Quadrature

More and more I get the disturbing feeling that what I teach in the classroom has a lot in common with multivitamins, and not in a good way. I gave up on multivitamins about a year ago: I'd read accounts for and against them to get a sense of how the evidence stacked up, and it finally swayed me to the view that they do little besides give Americans the most expensive pee on earth. In fact, a lot of things we do when our health is squarely in the center of our attention have little effect; health, whether good or bad, is accumulated via very long waves of habit and behavior, some of which stretch back before our birth. Much of what we're up against, health-wise, is written in our genes.

That's actually not what got me to thinking this morning, but the analogy is striking. What stirred me up was yet another mention of prior knowledge as a pivotal factor in reading effectiveness. Put plainly, guiding a student to becoming a good reader has less to do with technique, SQ3R, instruction, drills, or anything along those lines than it has to do with simply knowing a good deal about a lot of things. People will find passages more difficult to read if they don't have a foundation of knowledge about the subject, and this degree of difficulty dwarfs verbal skill and instruction as a predictor of reading comprehension.

Me being in the communication racket and all, I immediately see parallels in my field. One interpersonal communication theory, Uncertainty Reduction, says that we communicate for the purpose of reducing uncertainty and beefing up the baseline from which we interpret, explain and predict others' behavior. For the most part it tracks the effect prior knowledge has on reading effectiveness, but with reference to conversation and other forms of relational communication.

That idea has a couple of huge implications for teaching. I work my hiney off trying to beef up people's communication competence, trying to put them through their paces at communication behaviors and skills that will help them reach out to others more effectively and appropriately, but the truth is that all this concern with technique is a tiny splinter in the huge beam that is situational or contextual knowledge. I'm not giving back my paycheck or anything, but it is a bit humbling.

The other implication was taken up by E. D. Hirsch in a book I was reading this morning. He makes the argument that in the early years of primary school, we need to teach students a much more uniform foundation of core knowledge to help them achieve cultural literacy. And he begins by acknowledging that this runs into trouble with people who are committed to making public education diverse and multicultural. According to him, diversity in the delivery of cultural artifacts is like teaching thirty different students in your English class thirty different versions of the alphabet: laudable in the abstract, but an invitation to chaos when it comes to the simplest learning skills that they'll need later on.

His argument has some appeal, but I'm not convinced. It reminds me of a couple of things I take up in my classes, one of which is the controversy over African-American vernacular English, more commonly known as Ebonics. The way I explain it to my students is that if you've got in your classroom a bunch of kids whose co-cultural heritage gives them a shared way of speaking, then you have no hope of teaching them a different way to speak if your approach is to say "Your way is lazy and wrong, and must be replaced by intelligent, right speaking." Instead, what teachers should do is invite students to become bilingual. AAVE is an internally consistent dialect, but there's another dialect, Standard Spoken English, that ranges between useful and indispensible in workplace situations, so it's worthwhile to learn it as a marketable skill, same as bookkeeping, to have available for use, rather than to change the worth of anyone's identity. And I think that distinction is important to maintain when we get to thinking about context and background knowledge. Hirsch's argument about the democratizing effect of a cultural core does homogenize and artificially normalize too many ideas held by the dominant group in a way that is false to fact, but if we keep our focus squarely on the usefulness of shared knowledge, as set apart from the correctness of that knowledge, the dangers that come with that homogenization might recede a bit.

The other thing it makes me think of is the never-ending tension between objective and interpretive perspectives on communication. I've written about this elsewhere, and my students have heard me talk the idea to death: some elements of communication can be measured empirically, while others can only be reported as experience, which some hearers say they share to varying degrees of fidelity, but which can't be captured and bottled. No one understands communication if they devote all their attention to one or the other of those two perspectives. Reasoning from that, I think it's probably true that we've neglected the importance of context and background knowledge, but to go so far as to say they're all that matters runs along the same lines as saying the measurable elements of communication tell us everything we need to know about how it works, which is downright silly. So these are wobbly ideas that are trying to find a balance: in some ways, this tracks the theory-practice dialectic that's coming up over and over again in my work with intraprofessional controversies, because background knowledge is what we accrue inductively through practice, while technique is quite similar to theory: a recipe for behaving, as compared to a recipe for knowing.

And as with most things communication-related, it's a bit of a mess. But as with most such things, it's also fascinating and fun to work through, and the more years I do it, the more I enjoy it.