Archive for the 'Oral Communication' Category

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)

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.

Joe, Joe, Joe,….Joe

One of my students said to me the other day that she did not want to watch the presidential debates anymore because the only thing you see is a repeat of the message again and again. And she thought the “whole Joe thing is just the last straw, I mean is everyone named Joe?” It is true that through the three debates we have seen the central messages of each candidate come back time and again and the use of in-depth argumentation seems to be less of a sticking point. We have also heard of Joe Six-pack, Joe Biden, Joe McCain, (John’s brother), Joe who can never fill his gas tank to full, and Joe the Plumber. The student has a point.

Yet even in the constant repetition of a name, Joe, or of a concept, Joe is Everyman, there are two fundamental teaching points on public speaking and oral presentations that I hurried to tell my student. The strategic use of repetition in a public talk is often taught as a way to create emphasis and drive a message home. But it is also directly related to the afterthought a speaker desires the audience to experience later. A speaker is trying to lodge in the memory of the audience a significant point or image that will recall the message. But it is not as easy as many students and political strategists seem to think.

One can repeat the name Joe, again and again and believe that the audience has a collective cultural memory that will link Joe to our own lives. We will get it and think about it afterwards. Student speakers will very often repeat that some entity is a “major player” or they forever call the audience “You Guys” again and again. In almost the exact same way a political speechwriter is supposing that the audience has a collective memory and we will get it, so does the student. But what we do know about cultural memory is that language is the tipping point. Audience members in contemporary culture relate to language in more segmented groups then ever before. From text messages to gender titles the audience associates words with different significance and receives messages very differently. So Joe, for some, is remembered as Everyman but for others he is not even real. Even for Joe himself there is doubt as to his place in collective memory, his real name apparently is Sam.

So the first teaching point is do not stereotype your audience, and the second teaching point is if using repetition in a public presentation bring into play many different words that imply the same thing and retell the concept in different ways. This is more likely to advance a collective afterthought in our modern and varied audience and initiate reflection that does relate to the message.

I’m Not Lovin’ It.

I’m starting to get a little bit worried about the rash of strangely written and borderline grammatically incorrect advertising slogans in the media. This is especially true of fast food advertisements. The slogan that bothers me the most is McDonald’s “i’m lovin’ it.” I understand how dropping the g makes the slogan less impersonal and more relaxed, but the lowercase i really irks me. What’s the point?

Other celebrated and effective examples include Apple’s classic “Think different,” and their more recent description of the new iPod touch as “The funnest iPod ever.” Even the Obama campaign’s “Change we can believe in” ends in a preposition.

The worst thing about these slogans is that the television viewing public is exposed to them on a daily basis. Many of these slogans are not necessarily incorrect, but they violate several rules we try to teach our students in efforts to improve the clarity and effectiveness of their oral and written communication. I can’t help but wonder about the extent to which these slogans are negatively impacting the communication skills of the viewing public. The advertising industry seems to be on a mission to legitimize incorrectness.

I’m Sooooo Q

Communication is not exactly the MTA’s forte. Between their signature garbled announcements (what’s the next stop?) to the impossibility of communicating across the vast gulf between the MTA booth worker and the puzzled tourist yelling helplessly at the glass, when they do communicate something (anything!) well, it’s cause for some serious celebration. Even the notoriously goofy advertisements on the trains (Dr. Zizmore joke, anyone?) serve as continual reminders of botched opportunities to reach the diverse train-riding audience while making substantial revenue– how many times have you seen empty ad space on our broken-down subway cars?

To make matters worse, the MTA has also been slightly slow on the uptake when it comes to wielding technology to the best of their advantage, which is why it’s perhaps no surprise that their latest stab—the new digital screens in some updated subway cars—already seem to be malfunctioning perfectly (according to my own admittedly informal survey of new train cars, that is).

And which is also why it’s interesting that something so simple manages to communicate so much: the train lines & representative letters themselves have incredible expressive power for many New Yawkers. Initially, when someone forwarded me the recent article in the Observer about the perceived changing desirability of certain train lines, I had to let out a small groan; anyone who’s interested in the brand-ification of NY neighborhoods has seen and been frustrated by this kind of article before– a few random quotes from random folks strung together to try to create a coherent snapshot of a neighborhood in supposedly wild flux.

The biggest problem I see with most of these articles is that their discussion of New York history seems to cover on average about three years, give or take a few months. As some irate comments to the article noted, New Yorkers who can recall when the Q wasn’t the Q or the R wasn’t the R look upon this obsession with particular train lines with bemusement. I grew up listening to my parents refer to subway lines by their old-school avenues, which I always found odd-sounding: “Did you take the IRT there?” “Doesn’t the 7th Avenue line stop there?” (Whaaa?) The Observer article engages in its own short-sighted historicism, looking all the way back to the roaring ‘00s to declare the Q the new L; eh?

