International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science

Submission Deadline-15th November 2024
November 2024 Issue : Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now
Submission Deadline-05th November 2024
Special Issue on Economics, Management, Sociology, Communication, Psychology: Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now
Submission Deadline-20th November 2024
Special Issue on Education, Public Health: Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now

The Use of Textism and Students’ Spelling Ability

  •   Jocel Ann E. Jutba
  • Katelyn V. Kilat
  • Beverly B. Dionio
  • Analyn S. Clarin
  • Juby H. Vallejo
  • 1856-1867
  • Mar 18, 2024
  • Education

The Use of Textism and Students’ Spelling Ability

Jocel Ann E. Jutba1, Katelyn V. Kilat2, Beverly B. Dionio3, Analyn S. Clarin4, Juby H. Vallejo5

1,2,3 College of Education, Misamis University

4Basic Education Department, Misamis University

5 College of Arts and Sciences, Misamis University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.802130

Received: 01 February 2024; Revised: 13 February 2024; Accepted: 15 February 2024; Published: 18 March 2024

ABSTRACT

Textism, or SMS language, is the abbreviated and informal language often used on digital communication platforms. While textism had gained popularity and efficiency in modern communication, its impact on language skills, particularly spelling abilities among students, had become a subject of interest for researchers. This study explored the relationship between textism and the spelling ability of Junior High School students during the School Year 2022-2023. The study used a descriptive-correlational research design involving 238 students selected through a stratified random sampling method. The data was collected using a Modified-Textism Questionnaire and a Researcher-made Spelling Ability Test. Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient were the statistical tools used in the study. Results showed high textism usage regarding shortenings, contractions, clippings, acronyms and initialisms, letter and number homophones, non-conventional spellings, and onomatopoeic spellings. The students’ spelling ability was good, reflecting their mastery of word formation rules and conventions. The study found a significant relationship between contractions, homophones, clippings, and spelling ability, but no correlation was observed for shortenings, acronyms, non-conventional spellings, and onomatopoeic spellings. The study further revealed that heavy reliance on textisms could decrease spelling ability over time. Future studies may investigate additional linguistic aspects of textism, such as syntactic structures or grammar usage, to comprehensively understand its impact on students’ spelling ability.

Keywordslanguage, textism, spelling ability, linguistic adaptability, socio-cognitive theory

INTRODUCTION

Language plays a pivotal role in our daily communication. It is the primary means of expressing one’s thoughts, ideas, and emotions to others. However, another characteristic of language is that it is dynamic. It constantly evolves and cannot stop this phenomenon (Bouguessa, 2022). Textism has emerged as a mode of contemporary communication. It is present in various computer-mediated communication (CMC) contexts beyond traditional domains, including academic settings, dictionaries, and formal events (Oreoluwa & Omotayo, 2022). The language used in these messages, also known as SMS (Short Message Service), which are delivered through mobile devices, differs significantly from the standard language used for communication, which resulted in the use of textism (Morey, 2019).

Textism refers to the language of texting or chatting. Textism is a newly developed pidgin language that

primarily borrows from native languages and frequently uses truncated words or phrases (Nghipondoka, 2020). Textism also uses abbreviations that are classified as acronyms, contractions, word shortening, disregarding vowel sounds, initialization, accent stylization, misspelling, using numerals within a word to create new contractions, and combining letters from two different languages, which are prevalent in the world of text or chat messaging (Bhandari, 2021). Moreover, texting introduces a new type of writing that includes omitting some letters, adding numbers next to letters and logograms, deleting most vowels, and using short forms (Yunis, 2019).

To this effect, textism has given rise to new trends in the English language. Proper language users need clarification. Instead of formal language, casual words used in daily conversation are used in text messaging. Ali et al. (2019) added that textism has its own set of abbreviations and shorthand for the language. It harms pronunciation, spelling, sentence structure, and word formation. Text language users are aware of the negative impact of their communication, but they have become accustomed to this use of specific language. Hence, text language often confuses students in writing the correct spelling of words, resulting in commonly misspelled words (Arellano et al., 2019).

Accordingly, spelling ability refers to an individual’s capacity to spell words in written communication correctly. Kindler and Hagston (2018) indicated that spelling ability involves understanding and applying spelling rules, recognizing and employing orthographic patterns, as well as memorizing and recalling spelling conventions. Spelling development has largely been gleaned from examining children’s accuracy at spelling words under various conditions and the nature of their errors (Breadmore & Deacon, 2019). Thus, the ability to spell is an important aspect of written language proficiency and is essential for effective communication in various contexts, such as academic writing, professional communication, and personal correspondence (Travarez Da Costa, 2021).

