Written Communication, Myths, and the Community for Educators

“Communication is the foundation of all relationships.”

Language is an inherent part of human life, something that perhaps we do not think about specifically very often. I am certainly guilty of this. But as Craig Smith (2013) argued, “The role of language in decision making is obvious: the symbolic use of language is intimately linked to making sense of the world” (19). Communication is required as a part of everything humans do, and has become especially important for the professional world. Peter Drucker (2000) stated “Communications in management has become a central concern to students and practitioners in all institutions” (261). The same goes for educators, something that I see first-hand as a teacher at a small district. It is well-known that teachers often spend a great deal of their time communicating with students; oral communication might include anything from lecture, to one-on-one help students, to casual communication with students in the halls and at lunch. Thus, a great deal of care has been put into ensuring teachers are able to be adept communicators. Furthermore, other studies have shown the importance of teachers’ communication. For instance, it is directly linked to teacher effectiveness. Alexander Okoli (2017) argues that effective teachers not only have great content understanding, but are also skilled communicators to be able to make that content clear. Clearly, much of this discussion focuses on oral communication, not on written communication. However, written communication is still a vital part of what teachers do, as at the heart of all writing that teachers partake in is for communication. One of the most important of these is email. Thus, it is necessary to explore the importance of this communication, how it affects our stakeholders, and even how communication can affect the writing of students, something that is surrounded many myths and narratives. Though this analysis is based on one specific interview with the teaching staff of small, rural school, perhaps it can provide insights that can be valuable to anyone interested in making schools more prepared to make students effective communicators.

Myth and Narrative

To begin, the definition of myth and narrative should be discussed and how this impacts discussion of email. Smith (2013) defines myth and narrative as a form of language that  “imbues rules of society with moral force. It transforms the vague thought into the clear sentence, the unexplainable scientific theory into the understandable metaphor, and the unmotivated into the proactive” (18). It provides explanations to the things we see in the world around us. While Smith (2013) looks directly myth and narratives often perpetuated through the theological portion of society, I would argue that there are myths perpetuated in every day life that focus on the situation it is created in. Schools are no exception. We have these ideas that we may perpetuate to understand what we encounter as educators. Ultimately, this can affect our perceptions and how we approach  teaching. This interview was aimed to help our school look at these myths and their connections with communication.

Written Communication

The interview itself revealed a great deal about our school’s written communication and the myths we hold to be true. First, there are multiple types of written communication our school is involved in, including:

• Social Media, such as our Facebook Pages or our Remind App
• Creating instructional materials like lesson plans
• Writing on our board to relay information to our students

However, the most important my colleagues discussed was email. Email is the quickest form of communication for our school, as “we are all in separate classrooms all day long, it is the way in which we connect with one another” (JHS staff, personal communication, January 16, 2019). It allows us to work more efficiently as a staff.  Furthermore, it acts as “an archive, allowing for documentation” which allows us to handle any issues we may have with students or parents with ease (JHS staff, personal communication, January 16, 2019).

However, this communication cannot be complete without the recipients of it. This is connected to Drucker’s (2000) statement that “it is the recipient who communicates. The so-called communicator, the person who emits the communication, does not communicate. He utters. Unless there is someone who hears, there is no communication” (262).  Thus, we have to take into consideration what we are trying to show and the audience we are addressing, something I believe our staff does very well. As our school counselor stated, “our communication base it limitless” as there are so many different people involved in the community, from parents, to students, and even the press.  (JHS staff, personal communication, January 16, 2019). Our counselor expressed the thought that written communication “is the foundation of all relationships” (JHS staff, personal communication, January 16, 2019). Thus, it is the basis of our community. Authors like Kirstin Natale and Kathryn Lubniewski (2018), who argue that schools need to be aware of the communication needs of families, also support this analysis, as “using technology has the ability to build connectedness from the family to the school since communication can be instant” (378).  In their study, they even found that a vast majority of parents prefer email as the primary mode of communication between themselves and their child’s teacher. Even our school mission statement focuses on the importance of working with all of our stakeholders, which email helps us to reach:

 “We are a collaborative community to develop life-long learners to be productive citizens.”

Thus, we have to take into consideration what we are trying to show and the audience we are addressing, including when using email. There can be setbacks in this within the world of email. This is a part of what Okoli (2017) argued in that “a speaker attempts to aid the audience in understanding the meaning of the message through the use of verbal and nonverbal communication. Language and words are symbolic…and are the verbal tools the speaker uses to convey the true message…to the audience. The speaker also uses nonverbal tools…to share the meaning with the audience” (151). These cues are not available in written communication. Natale and Lubniewski argue (2018) “technological communications are often quick and direct, and can be perceived as negative” (378). Thus, teachers have to find ways to mitigate the issues that email might possess. We must make the “demands” of our communication clear to the audience, who are able to make communication effective, as Drucker (2000) discussed.

This is where rhetoric comes in. A fellow teacher stated that “Emotion is [always] involved, but we have to have the logic behind it to back up why you have that emotion, and the credibility to present it in a meaningful manner” to the audience in order to convince them of what we are trying to get across (JHS staff, personal communication, January 16, 2019). Our staff does this constantly within emails, effectively discussing with parents issues or successes we may see. We rarely have major issues that cannot be handled with precise and quick communication.

So what does email have to do with myth and narrative?

As discussed above, we use myths and narratives to explain the things we see, even in our schools. One major area this occurs is within the realm of communication, specifically within student writing. Many teachers view technology is having an impact on student writing, as they write like they post or text. Others found that students “believe they will have to do this in real life, when in reality they do,” or that “they have no purpose for their writing,” whereas we have a clear purpose to communicate (JHS staff, personal communication, January 16, 2019). I would not argue that these myths are completely wrong, as Smith (2013) stated myths “always contain a kernel of truth” (21). I have certainly seen these issues first hand, and have certainly subscribed to this myth myself. Students write the way the text at times even on assignments in English. Teachers see these myths, however, the next step is to determine a solution.

We know how important communication is to what we do, and how necessary it is that students know how to do it.  Our school mission is about creating life-long learners that are productive citizens. Through the different types of writing that teachers do, we try to model responsible writing to students. One colleague stated “students mirror our level of formality. When we write professional emails to students, they tend to respond in the same way” (JHS staff, personal communication, January 16, 2019). My colleagues and I have taken the first step in noticing the issue, as well as recognizing that we can model the right behavior. However, we can take it a step farther by making it a concrete discussion and practice in all content areas. We can use our expertise in communication, especially email, to continually require that students represent themselves professionally in their communication. Clearly, email can have many more roles than just the most popular form of communication for educators, but can also help to prepare our students to be successful.

Reference List

Natale, K., and Lubniewski, K. (2018). “Use of Communication and Technology among Educational Professionals and Families.” International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10 (3), 377-384.

Okoli, A. (2017). “Relating Communication Competence to Teaching Effectiveness: Implication for Teacher Education.” Journal of Education and Practice, 8 (3), 150-154.

Smith, C. R. (2013). Chapter 2- Rhetorical Dimensions of Myth and Narrative. In Rhetoric and Human Consciousness: A History 4th Ed. (17-34). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press

Drucker, P. F. (2000). Functional Communications. In The Essential Drucker: The Best of Sixty Years of Peter Drucker’s Essential Writings on Management. (261-267). New York, NY: HarperCollins Press.