Sparked by an inspirational post from Clay Burell, an incredibly thought-provoking comment thread ensued which challenged many of us to think about the importance of communication. In all its varied forms, communication is the most important skill in a new century where it is, generally, instant. The new tools and ideas challenge us to think and reevaluate how students are assessed and writing’s importance in this “brave new world.” The seed which grew this wide, 75-comment tall plant was, of itself, an interesting and engaging post about Muhammad Ali. In school, Ali got his share of D’s for his poor written skills. Yet, as the following quote from him shows, he had an intrinsic grasp of the English language, which he readily expressed through oral communication.
I went into a restaurant downtown - you couldn’t do that back then, because things weren’t integrated yet - and I sat down with my [Olympic] gold medal around my neck, and the waitress came up, and I said, ‘Yes, I’d like, uh, a cup of coffee, and a hot dog.’ And she said, ‘I’m sorry, we don’t serve negroes here.’ And I got so angry, I said, ‘And I don’t eat them, either. Now bring me a hot dog!’
Is this the kind of word play, humor, and fundamental grasp of language which you expect from a D- student?
Being only 15, I really did not know much about Muhammad Ali. I researched to discover the man behind these words that could “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” As I read (and watch) more of his oratorical genius, the breadth and depth of his ability to manipulate the English language for success has not ceased to amaze me. (How many D- students end up being honored by giving the graduation speech at Harvard?)
I think we can all agree that Ali understood how to use English, but his grade report would beg to differ: Cassius Clay does not have passable English. This discrepancy can be attributed to the overwhelming emphasis upon writing throughout school curriculum. Honestly, as I look at the string of recent exams and assignments I fail to see how I would be able to pass or show any true talent without strong writing skills:
- English: journalistic essay analysis of Romeo and Juliet
- Science exam: write a paragraph upon various science concepts
- Math exam: (along with other problems) explain a problem in paragraph format
- Health: essay upon the elements of health
- History: 1,000 word paper upon the background of Iranian nuclear weaponry
As you can see, in almost any subject, particularly English, strong writing is integral to achieving success. Is this really fair to those who, like Ali, do not have excellent command of the written language but can speak words with wings?
With so much fodder for discussion, a fertile comment thread developed, centrally around the question of should all communication mediums be weighted equally, or should writing be given greater weight?
To even begin to delve into that question, the arena for debate must be built around English and Language Arts, including the difference between the two:
...the difference between “language arts” and “English” is paramount in my opinion: English deals with the language of English. Language arts deal with the art of language. Language Arts can deal with multiple languages. Graphics are a language. Symbols are a language. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be stressed just as much written English.
If (practically) anything is a language, what separates Language Arts from other courses? I think the answer to that question lies in that LA should focus around how language can be written and spoken to craft meaning, while other courses focus upon the specific applications of the theory of language. Though Benjamin held a divergent opinion, the continual weighting of writing is shown in what courses are required:
Okay, let’s give graphic communication its own course. (Some might call it art) I’m 99% positive it won’t be a required course. In most schools, “art” isn’t.
Yet, English is. Taking my own school, for example, graduation requires 4 years of English (more than any other subject) and only ½ year of “fine art” (which includes both oral communication and visual artistry). Anyone see the discrepancy?
Ignoring the tangents into computers‘ place in the writing process, the continual emphasis upon writing is attempted to be justified by the good ol’ workplace argument that “it’s what employers want.” Looking at the changing landscape of the workplace, that argument continually holds less and less ground. In many of this century’s jobs, reporting is just as likely to be done through quick Skype calls, IM chats, and emails than through TPS reports. So long as applicants have the ability to communicate (whether through writing, speech, or graphics), employers can utilize their talents in diverse fields.
Of course, most of the world’s information is still stored in the written word. Walking into a library, it would be hard to imagine communicating any other way. Even the digital revolution has failed to change this substantially. For the most part, this lengthy debate was battled by masters of the
written typed word. Still, digital tools give us the ability to communicate easily and efficiently using other mediums, such as speech:
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that being able to communicate using other mediums makes you stand out from the crowd. As I attempted to communicate, those rare gems shine out in a sea of stones.
Of course, the looming stresses of writing-based SATs and important exams continues to put pressure upon teachers to focus on writing. Though you may not have much room to maneuver, I challenge you: think about how you, as a teacher of any subject, can help to recognize the other mediums of communication and those who have mastered them.
Even after 75 comments, the debate is not yet resolved. For this, I turn to your additional voices and ideas. In a world filled with words, how can equal weight be given to all the forms those words may take?