Several studies were conducted to address the concerns among educators and researchers in determining the nature of textism and whether it has positively or negatively affected the spelling ability of the users. According to Ali et al. (2019), the standardized forms of our written language will only be recovered if we learn to control how we currently use language. This remark expresses concern over using non-standard spelling in text messaging, believing it jeopardizes the user’s spelling ability (Espiritu et al., 2020). Numerous researchers were interested in determining whether or not using textism can negatively or favorably impact users’ spelling literacy.

Munir (2022) examined the viewpoint of undergraduate students in Pakistan to determine if they favor changing the English language’s standard spellings to reflect the patterns used in texting so that pronunciation and spelling are appropriately matched. The study suggested that students share the same clear belief that the standard English language should be preserved and used correctly and that SMS slang does not interfere with the standard English language norms. Nyarko (2018) also discovered an interesting result: most Kenyan students have been using textism in their text messages because it saves their time and is faster to compose the messages with textism. The study also suggested that textism does not harm the student’s literacy skills but rather supports their spelling development.

In support, Verheijen and Spooren (2021) proposed that unconventional spelling in texts and instant messages may make young people more aware of their writing style and raise their metalinguistic and orthographic awareness. Moreover, using textism of various kinds as orthographic adaptations is useful for dealing with the possibilities and constraints of numerous new media and the discursive requirements of computer-mediated communication (Verheijen, 2019).

However, some studies assert that textism can contribute to students’ spelling ability decline. Bouguessa (2022) conducted a study in Tebessi that revealed that overuse of textism is the prime reason for students’ poor spelling as well as their ability to write academically. The study further discussed that students make spelling mistakes due to their lack of knowledge about typing proper words and their negligence when chatting and texting, negatively impacting their spelling ability. Furthermore, Ali et al. (2019) also investigated the influence of SMS language on students’ spelling ability, which showed that university English teachers favored that textism has a negative impact as it spoils the spelling and grammar structure of the students.

Radia and Lamia (2021) further argued that textism negatively impacts not only the student’s spelling ability but also the quality of their writing. He also advised that students should rely on something other than texting for communication because it degrades rather than improves the quality of their writing in terms of spelling, vocabulary, and meaning. Several people oppose texting. They think that sending too many texts causes students’ mental capacities to deteriorate because they end up using incorrect spelling and grammar (Subramanian, 2018).

Additionally, Senate S. No. 2512, introduced by Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid, states that the Philippines has become known as the “TEXT” capital of the world because of the amount of SMS traffic transmitted in the country. He also explained that there are over 23 million cell phone subscribers in the Philippines, which continues to rise quickly (Tatones & Lintao, 2019). As a result, Filipino scholars and researchers also conducted studies on the implications of textism in the country.

A recent correlational study was also conducted by Dolba and Dolba (2023) in Sta. Peregrina, Manila, where results revealed that using techspeak has no negative relationship with spelling proficiency but rather improves the spelling proficiency of the students. He indicated that students’ use of texting positively affects their ability to spell. In contrast, Ignacio and De Jesus (2021) claimed that using text and chat messages had a detrimental impact on how the students wrote their output. They emphasized that if students are accustomed to spelling words however they like, they cannot practice spelling correctly.

Another study conducted in one of the universities in Tagum City, Davao del Norte, further revealed that it has been evident and observable at one point or another that text messaging negatively affects the linguistic competence and orthographic processing of the students (Genelza, 2022). In addition, Espiritu et al. (2020) also studied the correlation between the use of messaging apps and the spelling ability of the students in one of the schools in Ozamiz City. The findings revealed a statistically weak ‘positive’ correlation among all linguistic forms, except for Orthographic Reversal (which produced a weak ‘negative’ correlation), indicating that the student’s spelling skills are compromised by their regular usage of Orthographic Reversal and that onomatopoeic spelling is the most common linguistic form that students frequently use.

