English Journal

I generally feel comfortable as a communicator, especially in conversations centred on an idea or a problem. I like working through questions such as why a policy failed, whether a technical choice is actually efficient, or what evidence would change someone’s mind. I am used to fields where claims need to hold up under testing. That habit carries into conversation. I tend to ask what the mechanism is, what the trade-off is, and whether the conclusion follows from the information we actually have.

The subjects I return to most are economics, politics, and the overlap between science or engineering and public policy. I enjoy technical work in biotechnology and engineering, but I also care about the incentives around that work: who gets access to a technology, how a country decides what to fund, and why a seemingly good reform does or does not survive. In conversations with friends and strangers, I can spend a long time discussing economic development, industrial policy, or whether a proposed solution is practical outside a classroom model.

My strongest communication habits are proposing, informing, challenging, and building on an existing idea. I am usually willing to make an argument instead of just hinting at one. I also enjoy finding the point where two people agree and using it as a starting point for a more useful disagreement. In a technical setting, that can save time. It is better to identify a weak assumption early than to build an entire project around it.

The same habits can create problems. I sometimes move too quickly from hearing a claim to testing it. In other words, I begin drafting a rebuttal before I have fully understood what the other person means. I can also be too certain too early. In research, a result is not trustworthy because it sounds plausible; it needs to be checked against the method, the data, and the alternatives. I should apply the same standard to things I say in conversation.

The three skills I most want to improve are active listening, checking, and including. Active listening would help me focus on the full argument before responding to it. Checking would make me ask, “Is this what you mean?” before treating my interpretation as correct. Including would make me more aware of quieter people in a group. A conversation is not stronger just because the loudest people have reached a conclusion. It is stronger when more of the available information has made it into the room.

I want to stay direct while becoming more precise. Good communication, like good engineering, depends on understanding the system well enough to make the right intervention.

Our group worked well on the presentation about seven tips for making a conversation. I already knew Seraphina from Grade 7, which made it easy to communicate and get started. My other group member, Wei Chen, worked very hard throughout the project. Everyone stayed focused, finished their assigned part quickly, and kept distractions to a minimum.

Because we worked efficiently, we had time to put the different parts together and make sure the presentation covered the topic clearly. We did not need much joking around to keep the group engaged; we were able to stay focused on the work and move through our tasks. That was our main strength as a group.

The topic itself seemed straightforward at first. Seven tips for making a conversation are ideas most people have heard before, such as asking questions and listening. As we prepared, I started thinking more about why these habits can be difficult to use consistently. Our presentation could make familiar advice more useful by explaining when and why each tip helps in a real conversation.

The dry run was useful because it showed us the difference between having good material and presenting it as a group. Our presentation skills were generally strong. We knew the information, spoke clearly, and had a structure that made sense. The feedback confirmed that the content was working.

The main issue was visual consistency. Our slides did not all look like they belonged to the same presentation. Some had different aesthetics, amounts of text, or approaches to visuals. Before the final presentation, we need to make the deck more uniform so the audience is not distracted by the change in style from one speaker to the next.

We also need cleaner handoffs between speakers. Each handoff needs to explain how one point leads to the next, and we need to rehearse those transitions. That will make the group sound more coordinated and make the argument easier to follow.

The other group we watched, Fei, Aditi, Yara, and Pravica, had some strong individual speakers but did not appear fully prepared as a group. Aditi and Yara stood out because they communicated their points clearly and kept the presentation moving. Pravica also contributed well and seemed prepared to speak about the material.

The unevenness came from preparation and participation. Fei did not seem to have the same level of readiness or contribution as the others, which made the group feel less balanced. Their ideas had potential, but the delivery needed more rehearsal, clearer transitions, and a stronger shared understanding of who was responsible for each part. The dry run made me realize that a strong group presentation has connected thinking, shared responsibility, and clear transitions between speakers.

The most useful ideas from the presentations can be reduced to three principles: clarity, attention, and restraint.

• First, clarity.

  A speaker needs to know what the audience should remember when the presentation ends. The presentations that worked best had a visible structure: they introduced a problem, explained it with an example, and returned to a conclusion. When a group had too many disconnected points, even good information became difficult to retain.

• Second, attention.

  Eye contact, pace, tone, and transitions decide whether the audience stays with the speaker long enough to understand the point. This matters in ordinary conversation as much as in a presentation. When someone feels that you are waiting to speak, the conversation becomes less useful immediately.

• Third, restraint.

  Several groups gave strong advice, but some tried to give too much of it. Less is often more. In engineering, a solution can fail because it has unnecessary complexity. Communication has a similar problem. If an explanation needs ten separate tips, the audience may leave remembering none of them. A good communicator chooses the most important idea, explains it well, and leaves space for questions.

The overall lesson is that effective communication requires confidence, clarity, and an understanding of what another person needs in order to follow your thinking. Precision makes an idea easier to use.

At the beginning of The Present, I interpreted the boy as rude and disengaged. He ignores his mother, seems uninterested in the gift she brings him, and treats the dog with annoyance. I assumed that he was choosing to stay inside, play video games, and avoid the world. My immediate sympathy was with his mother, who appeared to be trying to help him without forcing him.

The ending changes that interpretation. When the boy stands up, the film reveals that he also has a physical disability. This does not make his treatment of the dog acceptable, but it explains why he reacts so strongly to the dog’s disability. The dog becomes a reflection of something he does not want to face in himself.

The scene where the dog goes after the ball is especially important. The boy throws it where the dog will have difficulty reaching it, almost as if he expects the dog to give up. The dog persists. That changes the meaning of the scene. Its energy challenges the boy’s belief that limitation has to become withdrawal.

My own values shaped my first reaction. I focused on the mother because I found the boy’s disrespect difficult to accept. Someone with a different experience might focus first on the boy’s frustration, on the dog’s resilience, or on the difficulty of parenting a child who is struggling. The film works because it makes the viewer notice how quickly they create a story from limited evidence.

I think the mother’s approach is effective because she gives the boy an opportunity for empathy. She cannot make him change his attitude, though she can introduce a relationship that makes change possible. By the end, the boy changes because he sees another living thing respond to difficulty differently than he does.

The film’s main point, for me, is that a person’s visible behaviour rarely tells the whole story. My first interpretation was quick and confident, but incomplete. The ending forced me to reconsider not only the boy, but the assumptions I had brought to the film.