I am trying my best to be technologically savvy, but it's going rather slowly. I am writing on my new MacBook Air, which is still a complete mystery to me.
What to do? Achievable goals, as JK Rowling says. Let's see: goal one: Set up my boyfriend's walk man. That will involve downloading music. Good start.
I'd like to try and find out something small about technology and to write everyday. If you haven't noticed, I'm a damn good writer.
Ready, set, go. And, by the way, Happy Birthday. Without these two things I'm running on empty.
Friday, October 25, 2013
A new quarter has just begun and one, ongoing challenge is how to teach argument. One colleague is continually stressing premise / opposition / evidence. I need to do the same. I need a refreshed approach, though the material in The Speaker's Compact Handbook is good. I also want to teach reasoning and logic in a way that is germane to students, not just definitions from classical rhetoric. I think that I had a good approach a few years ago. When teaching a 300-level argument course, I approached different forms of argument as ways of making sense of the world, conveying to students as if they were traveling in a region country where very little English was spoken -- how do they piece together their environment so that it makes sense to them? These are important elements of rhetoric that a student in a 100 level college course should leave knowing. Yes, it's in every text book, but how do I teach it?
How do I teach reasoning, logic, and argument? The old ways don't seem sufficient anymore. In this 100 level oral communication class, I need to teach them to at least recognize these elements of rhetoric.
Can I get away from the things that I have been teaching and improve / expand or narrow? students need to learn the basics of logic and how to form an argument and how to enact an argument. Is it that important to study inductive and deductive logic? Perhaps I could teach that under another umbrella -- the umbrella of of how arguments are linked and how they build momentum to a conclusion.
What I discovered yesterday -- mid class, of course -- is that I don't have to reserve teaching reasoning to a unit (which usually comes between assigning the persuasive speech and students' first, actual / realistic glimpse of the end of the quarter -- mesmerizing). I realized that I can teach reasoning in the way that I introduce my sample outlines for the informative, and yes, perhaps even the seemingly innocent and fun / non-academic "introductory speech." I write outlines in a deductive fashion. Ah ha! By recognizing that, I open up the opportunity to / give myself the chance to make the teaching of that outline structure, parts of which I've become very invested in, of course, some academic depth, other than "good writing-for-speaking").
But, before going further, I don't want to ignore that either. In my haphazard mid-term conference meetings, I've been stressing to those best students who attend their mid-term conferences, the connection between clear thinking, writing, and speaking. If the outline isn't written clearly, delivering the speech will be a guaranteed challenge. Clear thinking = clear writing = clear speaking. And no, it doesn't happen immediately. The thinking / writing part are a process. The speaking can and should lead back to the beginning and editing. Circular.
How do I teach reasoning, logic, and argument? The old ways don't seem sufficient anymore. In this 100 level oral communication class, I need to teach them to at least recognize these elements of rhetoric.
Can I get away from the things that I have been teaching and improve / expand or narrow? students need to learn the basics of logic and how to form an argument and how to enact an argument. Is it that important to study inductive and deductive logic? Perhaps I could teach that under another umbrella -- the umbrella of of how arguments are linked and how they build momentum to a conclusion.
What I discovered yesterday -- mid class, of course -- is that I don't have to reserve teaching reasoning to a unit (which usually comes between assigning the persuasive speech and students' first, actual / realistic glimpse of the end of the quarter -- mesmerizing). I realized that I can teach reasoning in the way that I introduce my sample outlines for the informative, and yes, perhaps even the seemingly innocent and fun / non-academic "introductory speech." I write outlines in a deductive fashion. Ah ha! By recognizing that, I open up the opportunity to / give myself the chance to make the teaching of that outline structure, parts of which I've become very invested in, of course, some academic depth, other than "good writing-for-speaking").
But, before going further, I don't want to ignore that either. In my haphazard mid-term conference meetings, I've been stressing to those best students who attend their mid-term conferences, the connection between clear thinking, writing, and speaking. If the outline isn't written clearly, delivering the speech will be a guaranteed challenge. Clear thinking = clear writing = clear speaking. And no, it doesn't happen immediately. The thinking / writing part are a process. The speaking can and should lead back to the beginning and editing. Circular.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Bias
This quarter I have amassed the courage to talk about bias. That begs the question, what is bias? Bias, in my mind, is one of those slippery things that we should all talk about, but we don't, because it begs other questions such as personal bias, journalistic bias, etc. This is, in other words, hard stuff. Then it leads to the even more difficult question of ... political bias.