Due to the advancement of technology, it has been observed that students are engaged in using messaging applications, resulting in the rise of textism. Various studies claimed that SMS language, tech-speak, or textism could positively or negatively affect the student’s academic writing and the use of the standard English language. However, no studies indicate the implications of using textism and the students’ spelling abilities in the chosen research setting. This gap motivates the researchers to conduct the study, particularly in Junior High School Department. Furthermore, studying the relationship between textism and the spelling ability of education students has several benefits for society. For students, this will serve as their guide in recognizing their errors and practices in composing either text or chat messages. Teachers will also be able to identify the most typical errors students commit and assist them with improving their spelling abilities through formal topic writing or other writing-related activities. Lastly, this research will help the school acknowledge the current concern about the potential effects of using textism on the students’ spelling ability.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the use of textism in relation to the spelling ability among Junior High School students in one of the higher educational institutions during the school year 2022-2023.

Specifically, the present study seeks to answer the following questions:

  1. What is the level of textism usage in terms of shortenings, contractions, clippings, acronyms and initialisms, letter and number homophones, non-conventional spellings, and onomatopoeic spellings?
  2. What is the spelling ability of the students?
  3. Is there a significant relationship between textism and the spelling ability of the students?

METHODS

Research Design

The study used a descriptive-correlational research design. Descriptive-correlational is designed to identify correlations between variables and to enable the prediction of future events from the present knowledge (Stangor & Walinga, 2019). It is also useful for describing certain phenomena by studying them as they are in nature, and the researcher does not manipulate any of the variables but rather describes the variables indicated in the study (Siedlecki, 2020). Thus, this design is appropriate for determining the significant relationship between the use of textism and the spelling ability of Junior High School students.

Research Setting

The study was conducted in one of the Basic Education Schools in Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental. It provides diverse students across different grade levels, offering an environment rich in educational interactions. Researchers can investigate the relationship between textism usage and students’ spelling ability in this setting. The department’s resources, curriculum, and teaching methodologies offer insights into how textism patterns might impact spelling skills among students. Through observations and data collection within this structured educational context, the study aims to contribute to one’s understanding of the potential implications of textism usage on students’ spelling abilities.

Research Respondents

The study’s respondents were based on those currently enrolled in Junior High School during the school year 2022–2023. The researcher used stratified random sampling of 56 Grade 7 students, 46 Grade 8 students, 61 Grade 9 students, and 75 Grade 10 students using the Raosoft sample size calculator. Overall, there are a total of 238 Junior High School students participated in the study.

Research Instruments

The researchers used the modified-textism questionnaire and a researcher-made spelling test to gather the necessary data. The study’s research instrument will be divided into two parts.

Textism Survey Questionnaire. This is a modified-survey questionnaire aimed to determine the frequency of using textism. It is composed of 70 items with seven constructs: shortenings, contractions, clippings, acronyms and initialisms, letter and number homophones, non-conventional spellings, and onomatopoeic spellings. Each construct of textism was rated by the respondents on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the least frequently used and 4 being the most frequent. The researcher pilot-tested the instrument on respondents who were not included as part of the study and yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of 0.964.

In determining the level of textism usage, the following scale was used:

Responses Continuum Interpretation
  4- Always (A)   3.25-4.0   Very High
  3- Sometimes (O)   2.50-3.24    High
  2- Rarely (S)   1.75-2.49    Low
  1-Never (N)   1.0-1.74   Very Low

Spelling Ability Test. This is a researcher-made test comprising 30 items. The students were instructed to select the correctly spelled word from each set of words. The pilot test yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.711, indicating satisfactory reliability.

The students’ spelling ability was interpreted using the following scales:

 Range Interpretation
23- 30 Very Good
15- 22 Good
7-14 Poor
 0-6 Very Poor

Data Gathering Procedure

The data-gathering process commenced after the Principal of the Basic Education Department granted permission to conduct the study. Following the approval, the purpose of the study was explained to the respondents by the researcher. The respondents were then asked to complete a survey questionnaire regarding the frequency of using textism in text or chat messages. The researcher personally administered the survey questionnaires to ensure maximum cooperation and response rate. Subsequently, the respondents provided answers to a 70-item survey questionnaire and a 30-item spelling test, which aimed to assess the spelling ability of Junior High school students. Finally, the collected data was organized, tallied, and tabulated for statistical analysis and interpretation.

Ethical Considerations

Approval from the Principal of the Basic Education Department was initially secured to uphold the ethical aspect of the study. The purpose of the study was clearly explained, and consent forms were obtained from the research respondents. The researchers prioritized respect for the respondents’ dignity and ensured the protection of their privacy and the confidentiality of the research data. Respondents were guaranteed anonymity, and their voluntary participation in the evaluation was emphasized. All communication related to the research was conducted transparently, and the researchers avoided providing misleading information or misinterpreting primary data findings.

Data Analysis

This study used the following statistical tools to analyze the data gathered.

