technology

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.

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.

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.  

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: inclusiveness, civility, dialogue
• Biden: testimony, narrative, signposting, vocal volume control
• Maddox:  Creating connections and conversations.

If I reviewed the speeches from the Republican National Convention, would I find the same qualities? I should try. I will try. 

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.

I am Craving a Big Boy

This quarter at SCAD I'm using the 4th Edition of The Speaker's Compact Handbook (Sprague, Stuart, and Bodary). I've also taken the plunge with their "bundled" package. Of course that means more money for students. I chose it because it is a way to record (most likely on their phones) and upload speeches via software that even I can figure out. I showed my boss the on-line tutorial. It had a 50's retro style that reminded me of an early commercial for Frisch's Big Boy (which, I just found out, was Cincinnati's first, year-round drive in, opening on Central Parkway in 1948).

 Somehow, somehow, this quarter, I'd like to teach more integrated concepts, as opposed to a set of information (which, most often in public speaking, is a set of skills). What are, for example, the broader, social-rhetorical ideas behind the classic concepts that we teach such as audience analysis? I feel guilty of the accusation leveled at our internet society:  lots of information, far less meaning. The above fact is an interesting piece of trivia about my hometown, for example. But it acquires a place, a meaning, when seen in the landscape of the era of drive in restaurants and the concomitant rise of individual car ownership, the sprawl of suburbs, and the new values of convenience, speed, and, independence. Business owners awakened to the new market of children. (And, I think that the drive-in era might have been a point when family entertainment and eating out merged.)  No, I don't have this social / history view of each of my city's fun facts -- I've been reading Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation. In fact, it's going to be required reading in my upcoming (eeek!!) speech class this quarter. It will give us something to chew on, as they say -- the ol', basis for in-class discussion and jumping off points, at least, for speech assignments. I'll let you know!

Before closing this morning I'd like to wish my wonderful friend Douglas Kaufman Happy Birthday. At present, he's the only follower of this blog. He's a huge support to me and a "diamond in the rough," as his mom, Ruth, described him.

Common Ground

Last time I proposed that public speaking is not a standard course at liberal arts schools (the top half or so of US News And World Report's approximately 150 National Liberal Arts Colleges). However, these schools clearly value public speaking and communication skills; presentation skills are often integrated into class assignments, part of a degree requirement, or an outcome in an academic programs. Thus, speech skills seem definitely expected, and do appear as a lower level learning outcome, but are rarely the basis of an entire course.  (This makes sense, in that it seems that these institutions see public speaking as a skill instead of an area of academic content.)

If public speaking skills are taught in an ancillary fashion at these schools, where and how does this take place?

One consistent home for teaching or reinforcing speech skills is the academic resource center -- the place where students go for tutoring or skills sessions, which could range from writing to time management. These centers are apt for working on speech because one-on-one tutoring is typically provided. Wellsley College is a prime example. Their Learning and Teaching Center provides public speaking tutors and, at one time, offered a class on public speaking during their wintersession. (They also had a Toastmaster's Club.) Another is Mt. Holyoke's Speaking, Arguing, and Writing (SAW) Center -- part of the Weissman Center for Leadership and the Liberal Arts, which also contains centers for Community Based Learning, ESL, and Teaching and Faculty Development Initiatives. The SAW Center features peer tutors and, although the website stresses writing, the peer tutors are also audiences for delivery and even filming of a speech. But SAW goes beyond a resource for speaking and writing; it is a student partner for developing  a critical argument, whether written or spoken. "SAW Peer Mentors welcome fellow MHC students who want to talk about their writing and speaking projects and grow as confident, critical, creative, and persuasive communicators." The SAW Center is of particular interest because it focuses not just on public speaking mechanics, but on the rhetorical aspect of communication. 