I’m not a new voice, just the same old voice trying to express myself more clearly.
I agree that there are many vital and vibrant ways to communicate in addition to written, standardized English. However, it’s my JOB to foster the traditional skills. Hopefully, I can also introduce, reinforce, and validate other modes. But while our students are still being assessed on their mastery of compostion, grammar, and spelling, I have a duty to them to see that their education is as comprehensive as possible.
diane
Excellent summary of some of the key points of this debate.
I’m a former English teacher, and believe that balancing how we evaluate students’ communication abilities is important.
I also think that English at the high school level still comprises many communication skills that are not written–like listening, speaking, visual media–all those skills that compose literacy. While various “elective” courses may cover these areas, it is generally part of the English curriculum as well, because aren’t we all about communication, at essence?
Take a great poet, for example. To fully resonate with their words, reading the poem aloud to hear its cadences is important.(listening). To gain the full import of a speech, it’s best to hear the delivery of it, and to see the delivery of it if possible.
So it’s important that our assessments ask our students to deliver a presentation well–not just with effective visuals or text, but with effective presentation. It’s important that we ask students to listen well (like through inner-outer circle types of methods). It’s important we ask students to understand visual communication and how effective or ineffective it can be.
Some of this discussion, it seems to me, centers around the value of non-standard English. And I think you are correct that communication can be effective whether the use of language is standard or not. Of course we would want students to strive for standard uses of English so that they aren’t disadvantaged in some way in the workplace or in their daily lives as adults. But I also think that being a good communicator goes far beyond “standard English”.
I wrote a blog post yesterday about a new Pew Internet study about teens and writing and the internet, and there is a lost of interesting “meat” there for this discussion. But I concluded that truly, a good communicator has to be concerned about their audience and conveying the point to their audience–it’s as much about the recipient understanding as the author conveying their thoughts.
It doesn’t matter the medium, if it is an effective way of reaching the listener. Ali’s exchange with the waitress was effective–he “reached” her.
So to encourage all these literacies, we need a balance in both how we assess, and in what we are assessing. Are we just assessing content with no mind to the delivery of it?
Are we encouraging risks and creativity or canned delivery? Or we celebrating diversity of methodology or forcing all of our students into one box?
Our assessments need to reflect what we value.
I also believe that English and Language Arts are so closely intertwined that separation is both silly and impossible.
The ability to communicate well because one thinks well is what employers seek. I find it a challenge to foster thinking in co-learners.
I guess I am both agreeing and disagreeing. A conundrum.
And schools will make sure you do just that by branding you “sub-par,” regardless of your other skills, with their skewed report cards.
This is all so open to question now. Even reading comes back under the microscope. If a student is not a strong enough reader to adequately grasp a textbook chapter in, say, history, that used to be fatal for the student. No reading strength? No possibility of mastering content, no possibility of a good grade (especially if your writing is also poor).
Today, though, a quick search on YouTube or visit to the video store offers all sorts of audio-visual vehicles for delivering that content, which the student might more easily grasp, and use to successfully meet content mastery standards.
That same student could then prepare an oral, graphic, or (name your communication mode) presentation that demonstrates both his/her mastery of content and ability to communicate it with a non-textual “language art,” and not get a D-.
And that same student can then have a chance to go to college (not having a train wreck of a GPA)and succeed there on those same strengths.
I don’t know if we’re intentionally tip-toeing around this, but it really does pull issues of race and class privilege center-stage, doesn’t it?
Thanks for extending this, Arthus. And I’m glad you discovered Muhammad Ali. He was an A++ human being.
Great follow-up to an equally engaging post by Clay (and its subsequent comment thread).
One thing that I think you have all overlooked in this debate over the different modes of communication is the fact that communication doesn’t always take place - regardless of our intentions and in spite of our technological prowess.
> In all its varied forms, communication is the most important skill in a new century where it is, generally, instant.
To say that communication is “generally instant” assumes that the receiver of a message immediately comprehends the message as intended by its sender. Unfortunately, even in our high-tech world of interconnected nodes - each with the ability to transmit messages at the speed of light - there are far too many messages that are misinterpreted. In fact, one might well argue that there are more misinterpreted messages now than there were in the days of Ali (or Plato, for that matter), cumulatively resulting in far less communication now than there has ever been in the history of the world.
As Mr. Draper points out, messages do not necessarily foster “communication.” Improving writing skills clarifies messages and improves communication.
As the written word is the primary medium of the Internet — no matter whether other forms stand out more — the written word is the medium which deserves the greatest emphasis.