Mean and Standard Deviations were used in determining the frequency of the use of textism.

Pearson Product – Moment Correlation Coefficient was used in determining the relationship between textism and the students’ spelling ability.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Textism

Table 1 presents the level of textism usage of the total respondents (n = 238). The data revealed that the level of textism usage is high (M= 2.61, SD= 0.76). This means that respondents exhibited a significant level of textism usage in terms of shortenings, contractions, clippings, acronyms and initialisms, letter and number homophones, non-conventional spellings, and onomatopoeic spellings as indicated by the average frequency score of 2.61. However, there was variability in usage among individuals, as shown by the standard deviation of 0.76.

Specifically, the respondents’ level of using textism in terms of shortenings is high (M= 2.91, SD= 0.64). This indicates their ability to effectively reduce the number of letters in words, often by omitting more than one letter. They exhibit a preference for employing shortenings such as “bro” for brother, “sat” for Saturday, “tue” for Tuesday, “no probs” for no problem, “vid” for video, “eves” for evening, and “uni” for uniform.

In addition, the respondents exhibited a high level of using clippings (M= 2.72, SD= 0.84). This implies that the respondent can effectively shorten words by omitting the final letter or letters, including the silent vowel and the final ‘g’ sound. They compile longer words by selectively removing specific letters to create shorter, more convenient versions. Examples of clippings used by the respondents include “somethin” for something, “yea” for yeah, “doin” for doing, “lovin” for loving, “chillin” for chilling, “vibin” for vibing, and “commin” for coming.

Moreover, the data also revealed that the respondents used acronyms and initialisms well (M= 3.14, SD= 0.69). This shows their adeptness at condensing longer phrases or names into concise abbreviations by selecting the initial letters and pronouncing them individually or as words. The respondents effectively employ acronyms and initialisms in their communication, utilizing shorthand expressions such as “atm” for “at the moment,” “brb” for “be right back,” “k” for “okay,” “otw” for “on the way,” “frfr” for “for real, for real,” “ngl” for “not gonna lie,” and “ikr” for “I know right.”

Furthermore, the respondents attained a high level of using non-conventional spellings (M= 2.55, SD= 0.72) and onomatopoeic spellings (M= 2.87, SD= 0.85). This suggests their tendency to modify the written form of words based on their sound rather than conforming to conventional spelling rules, resulting in distinct variations for each word. They also employ letter combinations or patterns that imitate the sounds being conveyed. The respondents demonstrate their skill in non-conventional spellings by utilizing alternatives such as “fone” for “phone,” “x-mas” for “Christmas,” “skool” for “school,” “luv” for “love,” “ya” for “you,” and “coz or cuz” for “cause.” Furthermore, they effectively employ onomatopoeic spellings, using words such as “Uuuuugggghhhh,” “Waaaaaah,” “HAHAHAHA,” “Ommmmmggg!,” “Aaaaarggghhh,” and “Uhmmm” to mimic specific sounds or expressions which adds a playful and expressive element to their conversations.

On the other hand, the data showed that the respondents exhibited a low level in using textism in terms of contractions (M= 2.29, SD= 0.72) and letter and number homophones (M= 1.83, SD= 0.87). This suggests their inclination towards shortening words by omitting central letters, predominantly vowels, and employing letters or numbers that sound similar to the intended word or phrase. When implementing contractions, such as “txt” for “text,” “ppl” for “people,” “dnt” for “don’t,” and “pls” for “please,” the respondents effectively demonstrate their ability to condense words by omitting middle letters, typically vowels, resulting in a more concise form. Additionally, they use letter and number homophones, selecting letters or numbers with similar sounds to the desired word or phrase. This encompasses the utilization of “l8r” for “later,” “4” for “for,” “b4” for “before,” “2morrow” for “tomorrow,” “4ward” for “forward,” and “4eva” for “forever.”

Bouguessa and Tahar’s (2022) findings align with the results obtained from the data, further confirming that most students utilize the English language for chatting purposes. Their research supports that students avoid using complete words while chatting and instead opt for shortcuts. This preference for shortcuts suggests that students are well-acquainted with the various terms associated with textism. Memushaj and Cekrezi (2018) also agreed that using text messages has led to the emergence of abbreviations and textism as strategies to shorten words in writing. The research also highlighted that students perceive textism as a means to save time and facilitate faster communication while writing or sending messages.

