Monthly Archive for November, 2008

Continuously Communicating

Imagine a nanny texting her young ward in the next room to ask, “Juice or Milk?” Imagine a young girl awakened in the middle of the night by her father’s video-chat invitation from Mumbai. Imagine a young man so isolated that the idea of being in the same city as his girlfriend is considered too much commitment. Shocked yet?

Probably not. Still, these are some of the tidbits from our wacky wired world that take center stage in Continuous City, a recent multimedia piece at the Brooklyn Academy of Music created by the tech-savvy Builder’s Association. According to its marketing tagline, the play “explores our accelerated relationships in a sprawling multimedia world.” J.V. (Rizwan Mirza) is an internet entrepreneur trying to strike it big with a new social networking tool, XUBU, by tapping into markets in expanding cities around the globe. He has enlisted Mike (Harry Sinclair), an urban anthropologist, to trot from metropolis to metropolis, attempting to drum up financial and popular support for this revolutionary (and potentially lucrative) new tool. At home in the states, Mike’s daughter Sam (Olivia Timothee) grows distant and depressed while her nanny Deb (Moe Angelos) works on her new video-blog. Poor Mike begins unraveling as the stress of travel and distance from Sam begins to gnaw away at his faith in the power of the product. (Perhaps not surprisingly, the director’s note mentions both Italo Calvino’s “Invisible Cities” and Mike Davis’ “Slum Cities” as inspirations for the piece.) Here’s the trailer:

YouTube Preview Image

In theory, there seemed to be a lot in this performance that would be of interest to students of communication, which is why I brought my COM 1010 class to see it. And the play earnestly tries to raise questions about our faith in digital communication (particularly in connecting “global cities”) and its limits. There are two conventional stage spaces (depicting the Xubu office space as well as Sam’s bedroom), and, thanks to a dizzying array of video screens, we jump between cities with a pace that would probably wear out even Bill Clinton.

Within this media mess, some genuinely fun innovating goes down: J.V.’s videochats with his family are actually live and unrehearsed videochats with the actor’s family members, and the video blogging done by Deb changes with every city the show tours. Perhaps coolest of all, there’s a phony website for Xubu.cc where anyone can record a message that might be used in the show as an example of Xubu.

My students were unexcited by the prospect of recording their own Xubu video messages, and they claimed to be confused by the frenetic non-linearity of the performance. They seemed to be more attracted to the slickness of its screens than anything else, and at one point during the show I turned around to find two of them sharing i-pod buds; a strange confirmation that perhaps some of the themes of the play both resonated and didn’t.

It is true that, as my friend put it, some of the conceits behind Continuous City felt a tad cliché (“We can’t communicate! Or remember our daughter’s birthday!”), even while it would seem that this is a company on the cutting edge of exploring the uses of this technology in performance. All of the miscommunication seemed to fudge up the rhythm of the dialogue in a way that was more distracting than anything else— the frustration that motivates many of us to just hang up on someone when we have a really bad connection is the way I would explain the emotional response that the play elicited in me. As an audience member, watching other people unsuccessfully multitask or attempt to navigate the impossibilities of time zone coordination tended to alienate more often than engage.

Along with all of this, Continuous City also allowed me reflect a bit on my own relationship to video chatting, as I’ve very recently become acquainted with this weird plane. While it of course hasn’t been a perfect experience, it’s made a tough long-distance communication situation better, not worse. (I couldn’t help wondering if Mike would have been a crappy father even if he lived in the same city as the neglected Sam.) Trying to sustain a meaningful conversation over video chat can be strange and self-conscious; at one moment it feels like an invaluable alternative to the tinny-ness of cellphone, and at others it feels boring and fractured.

