|
The Language Teacher | |
|
Return to The Language Teacher Online In educational settings, when instructing students in English compositions through critique or when revising others' research papers for possible publication, it is important for educators to constantly evaluate their critiquing ability since it will greatly affect the others' improvement in writing English compositions or publishable papers. However, it is very difficult to define what makes a good critique. When conceptualizing and measuring communicative competence, Spitzberg (1988, p.68) defines competent communication as "interaction that is perceived as effective in fulfilling certain rewarding objectives in a way that is also appropriate to the context in which the interaction occurs." As this definition indicates, communicative competence is evaluated by the people who are interacting with each other, and therefore, critiques perceived as poor by the reviewee are not helpful to the reviewee. The same critiques can also be regarded as both good and poor depending on the interactants' personalities or their social expectations, and consequently, it is very hard to draw a clear line between critiques perceived as good and poor. However, social expectations can be explained clearly. Therefore, it is possible to analyze patterns of critique perceived as good or poor by people who share the same cultural values. In this paper, I would like to clarify certain perceptual variations between Japanese and native English educators by analyzing some cultural patterns of critique perceived as conspicuously different, and then examine whether there are certain patterns of critique perceived as good by most people which go beyond personal and cultural differences. In other words, I would like to explore patterns of critique perceived as not arousing any negative feelings and recognized as instructive by both parties. Surveys by Questionnaires and InterviewsFor the above purpose, 10 experienced Japanese educators and 10 experienced native English educators teaching university level writing were surveyed either through a questionnaire or an interview. The respondents were asked to raise students' English compositions and others' research papers on which critiques had been given and to describe specifically what critiques they perceived as poor. There are two reasons why critiques given by others and not by the reviewers themselves were chosen. One reason is that "competent communication is perceived as effective" (Spitzberg, 1988), and that it is difficult for the reviewers to decide whether their own critiques are good or poor since it frequently occurs that critiques regarded as good by one reviewer are perceived as poor by others. The other reason is that one can look at others more objectively than oneself. Also, the reason why educators, not students, were chosen is that educators can usually explain why they consider critiques as good or poor more explicitly than students. A new questionnaire, constructed on the basis of the earlier questionnaire and interview, contained two sections. The first section consisted of actual comments made by educators to students' compositions and additional comments in seven situations. The second section consisted of actual comments made by educators to others' research papers and additional comments in five situations (See the sample in the Appendix). 25 Japanese educators and 25 native English educators were surveyed and were asked to write Good (G), Poor (P), or Can't decide (C) in terms of educational results, that is, whether the criticisms and comments were instructive to students or others. The respondents were also asked to give any further comments they might have. The educators were then interviewed to clarify their intent. The standard questions were: "Why did you regard the criticisms and comments as good or poor?" and "How did you go about interpreting the criticisms and comments?" Differences in Social ExpectationsThe results of the surveys demonstrated certain differences in social expectations between Japanese and native English educators. One of the great differences in social expectations is the acceptable range of critique. On the one hand, around 60% of native English educators regarded almost all criticisms and comments as acceptable if logically correct. Since in Western culture criticisms and comments off the top of one's head are common, between 60% and 80% of native English educators (depending on the situation) accepted such opinions. This is probably because Western culture, as Howell (1982) points out, has attached priority to the rhetorical mode of communication between two distinctly different modes of communication, "rhetorical" and "expressive," and encourages people to express their own opinions logically and clearly (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984). On the other hand, around 80% of Japanese educators clearly distinguished between criticisms and comments which seemed to be immediate and those which seemed to be deliberate, in other words, based on whether criticisms and comments seemed to be given before or after considering writers' viewpoints. The Japanese educators believed that people should refrain from giving immediate criticisms and comments without considering the writers' viewpoints since doing so would likely confuse and displease them. People were expected to express their own opinions only at the level of offering constructive suggestions, or at least of pointing out specific problems. This is probably because Japanese culture has given priority to the expressive mode of communication (Morimoto, 1991). In educational settings, being sensitive to others' needs has been primarily considered in the empathetic approach, and receiver-oriented communication styles are expected (Minami, 1994). Also, the Japanese educators tended to be more sensitive to subtle nuances in word choices than the native English educators. The Japanese educators reacted unfavorably to criticisms and comments which seemed to be complete rejections of the writers' opinions (for instance, "What is the use of the survey?"), while they reacted favorably to comments which indicated they found some value in the writers' opinions (for example, "If you clarified how you were going to apply the results to education, it would be able to convey your intent more to your readers." This is probably because Japanese culture has cherished the spirit of harmony (Yamamoto, 1981) and complete rejections are