The study conducted by Oreoluwa and Omotoya (2022) supports the findings of Memushaj and Cekrezi (2018) regarding the primary motivations behind the use of textism, which include brevity, speed, and creativity. These studies consistently prove that individuals engage in textism to achieve concise and fast communication while expressing their creativity. Phonological approximation was found to be the most commonly employed type of textism, accounting for 30.5% of instances (Oreoluwa & Omotoya, 2022). This highlights the widespread practice of modifying words based on their sounds.

On the other hand, the study also emphasized that homophones and onomatopoeia were relatively minimal, representing only 0.01% each. These findings underscore the importance of concise communication and the creative adaptation of words, particularly through phonological approximation, in textism.

Additionally, Sadiq et al. (2022) conducted a study that further supports the prevalence of textism usage. Their data collection revealed that textisms were commonly employed in various contexts, including emails, text messages, and note-taking. However, the researchers found that textisms were absent in formal writings, specifically in the analyzed sample of students’ assignments and formal study notes. These findings highlight the contextual variation in the use of textisms, with individuals adapting their language choices based on the formality of the writing task.

While some researchers argue about the positive impacts of textism, Nyarko (2018) presents contrasting findings that oppose the claims mentioned above. His study indicates that overreliance on textism risks students’ English language writing skills. Nyarko’s study suggests that an overreliance on textism negatively impacts students’ English language writing skills. Textisms often involve non-conventional spellings, abbreviations, and shortcuts that deviate from standard grammar and spelling rules. When students heavily rely on these textism practices, it can hinder their ability to communicate in formal writing contexts accurately and effectively. Using textisms may lead to a lack of understanding and application of proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure. Consequently, students may need help producing coherent and cohesive written compositions that adhere to conventional language norms.

The studies mentioned above have significant implications for the usage of textism. Firstly, they highlight that textism is driven by the desire for concise and fast communication, emphasizing the importance of brevity, speed, and creativity in digital interactions. However, this practice can positively and negatively affect literacy skills. While textism enhances communication efficiency in informal settings, it may negatively impact formal writing skills by promoting non-standard grammar and spelling. This raises concerns about the potential risk to students’ English language writing abilities. Lastly, the context in which textism is used plays a significant role, with its prevalence in informal messages and less frequency in formal writings such as school assignments and professional documents. These implications underscore the need for individuals to balance the advantages of textism with maintaining strong writing skills and adapting language appropriately based on the context.

TABLE I Frequency of Using Textism (n = 238)

Constructs M SD Remarks
Shortenings 2.91 0.64 High
Contractions 2.29 0.72 Low
Clippings 2.72 0.84 High
Acronyms and Initialisms 3.14 0.69 High
Letter and Number Homophones 1.83 0.87 Low
Non-conventional Spellings 2.55 0.72 High
Onomatopoeic Spellings 2.87 0.85 High
Overall Textism 2.61 0.76 High

Note: 3.25-4.0 (Very High); 2.50-3.24 (High); 1.75-2.49 (Low), 1.0-1.74 (Very Low)

Student’s Spelling Ability

In Table 2, it was shown that the students’ spelling ability is good (M=17.46, SD=5.20). This means that students possess a good command of the rules and conventions governing the correct formation of words. They can visually analyze the letters and patterns of a word and accurately identify the correct spelling, even when presented with similar-looking alternatives. This skill demonstrates the students’ solid understanding of the mechanics of language and the capacity to navigate the intricacies of spelling, enhancing their overall competence in written communication.

The studies by Henbest et al. (2020), Costa and Arias (2021), and Andrews et al. (2020) have important implications for students’ spelling ability. First, spelling is a skill that relies on linguistic awareness and the ability to manipulate language. This suggests that students with good spelling proficiency understand the rules and patterns governing word formation, allowing them to reproduce the correct sequence of letters and sounds accurately. This proficiency in spelling positively impacts written communication by enhancing readability and comprehension (Costa & Arias, 2021).

Furthermore, the recognition of correct spelling and spelling ability are distinct processes. Readers can recognize words even if they cannot produce the correct spelling, as they rely on partial orthographic information. However, the specific types of misspellings included in tasks can influence the accuracy of spelling recognition. This emphasizes the importance of understanding the factors affecting spelling recognition (Andrews et al., 2020).

These studies underscore the significance of developing strong spelling skills for effective written communication. Students with good spelling proficiency demonstrate a solid grasp of language mechanics, enabling them to convey their thoughts and intentions more effectively. Additionally, recognizing the distinction between spelling recognition and spelling ability provides insights into the different aspects of the spelling process. It highlights the need for comprehensive approaches to support students in developing well-rounded spelling skills.

