Technology is not a Scapegoat: Lessons from an informative speech format (C3, W7, S2)

The format for an introduction in an informative speech in communication courses is as follows: an attention gainer first, followed by a topic reveal, credibility, and then a preview of what will be covered. 

The idea is that the audience needs to become engaged, understand what will be taught, trust the speaker, and then conceptualize what will be learned by the end of the speech.

Let's look at the reading for this week through this filter:

Attention gainer:  Students have too many attention gainers.  Cool design in a website makes initial impressions good and students are likely to engage.  Principals who believe that Ipads for teaching Mandarin are seeking attention gainers. 

Topic Reveal:  In designing a site, this allows students to clearly understand what can be done and why they are there. Not revealing exactly what will be covered hurts the presentation.

Credibility:  Sometimes speakers come in with credibility (initial credibility), other times they earn it (derived credibility), and the audience is left with an impression when they leave (terminal credibility).  In sites with initial credibility (Google), students immediately engage and trust the results.  This can lead to what the text calls "Google Gullibility."  Students can also start with the trust in a name, but when the experience is confusing, the derived credibility is negatively effected.  Using existing interface design is a good way to build off of initial credibility.

Preview of Main Points:  As the reading suggests, our students are very goal oriented.  They want to understand what the content they are engaging will do for them, both in the short term and the long term.  There is significant writing discussing how students lack the discipline to control their focus in the reading for this week, but there are also great examples of students maintaining focus on editing a video for 8+ hours to complete a project.  In my opinion, this example appears to be significant and sustained focus.  It could be that our students have become so goal oriented that reading Vonnegut doesn't have any context for real world application.  This should be the job of the teacher to help the student understand the relevance. I question the assumption that students lack stamina. 

My perspective is that students lack the ability to contextualize assignments and make choices to interact with stimuli that appears more relevant.  The modern student brain isn't broken from technology.  This type of blame is a fear tactic that sells things and provides a nameless and faceless scapegoat.

The goal shouldn't be to completely meet students where they are (Buy me an iPad!  Maybe then I'll learn Mandarin!), but rather provide a vision that is more compelling than Facebook's content shallow attention gainers.

 

Comments

[Llane]

I guess one question is the extent to which a general education should be concerned about immediate real-world application. Quite a bit of what we teach may not have that right-now context, but create knowledge (hopefully deep knowledge) that is more useful down the line.

Is it likely that the technological "solution" of buying an iPad to motivate the learning of Mandarin will further popularize the idea that all learning must somehow have current obvious relevance? And is this a good thing?

[Erobertson]

Lisa,
Thanks for the comment! I completely agree with you that much of general education doesn't immediately impact the lives of our students. I think it is difficult for those starting college to conceptualize "building a foundation," and it is also challenging to make this more appealing than Facebook.

I guess my thought is...did students have any desire or need to learn Mandarin? It seems like the argument is...hey, use the iPad as bait, and then once they are here, they will finally understand the true joys of leaning Mandarin. I don't see this as the ideal use of technology or a sustainable strategy.

So...the opposite of relevant education is irrelevant education.

I think somewhere in the middle is relevant education disguised (to students) as irrelevant education. Teachers, not iPads, are responsible for helping students understand why they need to know the things being taught.

Public speaking is a pretty easy class to explain in terms of relevance. What are some strategies used in other disciplines? Do these change in an online environment?

*disclaimer* I have nothing against Mandarin :o)

[Laura Paciorek]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. One thing that comes to mind is that I do a lot of (or quite a few) "options" in my classes both online and face-to-face. I often have options for discussion posts, options for assignments, and sometimes other kinds of options. Sometimes there's no option because it doesn't make sense to have options. However, I try to think of some options, especially for more high-stakes assignments. There are other ways to deal with relevance, but this is just one thing that came to mind as I read your post. I find that usually students are excited about their work because they are doing something that is relevant to them (and I can still insure they know what they have to know about the content no matter what option they choose). Does this idea fit with your discussion? It makes grading fun for me, too, since there's variety.