I wonder if coveting a Chosen Train Line with static, starry-eyed love serves to cut down on the level of advocacy for better and more functioning trains across the board, or if it instead creates a neighbor more rooted in and concerned about where they live. The urge to want a transportation arrangement that is convenient, safe, and reliable is natural, but there seems to be something else at play here. What is it about the process of attributing status to certain subway letters/lines that feels like another lame fetish of the me-me-me-and-also-me generation?

I’ve sat through numerous student presentations (often by international students) who are shocked to discover upon arriving that our subway system looks like the old, neglected bohemoth that it is. A comparative analysis of the Hong Kong subway system, say, or the St. Petersburg subway, versus ours, is an embarrassing enterprise to be sure. I have the impulse to be protective of our train stations, to defend the long history that has made them what they are, and yet there’s something in the logic of these presentations that I can’t argue with. I sat in a shiny new Q car the other day, and couldn’t stop staring up at the broken screen above me that was promising that 34th Street would be the next stop– after we had already past 34th Street twenty minutes before and were hurtling towards Coney Island. Indeed, the MTA has given the very fabulous Q very fabulous new train cars and yet still can’t figure out where we’re headed.

Teaching Writing Intensively (and Often)

“Has the creation and promotion of writing and communication intensive classes actually done as much harm as good?”

Click to continue reading “Teaching Writing Intensively (and Often)”

CLASP Colloquium

The CUNY League of Active Speech Professors (CLASP) is an association of the speech professors at CUNY. Every year CLASP organizes a colloquium to discuss and investigate all levels of teaching and initiating speech and oral communication across the curriculum at CUNY. This year’s theme was Teaching and Learning, and Community.

A tradition at the CLASP gatherings is intensive discussion on the most innovative and creative ways to teach and influence different disciplines with Speech theory and practice. There were two panels that dealt with the creative use of technology in the classroom where faculty from Communication Studies, History, Theater and English presented their different ways of using technologies in the classroom.

Professor Thomas Regan took a camera on class field trips for his intercultural communication course. He had the students take pictures or film themselves, the theaters and neighborhoods they were visiting and whatever else interested them. He then put the pictures or films on blackboard and the students would then use that visual input and memory as a starting point for their research papers on New York experimental theater and intercultural theory.

field trip

Urban Studies professor Hugo Fernandez and English professor Ellen Quish demonstrated how they had the students make urban folktales using all kinds of free software such as Audacity, and I-movie or Moviemaker, both embedded in any PC or Mac computer. Many of the LAGCC faculty is working with digital story telling and experimenting with final projects being team written, edited and fully produced digital stories.

Digital Storytelling

Or, once again, the projects were used as a process to get the students to do more advanced research and writing and were not counted as the final project but a step on the way to a term paper. The work and the projects were all very creative and done with extremely low-tech materials and seemingly very easy to use technology, almost everything the faculty used was free or very low budget. The highest cost cited was $25 for a web cam. There was a constant free exchange of websites where free software, free images, music and even short films are available. And for the technologically challenged a professor presented G-cast, a free service, where you call into a toll free number which records your speech and then emails it to you as an MP3 file! Apparently you can even sign up your class to this free service.

Story Resources

What struck me the most was the use of this technology as a process to get the students into deeper work and research. And how at the end of a semester there is visual knowledge as well as written knowledge from each student. How many members of the faculty just jumped into this technology also impressed me and though they all said they were not tech-savvy they all produced relatively sophisticated and interesting student work. The pedagogy and the outcomes were clear and well substantiated from each panel member but I really walked away with a sense of how much fun they were all having.

Some Thoughts on ESL Oral Communication

This semester’s work supporting an accounting course group presentations has been a great experience for me. I worked with a lot of different groups with their own characters. One thing that surprised me a bit was how many of them are actually ESL students (international students or recent immigrants), and as an ESL person myself, I was interested to encounter some of the challenges they face in tackling this task. I thought I would share some of my stories here, and would like to invite others to share their experience working with them as well.

The two different sections of the course I worked with (taught by two different instructors) had a different set-up for their presentation component. In one of the sections, students were allowed to choose their partners, so I encountered groups who consist of native (and near-native) English speakers only, while some groups had ESL students only. This created situations where some groups struggled in preparing and performing due to language issues and having no one in the group to watch out for them. However, the team dynamics were generally good and some groups actually really got into it and produced excellent presentations.

In contrast, in the other section, where the instructor did the grouping, I observed some nice teamwork where native speakers are supporting the ESL students and the presentations are generally easier to follow languagewise. However, I did see more intra-group communication difficulties, unfortunately. Some students had a hard time understanding each other in the process of working together, and/or some of them get frustrated because their partners are not performing up to their expectations.