TABLE II Students’ Spelling Ability (n=238)

Construct M     SD Remarks
Spelling Ability 17.46 5.20 Good

Note: 23-30 (Very Good); 15-22 (Good); 7-14 (Poor); 0-6 (Very Poor)

Significant Relationship Between the Use of Textism and Students’ Spelling Ability

Pearson Product- Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to determine the significant relationship between textism and students’ spelling ability (Table 5). The data showed that Contractions (r = -0.20; p= 0.00), Letter and Number Homophones (r = -0.20; p = 0.00), and Clippings (r = -0.14; p = 0.03) were correlated to the student’s spelling ability, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. The remaining variables, Shortenings (r = -0.01; p = 0.86), Acronyms and Initialisms (r = 0.06; p = 0.33), Non-conventional Spellings (r = -0.10; p = 0.14), and Onomatopoeic Spellings (r= -0.08; p = 0.24) were not correlated with the student’s spelling ability, thus failing to reject the null hypothesis.

The data indicated a significant correlation between certain textism patterns and the students’ spelling ability. Specifically, contractions, letter and number homophones, and clippings demonstrate negative correlations with spelling ability. This implies that as the frequency of employing these textism patterns increases, the students’ spelling ability tends to decrease. The correlation coefficients (r) for contractions and letter and number homophones are -0.20, and for clippings, it is -0.14. The p-values (p) associated with all three correlations are below the common significance threshold of 0.05, indicating that these correlations are unlikely to have occurred by chance. This negative correlation suggests that individuals who frequently employ these textism patterns may experience challenges in traditional spelling, potentially due to the shortcuts, abbreviations, or creative spellings associated with these patterns.

The findings of Bourguessa and Tahar (2022) supported the data results, indicating that textism harms spelling skills. Most students utilize the English language for chatting and have preferred employing abbreviations and shortenings rather than using complete words during their conversations. They used abbreviations, acronyms, omitted apostrophes, clippings, shortening, and letter and number homophones. As a result, students’ lack of knowledge in typing accurate words while texting has consequently impacted their spelling ability. Nyarko (2023) also agreed, as revealed in his study, that there was a consensus among educators that increasing reliance on textism as characterized by the use of abbreviated or non-standard language in text messages carries a notable risk for students’ mastery of the Standard English language. The prevalent use of textism might hinder students from developing strong language skills that align with formal and universally accepted linguistic norms.

Furthermore, the results of the data revealed that there is no significant correlation between certain textism patterns and students’ spelling ability. Specifically, the variable shortenings, acronyms and initialisms, non-conventional spellings, and onomatopoeic spellings displayed correlation coefficients (r) of -0.01, 0.06, -0.10, and -0.08, respectively. The associated p-values (p) were also 0.86, 0.33, 0.14, and 0.24, respectively. These p-values suggest that the likelihood of observing these correlations due to random chance is relatively high, as none fall below the conventional significance threshold of 0.05. The null hypothesis, which posits no relationship between these variables, is therefore not rejected, indicating that the data does not provide strong support for a connection between the use of these textisms and the students’ spelling ability.

The results from Dolba and Dolba (2023) corroborated the data’s findings, suggesting that the utilization of textism does not exhibit a detrimental correlation with students’ spelling ability.Their study suggested that using textism can improve students’ spelling proficiency. This implies that engaging in textism practices, such as using abbreviations and phonetic approximations, does not hinder students’ ability to spell correctly. Instead, it may contribute positively to their spelling skills. This is in contrast to Bourguessa and Tahar’s (2022) findings that textism impacts students’ ability to remember correct and current forms of spelling. The study argued that using textism with shortened and modified words can lead to confusion and misunderstanding in student communication, specifically affecting spelling. Consequently, the altered forms of words in textism may hinder students’ ability to recall and use proper spelling conventions accurately.

Therefore, the study showed a significant correlation between using textisms, specifically contractions, clippings, and letter and number homophones, and the students’ spelling ability. These textisms clearly impacted the students’ spelling ability, indicating that as these textisms were used more frequently, the students’ spelling skills tended to decline. On the other hand, the study did not find any significant relationship between other textisms such as shortenings, acronyms and initialisms, non-conventional spellings, and onomatopoeic spellings, and the students’ spelling ability. In other words, the students’ ability in spelling was not notably affected by the frequency of using these particular textism patterns.