Hamilton College in Central New York, home for 1800 students, also provides a support center for speech:  The Oral Communication Center (OCC). The OCC offers the standard, one-on-one tutoring, as well as workshops and communication courses in "applied communication skills" (students get credit for taking it, but only a quarter of normal course credit). One interesting aspect of the OCC is the connection to Hamilton's writing mission. I've found that many colleges celebrate their commitment to writing, yet tuck speaking into a support role or a happy outcome of sorts. But Hamilton sees speech as integral to their writing-centered tradition because the tradition is based on clear and effective "writing and elocution." The word, "elocution" harks back to the history of rhetoric in academe, of the tie between dramatic performance and argument.Thus, speech at Hamilton seems not be writing's step-sister, but pivotal to the goals that the college says it's committed to: developing eloquent and effective critical thinkers and speakers. (Also, Hamilton is one of the few liberal arts colleges that I've found to offer a concentration in Communication).

I'll close this (rather lengthy) post with the more traditional speech center at Minnesota's Carleton College. The student-staffed "Speakeasy" is part of their Academic Support Center. Its purpose is to help students with "public speaking and comps talks." Thus, the center is partially designed to support student performance in a major assignment --  oral defense of their senior project or "comps." The Speakeasy coach holds office hours at two different locations or by appointment at a mutually convenient place. Their webpage banner is:

Come See Us for Free Coaching on Oral Communication Skills!

With no disrespect meant for the Speakeasy, their banner makes me think of communication as one of those niceties that's conspicuous only when absent or fundamentally lacking.  Hamilton's OCC, on the other hand, is a integrated into the mission of the school and, as such, has a broader, if not higher, purpose of enriching student abilities in argument and critical thinking, both written and oral. Mt. Holyoke's SAW Center is somewhere between the two as a traditional speech resource, but one that leans toward being a broader resource; it favors writing support but includes speaking as a form of argument (rhetoric).

                                               From Hamilton's OCC webpage

What is it about public speaking?

Public Speaking is a widely offered skills course at the college and university level, yet not among the course offerings at many of the most prestigious liberal arts schools. Why is that? Public speaking is one of the original seven liberal arts, under the rubric of rhetoric, and closely tied to two others -- logic and grammar. Its skills are fundamental to the goals of higher education (cogent presentation of ideas and information) and to enacting citizenship, community, and even  family. (Of course, if you're reading this blog, I probably don't have to convince you about the importance of enacting public speaking at the college level.)

This blog will explore questions that arise from the presence -- and absence -- of public speaking courses in higher education, more specifically the connections between public speaking and a liberal arts curriculum.

As an opening (and rather basic) premise, perhaps a standard public speaking class is too skills based for inclusion in the course offerings at elite liberal arts school--although the skills are clearly valued. When I looked up US News and World Report's first-ranked liberal arts college, Williams, I received one "hit" for public speaking in their "Online Catalog 2011-2012" (which is unusual -- other school websites that I've investigated typically yield many more). The mention is part of a description for "Museum Associates":

 "The Museum Associates Program of the Williams College Museum of Art provides students an opportunity to broaden their knowledge of art and art history, to learn about the field of museum education, and to develop valuable communication and public speaking skills while working with the public. The only academic requirement is the completion of ArtH 101-102."

Similarly, at other highly-ranked liberal arts schools, public speaking is an outcome (formal and informal) for academic programs, but often not a dedicated class. Bates College (#21) offered (the last time seemed to be 2009) Geology majors an "Arctic Workshop," founded in part to give graduate students "an opportunity to present their ongoing research, gain experience in public speaking, and obtain feedback from more senior researchers." Other schools cheerfully point to public speaking as part of a program experience. Bryn Mawr's (#25) May 2010 Alumnae Bulletin described a student's internship with the China Youth Climate Action Network:

Zhang founded a program to train 130 students and young professionals to deliver public talks that spread the message about climate change in their communities. The effort involved soliciting funding, selecting and training speakers, and obtaining media coverage.

It’s no surprise the internship greatly improved her skills in a number of areas, including public speaking and event organizing. 

In addition to academic programs, public speaking is often linked to career skills, which I'll explore in a future entry, and to broader, capstone-type goals. At my alma mater, Kenyon College (#33), public speaking is one of the goals for the Senior Exercise: "Develop and demonstrate speaking ability--through public presentations, roundtable discussions or symposia with peers, or through oral exams, etc."   

My starting questions for this blog, then, will be: How do liberal arts institutions convey this clearly-valued skill?  Other questions, and hopefully a few answers, to follow.