discouraged in Japanese culture. Perceptual Variations in CritiqueWhen Japanese people and native English speakers with different social expectations communicate, what problems do the differences cause? The following three examples of cultural patterns of critique perceived as conspicuously different between Japanese and native English educators demonstrate certain perceptual variations. Lack of a Common Understanding of Concepts: Everyone knows at a theoretical level that communication works when communicators hold some common understanding. However, in reality, this is not well recognized. One pattern of critique perceived immediately as good by around 60% of native English educators and as poor by about 90% of Japanese educators is "This is an extreme opinion" and "Here is a leap in logic." Many native English educators, on second thought, could notice that more explanations would be desirable, but they did not immediately consider the critiques to be problematic. When a reviewer thinks that a writer has an extreme opinion or there is a leap in a writer's logic, it indicates that the reviewer and the writers may not have a common understanding of the concepts of "sound arguments" or "logic." In those situations, the critiques such as "This is an extreme opinion" and "Here is a leap in logic" may be ineffective for the writers. The other reason why the Japanese educators regarded the above pattern of critique as poor was that expressions with negative implications like "extreme opinion" seemed to imply complete rejections of the writers' opinions. For instance (See the sample in the Appendix), regarding a writer's opinion, "It is useless to learn formal English at school because formal English is different from everday English used in English-speaking countries," the critique "This is an extreme opinion" was perceived as poor by the Japanese educators because of the choice of the word "extreme." Similarly, other critiques "Do you think it is all right if you can speak even broken English?" and "Some people regard everyday English as vulgar" were unfavorably received by the Japanese educators because of the negative connotations of "broken" and "vulgar." In the above situation, what was the pattern of critique most favorably accepted among the multiple-choice questions by both groups which goes beyond personal and cultural differences? The pattern was to partially support the writer's opinion and to point out factors the writer had not noticed, in other words, to mention what other elements the writer should consider when organizing his/her opinion. The specific critique was to inform the writer of "the need to use formal English and everday English properly depending on the situation." Some other comments suggested for the same situation were "Formal English is important for academic reading and writing" and "Sentence patterns and grammar in formal English can be applied to everyday English." Lack of Understanding of Cultural Implications: Japanese educators and native English educators had greatly different interpretations of certain expressions, for instance, the critique "What is the use of the survey?" offered about a Japanese person's paper based on a survey of cultural exchanges between international students and Japanese students. This critique was perceived as poor by almost all the Japanese educators and as good by more than half of the native English educators. Interviews clarified the difference in the cultural implications of the critique. On the one hand, the Japanese educators stated: "The reviewer should not make a critique which will put the writer down" and "Such a critique implies that the survey is useless, so the critic should refrain from giving the critique." On the other hand, the native English educators insisted: "It usually means, 'How are you going to apply the results to education or something?' No problem." and "The writer's rebuttal is important. Criticism can be accepted or rejected if the writer can provide good reasons for doing so." It is often noted that, when two people of contrasting cultural backgrounds meet, they are likely to attach different meanings to the same word (Barnlund, 1989). When commenting in intercultural settings, it is important to consider the cultural implications of words and to avoid using words which are likely to cause a misunderstanding or a negative communication climate. Clearly non-judgmental questions like "How are you going to apply the results to education?" are desirable. Another critique about the sample feedback given on the questionnaire, "Since the words 'often' and 'sometimes' are ambiguous, I don't think your results will be accurate" was positively accepted as a description of fact by about 80% of native English educators. However, around 70% of Japanese educators felt that the reviewer had only cast the writer aside with that critique. The critique most favorably accepted by the Japanese educators was in the form of positive statememts like "I suggest you change these words to more specific words like 'once a week' or 'once a month. I think your results will be more accurate," and not in the form of negative statements "I don't think your results will be accurate." Offering constructive suggestions, and not making only criticisms, seem to be indispensable for creating a more positive communication climate. Lack of Consideration for Writers' Viewpoints: The third cultural pattern of critique perceived as conspicuously different was one about generalizations, and concerned expressions such as "Aren't you stereotyping people?" and "Isn't it a stereotype?" No Japanese educators regarded the pattern as good, while more than half of the native English educators regarded the pattern as good. The native English educators insisted: "If you feel that it is a stereotype, you can state it as your personal opinion." However, the Japanese educators offered greatly different interpretations when asked why they recognized the critiques as poor. The main reasons were: "These are criticisms for the sake of criticizing. Unless the reviewer provides new information, it will not be beneficial to the writers," and "Any generalization can be criticized as being a stereotype. I feel that the reviewer is finding fault with the writers without trying to understand the writers' viewpoints." In other words, the expression "stereotype" seemed to the Japanese to be faultfinding without considering whether it benefitted the writers. This does not mean that native English