Anecdotal Muses: Communication Frequency Mismatch...

So far as a foreigner, I have picked up some small but important differences in the use of English on operational matters in the US. This has nothing to do with accent or tone. It is just a choice of words for something simple like asking for directions.

On Which Side Of The Road?
A group of us (a Singaporean, two Argentinians) had wanted to go to the nearest REI shop. We knew the bus number that would take us there and the bus stops for that route are just outside the Varsity Apartments. We weren't sure which side of the road we should board the bus. So we asked the apartment management office staff if we take the bus on this side of the road or cross the road to take the bus. He said something "Take the bus to the left". We paused for a moment and clarified if we heard him right. I thought one sure way of clarification is to use hand gestures. My hand gesticulated an arch-shaped movement signifying the action of 'crossing over'. He repeated the same thing "yes, to the left". So we reckoned he was referring to the flow of the traffic, and the left bound traffic was on the opposite side of the road. We took the bus and reached REI. Now we have a new understanding when asking for bus route direction.


Sign Reading
For a visual learner like myself, signage is very important. An arrow pointing to the left is not the same as an arrow pointing to the right, whether flat at 180 degrees or at a gradient of 45 degrees.

We were heading back from DC after a visit to the National Art Gallery and we got into the Archive Station. This is the first time we stepped into the Archive Station as it is the nearest to the gallery. We were trying to determine which platform to go to and we saw this direction sign (see the diagram below)

In the group, I am the Singaporean and there were two Indians and an Argentinian. Upon seeing the sign, the 3 different nationals could not quite ascertain if we should take the escalator on the left when the sign points to the right, although the arrow was pointing somewhat downwards. We had been in situations where we were on the wrong platform so we just wanted to verify and confirm if we were reading the sign the way it is intended to.

We asked a station officer who happened to be there and his response was "Just follow the sign". Now that wasn't too clear, so I asked again if that escalator would bring us to the platform for the Green line, the line that would bring us back to College Park. We were hoping his answer would be short and sweet like "Yes". But he repeated "Just follow the sign". Then he said "You can't go anywhere else so just follow the sign".

Anyway, we reckoned he would just say the same thing if we asked again so we just went down via the escalator and we found the platform. Revathy (from India) told me she would have asked the officer the exact same way I had done and would have expected him to say a "yes" or "that's right". 

English is not the same for all English speakers
A British educator from Cambridge told me that it took him sometime to understand that when a Singaporean says 'Correct', he or she actually means 'Yes'. He had initial unease when in his first stint in Singapore as he thought that what he had said was being 'assessed' for correctness or accuracy and the Singaporean response of 'Correct' was a verbal approval rather than a mere concurrence of thoughts. I assumed his uneasy encounters were mostly with Chinese as this is an issue of linguistic nuances in the Chinese language. I explained to him that the word 'correct' is a direct translation of the Chinese word '对' (pronounced as 'dui'), which has a dual meaning of 'yes' and 'correct', depending on the intent and context of usage. It is often a casual utterance in a conversation. It works like saying 'yes', and may not even be a concurrence of opinion but a verbal indication to show that one is listening to the other person, something like a 'yes, I am with you'. I am thankful he did not prematurely conclude that he was being judged by Singaporeans all the time in his first encounters.

What is clear to you is clear to you only
Now what has that got to do with teaching? Well, I am asking a rhetorical question here so the answer is obviously "yes".

I recall my stint in the Curriculum Planning Division, in Art Unit. I remember the initial frustration at unit meetings on art syllabus matters was that everyone spent a lot of time interpreting and clarifying what one another were saying. There were only six of us, despite the fact that we are all trained art teachers and we all grew up in the Singapore school system, we had various interpretations of the same word 'express', a key word in the syllabus text. What we were doing in those meetings seemed like hair-splitting torment but it is very important we used the best word we could find.

