital information in real-time as a result of faster download speed and pocket computing. Information consumption can occur at a greater rate because multimodal communication allows for multiple messages to be contained within the same “unit” of informative content (Lawlor). For example, a meme may include text, sound, and visual components. This allows the content creator to create new meaning or deliver multiple messages simultaneously by juxtaposing said messages within one “unit” of content. Multimodality (Adler-Kassner) is made possible bc of this rapid speed informational sharing: current digital platforms support multimedia/multimodal informational sharing. We become accustomed to this integration, and communicate by multimodal means (ie. texting with emoji, sharing gifs, memes, social media posts). In this way, our conscious, intentional use of info-tech to express ourselves can shape our dialectic average when writing. This also functions in reverse. Regular exposure to media with a digital dialect reinforces that dialect as an acceptable standard. There is even free technology available online that automatically corrects grammar. There are programs that can automatically populate written content (i.e https://www.essaybot.com, https://www.essaysoft.net). Programs such as these augment organic writing voice by filling-in gaps and grammar errors. This can create stylistic inconsistencies within a single body of writing. Even more concerning is the fact that these “compositions” will be read by human people under the false impression that the author is also a human person. The brain will attribute this artificially composed, inorganic content as manmade, skewing that individual’s perceptual average and registering their ignorant fallacy as truth. This development is concerning because it heralds increased digital interference. This artificial modification of the perceptual average definition of “organic written content” can be likened to the censorship and skewing of perceived reality caused by mass-distributed advertising (ie. vendors of insecurity-targeting cosmetic products that flood the market with artificially modified images and ads, skewing public perception of what is normal and “standard” by disproportionately over-representing a minority standard. Repeated exposure gradually reprograms the mind to accept it as the new average standard).
Contemporary classrooms have adapted to accommodate new standards and conventions of information exchange ushered in with the dawning of the info-age. Students belonging to generations born during this “content Renaissance” consume information differently than students of generations raised without exposure to info-tech and now commonplace digital tools. Hybridized classrooms have become increasingly popular for their integrated use of both traditional in-person classroom time and info-age remotely accessible online classroom content. This reality reinforces how deeply integrated digital media is in contemporary society, and highlights how difficult it currently is to isolate academia and technology. In an environment that facilitates education and evolution of the “human machine,” it is reasonable that the standard student-teacher toolkit is entitled to evolve accordingly. As a peer tutor and WA, I have educational advantages over some of even the most decorated and respected figures in the university: I was born into digital literacy. Digital literacy, like spoken language, is most efficiently learned during the period of youth when acquisition occurs rapidly and language is retained favorably. A number of adult professors and academics may not have have this opportunity. They may have approached digital literacy acquisition at a much later point in life, when language acquisition has become more difficult as a result of decreased brain plasticity (Krashen). This mirrors the obstacles faced by students who begin learning a second language into their adulthood. Members of generations baptized by info-tech are able to bridge this literacy gap in the classroom by filling the role of peer tutors and mentors. Age difference between educators and students is marginally divisive when compared to a combined difference in age and language proficiency. This divide is difficult to bridge when it occurs between educators and students, because digital literacy is a relatively new “normalized” literacy; Its relevance is therefore under-stated and even at times overlooked as a “fad” by those who do not consider digital literacy as a part of their formative plastic experience.
I have experienced and witnessed conflict between students and educators- conflict that I believe can be attributed to the different standards for language that were created by the info-age dialectic divide. During my time as a Writing Assistant, I observed some consistencies in the writing style of my ENC1102 tutees, a group of Freshman students with average ages of 17–19 years. The majority of students whose work I viewed was written in a distinctly casual voice; Their prose was often structured informally and contained vernacular phrasing. What these students considered “prose” bore notable semblance to content written by my peers in the context of social media posting or text-messaging. I observed fragments of a dialectic crossover that could be potentially labeled as inappropriate or erroneous by professors unfamiliar with the conventions of that dialect (i.e. very direct wording, lack of descriptive detail, short and punchy sentence structure). When asked why they chose to implement these stylistic qualities, tutees responded that this was not a conscious decision. One student in particular, “Ethan,” expressed that he does not “think twice,” instead opting to impulsively “write what comes to [his] head.” In an interview with Sophomore FIU student “Christian,” he blamed these stylistic qualities on a “short attention span” bred by constant use of “fast paced” technology to communicate with others. This style of expression mimics the impulsive, low-gestation period of a social media post or text message; Students were quickly and impulsively writing without either planning or revising their product. As a new WA and an experienced writer, I was confronted by the urge to simply “correct” these issues in my tutees’ work by suggesting typical academic prescriptive solutions (adding descriptive detail, eliminating informal spoken-word phrases, nitpicking grammar etc). I was very well at risk of mistaking dialectic difference for lack of skill. By unquestioningly following prescriptive standards set by pre-info-age scholars (who lacked familiarity with digital-dialectic conventions) and “correcting errors” based on those standards, I may have unintentionally caused erasure of tutees’ writing voice.
