Teaching Engagement

Much is being written and talked about how our education system needs to be improved. There is no doubt that education in America does need impoving. If our country is going to regain its international dominance in such fundamental areas as science and math, then we are definitely going to have to start implementing comprehensive adjustments. But as my primary focus in this blog is communication, I want to zero in on how improving the communication skills of students can and should be addressed at all levels of education, beginning in kindergarten. It boils down to one word: engagement.

Presently, education revolves around two concepts: passing along facts and then teaching students how to use or apply those facts in other classes and, ultimately, the so-called real world. A third leg to this stool needs to be added. Students should be taught how to share those facts with others. We live in a society where our ability to communicate with others is not nearly as strong as it should be. As I have written countless times before, there is too much "talking at" and not enough "talking with" that occurs. One key reason for this is that people are not as competent in the act of interaction as they should be. Consequently, they do not do it very well or often.

This can be addressed. Via creative classroom exercises and even tests, students can learn how to engage in interactions with others in ways that are non-threatening or argumentative. Teaching the art of respectful conversation may seem trivial, but given the reality of our day-to-day lives as we grow into adulthood, such a skill very much has a real-life application. This skill can be taught and reinforced throughout a student's entire education, including college.  Further, the good news is this can be applied to any subject matter, not just English class. More of us need to be able to communicate better. After all, we are dealing with so many of the same issues.

Regaining the High Bar

From time to time over the years I have been doing this blog I have decried what I see as a decline in the communication efforts of of our citizens. What continues to trouble me the most is as people interact there seems to be an increasing amount of what I call "talking at" that occurs rather than "talking with." Our desire or ability to listen and actually engage with others - even for a few moments - is eroding. I see this as contributing to a growing feeling of disenfranchisement among people that, in turn, is leading to a shift in what we consider to be most important in life: tangible achievement or gaining attention. Unfortunately, gaining attention seems to have the upper hand.

Ironically, one contributing factor to this is social media. This great technological advancement, in terms of communication as revolutionary as anything we have known since the invention of the telegraph, has become a great enabler to our current shift in life's priorities. What better way to gain attention or get noticed by more people than was ever before possible than via Facebook or twitter?  Even doing something mundane such as going out to dinner and then commenting on the quality of the food and restaurant generates attention, some from people one does not even know. This is definitely a sign of the times.  

Do not misunderstand. I see nothing wrong with the exchanges that occur via social media. What is of growing concern is how this seems to be giving people the false impression that collecting thousands of followers on twitter or friends on Facebook, for instance, represents meaningful achievement. It does not. Social media is easy. Achievement is not. Seeking to achieve represents a higher bar. For us to be the best we can be for ourselves and society, then that higher bar is the one we need and should shoot for. Those involved in the communication profession, either as scholars or practitioners, can play a key role in this. I will have more to come on this.

Look at Me!

I am a proud product of little league baseball. Even though it seems like it was over 100 years ago when I played for the Giants and, later, the Tigers, I do think back to those times with fondness. As the years passed from time to time I would watch the kids play a few innings and smile as the contended with ground balls, running bases and swinging the bat. The mere fact they were suited up and on the field  trying so hard to play well made them shine in my eyes. Invariably, during the course of each game at least one of the players from the field would wave to his parents as if to say, "Look at me!." The parents, of course, would smile and wave back.

The exchange of waves was heartfelt. It seemed to say, at least for a few moments, the game itself was of little if any consequence. What was important was the participation. To me, the wave between child and parents was a silent reaffirmation of this. Fast forwarding to the present, from time to time I skim Facebook and Twitter entries and see striking similarities. In this case, instead of youngsters waving from the field, it is older individuals who are waving from the Internet with messages that share their thoughts on movies, weekend adventures or how well they slept the night before.  People, inevitably, wave back with comments that either acknowledge what was just written or by adding their own opinions on the subject.

As wonderful and technologically-advanced as social media is, there is very much a strong "look at me" component to it that I am unconvinced adds much, if anything, to the game of life in which we are involved. Staying it touch with friends via the Internet is fine. Making new friends that way is fine, too. But as the popularity of this form of communication continues to grow while the level of exchange remains the same, I am concerned we may be making the mistake of confusing enhancing our visibility this way with actual achievement. The two are far from the same. This lowers the bar as to what is actual achievement, thus detracting from the quality of our society. Like those little leaguers, perhaps we should be paying more attention to ground balls, running bases and swinging bats.   