From the two sections that presented different types of issues, I see not only language but cultural difference behind their ‘communication difficulties’. I can imagine some of the students might be less experienced with public speaking (as I discussed in a post on class participation), or working extensively with classmates. Although I practiced a lot of group work in my own teaching at CUNY, I never had the experience of working on a big group project as a student back in my country. It is not really a common practice there.

So much for the analysis, but what could we do to best support ESL students and help them (and those working with them) succeed in their presentations, then? Their trouble with English could be remedied by extra language coaching, or so it appears, but that is really just giving them a band-aid (as Jennifer nicely put it). We would want some more fundamental solutions, but it is too ambitious to hope that they will become a significantly more competent speaker of English between today and 5 days later. So far, I am limiting myself to giving them one or two pointers that they could use for now and later, so that it is not too overwhelming or takes too much time (especially when non-ESL students are present). I share my own experience as an ESL student (if I can do it, you can do it too!) and cheer them on. There is not much one can do in one sitting, but I hope a tiny step today will lead to a big leap for them.

Musings about social networking sites


This recent New York Times article provides an interesting perspective on the popularity of networking sites. Some academic researchers argue that the recent growth of online social networking and the popularity of sites like Friendster and Facebook are reminiscent of ancient patterns of oral communication in tribal societies. One of them argues that “the popularity of social networks stems from their appeal to deep-seated, prehistoric patterns of human communication” because “we evolved with speech, we didn’t evolve with writing.” The way we express ourselves online is more like talking and this “orality”, which is participatory, interactive, communal and focused on the present” is what “unites people in groups.” (Walter J. Ong, coined the term “secondary orality” in 1982 to describe “the tendency of electronic media to echo the cadences of earlier oral cultures.”)

An anthropologist studying a tribe in Papua New Guinea now applies the same ethnographic research methods to the rites and rituals of Facebook users. He sees parallels between how ones’ identity in tribal cultures is wrapped up in the question of how many people one knows, not unlike on Facebook, where you define yourself by the friends you have.

Obviously in virtual reality it matters much less who you know, because your real, and not virtual, survival does not depend on it. The biggest difference is the superficial nature of online “friendships” but it is this shallow bond and the elimination of the need for physical proximity which stimulates online intimacy. “That distance makes it safe for people to connect through weak ties where they can have the appearance of a connection because it’s safe.” So how does all this new way of relating to each other affect the way we… relate to each other? Some “worry that the rise of secondary orality may have a paradoxical consequence: It may be gobbling up what’s left of our real oral culture.”

I wonder about one more thing. Apart from their use as purely networking/fun/hobby spaces, these sites are used as pedagogical tools, for instance when we start a Facebook page to encourage semi-academic discussion among our students. And so, when we employ these methods to reach out to our students, who are obviously well versed in them, are we risking that we will make them less “cool”, thus subverting our own purpose and making students less likely to use them in learning/teaching processes? Or maybe a question like this is redundant. In the time I spell-check this message and click the “post” button, a brand new networking site will be up, starting as a small, “cool” outlet, and spreading through the virtual world, until us educators get a whiff of it and make it “lame.”

This article from The Independent finds that students are weary of allowing academics to intrude into their spaces, while teachers often find that their students’ Facebook pages provide insights into the students and offer an opportunity to connect. These sites are private, independent, and can decide on membership, content and the discussions that take place there are not sanctioned by the universities, even if often there is some learning going on and students may be building real connections, something a university will welcome. Some professors are weary of using such a private forum for knowledge sharing and argue that academic work on Facebook is inappropriate while there are plenty of new technologies that can be used in teaching, such as discussion groups, wikis, or Second Life, but social networking is not one of them, unless it’s restricted to an institution’s virtual-learning environment.

Profiles in Silence

Students upon whom we try to impress the importance of clear communication would not have been able to look for an example to the roster of current presidential candidates last night.

The Democrats spend time talking about Bush’s expansive notions of presidential power, the mistakes of the war and the dangers and illegalities of Guantanamo and waterboarding. Republicans tend to stress the importance of stability in Iraq and the necessity of adjusting the legal posture of the US in the face of the threat of terrorism. Most on both sides agree that the Justice Department needs some serious rehaabilitation after Attorney General Gonzales’s politicization of that department and his eager, crass participation in efforts to legalize torture.

All these issues were central to the debate over the confirmation of new A.G. Michael Mukasey. He was confirmed last night by a slim but comfortable margin. But the following Senators/candidates decided not to weigh in officially, and simply did not cast a vote either way: Clinton, McCain, Biden, Obama, Dodd. To me that silence speaks volumes.