New Zealand To Allow 'Text-Speak' On Exams

ScentCone writes "New Zealand's Qualification Authority (which sets testing standards for the public schools) is confident that those grading papers will understand the meaning of students' responses, even if they use phone/IM-style text-speak. From the article: 'credit will be given if the answer "clearly shows the required understanding," even if it contains text-speak.' Many teachers are not amused, and critics say that the move will devalue NZ's equivalent of a high school diploma." Not to mention that graders will need to be restrained so they don't gouge their own eyes out. While in the medium of text messages, some shorthand might be in order, but I didn't realize that world paper, pencil, and ink shortages were so severe so that text-speak is necessary everywhere.

Comments

Are they kidding?

[Announcer]

How are kids supposed to learn proper spelling & grammar?

Anyone remember "Ebonics"?

Re:Are they kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

shit ya yo. fucking titties fucking uppah claas fukin titties yo. grammuh only dare to keeps the fucking lower class down yo!

Me shud B a fucking cee Eee OOh dat a fuckin' coperashun.

fuck yo!

cuz speelin dont be making you any smartur.fuck.

Re:Are they kidding?

[msromike]

As an example, Perl (I will not use .NET as an example since this is Slashdot) depends on proper spelling and grammar used in unnatural constructs. Learning how to do things "properly" used to be a given, and something that the majority strived for. Now, "perfecting the details" (learning how to write in standard English for example) is an unnecessary a bother that cuts into time that is better used for watching MTV and such. We live in the land of "close enough." The problem is that in many cases close enough isn't good enough.

Re:Are they kidding?

[LS]

The ability to detect humor by slashdot moderators has seriously suffered recently. I've seen several posts modded as 5, Funny, that are mocking a parent poster's ironic joke that the poster and the moderators did not get themselves. Either that or the poster is purposely just sucking karma from the parent.

Re:Are they kidding?

[nosredna]

Until you manage to inform someone that 'you' is a vowel.

Re:Are they kidding?

[TheRaven64]

I can thoroughly recommend Slashdot to any budding writers with a technical bent. I started posting here about four years ago (see the high UID), and found it a great way of getting into the habit of writing. I tend to post a few thousand words here each day; it helps me procrastinate, but in a way that keeps me in the habit of writing a lot of (relatively) good English[1] quickly. If I make any kind of spelling or grammatical error then I get flamed.

Since beginning posting here, I've got a regular column on a tech news site (and been on the receiving end of the Slashdot effect a few times), and last week, I signed my first book deal.

Wandering slightly back on-topic, the thing that bugs me about 'text speak' is that it is impolite. It is slightly faster to type, but a lot harder to read for anyone who has grown up reading real English (i.e. everyone until they start putting 'text-speak' in textbooks). There is therefore an implicit assumption that the writer's time is more valuable than the reader's. That's fine (if a little insulting), but I chose to believe the opposite and not read it. It's even worse when posted to a public board and there are several thousand readers; the writer obviously believes that their time is worth a few thousand times as much as anyone else.

[1] According to Slashdot rule 47b there will now follow at least three horribly embarrassing errors.

Re:Are they kidding?

[magisterx]

I would dare to say that you are wrong. They are standards, much like TCP/IP for humans, which make communications both more effective and more artful. But even if you are right, keep in mind that you say it derives from the upper class, which tends to be the group that hires, fires, and promotes. Thus, even if you are right, proper spelling and grammar will be requisite in a great many of the better jobs...

Re:Are they kidding?

[HUADPE]

Actually, the full command is [space]u[space] becoming [space]you[space], so unless I am typing the letter as its own word, it's just "u."

Indian Offshoring...

[kisrael]

Sometimes "text-speak" (surprised it's not "txt-spk") appears in odd places. Like 90% of the offshore folks from India I've interacted with, even in e-mail that was otherwise very professional and well written. Now some of these guys were bozos, but even for the ones that I knew were solid, smart workers...I just couldn't be sure if they even knew that "you" is not spelled "u"

Is "The Artist Formerly Know As" popular over there? I blame him for all this in general.

Re:Indian Offshoring...

[x2A]

Why? I mean, I actually get quite surprised whenever I see someone on slashdot spell 'lose' correctly, and that's from english-as-first-language ppl.

I'm quite picky with what I'll abreviate. You and for are such short words anyway, I think cutting down to 'u' and '4' is plain tacky, and makes you come across as being... well... somewhat cheap. But, as you can see, a six lettered word I don't mind so much, even on the internet, which is in fact where I picked that up, long before text messaging took off. Also, through and though have become thru and tho, but I do know the difference between thru and threw which I do see mixed up from time to time. Too and to are never 2, which should only mean two.