@Carolyn: Thanks! You bring up an interesting point about the crucial fact that all forms of communication have a place in the English classroom. Importantly, I think how much these other forms varies significantly from classroom to classroom—often because they are not a formal part of the curriculum, while writing is. That is a change which would go a long way to equalizing communication: adding other components of communication beyond writing to the curriculum. (Dean points out that many curricula already have this).
You also address an important facet of communication which is given far too little attention in school: presentation. Even if writing is absolutely excellent, should the font be impossible to read or if the speaker stumbles, the value is lost. In the end, the art of presentation is one of the most integral skills for success in the workplace and beyond the classroom.
I think the debate regarding standard and non-standard English will rage on for many more years, as our conception of “standard” continually evolves. I think both have their place—and schools should make sure students know there are places where they absolutely must use Standard Academic Discourse. But schools should also recognize the forms that English can take including varying levels of nonconformity. (Informal letter vs. email vs. Twitter vs. IM vs. texting...) As the PEW study shows, students already have a good grasp of English and where different forms must be used.
The PEW study is certainly interesting and I plan to write a post addressing its implications in the next couple of days.
@Durff: Quite a conundrum you’ve created there. Untangling the mystery of your words, I think we essentially agree.
@Clay: I see the same message as you in this work: if you don’t speak SAD, you are somehow a “sub-par” human or learner.
However, I do think that the emphasis upon reading is justified: most of the world’s information is still stored in text format. If you want to gain mastery of any topic or go into depth on many, you have to be able to read. However, I foresee this changing in the future as the “digital natives” of today become tomorrow’s scholars and experts. I definitely envision a reevaluation of reading down the line.
Once again, thanks for starting this interesting thread and leading me to discovering Muhammad Ali.
@Darren: For the purposes of this debate, I think most of us were choosing to think of communication in a discrete form: where the “output” (writing/speaking/etc.) is separated from the “input” (reading/listening/etc.).
of course, you are right that there is plenty of potential for mixed messages with so much “noise” in the digital airwaves. It is especially difficult since even the best of communicators can be misinterpreted by the receiver. In fact, I think one of the requirements for excellence in communication should be the ability to adjust your style/complexity to the medium and audience.
In saying that communication is generally instant, I was referring to transmission time: not interpretation time. Still, your point is well taken. However, I disagree upon your example:
I do agree that there are more misinterpreted messages. However, the sheer bulk of communications means that a many millions still get through successfully. So, the percent of communications successful is going down, but the total is going up.
@Benjamin: As I pointed out earlier, the sheer volume of written communications does not mean it is the form one must send messages in. Your argument is an excellent one for why we should emphasize reading (input), but holds much less ground when talking about outputs like writing/speaking.
So does improving speaking. In fact, I would go so far as to say speaking is one of the most important mediums to be precise in: the life-changing and emotional (ripe for miscommunication) messages of our lives are usually done through speech.
In the end, it comes down to knowing your own weaknesses: I intentionally avoid communicating through voice, as I know it is not a strong suit of mine.
Let me just say that no student has ever failed any of my courses. They may not all be successful in the standard way, but they learn something and we maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect. I’m lucky not to be a “core” teacher, with all of the constraints that designation implies.
Keep us thinking and learning together!
diane
I can never under-emphasize the respect I have for teachers working with the rich array of ability found within schools—particularly those where the talent can be harder to find.
Thanks for a great read on this important topic. To answer your question, “how can equal weight be given to all the forms those words may take?” — I think it requires creative teachers willing to step outside the box of tradition. I also think it also requires working closely with other subject areas to discover how students do communicate within different contexts. Communication skills should not be limited to the English (Language Arts) classroom. I also agree with Carolyn who says our assessments must reflect what we value — this is key.
As a departing thought, I wonder sometimes how much the content really matters. Writing is so often used to deliver content, when teachers of all subjects use it just this way and expect our students to use it this way too. I wonder if *we* can think about delivering content in other ways, and use that to help our students do the same? Or maybe the content isn’t all that important, anyway?
I agree, equality across mediums really needs creative teachers. Unfortunately, I have met many an uncreative teacher in my time as a student: there are far too many of them in this country. I also agree with the fact that communication must be emphasized across all subjects. After all, there is no subject where you don’t need to communicate.
I think that Language Arts is the class where you can really focus on honing the art of communication: regardless of content. In other classes, students will get plenty of experience communicating content. In LA, the focus should be on the style and skill of the communication (though the content still has some importance). An interesting prompt in this is to write something about a completely fake topic: not as fiction, but as prose/nonfiction.