When I myself was an ENC1102 student at Miami Dade College, I was pressured by my pre-info-age generation professor to write using highly specific conventions. He demanded highly descriptive, formal prose, criticizing my writing’s brevity and straightforwardness. At that time, I was not aware that my writing style may have been impacted by my early familiarization with digital media and info-tech. After observing a similar trend of punchy brevity in the writing of my tutees, I am willing to argue that what I was experiencing in this ENC1102 class was a case of digital dialectic “language barrier.”
Situations like those described above evidence the vital need for peer tutoring in contemporary classrooms. Based on evidence I observed in both my ENC 1102 tutees writing styles and in the research referenced in my secondary resources, I can conclude that colloquial writing style and voice are in a perpetual state of evolution. As technology continues to become increasingly integral in both day-to-day life and within the classroom, it is important that students and educators account for the changes in language that result from technological influence on society as a whole. It is important that all parties involved in the study of language and writing be open-minded to this change. Through collaborative social strategies like peer tutoring, academic institutions can facilitate greater understanding between pre and post-info-tech generations in academia and ease the communicative disconnect that occurs due to digitally influenced dialectic differences.
Appendices
Perceptual Average — A self-composed subjective truth (ie. definition, idea, or concept) created by averaging-together a single respective person’s collected related experiences and knowledge that they subjectively attribute to the aforementioned truth. This average is based on individual perspective and personal faith in the “truthfulness” of both consciously and unconsciously registered knowledge.
Digital Dialect — The various and continually evolving conventions of written and spoken language (i.e. brevity, casual narrative tone, favoring generalizations over explicit detail) that occur as a result of technological use during the natural period of human language acquisition.
Pre-Info-Age — Individuals born in generations that were not exposed to info-tech during their language acquisition period. These individuals have limited or absent digital dialectic influence in their writing style.
Post-Info-Age — Individuals born in generations that were exposed to info-tech during their language acquisition period. These individuals have digital dialectic influence in their writing styles. Greater normalization of digital dialect in their use of language correlates with earlier exposure to info-tech.
Works Cited
Adler-Kassner, Linda. Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies. Utah State Univ. Press, 2015.Adler-Kassner, Linda. Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies. Utah State Univ. Press, 2015.
Favilla, Emmy. “How the Internet Changed the Way We Write — and What to Do about It.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 Dec. 2017, www.theguardian.com/technology/booksblog/2017/dec/07/internet-online-news-social-media-changes-language.
“How Social Media Has Changed How We Communicate.” Future Of Work, 17 Mar. 2015, fowmedia.com/social-media-changed-communicate/.
“Is Social Media Destroying Our Ability to Write?” Emphasis, 10 Jan. 2019, www.writing-skills.com/is-social-media-ruining-writing.
Lawlor, Jessica. “How Social Media Has Changed the Way We Communicate.” Muck Rack, muckrack.com/blog/2018/08/15/how-social-media-has-changed-the-way-we-communicate.
Stewart, Erin. “Does Cell Phone Use Really Affect Our Communication Skills?” The Lance, lhslance.org/2013/features/cell-phone-use-really-affect-communication-skills/.
Krashen, Stephen D., et al. “Age, Rate and Eventual Attainment in Second Language Acquisition.” TESOL Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 4, 1979, pp. 573–582. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3586451.
“Christian,” FIU Student. Personal interview. March. 2019.
“Ethan,” ENC 1102 Tutee. Personal Interview. February 2019.
“Logan,” ENC 1102 Tutee. Personal Interview. February 2019.
