How to Write very wellVery well written
How come some of us who can write very well can't talk well at all?
There' re mental and neural causes. Others have already raised some psycological theories. In neurology, there are two different ways of communicating and communicating in the human mind. As you write, words are called up (long-term memory), phrases are formed (grammar, cognitive) and written or typed (gross motomotor skills). Feed-back loop: See your own font on the paper/computer monitor (visual).
Talking means remembering words (long-term memory), creating phrases (grammar, cognitive) and creating sounds (language). Acoustic feedback loop: Listen to your own sounds and language (auditive) and see others' reactions (visual). When you incorporate conversational conversations into talking, it becomes even more complex because you have to listen (auditive), interpret (interpretation), think about how you react (working memories and cognitive) and then talk (above way).
In some individuals, psychologic factors can influence one of these factors. If, for example, humans are afraid or anxious, the fight-flight-frost mechanisms are activated, which hinder their thinking aptitude. These fears can only occur when talking, but not when typing. In neurological terms, certain parts of these areas may be debilitated or injured by bodily injury (e.g. automobile accident) or mental injury (e.g. abuse).
Plus, if you write, you can erase and re-write. This error will not appear on the definitive version. A good writer does not necessarily have to be good at talking.
It is no secret why our undergraduates can' t write very well - Top Performer
They were all university leavers. We' re often dissapointed by candidates' suboptimal typing skills for job offers in our organisation. A lot of candidates come from very good universities. A lot of them are very impoverished authors. Your inability to write does not bode well. If we look at what they have penned, the rationale of the story is often very difficult to find.
Apparently, their incapacity to write is a silent testament to their incapacity to think. Will Fitzhugh points out that high schools seldom have to study whole novels and are almost never asked to study whole non-fiction books. I' m not aware of any good authors who aren't also good people.
In a nutshell, high schools are hardly asked to write anything of significant length. For in this era of responsibility they are not checked for their literacy. There' s only one way we can find out whether a pupil can write an extensive research project by asking him to write an extensive research project and take a close look at the results.
And if we don't ask them to make this over and over again because they are getting better and better, they won't be able to do it well. When this kind of serious letter is not written and - in our responsible surroundings - is not evaluated, then it will not be-learnt.
Oh, sure, we have typing proficiency testing for college-bound undergraduates, but they're not asking the postgraduate to make something like what we asked our contestants to do. You ask a learner to select a term or sentence from a dropdown to fill in the space in a part.
That'?s not a letter. While PARCC and Smarter Balance Assessment have made advances in more effective evaluation of our students' literacy abilities, many states are taking active moves away from these kinds of assessmentof work. And, of course, it is not a test of a student's capacity to write a well-founded, fact-based, 10- or 20-page research work.
And we love to make long listings of things we can offer to 21. However, the capacity to write well and think critical is always at the top of the agenda, both because so much work is required for these abilities and because they are so basic to so many other types of coaching that we value.
It is therefore incredible that we are not building our syllabus on the premise that we will ask pupils to study sophisticated literature - not just parts of a book but whole volumes - and then ask them to write extensively and in detail about what they have studied, explained, analysed, synthesised and summarised, with understanding and storytelling skills that demonstrate their capacity to think clearly.
It'?s a trade. If we don't ask our pupils to write a great deal and write well, how on Earth are they supposed to get to do it? Of course, the reasons why they are not asked to write much is that their capacity to write an extensive work is not put to the test.
Why, in this era of responsibility, when we are judging our schoolteachers on how well their pupils do the test, would we want their pupils to write well if we did not test their capacity to write a good work, for 10 to 20 pages? In our own research we know that a large part of our fellows do not allocate it to their student because their student cannot write and the professor does not consider himself a schoolteacher.
It' s no wonder that it' s so difficult for an employer like us to find people with good typing aptitudes. I wonder what would come of a state one of these days announcing that it would reorganise its system of accounts and that half of a teacher's assessment would from now on be dependent on the marks of its pupils on long research in the field of study studied by these professors, say, for at least 15 pages at the high schools or so?
You could tell them that this mark depends on the way the proofs were presented and classified, the extent of the proofs presented, the level of analytic skills presented in the paper, the rationale and persuasive power of the arguments made, and so on. I' m not arguing that we should do this, but just making the point that if we really did care about our students' capability to think and write well, we would often allocate considerable amounts of paperwork, criticize those documents efficiently and await students to write well long before they leave high schools.
It' s difficult to come to a conclusive opinion on this point, except that we just don' t really give a damn whether our pupils can write or not, when we assess what is allocated to them, what is required of them, what lessons we provide to pupils, how we assess their work, how we organise our accounting system or our grammar schools graduation standards.
So can we expect our pupils to be able to think clearly and write well? By the way, I said above that typing is a handicraft and the best way to learn it is to train with an author, in this case an experienced one. So if our pupils want to be good authors, they must have their work criticised in detail by good authors themselves.
However, I also said at the beginning of this blogs that we and many other places to work have a very tough timeframe to hire anyone who is a good author, even alumni from top colleges and research training institutes. Most of our instructors do not come from our major colleges, but from institutes that send their pupils to secondary education from the lower half of the population.
And if there is no justification for believing that the alumni of the major institutes are themselves good authors, what would lead us to believe that the alumni of the less discerning institutes are better authors? And if we do not ask those who want to become a teacher to be very good authors themselves, why should we be expecting our teacher to be good literary masters?
In fact, we should require our lecturers to write their own 20-page works that analyse and summarise a literary subject in their subject area. Let us ask them to make a one-page abstract of what they get to see, what is complex and what is not.
We' re not serious about educating pupils to think and write well, and we're not serious about recruiting the kind of teacher who has the necessary abilities to educate our pupils to think and write well. Undoubtedly, we are fortunate to have many of our instructors who know how to write and write in a critical way and who try hard enough to hand these abilities on to their pupils.
However, if these key competencies were really important to us, we would make very big changes in the syllabus, require much more literacy of full books and non-fiction, ask our pupils much more often to write much longer work, change our accounting system to mirror these prioritisation, and last but not least we would make sure that our own teaching staff are very good authors.
It is doubtful that our high schools students will write less well than before.