1. Communication Flow: According to Language Network, Oral communication is made up of three components which are: a speaker, a message, and an audience. These three components closely resemble the “communication triangle” discussed in Flower and Hayes’s essay, “The Cognition of Discovery.” In Flower and Hayes’s essay, Flower and Hayes discuss what they refer to as the “communication triangle.” According to them, in order for writers to create a written piece that is effective, writers must consider the many different factors that shape the rhetorical situation. The more rhetorical problems that a writer poses, the more effective their writing will be. Rhetorical problem “breaks into two major units. The first is the rhetorical situation. The rhetorical situation which is the writer’s given, including the audience and assignment. The second unit is the set of goals the writer creates” (Flower&Hayes, 1980, p. 470). According to Flower and Hayes (1980), the rhetorical goals include: producing a desired affect on the reader (rhetorical), creating a persona (expressivist) or voice, building a meaning, and producing a formal text (p.470). Flower and Hayes discuss the similarities between their findings and the four terms of the communication triangle which consists of: reader, writer, world, word. In considering these goals, Flower and Hayes discuss the four different goals and how they are reached. The first goal deals with the effect the writer wants to have on the reader. The same rule could be applied for communication. A speaker typically is communicating with the purpose of a getting a reaction out of whomever their “audience” is. The second goal that Flower and Hayes presents deals with the relationship that a writer wants to establish with the reader. According to Flower and Hayes (1980), “decisions about one’s persona are often expressed by changes in word choice and tone” (p.473). This goal can also be connected to communication as well. Communication can be used for the purpose of establishing a relationship with another person. The way in which you present information could either help or hinder a relationship. Language Network provides a list of communication barriers for readers to become aware of in order to hopefully establish a relationship. The third goal is to build a coherent network of ideas to create meaning such as one does when in the process of communicating as well. The components that make up the communication triangle that Flower and Hayes present in their essay closely resembles the components that Language Network presents throughout its section on oral communication. Language Network states that in order for oral communication to be effective, “the purpose of the message has to fit the occasion that prompts it and fit the audience that receives it (p.518). Again, the textbook makes a point that Flower and Hayes would most likely approve. Although this section of the text is particularly looking at the oral communication that occurs between individuals, it is evident that the thought process that goes into communicating closely resembles the process of writing.
Lesson 3: Preparing a Speech:
1. Planning: In this section of Language Network, the authors compare planning a speech to planning a written paper. The authors claim that “a key to a good speech lies in matching the purpose to the audience and occasion" (p.523).The textbook provides a graph that offers generic steps to planning a speech. Planning a Speech: 1. Focus content to fit the occasion 2. Identify purpose and audience 3. Research 4. Organize and Outline With these four topics, the reader is able to see the authors’ emphasis on the rhetorical pedagogy (having an effect on the audience), the mimetic (using research to back up one’s reasoning), and formalism (making sure that one’s speech is organized). This text places an emphasis on each of these pedagogies as opposed to just solely focusing in on one of them.
2. Writing: The text states that the “main difference between writing a speech and writing a paper is in the language and sentence length. In a speech, the language must be clear and simple and the sentence short and direct” (p. 524). This focus on language length and structure is loosely based on the formalist perspective. According to theorist Richard Fulkerson (1979), formalists’ “judgments are based purely on form” (p.431). The textbook provides a chart which shows the reader the necessary techniques readers will need to use when writing a speech which include 1.) An attention grabber, 2.)Clear, simple language, 3.) A thesis statement, 4.) Short direct sentences and 5.) An appeal to audience (p. 524). The techniques that the textbook provides are techniques that formalists would support because they provided a structured layout on how to go about writing a speech. Expressionists however, would not support this layout because it doesn't give writers the freedom to write in any desired form or structure that they wish.
3. Rehearsing: The authors of Language Network encourage their readers to rehearse their speech in order to help them pick out any unnecessary or awkward phrases, or “irritating mannerisms” (p.524). The text suggest that readers practice in front of an audience (made up of friends, family, etc) in order to receive honest feedback on the presentation of their speech. Theorists such as Peter Elbow, Lad Tobin, and Milner, would support this suggestion because they believe that feedback is one of the key elements to finding out if a writing piece is good, or if it needs to be improved upon. By participating in peer reviews, students will be able to understand what elements of their speech are strong and what components of their speech lacks. Similar to writing, receiving feedback from other students in the classroom will help aid students throughout their own process of composing a speech. Similar to writing, obtaining feedback from one’s peers is a great way to discover the strengths and weaknesses of a speech. Feedback is one of the many components that will help a writer enhance the overall quality of a speech.
Lesson 5: Evaluating Speeches
1. Judging Content and Delivery: The authors of this textbook state, “When you evaluate someone else’s speech, you not only help the speaker, you also help yourself learn more about effective public speaking and sharpen your critical listening skills” (p.527). Again, this is a statement that theorists such as Peter Elbow, Lad Tobin, and Milner would support. Most students will not be familiar with what components shape a “good” speech. As Elbow (1968) states in his essay, “A Method for Teaching Writing,” “the best hope of learning the teacher’s criteria will come from enhancing and building up his own talents for distinguishing certain kinds of goodness in writing from certain kinds of badness” (p.117). By listening to other people’s speeches, students will be able to begin to develop their own criteria for what components shape a “strong” speech and what components shape a “weak” one. According to Elbow, the whole purpose of peer review is to help students be exposed to different kinds of criteria, and to have them get a feel for what criteria entail. The same methods that Elbow proposes for writing can also be applied to the writing and delivering of a speech as well. The textbook provides an “Evaluation Guide” in order to help aid peers in giving effective feedback when judging content and delivery.
