 |
 |
Dear Diana and Tony,
Thank
you very much indeed for raising this matter in such a comprehensive and
interesting way.
What you have written about is so fascinating, and so
important. The issues are extremely far-reaching, and in one sense you barely
scratch the surface.
I have taught and advised in UK higher education and
elsewhere for over 20 years. I have mulled over many of your questions and
observations, as I expect thousands of others have, for all of that time. I have
no solutions, but your posting has prompted many different thoughts and
reactions. The best I can do is make a list of numbered comments or points, in
no particular order, and see what happens next.
1) When I was at school I
was taught by teachers who were interested in clear writing, and tried to
encourage us to practise it. I remember one teacher of English who repeatedly
gave half a crown to the first person to parse a sentence he wrote on the board.
(I was one of two in the class who usually won the money. I loved the analytical
approach to language. Others didn’t.) I believe that pupils at school are not
taught these skills now. Grammatical writing is learned, not genetic.
2)
Some of the students we encounter have dyslexia. The classic sign of dyslexia,
for a university teacher, is the student whose verbal contributions in class are
sparkling, who shows every sign of being a brilliant student, and who then
submits written work which is appallingly bad. Of course this applies to only a
small percentage of students (the British Dyslexia Association have suggested
between 4% and 10%), but it is very real, and should not be forgotten.
3)
The ability to work with written communication is not an ability for which
evolution has prepared us. As a species we have been communicating verbally for
tens of thousands of years, and, with very few exceptions, every single
individual over that time has been successful at speaking and understanding
speech. (I believe my facts to be substantially correct. If they are wrong in
detail, please correct me, but I think my argument still holds.) In contrast,
the ability to read and write has been possessed by only a tiny minority of
individuals for almost the whole of those tens of thousands of years. A select
few have used written communication, but I hazard a guess that it is only in the
last 100, or even 50, years that that few has become anything like a
majority. The extraordinary fact is not that so many people cannot write
clearly, but that so many people can write at all.
4) The UK education
system (and, I presume, the USA system) has an inherent mechanism which
perpetuates its own prejudices, faults, and benefits. School teachers are
recruited from those who are successful, in terms of passing assessments, in
A-levels at school and in degrees at universities; and who then progress to be
taught by similar people during PGCE courses. University teachers tend to be
selected from university graduates and, especially, postgraduates who perpetuate
the beliefs and prejudices which they have learnt from their similarly-inclined
predecessors. I am not suggesting that this is wrong; I am merely pointing out
that it may not be perfect, because it may promulgate some wrong practices. It
is undoubtedly a mechanism which makes it difficult for students with different
ways of thinking to succeed or be appreciated. Those with Asberger's, or autism,
may fit in very well, those with hyperactivity may not.
5) Higher
education was available to about 5% (I believe) of school leavers when I left
school in 1965. Now it is available to, say, 50%. I expect that the 5% tended to
correspond, to a large extent, to those who could write well; now UK HE has
opened the doors to those who cannot. This observation leads, combined with
points 3) and 4), to the conclusion that a system which may have worked quite
well in the past cannot be expected to do so now. Once again the remarkable fact
is that the country continues to function quite well in many ways, not that many
people can’t write very clearly.
6) Returning to point 3) (evolution not
preparing us for writing): the ability to work with logical, linear, thinking
has great value in some situations; but there are other forms of intelligence
which have equally great value in other situations. Let’s take one example. Our
ability to read non-verbal signals from other people enables us to read other
people’s moods and intentions, and has a huge effect on our ability to function
together in groups. But these abilities are emotional and instinctive; they are
not logical. (Of course sociologists and psychologists study them academically,
and write about them eruditely, but we nearly all carry on using them without
having read those writings at all.) I am suggesting that the ability to write
well is an ability which some of us have, and which is undoubtedly very
valuable, but which depends on a strength in logical, linear, thinking
which not all of us have. It is not necessarily a disgrace that some of us don’t
have it.
7) There is an established method of writing that is regarded as
good. It involves correct spelling, correct use of sentences, good grammar,
logical flow of thought, and, indeed, all the things that you, Diana and Tony,
very comprehensively list in your posting, and lament the lack of in your
students’ writings. Here I am once again straying into areas of my own
ignorance, but I believe that much of this style was developed and perfected by
Victorian grammarians who laid down rules, saying that certain things were
correct, and certain others incorrect. The study and practice of this style has
a wonderful beauty to it, but it is a minority activity (and an obsession for
some!). Language, both written and spoken, is alive and changing. (One minor
example: some people know that “Andrew and me went to the cinema.” is somehow
wrong; and therefore carefully say “Fred saw Andrew and I in town.” believing
they are somehow correct. Today’s widely committed errors are always likely to
become tomorrow’s accepted practice.) It is not at all hard, Diana and Tony, to
find grammatical errors in your posting, and there will be errors in mine, too,
but I do know that that is straying from your point.
8) I completely
agree with you that writing ideas down is a wonderful way of examining one’s
thoughts and ideas. (Who was it who said, “How can I know what I think until I
hear what I say?”? But she needed to say things, not write them!) But just
because you and I agree on this doesn’t mean that it is true for everyone. Do
you have any evidence upon which to base your belief?
9) I really don’t
believe that extensive use of texting is anything to do with what we are
discussing. Communicating via text messages is a highly refined and economic
skill. Sending “c u tomoz?” is an example of extremely clear communication, once
you know the language. I do think that reading good writing can be an
educational process, so if today’s students do that less, then their poor
writing may be one result.
10) I do believe that all of us, and students
in particular, follow examples that we respect. Many of the examples which are
now so widely available to us are themselves appallingly bad. Some national
newspapers present material in ways that suggest that it is based on rational
logical thought, but which is in fact anything but. I listen extensively to
Radio 4, and I am frequently appalled by the lack of clear thought often
demonstrated by some of the most respected presenters. (It must be difficult to
keep logical thought at the forefront of your mind for hours on end, though,
when you have to keep speaking to hold things together. I couldn’t do it! We are
all emotional and irrational creatures at heart.) Students have many appalling
(I know I keep using this word, but I liked it in your early paragraph!)
examples of writing thrust at them from every side. Is it any wonder that they
follow suit?
11) A final point continuing from point 10): much of the
writing which circulates around universities, including that from some heads of
academic departments, in policy papers, and in regulations, is also appallingly
bad; and yet this is stuff which is often presented to students.
So there
we are. You asked for evidence based solutions. I have given none. (Should that
not be “evidenced-based”. (What is that “not” doing there?)) So I will close
with a proposal for a solution, albeit one without evidence.
It is easy
to solve this problem:
A. Entry to any
university degree programme must be conditional upon passing a rigorous test in
clear writing. No exceptions.
B. If A. results
in student numbers tending to fall, then create separate establishments offering
courses to train people to write more clearly, so that they can progress to HE.
(I wonder what name we should give to those establishments?)
Aldous
Huxley wrote (I am working from memory, so the quote may be innacurate), “We
cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality; all that we can hope is
that we are unreasonable in a reasonable way.”
Best
wishes,
Robert
Robert Edwards MA PhD PGCEd PGDip(Literacy and Dyslexia) AMBDA(FE/HE)
ILTM PGCert(Counsellling) -- but did any of that teach me to write?
Combined
Studies Unit & Disability and Dyslexia Service/
Uned
Astudiaethau Cyfun a Sylfan a Gwasanaethau Anabledd a Dyslecsia
University of
Glamorgan/Prifysgol Morgannwg
Pontypridd
Tel/Ffon: 01443 482981 &
654164
Fax/Ffacs: 01443 482170 & 654175