TABLE III Test of Relationship between Textism and Students’ Spelling Ability (n=238)

Variables r- value p-value Decision Remarks
Shortenings and Spelling Ability -0.01 0.86 Do not Reject Ho Not Significant
Contractions and Spelling Ability -0.2 0 Reject Ho Highly Significant
Clippings and Spelling Ability -0.14 0.03 Reject Ho Significant
Acronyms and Initialisms and Spelling Ability 0.06 0.33 Do not Reject Ho Not Significant
Letter and Number Homophones and Spelling Ability -0.2 0 Reject Ho Highly Significant
Non-conventional Spellings and Spelling Ability -0.1 0.14 Do not Reject Ho Not Significant
Onomatopoeic Spellings and Spelling Ability -0.08 0.24 Do not Reject Ho Not Significant

Note: **p<0.01 (Highly Significant); *p<0.05 (Significant); p>0.05 (Not significant)

CONCLUSION

This study examined the use of textism in relation to spelling ability among Junior High School students. The results of the study revealed that:

  1. The students can effectively utilize textism in written communication, such as messaging apps or online platforms. Their proficiency suggests a strong understanding of concisely and creatively conveying messages using shortenings, contractions, clippings, acronyms and initialisms, letter and number homophones, non-conventional spellings, and onomatopoeic spellings.
  2. The students develop skills in visual processing and recognizing the correct spelling of words. They showed an aptitude for accurately perceiving the subtle differences in letter combinations and patterns, allowing them to make the correct spelling choices.
  3. Students who frequently utilize textism tend to decrease their spelling ability over time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings and conclusions, the researchers recommended that:

  1. Continue effective spelling education among students and instruction to enhance their spelling abilities and reinforce understanding of spelling patterns, letter combinations, and phonetic rules.
  2. Educators and parents raise awareness among students about appropriate textism usage and guide when and where to use specific textism features effectively.
  3. To enhance overall spelling proficiency, educators focus future interventions and instruction on strengthening spelling skills beyond textism, such as phonemic awareness, vocabulary development, word analysis, and contextual understanding.
  4. Future researchers may investigate additional linguistic aspects of textism, such as syntactic structures or grammar usage, to comprehensively understand its impact on students’ language skills and spelling abilities.