The Physics of Communication

The longer I study communication the more convinced I am that none of us communicates in a vacuum. Everything we say and do - even if we are alone when we say and/or do it - affects others. Granted, the impact may be slight, but it is real and inevitable. This reality represents the physics of communication. Communication is a social science but it is also a social force. It is an act that triggers reactions in terms of reactive thoughts and sometimes even behavioral changes in others. I see little, if any, difference in this than the physical affect a person ignites by driving their car into the side of a building.

In the eighteenth century, scientist and philosopher Sir Isaac Newton put forth what he termed laws of motion. Of the three, the one most well known is: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." In simple terms, Newton's observation identified a fundamental reality of our physical world. There is no physical action or movement that does not create a counter action or movement. Two people dancing is an example I see no reason why this does not apply equally to communication. For instance, if we think of our acts of communication during the course of an average day, then what appears is a list of vivid examples as long as any interstate highway.

All of us are in relationships. They may not necessarily be ones of romance or marriage, but instead may include connections we have with neighbors, family members, the cashier at the local grocery store or co-workers. The acts of communication we exchange with any of those other individuals cause a range of mutual adjustments that continue for the duration of our interaction. My concern is that I am not certain how much we really appreciate this reality. It is my hope that knowing everything we verbally and non-verbally communicate affects other, even slightly, then this will make us communicators who are more respectful and thoughtful.

Baby Bites Baby

I have a grand daughter who, of course, is wonderful. She is cute, fun, full of wonder, and, as I write this, a little over 14 months old. She is also a biter. The other day at her preschool day care center she bit another baby. I was not present when this happened, so I can only assume what provoked this Hannibal Lector-esque action was some type of action taken by the other baby. Perhaps the other baby invaded my grand daughter's space. Perhaps the other baby attempted to take something my grand daughter did not want to share at that particular moment. No matter the cause, my grand daughter was compelled to protect her turf.

Do not misunderstand, I am not here to defend my grand daughter's action. Biting is wrong unless it  is a hot summer day, you are sitting in the backyard with friends and cold drinks, and you are holding in your hands a corn-on-the-cobb that is dripping with butter. Who among us would not bite down on that morsel until every edible part of it was gone? But I digress. My grand daughter did what she did because, at this time in her young life given the situation and her limited resources, she communicated in the only way she knew how. I say this not to excuse her behavior, but rather to state the reality of the situation.

If a similar situation occurs, say, five years from now, it is my hope and assumption that my grand daughter will handle matters differently. At that point, instead of biting (even though it will still be part of her arsenal) she will invoke a different communication strategy such as yell, make use of her hands, share her displeasure directly with the now older other baby, or bring the situation to the attention of the teacher and let that person work it out. Whatever she does then, no doubt she will communicate differently because she will know more and have more tools at her disposal. Her challenge, five years from now and for the remainder of her life will be to use communication tools that properly convey her message, yet in a manner that is honest and respectful

Louis Brandeis With a Twist

One of the fundamental debates within our country since its beginning days has revolved around freedom. Yes, we want it and, yes, it defines the principle of our nation. But what limits, if any, should we place upon it? Should we literally have unlimited freedom in all areas or should parameters be imposed, for example, that restrict our citizen's ability to speak, bare arms, puruse a free market, or vote?  Rightly or not, the consensus has been to impose limits. Since the time of our Founding Fathers, the decision has been consistant: freedom - yes - but within certain guidelines. Thus, we are not now, nor have we ever been, a pure democracy. An easy example is the famous restriction that forbids a person from yelling "fire" in a crowded room.

The purpose of this kind of limitation has been to allow our nation to practice its freedoms but do so in a common sense and reasonable way. One hundred per cent freedom removes the purpose or effectiveness of laws or rules that define and ensure behavior supporting the welfare of all. The laws represent compromise toward achieving a nation that properly protects a person's ability to advance, take advantage of their opportunities and talents, and advance as far as they can  in terms of wealth and standing. All this leads me to a famous quote I recently came upon by one of our nation's most famous and acclaimed jurists: Louis Brandeis. 

The former member of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote: "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."  Brandeis was referring to the economics of our nation and the dangers of a plutocracy being formed in which a select few end up controlling the nation's purse strings, thus seriously compromising everyone else's opportunity to prosper. Such a sentiment is significant to communication as it speaks to our ability as people to express ourselves, be heard and access information without fear of that "right" being dominated. It is essential that we not fall into the trap of a communication plutocracy being created within our nation in which the wealthy and super wealthy control our information agenda as well as those who make decisions that affect it.   