For all its benefits, my v-chat experiences have also made me dubious about people actually doing business over this thing, which was also exposed in J.V.’s frantic video-conferencing; video chatting seemed to reveal itself as a horrible way to try to be productive and/or efficient. It didn’t surprise me to see that the video chatting done by the characters in the play was most successful during the simple moments of visual playfulness—like when Mike puts his computer camera on the grass in a park and plays virtual hide-and-go-seek with Sam. In its current incarnation, it often feels like a blessedly unproductive medium somehow, maybe because it creates intimacy by forcing you to sit down and focus on someone (on a screen) in an engaged, patient way; there’s no masking of any other activities, and, most of all, you need to really work to catch the freaky rhythms of the conversation. All of which, of course, we don’t necessarily manage to do even when we happen to be sharing time zones.

Read All About it!: The Schwartz Institute Profiled in Change Magazine

We here at the Institute are very excited about this bit of publicity: the current issue of Change Magazine, published in cooperation with The Carnegie Foundation For the Advancement of Teaching, features a profile of the Schwartz Institute written by Fara Warner, whom some of you may remember from last year’s Symposium. Fara’s article, entitled “Improving Communication is Everyone’s Responsibility” is a lengthy, in-depth discussion of the Institute and the tremendously varied work that we do here at Baruch College. Take a look. Here’s a snippet:

The Institute
To understand how the Institute was created—and has grown into a model for developing and supporting communication-intensive curricula—you have to look at the college’s history and its extraordinarily diverse student body.

Baruch’s beginnings stretch back to 1847. Its Newman Vertical Campus is now located at Lexington and 24th Street in Manhattan, one block from the original site of the Free Academy, the country’s first free institution of higher education. In 1919, the City University system created a school of business and civic administration on the site of the Academy. The next year, it added a master’s degree in business administration. In 1953, the college was renamed in honor of Bernard M. Baruch, the statesman and financier who had been instrumental in the college’s creation. In 1968, Baruch College became a freestanding college within the City University of New York. The College currently encompasses the Weissman School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Public Affairs, and the Zicklin School of Business—now the largest school of business in the nation.

Even in its early years, the college was known for its diversity, drawing its student body from the immigrant populations that called New York City home. Over the years, those populations have changed from Italian, Jewish, and German to today’s immigrants from countries such as Turkey, Uzbekistan, and China. Approximately one-third of Baruch students were born outside the U.S., and half are the children of immigrants. About 90 percent of Baruch’s undergraduate students graduated from New York City’s public and parochial high schools, and more than half come from families with an income of less than $44,000 annually. The college’s nearly 16,000 students speak 110 languages and come from 160 countries—prompting publications such as U.S. News and World Report and the Princeton Review to name it “the most diverse university in the U.S.”

“The college always had to operate with the knowledge that for many of its students English wasn’t just their second language but sometimes their third or fourth,” says Professor Paula Berggren, who has worked extensively with the Institute to enhance students’ writing and oral communication skills in Great Works of Literature courses, which all Baruch students are required to take. Moreover, “in the U.S., we don’t know how to communicate even if we’re native English speakers.” By the mid-1990s, the combination of a school devoted to teaching business skills and a diverse and underprepared student body had created a situation in which “Baruch was turning out competent vocationally trained students who lacked an ease with communication,” Berggren says.

Baruch faculty members weren’t the only ones who noticed the problem. Over the decades, Baruch had gained a reputation for turning out highly capable business majors who got very desirable jobs in accounting and other business sectors. But major employers reported that Baruch graduates sometimes lacked confidence, sophistication, and facility in business communication. The problem wasn’t lost on the college’s alumni either—including Bernard L. Schwartz, the former chairman and chief executive officer of Loral Space & Communication, who had graduated from Baruch with a bachelor’s of science degree in finance. He believed that Baruch needed to do a better job of teaching students real-world communication skills in addition to their core studies. In 1997 he donated the initial funding to create the Institute that now bears his name, with the expressed wish to help Baruch students become more effective communicators.

There are a number of ways to teach and enhance oral and written communication, from required communication-specific courses and formal academic support units to loose, informal programs driven primarily by individual faculty members. Baruch created an organization that operated somewhere between those two extremes. A few core principles and organizing structures were set down that have guided the Institute, but room was left for creativity and evolution stimulated by the changing needs of faculty and students and by technological developments.