REFERENCES

  1. Ali, A., Khaliq, A., & Hanan, F. (2019). The influence of SMS language on academic writing: A Study at University Level in South Punjab, Pakistan. Global Regional Review, 4(4), 178-186.
  2. Al-Sobhi, B., Md Rashid, S., & Abdullah, A. N. (2018). Arab ESL secondary school students’ attitude toward English spelling and writing. Sage Open, 8(1), 2158244018763477.
  3. Andrews, S., Veldre, A., & Clarke, I. E. (2020). Measuring lexical quality: The role of spelling ability. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 2257-2282.
  4. Arellano, G., Morales, J., Garcia, K. (2019). Effects of text messaging to the spelling ability of Grade 7and 8 Students at Sampiro Integrated Senior High School. Retrieved from:https://ojs.aaresearchindex.com/index.php/AAJMRA/article/view/9477
  5. Arfani, S., & Rusfitasari, R. (2019). Slang used in” Top Five Movie” directed by Chris Rock. Journal of English Language and literature, 4(1).
  6. Bhandari, S. (2021). Impact of textism on the academic use of English language by university students. http://www.ijelr.in/8.1.21/142-146%20Sumedha%20Bhandari.pdf
  7. Bouguessa Kamilia, T. I. (2022). Perceptions about the effect of textism on EFL students spelling: the case of third-year students of English at the University of Tébessa (Doctoral dissertation, Larbi Tébessi University Tébessa).
  8. Dolba, S. L. M., & Dolba, S. L. T. M. (2023). Correlation of using Techspeak to the spelling proficiency of Grade 9 Junior high school students enrolled in Sta. Peregrina High School.
  9. Espiritu et al., (2020). The use of messaging apps in relation to students’ spelling ability. https://tinyurl.com/89pczu27.
  10. Fifteenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, First Regular Session, Senate (S. No. 2512). Introduced by Senator Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid. http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/101878719!.pdf
  11. Genelza, G. G. (2022). Text messaging as a predictor of orthographic processing of bs-criminology students at University of Mindanao Tagum college: basis for an intervention program. galaxy international interdisciplinary research journal, 10(10), 642-651.
  12. Helen L. Breadmore & S. Hélène Deacon (2019). Morphological processing before and during children’s spelling, scientific studies of reading, 23:2, 178-191, DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2018.1499745
  13. Henbest, V. S., Fitton, L., Werfel, K. L., & Apel, K. (2020). The relation between linguistic awareness skills and spelling in adults: a comparison among scoring procedures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(4), 1240-1253.
  14. Homan, S. P., & Klesius, J. P. (2008). The effects of modeling on elementary students’ spelling accuracy. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(4), 357-362.
  15. IGI Global Dictionary Search. (2023). Letter Homophones. https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/letter-homophone/17048
  16. IGI Global Dictionary Search. (2023). Number Homophones. https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/number-homophone/20637
  17. Ignacio, A. T., & De Jesus, F. S. (2021). Texting and chatting styles of grade 11 students: a case in the philippines.
  18. Kaid Mohammed Ali, J., Hasnain, S. I., & Beg, M. S. (2019). The impact of texting on Standard English: The students’ perspective. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL, (5).
  19. Kindler, L., & Hagston, J. (2018). Using spelling knowledge as a framework to improve students’ writing. Fine Print, 41(1), 24-27.
  20. Limpo, T., Salas, N., Van Reybroeck, M., & Castro, S. L. (2021). Spelling Across Orthographies. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 700604.
  21. Angel, M. (2022) CRE8N TXT: A rule-based approach to Textese, Language@Internet. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/28zwxn5s
  22. Memushaj, N., & Çekrezi, A. (2018). The impact of text messaging on high school students’ literacy in English language: a case study of mak girls. Bjes, 37.
  23. Morey, D. T. (2019). Effect of sms lingo on writing skill: an investigation. Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow Volume 19: 4 April 2019 ISSN 1930-2940, 131, 14.
  24. Munir, T. (2022). Standardization of English language spellings used in textism: A viewpoint of undergraduate learners in Pakistan. Amazonia Investiga, 11(57), 18-29.
  25. Nghipondoka, T. N. (2020). Exploring linguistic” creativity” on social media: A case of selected posts by Namibians on Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp (Doctoral dissertation, University of Namibia).
  26. Nyarko, E. (2018). Effect of the use of instant messaging applications on writing of English as a second language in higher education. European Journal of Education Studies.
  27. Oreoluwa, F. W., & Omotayo, F. O. (2022). Use of textism by University Students in Nigeria. Covenant Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology.
  28. Radia, M. B., & Lamia, M. B. (2021). Exploring the effects of textese on EFL students’ quality writing a case study of second year LMD Students of English at Mohamed Boudiaf University of M’sila (Doctoral dissertation).
  29. Sadiq, U., Ajmal, M., & Suleman, N. (2022). Impact of text messaging on students’ writing skills at university level: a corpus-based analysis. Competitive Social Science Research Journal, 3(1), 194-201.
  30. Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children’s self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 77(3), 313.
  31. Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Understanding descriptive research designs and methods. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 34(1), 8-12.
  32. Stangor, C., & Walinga, J. (2019). Psychologists use descriptive, correlational, and experimental research designs to understand behaviour. Introduction to Psychology.
  33. Subramanian, K. R. (2018). Texting and teen aches of the turbulent times. International journal of innovative trends in engineering (ijite), 42(01), 30-36.
  34. Tavarez Da Costa, P., & Reyes Arias, F. (2021). A case study on the use of spelling as a determining factor in teaching English grammar in Dominican Schools. Online Submission.
  35. Totanes, B. C., & Lintao, R. B. (2019). Textese categories and textese application in l2 class discussion. Journal on English Language Teaching, 9(1), 14-31.
  36. Verheijen, L. (2019). Is textese a threat to traditional literacy? Dutch youths’ language use in written computer-mediated communication and relations with their school writing. Utrecht: LOT.
  37. Verheijen, L., & Spooren, W. P. M. S. (2021). The impact of WhatsApp on Dutch youths’ school writing and spelling. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/233784/233784.pdf?sequence=1
  38. Yadidya, Y. (2022). Evolution of English in the Internet Age. http://ijmer.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/volume11/volume11-issue4(6)/7.pdf
  39. Yunis, M. A. (2019, May 3-4). Language of social media: an investigation of the changes that soft media has imposed on language use. 9th International Research Conference on Education, language and literature (pp.319-914). Georgia: Khazar University https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 336717574

Article Statistics

Track views and downloads to measure the impact and reach of your article.

3

PDF Downloads

48 views

Metrics

PlumX

Altmetrics

Paper Submission Deadline

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.