Evaluation Guide (p. 527): Judging Content 1. Did the introduction capture the audience’s attention? (rhetorical pedagogy) 2. Did the topic fit the occasion? 3. Was the speech appropriate to the audience’s level of knowledge and interest? (rhetorical pedagogy) 4. Was the speech logically organized and easy to follow? (formalist pedagogy) 5. Was there enough evidence to support the thesis? (mimetic pedagogy) 6. Did the conclusion reinforce the thesis?
Judging Delivery: 1. Did the speaker make eye contact with the audience? 2. Was the speaker’s voice loud enough? Was there enough variation in pitch and rhythm? 3. Did gestures and facial expressions reinforce ideas, or did they distract from the message? 4. Were visual aids helpful and presented well?
The questions provided in the “Evaluation Guide” are questions that theorists such as Flower and Hayes would approve of because they are asking the reader to consider all of the components that go into writing a speech. Essentially these questions are helping the reader focus in on the “rhetorical situation.”
2. Giving Verbal Feedback: The textbook provides a list of suggestions for their reader to use when providing someone with verbal feedback. These suggestions include: 1. Be specific: what did you like and why? 2. Discuss only the most important points 3. Point out both positives and negatives 4. Offer concrete ways to improve
All of these suggestions are great options for someone to consider when evaluating both a speech and a written assignment. These are suggestions that both teachers and students can use when providing verbal or even written feedback to another student. In Milner & Milner’s essay, “Evaluating Learning,” Milner claims that, “feedback is essential to promoting students’ learning” (p. 386). Milner discusses throughout his essay how it is crucial for both teachers and peers to provide students with feedback that particularly tells students how they are doing so that they will become aware of what the next step in learning is (p. 386). When providing feedback, teachers and peers need to do just what Language Network, and Milner & Milner state throughout their writing which is that you need to be specific when providing feedback so that students will know exactly what it is that they need to work on in order to enhance their speech.
Theorist Nancy Sommers would also support Language Network’s suggestions for providing effective verbal feedback. However, one thing that I think Sommers would want the text to expand upon is the recipient’s role in receiving feedback. In Nancy Sommers’ essay, “Across the Drafts,” Sommers discusses how she learned through her research from “The Harvard Study of Undergraduate Writing” that feedback is only significant when students and teachers create a “partnership” through feedback. Sommers (2006) claims that feedback should require a “transaction in which teachers engage with their students by treating them as apprentice scholars, offering honest critique paired with instruction” (p. 250). However, Sommers (2006) makes it clear throughout her essay that writing development does not just solely rely on the teacher providing feedback, but it also heavily relies on the student’s willingness to hear and accept honest assessment of their work as it does with instructor’s willingness to offer such responses” (p. 252). Although this text stresses the important role of a person providing feedback, it fails to emphasize the role of the recipient of the feedback. It is important for both the giver of feedback, and the recipient to understand what is expected of them so that the students can effectively provide/use the feedback to enhance their overall product.
Lesson 7 Group Communication:
Language Network states that, “both in school and once you have a job; you will probably spend some time in formal or semiformal group settings” (p. 530). Theorist Rebecca Moore Howard would definitely support this claim from the textbook. In Howard’s essay, “Collaborative Pedagogy,” Howard discusses the importance of having students work collaboratively in groups in order to better prepare them for the future. Howard (2001) claims, “when collaborative pedagogy aims to prepare students for work-place tasks, it should be designed not just on general precepts but also with a well developed conception of work-place writing” (p. 57). Both Howard, and the authors of Language Network acknowledge the reality that collaborative work is required in almost all career fields. So, by having students learn how to work collaboratively earlier on in their education (like this textbook suggests), educators will essentially be better preparing students for future collaborative assignments that they may one day encounter.
1. Roles in groups: The textbook provides a list of guidelines and strategies in order to help groups figure out the best way to communicate. The text offers a list of different roles that group members can take in order to help the group function better. The roles suggested include: participants, facilitator, and note taker (p. 530). Implementing specific roles in groups is a good idea because it lets students know exactly what is expected of them. Often, if groups do not have specific roles, it is easier for students to get off task, as well as to not hold their weight. With designated roles, each student it responsible for contributing to their group. Assigning roles in groups also provides more opportunity for the teacher to act as a facilitator which is precisely what Howard claims should be the teacher’s role during collaborative work. Howard (2001) states that, “One of the guiding principles of small group pedagogy is the effort to relinquish teacher control” (p. 59). Essentially, assigning students roles throughout group work will hopefully help teachers embrace the role of a facilitator rather than reject it.
2. Group Etiquette: Language Network claims that in order to “reach an agreement or consensus, within a group requires every member’s cooperation and effort” (p.531). The text then proceeds to list guidelines that offer different suggestions on how to effectively participate in a group. The suggestions offered in the text are pretty generic, ex: Come prepared by being informed and ready to work, be an active listener and be willing to accept and build on a good idea, even if it conflicts with what you think, support your opinions with reasons and/or evidence (p. 531). Howard would most likely approve of these guidelines because in her essay “Collaborative Pedagogy,” she discusses how students should be prepared for working in a group before they actually start working in a group. Howard provides her own list of guidelines for preparing students for participation in group work. These guidelines include; addressing issues that may arise in a group setting and how to resolve these issues, discussing methods and problems of collaborative writing/activities before the project begins, etc. Both Language Network and Howard seem to emphasize and encourage the necessity of outlining guidelines for students to follow in order to work effectively within a group. We agree with this necessity of, and emphasis on guidelines because they help group members understand what is expected of them, as well as the various ways in which they can contribute to their group. Following these guidelines will most likely make the experience of working in a group more enjoyable for both the students and the teacher.