Young people may not be as illiterate as you think – or as snobbish pundits like to maintain.

Pundits often fret about how kids today can’t write – and technology is to blame. Facebook encourages narcissistic blabbering, video and PowerPoint have replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand,” as British English professor John Sutherland has moaned. An age of illiteracy is at hand, right?

Andrea Lunsford isn’t so sure. She’s a professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford University, where she’s organized a mammoth project called the Stanford Study of Writing to scrutinize college students’ prose. From 2001 to 2006, she collected 14,672 student writing samples – everything from in-class assignments, formal essays, and journal entries to e-mails, blog posts, and chat sessions. Her conclusions are stirring. “I think we’re in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since Greek civilization,” says Lunsord, who believes technology isn’t killing our ability to write, it’s reviving it – and pushing literacy in bold new directions.

TECHNOLOGY ISN’T KILLING OUR ABILITY TO WRITE.

She found that young people today write far more than any generation before them. That’s because so much socializing takes place online, and it almost always involves text. Of all the writing the Stanford students did, a stunning 38 percent of it took place out of the classroom – life writing, as Lunsford calls it. Those Twitter updates and lists of 25 things about yourself add up.

It’s almost hard to remember how big a paradigm shift this is. Before the Internet came along, most Americans never wrote anything, ever, that wasn’t a school assignment. Unless they got a job that required producing text (like in law, advertising, or media), they’d leave school and virtually never construct a paragraph again.

But is this explosion of prose good, on a technical level? Yes. Lunsford’s team found that students were remarkably adept at what rhetoricians call kairos – assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across. The modern world of online writing, particularly in chat and on discussion threads, is conversational and public, which makes it closer to the Greek tradition of argument than the asynchronous letter and essay writing of 50 years ago.

The fact that students today almost always write for an audience (something virtually no one in my generation did) gives them a different sense of what constitutes good writing. In interviews, they defined good prose as something that had an effect on the world. For them, writing is about persuading and organizing and debating, even if it’s over something as quotidian as what movie to go see. The Stanford students were almost always less enthusiastic about their in-class writing because it had no audience but the professor: It didn’t serve any purpose other than to get them a grade. As for those texting short-forms and smileys defiling serious academic writing? Another myth. When Lunsford examined the work of first-year students, she didn’t find a single example of texting speak in an academic paper.

Of course, good teaching is always going to be crucial, as is the mastering of formal academic prose. But it’s also becoming clear that online media are pushing literacy into cool directions. The brevity of texting and status updating teaches young people to deploy haiku-like concision. At the same time, the proliferation of new forms of online pop-cultural exegesis – from sprawling TV-show recaps to 15,000-word videogame walkthroughs – has given them a chance to write enormously long and complex pieces of prose, often while working collaboratively with others.

We think of writing as either good or bad. What today’s young people know is that knowing who you’re writing for and why you’re writing might be most crucial of all.

CLIVE THOMPSON is a former Knight Science-Journalism Fellow at MIT.