The Institute isn’t housed under a specific department—English or communication studies, for instance. In keeping with the idea that communication is everyone’s responsibility, it operates under the Office of the Provost and remains independent of any one department’s requirements or direct control. It also receives private funds (including ongoing support from Schwartz), giving it flexibility in the breadth, depth, and scope of the programs it offers. It invites outsiders, most notably from the business world, to discuss communication issues that are of importance to the employers who hire Baruch students. Each year, the Institute hosts an annual symposium that brings together faculty and business executives to explore areas of mutual concern, such as the role of new technologies in shaping criteria for effective communication in academic and business contexts.

(Read the rest here)

Audience or Interlocutors?

A lot of what Bernard L. Schwartz said about audience awareness last week resonated with me. He mentioned the significance of both transmission and reception in the communication act, stressing the latter as being perhaps too often overlooked. Listening attentively is a skill; hearing what the speaker intends you to hear is also a skill.

As teachers, we’re usually concerned with both transmission and reception; we want to make our presentations clear, our questions thought-provoking, our assignments challenging, and our evaluation encouraging. In many ways, teaching is a performance, and to deliver it effectively we work on our presentation skills. In all this, of course, we conceive of our students as audience: we hope they would receive what we have transmitted or respond to what we have posed as a question. And, there is usually no delay in learning how our message got across. As soon as we hear, read, or simply see their responses, we know whether the message went through or got lost in translation.

As much as I enjoy the performative side of teaching, I think there is a difference between treating students as audience or interlocutors. The word ‘interlocutor’ has interesting etymology; it comes from Latin interloqui, which means “to speak between.” It implies active engagement in dialogue, but even more perhaps – the initiation of dialogue. When students write papers or give oral presentations, they still follow our prompts. They want to succeed, impress their teachers and fellow students, get a good grade, right? In all this, they are still living up to the expectations of others.

I wonder if by asking them to create their own expectations (not without good models, of course) – by preparing a sample assignment or facilitating a discussion on a topic of their choice—we can hope for a more dynamic learning environment. We’ll be creating a new context for learning critical thinking, mastery of the material, and presentation skills. In this sense, I think, blogging provides a great medium for experiencing interlocution. But we’ll also be asking them to assume responsibility that comes with authority. A cliché? I agree, but I am thinking of those times when students, sometimes unwittingly, make offensive comments. When we call their attention to that, they usually smile or blush and apologize (they can also try to justify their thinking and ignite an argument). What I see in this is an attempt to hide experience behind innocence. “I’m just a student. I can be excused,” they seem to be saying. Well, I wonder, can we offer them a role other than “just a student” and do so in a non-punitive way?

New Audience = Changed Message?

Fresh off of the Institutes’s conversation with Bernard L. Schwartz and planning for the next Annual Symposium on Communication and Communication Intensive Instruction, I have found myself to be highly attentive to issues of audience in communication.  I am fascinated by how these issues are playing out on the political scene during Barack Obama’s transition into his role as President Elect.  His audience has substantially changed from the democratic base and undecided voters to the nation.  However, I keep asking the question, has his message changed?

I think back to what usually happens in elections, when soon after winning and taking on a new audience, we often see drastic shifts, not only in politicians’ messages, but also in their personalities and communication styles.  It may be too soon to tell, but I am not noticing these often disheartening shifts with Obama and his underlying message surrounding his short-term and long-term visions for the country.

For those of you interested in empirically investigating this question, here are some pieces of data:

Obama’s interview with 60 minutes while on the campaign trail…

YouTube Preview Image

A piece of his post-election interview with 60 minutes…

YouTube Preview Image

Also, you can take a look at the content of the postings on his Obama Blog.

Finally, consistency we can believe in.