educators generally regarded faultfinding as good. It means that relatively speaking, Japanese are more sensitive to faultfinding than native English educators. For example, about 90% of native English educators objected to the overt faultfinding, "You emphasize the negative aspect of memorizing words too much," in the response to a student's writing about the need to increase one's vocabulary that "Memorizing words is necessary for language learning even if the practice is monotonous and tough." Although in the minority, around 20% of native English educators rated the critique "stereotype" as poor. The main reason was "I don't think it useful to discuss whether descriptions are generalizations or stereotypes. It is a matter of opinion, and a matter of semantics. Opinion is opinion, and each is entitled to their own as a legitimate opinion. I see no point in arguing opinions." This fact demonstrates that even among people with the same cultural background, there was no agreement about the exact meaning of the abstract word "stereotype," and different people associated the abstract word with different meanings. Needless to say, when communicating with people of contrasting cultural backgrounds, reviewers need to recognize that it is almost impossible to get their intent across to their reviewees by using only one abstract word. Ruben and Kealey (1979, p.17) note that one of the communication skills for improving communicative competence is orientation to knowledge, and they warn people not to assume that their own knowledge, values, and perceptions are valid for everyone. In educational settings also, if a reviewer and a writer have widely different views, the reviewer should have flexible ways of thinking and try to understand the writer's viewpoint. If the reviewer paraphrases the writer's point with his/her own words (ex. "You seem to be saying.... If so.... " or "Are you suggesting that...? If so...."), it will serve to understand the writer's intent. Also, the reviewer needs to avoid using the abstract word with negative implications "stereotype" which not only will be ineffective for the writer but also may displease the writer. Offering specific suggestions for improvement is important, for example, "It would be better to give more examples to support your generalization" or "Cultural tendencies are not absolute, so I suggest you tone down (ex, 'are' should be 'tend to be.') The best way for reviewers is to provide objective information and suggest a new perspective. For instance (See the sample in the Appendix), concerning a generalization like "Japanese society is vertical, while Western society is egalitarian" (ex. Nakane, 1967, Japanese Society), it was well received by both Japanese and native English educators to provide specific information such as a change in society or a change in the times, and to make a suggestion that these elements should be considered when organizing the paper. Offering specific information was more highly rated by both groups than making incomplete criticisms like "Isn't the analysis old?" and "Some critical reviews about the book have been made." Some other comments offered by the respondents were: "Not all Western society is egalitarian. A class system still exists in the United Kingdom" and "There are some exceptions. ex. the difference between the rich and the poor in the United States." This type of information will be welcome to the writer. ConclusionAs I have mentioned above, people with different value systems frequently have different interpretations of words and events. Singer (1987, pp.19-20) notes that "We know what we perceive; we don't know what we don't perceive. Since there is no way that we can know what we don't perceive, we assume that we perceive 'correctly'--even if we don't." In order to raise educational results, educators always need to think over their own perceptions, and more specifically, realize that there may be some things they do not perceive.In summary, some critiques off the top of one's head may forget to consider others' viewpoints; Some critiques may be taken as criticisms for the sake of criticizing or faultfinding; Some explanations may be too abstract to get educators' intent across to others; Some explanations may not be specific enough for people with different value systems to understand; Although telling the truth is important in educational settings, the form of educators' comments may not seem just descriptions of fact, but may seem like put-down comments to people who are very sensitive to word choices; there may be better ways in which educators can communicate the same content more tactfully by using non-judgmental words. Western culture has attached priority to the rhetorical mode of communication, while Japanese culture has given priority to the expressive mode of communication. Goleman (1996, p.32) calls these two different abilities in communication, "rational intelligence" and "emotional intelligence." He notes that emotional intelligence is a new concept in Western culture, but in the caring profession, teaching, empathy is important. It does not matter whether culture gives priority to empathy. In educational settings, empathy is a vital element. Good educators try to bring out others' limitless potential. For that purpose, it is indispensable for educators to offer critiques with constructive suggestions or at least with the mention of specific problems after considering others' viewpoints. Note: I would like to express my deep gratitude to those people who were willing to share their views in my questionnires and interviews. ReferencesBarnlund, D.C. (1989).Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers. New York: Random House. Howell, W.S. (1982). The empathic communicator. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Minami, H. (1994). Nihonjinron [Japanese people]. Tokyo: Iwanami. Morimoto, T. (1991). Nihongo nehori hahori [Details of the Japanese language]. Tokyo: Shinchosha. Nakane, C. (1967). Japanese Society. Tokyo: Kodansha. Ruben, B.D., & Kealey, D.J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47. Singer, M.R. (1987). Intercultural communication. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Spitzberg, B.H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In C.H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication. (pp.67-105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Yamamoto, S. (1981). Joshiki no kenkyu [Comments on common sense]. Tokyo: Nihonkeizai Shinbunsha.Appendix
| |
