| dc.creator |
Norizul Azida Darus |
|
| dc.creator |
Nazira Osman |
|
| dc.creator |
Latisha Asmaak Shafie |
|
| dc.date |
2010-03-01T00:00:00Z |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2015-07-20T22:07:12Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2015-07-20T22:07:12Z |
|
| dc.identifier |
10.3991/ijet.v5i1.1010 |
|
| dc.identifier |
1863-0383 |
|
| dc.identifier |
https://doaj.org/article/f5d1a69efe104827a3d99a21c00be70b |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/11035 |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
https://doaj.org/article/f5d1a69efe104827a3d99a21c00be70b |
|
| dc.description |
Many students have become avid texters and are seriously reinventing language to accommodate the 160-character limit of short messages. They are more interested in getting their messages across and thus becoming less concerned about correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. Since texting has become a way of life of many students, it is feared that the SMS language can affect students’ written performance. This research examines the effects of frequent usage of text messaging (SMS) on undergraduates academic writing. For the purpose of the study, 264 Diploma students of UiTM Perlis were selected as participants. They were 94 male texters and 170 female texters aged between 18 – 22 years old who were taking three different English courses namely Preparatory English, Mainstream English 1 and Mainstream English 2. The data includes participants’ SMS messages, class assignments and examinations scripts which were analyzed in order to detect the existence of SMS language by using measuring instruments of Orthographic forms (Shortis, 2001). The findings reveal that there were few occurrences of SMS language in students’ examinations scripts among weak students. |
|
| dc.language |
English |
|
| dc.publisher |
kassel university press GmbH |
|
| dc.relation |
http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/1010 |
|
| dc.relation |
https://doaj.org/toc/1863-0383 |
|
| dc.rights |
CC BY |
|
| dc.source |
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), Vol 5, Iss 1, Pp 26-31 (2010) |
|
| dc.subject |
texters |
|
| dc.subject |
academic |
|
| dc.subject |
writing |
|
| dc.subject |
orthographic |
|
| dc.subject |
forms |
|
| dc.subject |
sms |
|
| dc.subject |
language |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology (General) |
|
| dc.subject |
T1-995 |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology |
|
| dc.subject |
T |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Technology (General) |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Technology and Engineering |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Education |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Social Sciences |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology (General) |
|
| dc.subject |
T1-995 |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology |
|
| dc.subject |
T |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Technology (General) |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Technology and Engineering |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Education |
|
| dc.subject |
DOAJ:Social Sciences |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology (General) |
|
| dc.subject |
T1-995 |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology |
|
| dc.subject |
T |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology (General) |
|
| dc.subject |
T1-995 |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology |
|
| dc.subject |
T |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology (General) |
|
| dc.subject |
T1-995 |
|
| dc.subject |
Technology |
|
| dc.subject |
T |
|
| dc.subject |
Theory and practice of education |
|
| dc.subject |
LB5-3640 |
|
| dc.subject |
Education |
|
| dc.subject |
L |
|
| dc.title |
SMS Language and College Writing :The languages of the College Texters |
|
| dc.type |
Article |
|