The Constitution of Articles: Our Surface Errors, Ourselves…

I am disturbed by the degree to which grammar errors can be destiny, out of proportion to their actual context. For example, should someone who can design a wind tunnel or a life-saving evacuation system or build a robot end up failing an exit exam from a technical college because he or she has made too many grammatical errors? What if that student has only been speaking English for 4 or 5 years? While nobody would deny that the student should and must continue to improve his English, shouldn’t his engineering skills take precedence at a technical college? I’m sure that everyone reading this has faced some version of this problem-I suppose it’s one of the central problems if not THE central problem of student assessment in a linguistically-diverse culture. Yet even barring grading rubrics that would strike most teachers as unfair (counting article mistakes individually, for example-don’t get me started!), non-native speakers face challenges in their coursework that are both more complex than I originally understood , and, I think, less “inevitable” then they seem.

I’m working with some project reports, which are group-written and must conform to fairly strict guidelines. Not surprisingly, the native speakers tend to do most of the writing so that the entire group isn’t penalized for grammar and syntax issues. While understandable, this situation creates conditions that are detrimental to the whole group: First , it forces the second-language speakers to do a lot of the legwork in order to “pull their weight” while potentially overshadowing their contribution, and second, it pretty much destroys any kind of group ownership of the project. When meeting with the groups, I found myself addressing the writer of each section (which I could sort of guess by noticing who perked up as I reached it), rather than the group as a whole, which generally demurred with comments like “Oh, I don’t know about that part-I didn’t write it”, or “you’ll have to ask _____-she wrote the whole thing.” Over time it dawned on me that most of the non-writers weren’t even reading their own group’s report! When I suggested some different divisions of labor (and also that it might not be the best idea to put your name on something you haven’t read) _everyone_ agreed that the chance of being graded badly on grammar/syntax errors was too great to risk, and that it really didn’t matter whether they read the report or not, at least in terms of their grade (i.e. the way that “matters”!) I admit that I didn’t have the guts to ask about the division of labor during the design process, but it occurs to me now that I might find a way to speak to the groups _generally_ about their experience working in groups. I wanted to encourage the non-native speakers to participate more in the writing process (increasing their control over their contribution ), but felt it would be hypocritical, given the very real repercussions their “mistakes” might have on their groups’ grade. I don’t have immediate solutions for this problem, of course, but I thought I’d get it on the table. Thoughts?

Misunderstanding about Cultural Misunderstanding

Some of you probably know that Baruch College has been ranked as the most ethnically diverse campus in the U.S. by this year’s Princeton Review. Working at the campus that has the most diverse student body in the nation, we often come across difficulties in cross-cultural communication, the topic which Szidonia’s last posting illuminated beautifully. I also have been working with many international students in Great Works, who make their extra effort to cope with the linguistic and cultural predicaments that they face. Having come from Korea, I can particularly relate to Asian students with their nervousness and discomfort in the classroom where they are expected to engage in discussion by challenging other people’s opinions and where they find a dissent sometimes valued more than a consent. This can be quite a novel idea to those who had different cultural upbringings. On the other hand, I have to confess that I felt perplexed the other day when a faculty member asked me why his Chinese female student is not vocal in class and whether it is because of her cultural background. I wished to give him a better explanation than just blaming it all on culture, but didn’t know where to begin.

I think the issue of cultural difference/misunderstanding/stereotyping is all the more compelling because it raises the kinds of questions that can’t be resolved easily, including those which Szidonia and Yukiko already brought up. In what occasions should we give a person the “cultural baggage bonus” or grant a cultural easy-pass? How can they be unjustly given or not given? In miscommunication, at which point does cultural difference stop playing a major role and others such as sexual, regional, generational, disciplinary, and individual differences factor in? One thing I’d like to add is the fact that people change, things move, and “culture”, like everything else, continuously evolves.

Thinking Behind a Redesign

I recently implemented a new design for the homepage for our installation of WordPress MultiUserBlogs@Baruch.

I tried to accomplish a few things with this redesign.  Mostly, I wanted to update the look of the site… the previous version was a bit clunky, a bit 2003 1999, and I didn’t feel it was popping.  As I usually say when Mikhail critiques my design (which is often): I’m no great aesthete, and certainly not a graphic artist.  But I think this version is markedly better, cleaner, and more inviting.  2008.  2009, even.