Two Fathers

One of the interesting things about the field of public relations is that it has two fathers. At various times by numerous scholars and historians, two of the field's most famous pioneers - Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays - have been called "The Father of Public Relations." Upon hearing that, one's initial reaction might be to challenge that declaration and say it does not make sense for any field or science to have more than one person be given such a distinct label. But then I think of the United States and how all of us are comfortable with historians writing about its "founding fathers." So, perhaps having just two is not so bad or confusing after all.  

While it is true that both Lee and Bernays were at the ground floor in the early 20th century when the profession of public relations began to really get underway, what is interesting is they both practiced and advocated diametrically opposite styles of public relations. Lee, under the heading of his famous "Declaration of Principles," said it was the role of PR types to simply share or report the facts about a client or issue without making any attempt to shape, sugar coat or manipulate them. Lee saw the role of public relations officer as being an objective conduit of information. On the other hand, Bernays, perhaps because he was influenced by his uncle Sigmund Freud, believed PR was a science of persuasion and mass manipulation. He, too, believed in honesty but he advocated presenting facts to the advantage of his clients.      

As to which vision of public relations is correct, that debate has not yet been settled. But in terms of which style is most utilized, then hands-down it is the one practiced by Bernays. It is rare in today's world to see public relations practitioners who are content to simply share unvarnished facts with a targeted audience, for example, and then leave it to that public to make up their own minds about an issue or a client. The temptation is too great to let people make up their own minds. This is not what organizations that hire PR professionals want. They want profit. They want people to like them. And they want communicators who can make that happen.

Sweet Dreams, Sweet Communication

"Dream when the day is blue. Dream and they might come true." That is one of the lyric lines from the song, "Dream," one of the late Johnny Mercer's many classics. I begin this posting this way as it comes right after my reading in a recent issue of Time magaine an article on dreams. It is an interesting piece as it pertains to a challenge so many of us face: nightmares. We all have them from time to time. Some are silly. Some are scary. Some are disturbing. Collectively, they cut into our sleep time and that is something no one wants. One recurring nightmare I have involves being chased by hungry crocodiles (or is it alligators?) and not being able to stand up to run to safety.  

The article highlights the efforts of researchers now working with patients to help them reformulate their dreams. One of the scientists, a person named Stephen Laberge who gained famed while teaching at Stanford University, believes dreams are as manageable as any one else's behavioral experience. It is Laberge's contention that people can be taught how to take more control of their dreams, so that they are better able to ensure they get a good night's sleep and feel better when they approach a new day. One group such a skill would benefit greatly is combat veterans returning from war who lose much sleep due to recurring dreams they have regarding things they either witnessed or, in some cases, had to do.

Dreams are a form of communication. Even though it happens within our own heads and at a time when we are not interacting with others, dreams, particularly bad ones, can and do affect our ability to cope in society and present ourselves in a consistently favorable light. I find the work of Laberge interesting because it seeks to build on our ability to manage communication when we are awake. Moving such a skill into the realm of sleep strikes me as being quite revolutionary. This research is very much at the beginning stage, so no one should get overly excited at the prospect at being able to ensure their nights of nothing but pure bliss. Yet.

Working Together

I live in one of those parts of the country that is currently getting blasted with a giant heat wave. If that wasn't enough,  just as the temperatures were rising, a big storm came along and ended up knocking out the power at our home as well as hundreds of thousands of others in the region. The result was several days of misery. We faced temperatures hovering near 100 degrees without having the ability to turn on a simple fan. To say the least, it was not fun.  I understand this was a way of life for our forefathers. But in fairness to us, our forefathers never had the sweet taste of air conditioning, so they never knew what they were missing. We did.

But now that our power has been restored and we are in a better disposition to deal with the uncompromising heat, I can more easily look back and see how the shared misery that so many of us experienced actually also brought out the best of our inner communicator. Let me begin with traffic lights. Part of what stopped working were the traffic lights at intersections around town. With those out, drivers had to carefully negotiate with other drivers in order to safely navigate through intersections. Consequently, regardless of the direction from which they were coming, drivers would either stop or slow down to ensure not just their own safe passage but that of other drivers as well.

What happened at out neighborhood traffic lights, and in some cases still is, is a great example of respectful collaboration. More to the point, it is a great example of effective communication. People with apparently nothing more in common than the fact they are drivers and they want to get where they are going safely, identified a greater good around which they could rally and then devised strategies to achieve results that address their mutual needs and interests. Here is the best part: as I write this, in the case of our region, I am not aware of a single traffic accident occurring at an intersection where the traffic lights were not working.