I found Harvey Daniels’s chapter on letter exchanges between teachers and students to be extremely and surprisingly thought-provoking. It’s really such a simple idea, yet as Daniels cautions, it requires a lot of time and dedication. Nevertheless, Daniels provides a number of examples and explanations that demonstrate just how powerful a strategy letter writing and correspondence could really be.
From what I gathered from Daniels’s argument, the benefits of letter exchange for both teachers and students is twofold.
This form of communication between student and teacher is important for several academic-related reasons. First, it has the potential to teach what strong writing should look like. While it’s important that teachers use less formal, and therefore less distant, language to effectively communicate to their students through their notes, their writing style will ultimately convey to the students what forms of writing are appropriate within an academic setting/correspondence. Second, letter exchanges provide a means by which students could discuss what they understand, don’t understand, like or dislike about the content they are learning. While this shouldn’t replace extra face-to-face help from the teacher, this strategy would certainly illuminate the problems that individual students–or perhaps a group of them–may have in the classroom, thus making it possible for teachers to take further measures to ensure that their students are fully grasping what they need to know.
I guess that in high school, some of my teachers presented me with opportunities for written communication with them via weekly journals. But the emphasis was based primarily on the week’s content and not so much on open-ended musings. Furthermore, the teachers would clearly read through my entries–as I could tell from their markings–but would not provide constructive or particularly valuable comments. I didn’t find this particularly noteworthy then, but I can now see how my teachers may have missed an opportunity to develop a more academically and personally fulfilling relationship with my peers and myself.
That being said, what I found to be Daniels’s most compelling argument for the note-exchanging process is the more personal implication of letter correspondence: the connection that is allowed to develop between a teacher and his/her students. This form of communication allows for personal attention that can enhance a student’s–particularly a shy student’s–level of comfort and confidence. This would be especially important for ELL students who find it difficult to find a voice in the classroom!
Of course, this whole process requires a ton of time and dedication on the part of the teacher. And reading and writing letters will be especially hard when you’re teaching up to five classes a day. Unless an efficient system could be worked out, letter-writing could become extremely taxing. But it is of the utmost importance for teachers to know who they are teaching, what strengths and weaknesses could be focused upon, and what personal issues may require further attention. Daniels concludes with a powerful thought: “Could any teaching act ever be more important” than connecting with a kid who’s in trouble?