The inviting part is really the key, because we’d like to make this page not just a portal to the wide range of blogging being done throughout the Baruch College community, but as a sort of digital commons where ideas and resources and teaching and learning can be shared within the community and beyond.  So I’ve tried to structure the new site in a way that makes it easy to share a lot of different kinds of information, and for visitors to peer in and get a sense of how folks are using this technology at Baruch.

The site includes:

A Home Page with featured blogs and links to recently updated and particularly active blogs on the system  At the bottom of the homepage, RSS feeds pull in posts from the CUNY News Wire, from the Baruch College Teaching Blog, from Cacophony, and from the Ticker.  I’m working on a links list that will be customized for particular pages within the site, and will be using this as a space to tinker, to play with, and to show off the functionality that the Wordpress community is constantly building.  All of this is living, and will evolve.

An “About” page with a mission statement about this project :

Blogs@Baruch was built on the following core beliefs:

  • College students should write regularly in all disciplines and in a variety of formats and genres
  • Faculty should have available support for their efforts to create avenues for student communication
  • Open-source technology has an important role to play in the future of higher education, and colleges will gain much from experimenting with a wide-range of open-source technology solutions
  • Community users of centrally-administered software should share both the burden and excitement of innovating with technology.  While a strong support network is necessary, a do it yourself ethos should be prominent
  • WordPress Multiuser is the most powerful and flexible blogging system available, and can be effectively customized to fulfill a wide range of the communicative needs of the college community

A “Projects” page where visitors can take a look at current and past blogs and sites supported by the Bernard L. Schwartz Communication Institute.  About three dozen blogs are linked, though some are password protected. Student blogs– we’ve got about 140 going right now– are not linked from this page.

A Blog where we’ll draw attention to specific things happening throughout the system and make announcement that might be of interest to our users.  This space will, over time, we hope, merge with what’s under the “Support” area, where I’m going to be adding to and refining what I hope are helpful materials– FAQs, a manual for Wordpress customized for users of this system, suggestions for using weblogs in college teaching, instructional screencasts, and handouts for faculty to use and adapt.  The manual is in need of an overhaul, and this section will be tightened considerably in the coming weeks.

A “Contact” page for visitors to easily contact us.  Features a reCaptcha, for those curious.

Ultimately, we hope users and visitors will find this helpful, and will share in and contribute to the information it provides.  Scott Leslie recently wrote a powerhouse blog post on the ethics of and obstacles to sharing in higher education.  Leslie argues that institution-driven, overly-organized approaches to sharing tend to halt and stutter, while organic, individualized networks are more likely to thrive.  He posits lots of ideas about why and how this is, and concludes ultimately that planning to share gets in the way of actually doing it.  I take and sympathize with his point.

At the same time, I think the technology that eases sharing is still relatively underused and also undertheorized at Baruch and throughout CUNY.  One of our goals is to model just what a distributed learning environment is.  We’ll be using this new space to push, to compile, and to provide paths to useful information for our wildly diverse range of users.  It will ultimately be up to the users of the system to find value, and maybe to contribute some of their own.

The beauty is that they can do that just by getting a blog and sharing their work with the world.  If there’s value, and it’s put out there, it will be found.

In the interest of practicing what I preach– and since I totally relied on the fruits of the Google as I designed the new home for Blogs@Baruch– click beneath the fold for some techie detail on the redesign.  If the words “CSS,” “widgets,” “plugin,” “Wordpress theme,” “hackalicious,” and “pwnd” mean nothing to you, no need to read on….

Click to continue reading “Thinking Behind a Redesign”

The Frame Strategy

In Engaging Ideas, John Bean discusses “the frame strategy” for use with small groups. “Using this strategy, the instructor gives students a mapping sentence that predicts the shape of a short essay but not the content. Students have to create content topic sentences to head each predicted section and develop a supporting argument for each one. Often the instructor can include in the task a blank tree diagram or an outline indicating the slots that students’ ideas must fit”

This sounds very interesting to me, but rather challenging. Even though he provides an example, I still can’t quite envision how to actually do this. It seems like it would require a lot of prep before hand: envisioning a full essay and mapping it out. I also can’t quite picture how students I’ve worked with would take to the task.