I have heard my colleagues engage in journalistic bias: "I'm using this NYT for a coaster; at least it's good for something"-- this, from a philosophy professor. Students, as well, have complained about the bias of the Times. This is a hard thing to combat. Where do I start?
Bias is a difficult thing to address. My definition of bias is a investment in a position that has the potential to result in personal gain -- political, financial, social, or otherwise. We also have personal bias, in the sense that we all have our filters from family, background, religion, eduction, which often amounts to, not just predilections, but to the positions that we take on issues, particularly the controversial ones. Is that bias, or simply perspective?
And, what is wrong with bias? Is bias at least something that we should acknowledge, or is it also something that we should work to unravel, i.e. defend, and then be open minded about, to be available to change?
All part of the teaching. I find that I can't legitimately teach informative speaking without addressing the concept of bias. Just like the continuum between informative and persuasive speaking, there is a continuum between our personal perspectives that infuse, "simply" informing, and the bias that we reveal in persuasive positions.
Teaching is calling me now, to stacks of papers. The bias conversation must be continued.
I have heard my colleagues engage in journalistic bias: "I'm using this NYT for a coaster; at least it's good for something"-- this, from a philosophy professor. Students, as well, have complained about the bias of the Times. This is a hard thing to combat. Where do I start?
Bias is a difficult thing to address. My definition of bias is a investment in a position that has the potential to result in personal gain -- political, financial, social, or otherwise. We also have personal bias, in the sense that we all have our filters from family, background, religion, eduction, which often amounts to, not just predilections, but to the positions that we take on issues, particularly the controversial ones. Is that bias, or simply perspective?
And, what is wrong with bias? Is bias at least something that we should acknowledge, or is it also something that we should work to unravel, i.e. defend, and then be open minded about, to be available to change?
All part of the teaching. I find that I can't legitimately teach informative speaking without addressing the concept of bias. Just like the continuum between informative and persuasive speaking, there is a continuum between our personal perspectives that infuse, "simply" informing, and the bias that we reveal in persuasive positions.
Teaching is calling me now, to stacks of papers. The bias conversation must be continued.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
At this time I'm watching the Democratic National Convention. There are so many lessons from these speakers, but I don't want to appear -- I guess too -- biased.
Here is a list of some of the attributes / qualities that I've heard in the DMC speeches:
Clinton, memorably, talked about the simple idea that Barack Obama, as a leader, didn't hold grudges from the 2008 election, but instead invited those who most would consider his adversaries, to join in his administration. Biden was his competitor in the primaries but, as vice-president, he entrusted Biden to oversee the end of the Iraq war and run the recovery act; he appointed Republican secretaries of defense, and "even appointed Hillary." This demonstration of leadership without being (mis-)guided by partisanship and divisiveness is a standard of leadership that merits the attention of college students, regardless of political leaning (many, I've found, at the art school where I teach, have no leaning). Obama's actions are plain ol' "good sportsmanship" --an attitude of interaction that is a healthy part of any competition from video games to golf -- as well as plain old cooperation, not just in rhetoric, but in the practices of leadership.
Here is a list of some of the attributes / qualities that I've heard in the DMC speeches:
- Clinton: inclusiveness, civility, dialogue
- Biden: testimony, narrative, signposting, vocal volume control
- Maddox: Creating connections and conversations.
Clinton, memorably, talked about the simple idea that Barack Obama, as a leader, didn't hold grudges from the 2008 election, but instead invited those who most would consider his adversaries, to join in his administration. Biden was his competitor in the primaries but, as vice-president, he entrusted Biden to oversee the end of the Iraq war and run the recovery act; he appointed Republican secretaries of defense, and "even appointed Hillary." This demonstration of leadership without being (mis-)guided by partisanship and divisiveness is a standard of leadership that merits the attention of college students, regardless of political leaning (many, I've found, at the art school where I teach, have no leaning). Obama's actions are plain ol' "good sportsmanship" --an attitude of interaction that is a healthy part of any competition from video games to golf -- as well as plain old cooperation, not just in rhetoric, but in the practices of leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)