Cite this article as: Zakari, H. O. (2025). The effect of social media language on students’ academic writing at Bayero University Kano. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(3), 42–46. https://www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i03.006
THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA LANGUAGE ON STUDENTS’
ACADEMIC WRITING AT BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO
By
Hafsah Opaluwa Zakari
Department of
Languages, Al-azhar School Kano.
Abstract
In the digital
era, social media platforms have revolutionized communication among students,
especially at tertiary institutions. However, the informal linguistic habits
cultivated on these platforms increasingly appear in students’ formal academic
writing. This study investigates the effect of social media language on the
academic writing of undergraduate students at Bayero University Kano (BUK). A
stratified random sample of 200 undergraduate students across faculties was
selected. Data were collected through a 25-item questionnaire (Cronbach’s alpha
= 0.85), writing samples (two essays per student), and semi-structured
interviews (n=20). Findings reveal that while social media enhances writing
frequency and confidence, it also contributes to informality, abbreviation use,
and grammatical inaccuracies in academic writing. The study concludes that
educators should strategically integrate social media’s interactive benefits
into instruction while reinforcing formal writing standards.
Keywords: Social Media,
Academic Writing, Language Influence, Bayero University Kano, Students’
Communication.
1. Introduction
Social media
language refers to the distinctive ways individuals communicate on platforms
such as WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, and X. It is characterized by informality,
shorthand, and playful expression. Netspeak, for instance, involves informal
words or phrases that are often shortened or modified, such as brb (be
right back), lol (laugh out loud), and omg (oh my god). Emojis
are small digital icons used to convey emotions or represent objects, such as 😊 (smiling face) or ❤️ (heart), and
often function in place of words. Abbreviations, like idk (I don’t
know), smh (shaking my head), or tbh (to be honest), and creative
nonstandard spellings, such as gr8 (great), b4 (before), or u
for you, are also common. Additionally, some users combine words and
emojis to convey nuanced or layered meanings, a practice sometimes referred to
as Wmooji use.
These features
collectively create a form of communication that is informal, fast-paced, and
highly expressive. While this style promotes immediacy and creativity, it can
conflict with the formal expectations of academic writing, which emphasize
clarity, structural coherence, and adherence to standard grammar and spelling
conventions.
2. Literature Review
Social media
language, often described as “netspeak” or “digital vernacular,” is
characterized by brevity, informality, and creative expression. Users
frequently employ abbreviations (e.g., “u” for “you,” “gr8” for “great”), omit
punctuation, mix languages, and use emojis to convey emotion (Sikorska, 2025).
Such linguistic shortcuts evolve as users seek speed and efficiency in online
interactions (Mahardika, 2024). Studies indicate that continuous exposure to
this casual register can erode students’ adherence to formal grammatical
conventions. For instance, Ricaforte (2022) observed in Ghana that social media
abbreviations often appeared in academic essays, suggesting a transfer of
informal online habits to formal writing contexts. Similarly, Riaz et al. (2022)
reported that teenagers’ reliance on chat-style language altered their
perceptions of correct spelling and syntax. While this informality fosters
creativity and peer engagement, it frequently undermines precision, coherence,
and formal expression in academic discourse (Sikorska, 2025; Centiza, 2022).
The influence of
social media extends directly to academic writing skills. Structured, coherent,
and grammatically accurate writing is essential in higher education, yet
frequent engagement with informal online registers can weaken these
competencies. A South African study revealed that students’ use of social media
slang negatively affected their formal writing, reducing grammatical accuracy
and logical cohesion (Sikandar et al., 2022). Mahardika (2024) similarly
reported that university students who regularly used internet slang produced
essays with informal expressions, poor sentence structure, and nonstandard
vocabulary. In Nigeria, studies indicate that chat registers from platforms
like WhatsApp and Facebook increasingly appear in academic submissions,
affecting spelling, tone, and textual cohesion (Riaz et al., 2022).
Nonetheless, scholars such as Baron (2015) emphasize potential pedagogical
benefits, noting that social media can support collaborative writing, immediate
feedback, and audience awareness. The challenge lies in guiding students to
distinguish between informal digital communication and formal academic writing,
thereby harnessing digital engagement for learning rather than undermining it.
