Communicative preference: evolving or revolving?

This section contends that, although advancements in digital technologies to 2010 have extended young people’s perceptions of the traditional definitions of speaking and listening, their level of comfort when negotiating in the mediated academic/social technological environment remains open to question. How confident and comfortable are adolescents when using this new mode of communication? Given the emphasis on the visual identified in Chapter One and the characteristics of Gen Z learners, to what extent did this impact on traditional communication modes, both receptive and expressive? Prior to the Internet era, the traditional model of communication was as much verbal as the other forms, as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 A model of verbal communication (Davis, 1973, p.68)

Davis and Taft (1976) argued that there are distinct differences in acquiring and using speaking and writing skills. For example, the act of writing can be a solitary experience with minimal time pressure. Feedback (if any) is often delayed, and when received can be considered in private. In contrast, speaking occurs mostly in a public setting; it requires a quick assessment (if participating in a conversation), with the speaker receiving instant feedback (both verbal and non-verbal cues). While some find instant feedback a positive thing, others may recoil from engagement because of it. Moreover, speaking is less constrained by rules than writing. Finally, speaking is mostly unrecorded and dissipates as soon as it is spoken, whereas writing by its nature is permanent and can be retrieved at a later time.

Earlier, Davis (1973) developed and applied an inventory to determine subjects’ preferred communication modes, finding that people with high-quality oral expression tended to prefer speaking over writing and were more social. However, there was a bias for people who were more social to prefer speaking, probably due to their level of confidence, social norms and expectations. Davis and Taft (1976) posited two reasons for the correlation between high-quality oral expression and a preference for speaking. Firstly, people who

are good at something naturally prefer it. Secondly, in the adolescent cohort they studied, it was generally more acceptable to speak.

Wilson and Wilson (1977) linked drawing and language development, suggesting that children learn to draw in much the same way as they learn to speak and write. They claimed that in both cases, imitation of the models provided by others facilitates the learning:

In the process of learning to speak, to use verbal signs, the word ‘cloud’ (or indeed any other word) is learned through listening to others use the word – the sign – and then imitating the sounds heard, perhaps while also pointing to the referent – the cloud. Learning to draw configurational signs is much more like learning to use verbal signs than is generally thought to be the case. Just as it is with the learning of verbal signs, so it is with the making of configurational signs; through no amount of looking at clouds will one learn to draw clouds. (Wilson & Wilson, 1977, p. 6).

Taking a similar line, Graham (1982) worked with 240 children from grades three to six in two Melbourne schools to establish their preferences for writing or drawing. The results indicated that the younger cohort preferred drawing more than the grade six students. In addition, there was a greater difference between the subjects’ performance levels in writing and drawing in the lower grades.

Studies of listening since 1999 suggest that the communicative landscape has changed dramatically and continues to do so. Bohlken (1999) found that his college (university) students spent 53 per cent of their total communication time listening and 22 per cent speaking. Davis (2001) noted that university students spent 45 per cent of their time listening and 31 per cent speaking. By 2009, however, Janusik and Wolvin (2009) reported that, while speaking face-to-face and listening remained the dominant communication preference, students were starting to replace it with online activities such as the Internet or e-mail. Redpath’s (2010) study built upon Janusik and Wolvin’s (2009) findings by looking at data usage on digital devices to assess their impacts upon higher education students. Redpath (2010) posited that students identified as ‘multimodal’ listeners, meaning that they engaged in many different modes of listening depending on

the circumstances of the social situation. Redpath’s empirical results confirmed this supposition, demonstrating patterns of listening characterised by mediated listening, multitasking and face-to-face communication. These studies suggest that the communicative terrain of the future will be infinitely more complex and fluid, a world away from the communication silos scoped in pre-Internet research studies. Figure 2.2 is the researcher’s attempt to illustrate some of this complexity in the pre-Internet age.

Figure 2.2 Major communicative modes

Oracy, literacy and visuacy are three key communication modalities with which we communicate or express ourselves to others. However, since the emergence of new media technology, visuacy has increased in importance, arguably altering the dynamics of young peoples’ interactions, especially given the interdependence between the three

communicative modes. Some of this interdependence and divergence in the Internet era is presented in Table 2.1. All of these technology-assisted communication tools were operational during the benchmark data collection period.

Table 2.1 Exemplars of technology-assisted communication tools and their original primary

purposes TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTED COMMUNICATION TOOLS

ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIVE MODES

Listening Speaking Reading Writing Hand Technologies

Viewing

Mobile phone texting   

Blogging    Twitter    WhatsApp    E-mail    Tumblr     YouTube     MySpace    Facebook    Instagram    Pinterest    Skype    

Technology-assisted communication tools evolve over time to facilitate other communicative modes, for example, the visual and audio aspects of self-expression. The dominant communicative modes are writing, reading and viewing; few of the tools listed in Table 2.1 use listening or speaking, and none use hand technologies. However, Redpath and Davis (2013) found that “texts/SMS [short message service] simulate speech and listening – and are deliberatively perceived as such by both senders and recipients” (p. 165). Therefore, arguably, texting reflects speech and hence involves listening.

Although it is evident from pre-Internet studies that students have a preference for speaking and listening, the functionality of technology-assisted communication tools encourages more writing (texting) and visual stimulus (reading and viewing), but less speaking. Therefore, listening becomes a complex merger of contexts, activities and behaviour. The question is, how comfortable or constrained were students in 2011 when SNSs were starting to appear?