There seems to be little doubt that the new digital technologies of the twenty-first century are challenging the way we think about writing. They are also changing the ways in which we do writing. The mouse on the PC, the touch screen at the cash dispenser (ATM), and the keypad
on our cell phone are all writing technologies (Merchant, 2005, p.183)
Merchant (2005) argued that digital technologies of the 21st Century are challenging the way we look at writing. The literature presented in Chapter 2 seems to agree with this, however, the students in my study did not refer to technology when they were asked to define writing. In addition, digital technology did not feature in the children’s initial drawings when they were asked to draw themselves during a reading and/or writing activity. The use of digital technology only came through prompting them to think more widely about constructions of writing.
During the introductory session, ten students opted to draw themselves during a writing activity, all of which featured one student or more sitting down on a chair
179
at a table in a classroom setting. All students opted to draw themselves in a ‘sit up’ position and no drawings featured what Merchant (2005) refers to as the ‘lie back’ or ‘fall over’ position. As Merchant (2005) explains, ‘writing is a physical act and the writing position, or what Bourdieu (1991) calls ‘bodily hexis’, describes the physical postures associated with certain kinds of communication’ (p.185). The fact that the students drew themselves sitting down on a chair confirms their traditional views on what ‘writing’ actually is. Figure 6.1 shows two examples of this.
180
Papers, copybooks, pencils and rubbers also featured in the students’ drawings. This continued to confirm that students defined ‘writing’ in its traditional sense; that of writing words on a paper with a pencil. This was further emphasised through the definitions which the children themselves provided, some of which are presented in Figure 6.2. Once again the students were invited to explain to Zanu the alien what they understood by the word ‘writing’. The definitions shown in Figure 6.2 confirm that students related ‘writing’ to ‘pencils’ and ‘papers’ and no direct reference was made to writing using technological devices.
During the first focus group interview the students were asked to elaborate on their drawings and although all the children drew themselves writing in a classroom setting, they explained that writing is an activity which is normally done at home and school. In sum, the students’ definitions and drawings showed how the children’s definition of writing was aligned with traditional and school-based constructions of writing and being a writer.
Having noticed this, the students were prompted to discuss on screen writing during one of the focus groups and, whilst they were quick to accept that reading tasks can be easily done on a computer or tablet, some students were sceptical about whether they can use technology for a writing task. Steven expressed his belief that one needs to grab something to write with; either a pencil or a stylus. In fact, when Steven was asked whether he uses his tablet for writing activities, he
181
explained that he does not because his tablet does not come with a stylus; “No...
no, I don’t... my tablet does not even have that thing you use to write with!” This
shows that Steven’s idea of writing is constructed around the physical movement which is carried out when he ‘grabs’ either a pencil or a stylus when in reality there are numerous forms of writing on technological devices. As Merchant (2005) explains, these may include ‘touchscreen technology, the stylus, mouse, touchpad, joystick and keyboard’ (p.185).
The students also seemed dubious when they were asked whether typing can be considered as a new form of writing. Most students reported that typing and writing are totally different from each other whilst only two students explained that there is a continual link between the two. When asked “are typing and writing the
same?” Matthew, for example, reported that, “they’re the opposite and different”
whilst Antoine argued that “the written and typed – they’re different because on
the keyboard…on the computer you have to handle the letters or you just use the… the thing… what’s it called? And if you don’t have the keyboard or laptop you just use that thing and you write just the same…. but regards writing and typing…I’m sticking to Josef’s idea…they’re not the same”. Josef, Antoine and Matthew’s
ideas were similarly debated by another two students. Shanaia for example, reported that, “they are the same… when you type or write you still use the same
letters”.
After this discussion, however, the students came to agree that the main difference between writing and typing is the input process. Students have also reported that the final representation of the writing is also different depending on the media used. Josef explained that they are different because “when you type you need to know
the letters and click on them and when you write you have to do like this
[demonstrating a writing movement with the hand]”. This issue was debated and contested during the focus group interview and this showed that ‘writing’ might mean different things to these children. Some of the students agreed with Shanaia’s idea that, “typing is a new form of writing” but the majority of the children, like Isaaic, held the belief that writing and typing are not the same; ‘when you write you
182
need a pencil. When you type all you need to do is put your hands out like this and press the buttons”.
It is evident that some of the students’ ideas on writing focused on the actual process of writing, whilst only one child related writing to the end result. This shows that these children had different views on what is meant by the term ‘writing’. Josef, for example, focused on the end product whilst Antoine focused on the action of writing in his definition. Students seemed, however, to suggest that typed print and print which is produced with a pencil or pen portray the same meaning but the presentation and process are different.
Another point which was raised during the interview was that writing is considered as a form of communication. As Chanelle explained, “Well I would define
‘writing’ as ‘another option to communicate’... if for example you want to speak to a friend and you have no telephone or mobile you can always write a letter’.
The other children who participated in the same focus group interview also shared the view that writing is a process which gives out a message; in Maria’s own words;
‘letters tell us a message... like ‘hola!’, ‘cat’ and ‘dog’. This shows that these
students recognise that print is used to carry meaning and that writing ‘can be viewed as one of many activities that occur along a spectrum of textual communication’ (Dowdall, 2006, p.41). Furthermore Chanelle’s definition also shows how students’ popular culture is amalgamated in their way of thinking, a concept which was explored in detail in the previous chapter. When Chanelle was asked what ‘hola!’ meant she explained that it is a word which the cartoon character Dora the Explorer uses to say ‘hello’ in Spanish. Chanelle also explained that writing is related to a particular language and that people might not understand all written text because this can be presented through various languages.
At this point, Shanaia reported that the Maltese language is a difficult language to write and when she is writing a message on her mobile she is conscious that she makes a number of mistakes. Shanaia reported that she would write something like “Aw, int kolox sew? Gej ada?” [Hello, are you ok? Are you coming
tomorrow?] as opposed to; “Haw, int kollox sew? Gej għada?” Shanaia’s example
183
sometimes leaves a number of letters out on purpose in order to write in a quicker and shorter manner. Chanelle also provided a similar example and argued that she is sometimes tricked to write ‘cause’ instead of ‘because’ or ‘2mor’ instead of ‘tomorrow’ when writing on her copybooks at school or doing her homework. Such episodes show how on screen writing is influencing and changing children’s way of writing in the digital age. Here, the students are reporting that on screen writing is promoting a ‘shorthand’ type of writing which can be acknowledged as a ‘text speak’ type of writing. This, however, will be explored in more detail in one of the sections later in this chapter.
In sum, data analysis has showed that like reading, writing for these students was defined and related to a school-based activity. Students were aware that writing conveys meaning and is a way through which people communicate. The young participants also made a connection between writing and languages whilst students like Maria showed her awareness that writing can be presented in different languages.
It is interesting to note that whilst the previous chapter showed that children acknowledged a connection between reading and digital technology, the students were very sceptical when they were prompted to discuss writing on screen. Some of the children actually stated that writing cannot be carried out on screen and that typing is not the same as writing. Data analysis also revealed that for most of these children, ‘writing’ was viewed as an activity which could only be carried out on paper. The sections which follow shall delve into the reasons why this was the case. However, before addressing this issue it is important to understand how the Maltese teachers in this study defined ‘writing’.