To 'knock' 敲 (qiao) or to 'push' 推 (tui)? A small option in word choice but big in impact
That experience made me appreciate a Chinese phrasal verb 推敲 (tui-qiao). It is a double-verb directly translated as 'push-knock' and the meaning is careful deliberation (for maximum effectiveness/result). It comes from a story about a Chinese poet travelling on a country road. Inspired by the idyllic surrounding, he decided to compose a poem about a Chinese scholar who chanced upon a house at night, got curious and wanted to enter it. The poet initially used the verb 敲 (knock) in his poem but decided that the knocking sound would break the serenity of the night. So he changed the verb to 推 (push) and was satisfied that the creaking sound of the door hinge from the push would add a mysterious romance to the nocturnal atmosphere. Since then 推敲 is used as a verb for discerning deliberation.

We certainly did a lot of 推敲 in our meeting on syllabus text. After many discussion sessions, one thing that rang in our minds (and it still does for me) is that text or verbal words has many limitations as a way of communication. It is easy to clarify if two persons are speaking face to face over the same point. But when it comes to crafting official documents that is meant to be read by people we don't even get the chance to speak with, the scope for plural interpretations is impossible to define. This also applies to anything written for a wider audience, that include dissertations, journals, even twitter texts.

My ex-boss ever said this to us "Remember, what is clear to you is clear to you only". So true!

Implications on Teaching
In the classroom
I have learnt over the years, that an instruction is useless if less than 90% percent of the class understood it in no uncertain terms. We need to be prepared to craft instructions to reach varying profiles of learners.  I am still learning every time I walk into a class. And interpretations of an instruction can change with changing generation of students. An instruction that was effective 5 years ago can be become ineffective for a same age group of students simply because communication style and trend has changed amongst the youth. With technology, the mode and style of communication is going to be evermore pluralistic. 

Well, at least in a class, we have the face-to-face time to clarify. 

In written Test
This is the part where face-to-face clarification is not available to the learners. I have learnt in a training on assessment and an important segment was on Modifiers of Difficulty in test design. The concept is parallel to Assessment Bias in Robert Marzano's writing (Marzano, 2009). 

So if text is not enough in providing clarity in a test paper, would an additional illustration, chart or other visual or diagrammatic cues help? It can be a 'yes' and 'no'. In some examples I have seen, the diagram given is the very cause of confusion and they stumble students, costing them more precious time to decipher the test question or task instead of helping.

I guess the signage at the Archive Station is an example where the arrow symbol pointing away from the escalator is a very good illustration of Modifier of Difficulty, as it has taken us a little longer to get to the platform and we could have missed the next train.

It was a small matter and did not bother us but it is a good reminder, to me at least, that I cannot assume I am always clear to students. 

Negotiating Diverse Communication Wavelengths
As a global citizen, we increasingly need to negotiate diverse frequencies in communication, this is all the more significant for educators. I suppose this is a perennial phenomenon since the Tower of Babel. A few fellow Fulbrighters (from two continents on either side of the hemispheres) have shared that their classrooms are increasingly pluralistic in ethnicity because of new immigrants. The complex culturally-evolved nuances and habits in communication will be something we teachers need to deal with when they all come together in a localised melting pot called 'classroom'. 

A British comedy sitcom in the 70s called Mind Your Language (My English teacher's favourite) depicted an English instructor Mr Brown, who taught a night class. His class had a Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Punjabi Sikh, Sri Lankan, Spaniard, German, French, Italian and Greek. Almost all the time the mismatched communication wavelength created much frustration for Mr Brown and hilarity for the viewers. That situation seemed far-fetched in those days but with increasing global migration of workforce, this is more real than ever. 

The role of a teacher before the 1990s was rooted in instruction. By the turn of the century, the role has evolved to that of a learning facilitator. I believe it will take on another dimension progressively, to be a cross-cultural negotiator and bridge builder.  Maybe there will be a revival of Mind Your Language! 


Till next time.... ciao!