So I guess I don't have a fundamental problem with it, as long as ambiguity isn't formed, it remains easy to read, and you draw yourself a line so u dont spk lyk vis al du tym.

Re:Indian Offshoring...

[JaredOfEuropa]

I just couldn't be sure if they even knew that "you" is not spelled "u"

I've seen the same from Indian, Malaysian and Chinese IT professionals, and given the level of their English, they must have known that "you" is spelled "y-o-u-".

Some of the Indians I work with get training in dealing with western cultures, i.e. western management style, conflict resolution with Westerners, and English colloquialisms. My guess is that the quality of such trainings vary... some people, always from the same one or two companies, put the oddest colloqualisms in their emails. They are technically correct, but they just look out of place in business communication. Writing "u" instead of "you" is just one of those things.

I'm growing increasingly concerned....

[TomHandy]

That a generation or two from now, the entire English language is going to primarily be reduced to textspeak and leetspeak or something.

One thing that would give me hope though is that textspeak is really only required right now because with so many modern phones, text input is still cumbersome, so it is a necessity. Seemingly when new technologies come into place which would make text entry more efficient (maybe better predictive text input, speech-to-text built into phones, etc.) textspeak won't even be needed.

At least that's what I hope for.

Re:I'm growing increasingly concerned....

[Randseed]

I'll admit that I don't fully understand this. I'm far from one of those ridiculously fast texters on the cell phone. I do send a fair number of text messages. Only very rarely will I let bad text prediction through without taking a second to correct it, and I have never sent a text message in "text speak." It would probably take me just as long to use "text speak" as it would to do it correctly.

The meaning behind "Credit will be given"?

[malkavian]

That could hide many things. After all, understanding the subject isn't the whole of the mark. Communicating it also carries a non-trivial mark.
If the examiner can't correctly work out what the writer is trying to say, then marks will be lost. Presentation also carries a portion of the mark in most subjects, and using txt spk will almost certainly lose that.
So, it's basically allowing people to use txt spk, and actually have a non-zero mark (credit given for the understanding of the subject where it's communicated successfully), but in all probability, they won't be garnering the kind of mark they would otherwise be achieving if they used correct English.
It's possibly the kind of discrepancy that would make the difference between a fail and an average pass mark (depending on how obfuscated the text was by using txt spk).

Which subject?

[vadim_t]

Text speak in an English exam of course should result in failing it. On the other hand, I think bad grammar and spelling should be ignored on a math or a chemistry exam, so long the answer is understandable.

Re:Which subject?

[Coryoth]

Text speak in an English exam of course should result in failing it. On the other hand, I think bad grammar and spelling should be ignored on a math or a chemistry exam, so long the answer is understandable.

Really? Why? Are mathematicians and chemists not required to communicate? I can understand, perhaps, allowing a little more leeway, given that it is not specifically the subject being tested, but ultimately spelling and grammar matters. A large part of mathematics is being able to clearly communicate your reasoning to other people. Now mathematics does provide its own language and symbols to do a lot of that communication, however as someone who grades math papers, I am as sensitive to misuse of mathematical symbols as I am to misspelling and poor grammar, and I will mark people down for either if it is consistently poor (I will tolerate occasional mistakes). Any ambiguity introduced undermines the entire mathematical argument. Whether it "can be understood" is not enough - markers should not be required to try and figure out what a student meant: what they mean should be immediately clear, and that is an important part of the subject.

Re:Which subject?

[ScrewMaster]

On the other hand, I think bad grammar and spelling should be ignored on a math or a chemistry exam, so long the answer is understandable.

A common misconception: as Locutus of Borg put it, "A narrow vision." The belief that only those fields which predominantly deal with written language should be required to exercise it properly is in error. Seriously in error, and the widespread adoption of this mistake is costing us dearly.

The reality for people of all walks of life, whether they be physicist, mathematician, songwriter, janitor, engineer, lawyer, sales clerk ... virtually any career path but that of beach bum, is that they will be required to communicate with other individuals and groups. More to the point, they will be required to do it on paper (or some reasonable facsimile of same.) It may simply be knowing how to pen a solid business letter, a proposal, a poem, a love letter, tech manual, or any of the thousands of other pieces of written communication that human beings generate by the trillions on a daily basis. We all need to write, and how well we write has a definite, quantifiable effect upon our well-being, upon our ability to achieve our personal goals, and helps to define how we are perceived by our peers (and our superiors.)

You cannot be a true professional in most areas of human endeavor if you cannot communicate, and everyone, no matter how low or how high, benefits from knowing how to write. It is a comfortable falsehood that only professions such as writer or journalist need to have a good command of langauge. I've known many engineers with poor verbal skills: some became engineers because of a mistaken belief that they wouldn't need such abilities in a purely technical field. You can imagine the shock and disillusionment (if not panic) when they were first asked to write a fifty-page proposal. Again, reality must intrude upon fantasy ... those who cannot communicate well are limited in what they will be allowed to achieve. Any school which graduates students that cannot write has done them a lifelong disservice.

I've seen the results of such educational policies before. I have an ex-girlfriend who was (maybe still is, I don't know, it's been about fifteen years) a college English instructor. A good one, I might add, in spite of her other failings. In any event, at the time she taught first-year English at a local community college, and would often bring papers home to grade. I was positively astounded at the number of incoming students that literally could not write in full sentences, not if their very lives depended upon it. Fully half of the kids she tested had somehow made it through grade school and high school without achieving basic literacy, and regardless of their native intelligence were simply not ready for college-level coursework.

As an example of how far we have fallen in the past century or two, I found it illuminating to read the letters that American infantrymen sent home to their families during the old Indian campaigns. These were boys, often only in their teens, mere footsoldiers, and yet the quality of their writing was substantially greater than what most college graduates are capable of in our time. Some of those letters were pure prose, and the emotional impact was significant. That's because they were taught well, and held to a standard, a standard that has been flagging for the past century or more.

I admit, writing extremely well requires talent in addition to training. The likes of a Shakespeare are rare indeed in any century. But mere competence in one's native language is a skill that can be acquired by virtually everyone, and it is one that is best acquired early. Yes, it is complicated and there are many who, for many reasons, may find it tough going. But it is no less worthwhile for being difficult.

Oh, and before someone brings up the number of successful corporate executives that are functional illiterates and require an intelligent secretary to handle their correspondence, let me point out that these people are not members of the same species as the rest of us, and are judged by different standards.

Yes, clarity is what really matters

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So I guess I don't have a fundamental problem with it, as long as ambiguity isn't formed, it remains easy to read, and you draw yourself a line so u dont spk lyk vis al du tym.

That, I think, is the key thing: we're talking about communication here. Abbreviations that require the reader to think twice about the meaning of the writing are an impairment to efficient communication. Depending on the context, they may also be an indication that you consider your time spent writing to be more valuable than the reader's time, which tells the reader how little you value their consideration.

Certainly on on-line forums for students where I've helped out in the past, contributors would be far more willing to reply to a question that was carefully written to explain the problem clearly and concisely than to try to interpret vague L337sp33k or txt tlk because someone couldn't be bothered to write in proper English.

In other words, conventional shorthands are fine if they're used in an appropriate context. IMHO, few people reading this on Slashdot won't immediately understand this sentence. However, those who write poorly out of laziness should not be surprised to find that they come across as such, and are treated accordingly by those whose opinions of them might matter. I wouldn't write "IMHO" in a business report for an audience who might not be familiar with the shorthand.

New Rulz !

[udippel]

Wrong ! it is B4 instead of B3f0r3.
The Emporor's new clothes: The king is dead - Long live the king ! leet sp33k will |-|4v3 gr4m4

I 4 1 wlcm our new overlords: The leet sp33k Grammar Nazis

Re:IAAEM

[udippel]

I am an english major.

... of a persons expressions, and in turn to control ones own nuances.
... they call it university because your forced to take English

Wouldn't you have better left out that first sentence of yours ?

Not wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, jackass, why don't you come back to Slashdot when you've outgrown your white sheet hood? That kinda ignorance isn't welcome here.

Re:The nature of language

[RsG]

What's so funny about the parent? Those are all perfectly cromulant words!

Re:WRONGO!

[ari_j]

Actually, it was correct as originally written. The fact that you can add words does not mean that you must.

Re:Ebonified leet

[The Clockwork Troll]

Allow me to open up another can of worms by postulating that the problem with your filtered text is not its readability so much as the unlikelihood that today's youth would recognize the underlying translated document.

Re:This may be an unpopular opinion...

[Randseed]

Others have asked how students can learn "proper" English with these newly loosened regulations. I'd like to point out that one of the main objectives of English class is to teach the use of standard English! The students' mastery of English can be tested with their English exams; doing so with those of any other subject would be ridiculous.

The obvious problem here, however, is that these students can use proper English. If they can't spell "you" as "y-o-u" instead of "u," then they're idiots. I don't care how bad your language skills are, they aren't that bad unless you're mentally disabled or are just barely learning English. I fully agree with not grading a student down if he spells something incorrectly or uses less than perfect grammar on a chemistry test, but if he isn't even trying to communicate, I'd fail him.