Babies cannot articulate their needs.
One of the most difficult tasks parents first encounter is trying to establish what it is their baby wants when it exhibits distress, most often in the form of crying.
They want to know this so that they can alter the situation.
The desire to nurture a child physically and emotionally, to tend to its needs, is the overriding drive for parents.
When a baby cries, it sends is a signal that all is not well.
But what is it that is not well?
It can only be something internal (such as the feeling of hunger) or external (such as loud noises heard through an open window).
Yet, even in a case where the child’s distress is caused by external stimuli, the experience of distress is still an internal one.
Let us imagine, for example, that a window has been left open to allow some fresh air into the house.
After a time, the baby who is in the adjoining room begins to feel a draft.
This makes them uncomfortable.
They react to this discomfort by beginning to cry.
Despite the fact, however, that this has been caused by an external stimulus (the cold air), the experience of the stimulus is still internal to the child.
If the child’s mother entered the room and happened, for some reason, to be insensitive to temperature, she would be hard pressed to identify the cause of the child’s distress without undertaking a course of trial and error or a detailed examination of all the potential variables that could be affecting her baby.
It is likely that the mother’s presence, her picking up and holding of the baby, her talking to it and tending it, would be sufficiently soothing to put an end to the baby’s discomfort.
It may be that through some method or other she could conclude that the open window was causing her child’s discomfort.
What could certainly not happen though, is any articulation by the baby of why it felt in distress.
Fast forward fifty years.
She who was once an infant is now a woman (let us say the baby was a girl by the name of Emily), and a poet to boot.
Her latest collection includes a sonnet called ‘Low Tide On Sandsend Beach’.
In one couplet, she evokes the experience of cold sea air running across naked arms, imbuing this with a symbolism that will take many readings to unravel.
In an interview about her new book, she explains how this part of the poem originated from a brief conversation she had with a friend while visiting the Yorkshire Coast.
That which is internal to us – thoughts, sensations, feelings and emotions – can be made plain through language.
Speech comes first.
It is the precursor to writing.
It is how we communicate to others, that which is inside us, and that which we experience.
The greater command we have over the spoken word, the more accurately we can give voice to our own thoughts.
Just as language – speech – articulates thoughts, so too does it come to order and inform them.
Think, for example, of the differing explanations a child and an adult might be able to provide of an event they both experience.
The latter is a more knowledgeable and a more skilful user of language.
This means that even before they share the same experience as the child, they are primed to interpret it through a different (more developed) framework.
Using discussion in the classroom is important as it provides learners with the opportunity to enhance their own frameworks of interpretation as well as their own skills in articulating that which they think, feel, sense or experience.
This in turn has a knock-on effect on a learner’s ability to write.
The benefits of using discussion to precede writing should not be overlooked.
The central tenet is that the process of speaking about a subject allows you to manipulate your thoughts on that subject.
This means that writing about it is made easier.
Much of the hard work has already been done.
Such work includes analysis, synthesis and evaluation of your thoughts about the topic in question.
The ephemeral, instantly editable, unmediated nature of speech means learners can do things with it quickly and simply.
Even the most skilled writers struggle to match this ease and immediacy when manipulating the written word.
Let’s consider an example that shows the benefits of talking before writing.
Learners are given the task of producing an essay that deals with the question of whether Queen Victoria was a good monarch.
The teacher asks them to discuss their ideas in pairs and to develop an essay plan.
The following series of events might reasonably be expected to occur:
- Learners discuss the question. They consider what the question means and how it could be answered. They also analyse some of the key words.
- Learners discuss in further detail how to answer the question. They share ideas and then come up with a plan. Together, they sketch this out and make a note of what they’ll need to cover.
- Learners review their plan. They discuss whether it matches what the teacher wants. They decide to revise the plan and make some tweaks.
By this point, learners are in a great position to start writing.
The process of discussion has led them through a range of tasks that could have been missed, made more difficult, or taken far longer if no talking had been allowed.
What is more, if Learner A and Learner B engaged in discussion, it is highly likely that one or both will have said things of which the other simply hadn’t thought (and, perhaps, never would have done).
For example, Learner A may have suggested that ‘good’ should be seen as referring to the things that Victoria did while Queen.