Beyond linguistic
structure, social media engagement has cognitive implications. Kosmyna et al.
(2025) argue that frequent interaction with fast-paced digital content may
reduce attention span and deep processing, both critical for structured
academic writing. Research from Namibia further indicates that habitual use of
chat applications can compromise sustained formal tone and grammatical accuracy
in students’ essays (Worku, 2022). Conversely, exposure to multiple linguistic
varieties online can expand vocabulary and enhance linguistic awareness
(Centiza, 2022). This duality highlights social media as both enabling and
constraining: it cultivates linguistic flexibility while simultaneously
promoting informality that may conflict with academic standards.
Despite extensive
international research, few studies have examined social media’s impact on
formal writing within Nigerian tertiary institutions. The bilingual environment
at Bayero University, Kano, where students frequently navigate English,
Nigerian Pidgin, and informal Hausa in digital communication, presents unique
challenges. This study addresses this contextual gap, investigating how social
media language influences the formal academic writing of Nigerian university
students.
3. Methodology
The study employed
a stratified random sampling technique to select two hundred (200)
undergraduate students from five faculties at Bayero University Kano (BUK),
namely Linguistics, Language & Theatre Arts, Education, Sciences,
Communication, and Management Sciences. Stratification was based on academic
levels (100–400), with each level treated as a separate stratum to account for
potential differences in academic experience and exposure to social media. The
sampling frame comprised course lists and registries of students across all
levels in each faculty. From these lists, students were randomly selected
within each stratum to ensure balanced representation from each academic year
and faculty.
Of the 200
students initially invited to participate, 180 completed the questionnaires,
provided writing samples, and participated in interviews, yielding a response
rate of 90%. The final sample of 180 students formed the basis for analysis.
Quantitative data
were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis with SPSS
version 27. Descriptive statistics summarized patterns of social media use and
writing habits, while correlation analysis examined the relationship between social
media practices, such as abbreviation use, informal tone, and nonstandard
grammar, and students’ academic writing quality. Where significant correlations
were observed, test statistics, p-values, and effect sizes were reported.
Qualitative data,
including interview transcripts and writing samples, were analyzed
thematically. Thematic analysis focused on recurring patterns such as the use
of informal registers, abbreviation tendencies, and inconsistencies in tone,
providing a nuanced understanding of how social media language influences
academic writing.
4. Results and Findings
4.1 Social Media Usage Patterns
Eighty-five
percent (85%) of respondents reported using social media daily, with the most
popular platforms being WhatsApp (98%), Instagram (71%), and X/Twitter (68%).
These platforms were the primary channels for students’ social media
engagement. Descriptive statistics revealed that approximately 70% of
participants occasionally used social media abbreviations in academic contexts.
Additionally, 60% of respondents reported that social media habits influenced
their academic writing either consciously or unconsciously.
For example, when
asked about abbreviation usage, the mean frequency of abbreviation usage in
academic settings was 2.1 (on a scale of 0 to 3), indicating a moderate level
of usage across participants. Correlation analysis between the frequency of
social media use and the reported frequency of abbreviation usage in writing
yielded a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.45, p <0.01), suggesting a
statistically significant relationship between the two variables. The effect
size for this correlation was Cohen's d = 0.33, indicating a small to medium
effect.
4.2 Writing
Sample Analysis
A total of 400
writing samples were collected from 200 undergraduate students across five
faculties. Each participant submitted two assignments, one handwritten and one
electronically typed. These assignments consisted of essays, term papers, and
seminar presentations.
4.2.1 Analytical
Framework
The analysis drew
upon frameworks of digital discourse and linguistic deviation (Crystal, 2011;
Baron, 2015). Writing samples were examined for the following features:
1. Abbreviations and Acronyms: Chat-style
forms (e.g., u, btw, pls, lol).
Example 1: “I will be at the meeting in 10
min, pls don’t forget the report!”, coded as abbreviation use (score = 2).
Example 2: “I’m so tired, lol” — coded as
abbreviation use (score = 3).
2. Informal Tone: Conversational
expressions (e.g., “kinda,” “I feel like,” “gonna”).