Has anyone done this before? Could you let us know how you prepped the task, what it was exactly, and how it worked out? Thanks!

“Songs of freedom kept coming…”

Remember Wyclef Jean’s “If I Was President”?

YouTube Preview Image

Watching the video now, I can’t help but think about how much of the song and the imagery both predicts and falls short of our current moment. It presents the idea of a Black man as president as a desirable possibility paired with the worry that it may ultimately be dangerous for the person elected. So, the chorus makes me kind of… nervous. However, the song has to be historicized: it was released around the time of the last presidential election, which had a totally different political climate. More importantly, it is certainly not about our current President-elect, who was barely on the national radar at the time. Despite the nerve-wracking chorus, the song is ultimately one of hope and dreaming for things like an end to war and poverty, better schools in the ‘hood, and a cure for AIDS and cancer.

I bring up Wyclef’s video because I just saw will.i.am’s new video, in which cynicism and fear have been replaced by pure joy and celebration.

YouTube Preview Image

What a difference four years makes. It’s like Wyclef went to sleep four years ago dreaming of being president, and will.i.am woke up “feeling brand new/ ’cause the dreams that I’ve been dreamin/ finally came true.”

Finally, there’s no official video yet, but what do people think about Nas’s “Black President”? You can find fan videos on youtube, or listen to it at his myspace page.

Come on up for the Rising

A lot of people are talking about how President Elect Obama and his team ran a virtually flawless campaign from start to finish. I’d like to briefly reflect on one aspect of the campaign – music. Music has always been a powerful form of communication. The right song can define a movement, a generation, and even a campaign. Howard Wolfson (Communications Director for Hillary Clinton’s campaign) noted in a NY Times Opinion piece published on Monday November 3:

“Fleetwood Mac’s ‘Don’t Stop’ set the modern standard for campaign songs when Bill Clinton adopted it as his own in 1992. Its admonition, ‘Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow,’ dovetailed perfectly with the premise of Mr. Clinton’s run. Sixteen years later, Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent a considerable amount of time deciding on its song.”

Hillary’s team eventually selected Celine Dion’s “You and I,” which Wolfson admitted he “jokingly predicted would signal the end of the campaign.” Well … the Obama team obviously fared better, and they used a variety of songs.

First there was Ben Harper’s “Better Way,” a song with a positive message of change that likely appealed to younger voters. The campaign also used Stevie Wonder’s fun and upbeat Motown hit “Signed, Sealed, Delivered I’m Yours,” which is more well-known and likely appealed to voters of all ages. This was played before Obama took the stage late on Tuesday night, but it’s the song they played immediately after he gave his speech that I found most intriguing – Bruce Springsteen’s, “The Rising.” “The Rising” was originally released in July 2002, the title track on Springsteen’s album that he wrote in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The lyrics of the song allude to the struggles of the firefighters who responded on that morning, climbing higher and higher into the Towers in attempt to rescue people. 343 of these men never returned home.

Can’t see nothin in front of me
Can’t see nothin coming up behind

I make my way through this darkness
I can’t feel nothing but this chain that binds me
Lost track of how far I’ve gone
How far I’ve gone, how high I’ve climbed
On my backs a sixty pound stone
On my shoulder a half mile of line
Left the house this morning
Bells ringing filled the air
Wearin’ the cross of my calling
On wheels of fire I come rollin’ down here

Luke commented in his last post about how “somber” Obama looked when he took the stage, and I agree. He struck a tone that was less celebratory and more reflective of the struggles this country has to face in the years ahead. That’s why “The Rising” proved to be the perfect song to play after his speech to communicate this message. With one choice of song, he offered a subtle and respectful homage to the victims of 9/11, showed that he recognizes we’re in a dark period right now (Can’t see nothin in front of me, Can’t see nothin coming up behind), but if we stick together there is hope for redemption:

Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight