Some Thoughts on Tannen's Classroom Strategies

Deborah Tannen’s article, “Teacher’s Classroom Strategies Should Recognise
that Men and Women Use Language Differently”, clearly targets teachers and
educators at the tertiary level. Through her article she aims to highlight
the cultural differences between males and females that result in
differing conversational styles, She then uses this to explain how the
resulting classroom dynamics require teachers to rethink the default way
of teaching and assessment, which she believes puts women at a
disadvantage.

What is evident from Tannen’s work is the pains she takes to engage her
intended audience. She seeks to challenge traditional thinking on
classroom strategies, in a conciliatory manner as opposed to a critical
one. Through personal anecdotes and an informal tone, she tries to related
to the teacher’s experience, reaching out to them by drawing upon all to
familiar classroom situations. This is an effective approach, as a more
relatable style lowers the guard of the audience and makes them more
receptive to ideas, than if the author took a harsher position.

However, if more discerning, the reader may find that her conclusions rely
overly on personal anecdotes and observations. This does not always make
for a compelling case. In her article, Tannen mentions that women tend to
use personal anecdotes and a softer style more than men. While she tries
to argue for styles that cater to diversity, she writes in an extremely
‘feminine’ way that may not necessarily cater to the stylistic needs of
her male audience, who in fact would form a significant majority of her
overall target group. Robin Lakoff argues in Language and Woman’s Place,
that the feminine language is taken less seriously in the ‘real’, male
dominated world. If so, then Tannen’s stylistic approach may not have the
desired effect.

The use of anecdotes as a point of relation with the reader does not mean
that her claims are well supported. Cameron, in The Myth of Mars and Venus
makes an interesting point on how selective and inaccurate information is
convincing to the reader simply because relatable examples play into the
tendency of the human to rely on stereotypes. It is easier to accept what
is ‘expected’ than to challenge it. Perhaps the problem with personal
anecdotes is that they can be tailored more easily to fit the desired
argument, but are not necessarily well supported or thought through.

She paints clear gender stereotypes. There is a constant sense that she
sees women as serious and emotional, while boys as playful and insulting.
While Tannen views gender differences to be the result of social
arrangements, her reliance on such stereotypes and her suggestions for
classroom strategies only serve to keep up the inequality that has led to
these differences in the same place.

Also, early in the article, she acknowledges regional, ethnic and class
backgrounds as other factors that affect conversational styles.
Unfortunately, she does not seem to consider these factors as much in her
concluding analysis.

Tannen’s description of her class experiment sees her drawing conclusions
without adequately exploring the possibilities presented in the case
study. For example, she focuses mainly on the all-women group responses
and some general observations, without exploring the dynamics of the
all-male group or the conversational style groups.

Overall, I found that while Tannen’s approach was designed to be
strategic, it didn't quite meet the mark. I also did not find that her
examples and her manner of examining them sufficient grounding for her
arguments.