Example 1: “I kinda think the proposal
needs more details.” — coded as informal tone (score = 2).
Example 2: “I feel like this idea will
work, but we need more feedback.” — coded as informal tone (score = 3).
3. Non-standard Grammar/Spelling: Tense
errors, article omissions, lowercase “i”.
Example 1: “She going to the market
later.” — coded as non-standard grammar (score = 2).
Example 2: “I didnt know the deadline was
today.” — coded as non-standard grammar (score = 3).
4. Punctuation and Structure: Missing
commas/full stops, fragmented sentences.
Example 1: “I need help with the
assignment Can you assist me?” — coded as punctuation error (score = 2).
Example 2: “The experiment was successful.
However, the report needs revision” — coded as punctuation error (score = 3).
5. Symbolic Substitution: Emoticons,
ellipses, and emphatic punctuation.
Example 1: “I’m so excited about the
results!!!” — coded as emphatic punctuation (score = 2).
Example 2: “I can't believe it... this is
amazing! 😁” — coded as emoticon use (score = 3).
Each sample was scored from 0 (absent) to
3 (frequent) based on the presence of these features. Inter-rater reliability
between two coders was 0.87, indicating a high level of agreement between the
raters.
Each sample was scored from 0 (absent) to
3 (frequent). Inter-rater reliability between two coders, assessed using
Cohen's Kappa, was 0.87, based on a double-coded subset of 10% of the samples.
4.2.2.
Frequency and Patterns
Abbreviations: Found in 42% of submitted
samples (N=400), mostly u, pls, bcoz, and btw.
Informal Tone: Present in 35% of samples
(N=400), especially in introductions.
Non-standard Grammar: Occurred in 31% of
samples (N=400), with errors such as “student’s is using media to learn.”
Punctuation Omission: Detected in 28% of
samples (N=400), especially missing commas or periods.
Emoji/Symbol Use: Rare (5%), but observed
in online submissions.
Typed submissions contained 63% more
informal elements than handwritten ones, echoing Risto (2014)’s observation
that digital writing environments promote informality.
4.2.3.
Thematic Observations
Register Confusion: Students mixed
academic and conversational tones (e.g., “This topic is really cool lol”
[pseudonymized student sample S12, typed essay, Faculty of L.L&T.Arts]).
Speed over Accuracy: Many confessed to
“writing like chatting” when typing quickly.
Digital Orthography Spillover: Common
errors included lowercase “i” and omission of apostrophes (dont, cant).
Tone and Coherence Shift: Some essays
lacked logical flow, reflecting fragmented digital thought patterns (Kosmyna et
al., 2025).
4.2.4.
Comparative Insights
Communication and Education students
displayed more informal features (mean = 2.3/3) than Science and Management
students (mean = 1.4/3). However, without statistical tests, these results are
presented descriptively.
Similarly, lower-level students (100–200)
exhibited more informal writing features compared to senior students (300–400).
This suggests that writing maturity may reduce informality, but this finding is
based on descriptive observations and not statistically tested.
4.2.5.
Interpretive Discussion
The results affirm that digital linguistic
habits significantly infiltrate formal writing (Baron, 2015). The “instant
message mindset” (White, 2016) prioritizes brevity and spontaneity over
grammatical accuracy. Nonetheless, some samples reflected creative phrasing and
lexical richness, suggesting that social media may simultaneously enhance
expressive confidence (Klimova, 2019). Hence, social media functions both as a
linguistic influence and a cognitive habit shaping students’ writing at BUK.
4.3.
Perceptions of Impact
Interview results revealed ambivalent
perceptions. While students appreciated how social media made writing “less
intimidating,” lecturers expressed concern that students increasingly struggled
to shift between informal and formal registers. Some instructors acknowledged,
however, that social media exposure improved students’ creativity and
adaptability in writing.
5. Discussion
The findings demonstrate that language
practices associated with social media exert a significant influence on
students’ academic writing at Bayero University, Kano. The frequent occurrence
of abbreviations, informal expressions, and weakened grammatical accuracy in
students’ written work reflects broader global patterns already documented in
the literature (Risto, 2014; Matias, 2023). Similar to findings from Indonesia
(Sari et al., 2019), the results suggest a negative relationship between
prolonged exposure to social media discourse and adherence to conventional
academic writing standards, particularly in terms of formality, coherence, and
syntactic precision. This indicates that students often transfer features of
digital communication into academic contexts without sufficient awareness of
register boundaries.