Learner B may have then interjected, pointing out that some of the things she did were viewed as good by some people and as bad by others.
The two main benefits teachers and learners can take from the relationship between speech and writing are:
- The improvements in thinking that are likely to result from hearing different people’s ideas about a topic.
- The speed and simplicity with which you can carry out intellectual work on a topic by talking about it (whether or not this is used as a prelude to writing about the topic).
Tied up with the first of these points is the issue of constructing knowledge.
When a pair, group, or whole class sit down together and discuss a topic, they are engaged in a process of knowledge creation.
It is not so much that they are conjuring something from nothing, rather that they are building something from a series of smaller, pre-existing parts, the sum of which is usually greater than the constituents.
Here’s an example to illustrate:
- Learner A: In my opinion, Victoria was a good monarch because, for most of her reign, she was well-liked by most of her subjects.
- Learner B: I don’t agree. Being liked doesn’t necessarily mean she was good – people might have liked the image of her they had in their heads, rather than anything tangible. Also, by the nineteenth century it was politicians who ruled the country. Victoria didn’t have any real power and so could not do much anyway. That means it’s pointless assessing whether she was good or not.
- Learner A: Well, that’s a fair point. Politicians did rule the country, and power had moved from the monarchy to parliament. Perhaps we should assess whether Victoria was a good monarch in the context of that arrangement? What did she do and what effects did it have? For example, being liked by the people may have helped to sustain the idea of the monarchy in its new, less powerful role. In that sense she was a good monarch – good for the future generations of the Royal Family.
Here we have a classic dialectic.
Learner A puts forward a thesis that Learner B rebuts through an antithesis before Learner A combines these ideas to form a synthesis.
The final comment from Learner A has its roots in the first two comments, but it is also qualitatively different.
Something new has been constructed that may have been harder for either learner to access on their own.
The argument is that discussion allows the construction of knowledge and that because of this it is a good thing, benefitting learners and helping them to learn.
Let us give another, more prosaic, example to reinforce the point:
- Doctor: Good morning, Mr Smith, what can I do for you today?
- Mr Smith: Good morning doctor. Well, I’ve not been feeling too good lately, so I thought I had better come and see you.
- Doctor: What’s been the matter?
- Mr Smith: It’s my foot, you see. It hurts every time I put pressure on it. Like when I’m climbing the stairs, for example.
- Doctor: I see. Tell me, Mr Smith, have you done anything that might have injured your foot in the past few weeks?
From here, the conversation would continue.
There would also be a physical examination by the doctor.
Matters would conclude with a diagnosis or a call for further investigation.
If Mr Smith had not spoken to the doctor, he would not have been able to convey that which was internal to him – the pain in his foot.
If the doctor had not asked a series of questions, her understanding of Mr Smith’s position would have been severely limited.
By the end of the discussion, the doctor will have provided Mr Smith with a diagnosis or will have explained to him the need for further investigation.
Either scenario is an example of new knowledge.
In the matter of diagnosis, the doctor is applying her existing knowledge and experience of medicine to the individual case of Mr Smith.
In the matter of further investigation, the doctor is indicating that her knowledge does not allow her to accurately diagnose the situation and that something more is required.
In both situations, the doctor and Mr Smith would have learnt something, with Mr Smith’s learning being relatively greater and more valuable.
The result, whichever it was, would have been a direct consequence of the separate contributions to the discussion made by each participant.
If Mr Smith had not turned up, then the doctor, despite all her knowledge and skill, would not have been able to construct a diagnosis or to call for further tests.
If the doctor had not turned up, Mr Smith would have been none the wiser about the state of his foot.
Discussion allows those taking part to construct, access or learn new knowledge.
Participants make contributions.
These are predicated on their existing knowledge and understanding.
The act of discussing involves thinking.
This frequently leads to understanding being developed.
The combination of different ideas gives rise to the possibility of synthesis.
Even if this is not achieved by the individuals engaged in a discussion, it is likely that everybody will leave with a broader set of ideas than they possessed at the start.
In summary, the two ways in which discussion helps to construct new knowledge are:
- Thesis -> Antitheses -> Synthesis
- Individual arrives at a discussion with a frame of reference -> Individual leaves discussion with a changed frame of reference