At the same time, the findings reveal that
social media platforms are not inherently detrimental to academic writing. When
appropriately guided, platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp can support
collaborative learning, peer feedback, and iterative drafting processes, which
are known to enhance writing development (Klimova, 2019; Cox & Amicucci,
2020). The central issue therefore lies not in social media use itself but in
students’ limited ability to shift effectively between informal digital registers
and formal academic discourse. This aligns with the concept of register
awareness, which underscores the need for conscious control over language
choice based on context and purpose. Overall, the findings suggest that
strengthening students’ awareness of register differences and strategically
integrating digital platforms into academic writing practices can mitigate
negative influences while maximizing the pedagogical potential of social media.
6. Conclusion
This study concludes that while social
media promotes creativity and consistent writing practice, it also fosters
informal linguistic habits detrimental to academic writing. At Bayero
University Kano, students’ high social media engagement correlates with the use
of abbreviations, nonstandard grammar, and informal tone in academic work.
Educators should therefore integrate
digital literacy into writing instruction, emphasizing formal writing
conventions while leveraging the collaborative and interactive benefits of
social media. Future research should explore intervention strategies, such as
structured “social media writing labs”, to help students balance digital
fluency with academic literacy.
References
Baron,
N. S. (2015). The Impact of Technology on Writing Practices: Informality in
Social Media Writing and its implications for Formal Writing. Computers and
Composition, 36, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.01.004
Centiza,
S. G. (2022). Social Media Utilization in Supporting Academic Writing Skills
among College Students. Repositories.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10280160
Crystal,
D. (2011). Internet linguistics: A student guide. Routledge.
Cox,
M., &Amicucci, A. N. (2020). Writers on Writing: Social Media, Audience,
and the Public Sphere. In Writing Spaces, Vol. 4. Colorado State
University WAC Clearinghouse. https://wac.colostate.edu
Klimova,
B. (2019). Cognitive and Applied Linguistics Aspects of using Social Media in
Language Learning. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5),
4253–4261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09909-7
Kosmyna,
V., Turchenko, M., & Pugach, O. (2025). Cognitive and linguistic impacts of
social media: Short-form content and attention span in writing practices. Journal
of Educational Research, 55(2), 112–120, January 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2025.1808976
Mahardika,
F. (2024). The Impact of Social Media on the use of English Slang. TEFLA
Journal.
Riaz,
A., Sikandar, M. H., &Mah-e-Nao. (2022). The impact of slangs on the
academic writing of undergraduate students in Pakistan. Webology, 19(3),
1–15. https://www.webology.org/2022/v19n3/a2159.pdf
Ricaforte,
L. B. (2022). Social media exposure and usage of cyber slang: Examining
academic writing conventions among high‑school students. Shanti
Journal, 1, 229–249. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10280161
Sari,
R. T., Hayati, R., &Suganda, L. A. (2019). The correlation between the use
of social media and academic writing mastery of English education students. Indonesian
Journal of Education, 6(2), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v6i2.19873
Sikandar,
M. H., Riaz, A., &Mah-e-Nao. (2022). The impact of slangs on the academic
writing of undergraduate students in Pakistan. Webology, 19(3), 1–15. https://www.webology.org/2022/v19n3/a2159.pdf
Sikorska,
V. (2025). The influence of emerging communication technologies and social
networks on lexical and grammatical norms of English. JATIT – Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 103(10), 1–10, 31st May
2025. https://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol103No10/29Vol103No10.pdf
White,
J. (2016). Five ways that social media can affect academic writing.
Winston-Salem State University Faculty Blog. https://wssu.edu/blog/2016/01/18/social-media-impact
Worku,
Z. (2022). Use of social media and writing skills: Evidence from public‑school
learners in Tshwane North District, South Africa. Journal of Positive School
Psychology, 6(4), 983–993. https://doi.org/10.37134/jpsp.vol6.4.8
0 Comments