This post on the topic To Read or Not To Read at College Composition and Communications Conference is part of an electronic conversation that is taking place on PRE/TEXT List and other sites. For the list of posts in the discussion, go to CCCC.
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: Pre/Text issues discussion [PTISSUES@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU]
Subject: jlr: CCCC format shifts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reading Cynthia's post, I find disconcerting the prospect that not only will I face students in classrooms who are conditioned to the "station-break syndrome" (as a result of having a commercial break every 12 mintues on tv programs), but that I may also need to tailor my presentations made to academic colleagues with the same limitations in mind. But perhaps these new formats may offer more than they inhibit.
In the classroom, I have begun to imagine myself teaching on a quantum theory model -- I find myself expressing something like quantum "packets" to students over the course of a class period: I dicuss a reading, offer several minutes for discussion, cover more of the reading, give them time to respond in writing, have a pertinent punctuation discussion, open up the class for discussion of their written work, etc. I first began this technique when teaching at the secondary level, but I find that now, after six years of teaching college freshmen, that students haven't changed and that my "packets" approach still keeps them busy and engaged (at least the ones who want to be busy and engaged).
But I do not despair at this; after all, no one is more bored with a whole class period of lecture than I am whenI am doing the lecturing. However, Cynthia brings up anobservation that is a new one for me -- the possibility that "human attention . . . is so scarce that conferences like CCCC are the hotbeds of protests against reading. . ."
If the current trend of presentation formats made by rhetoric scholars at rhetoric conferences continues, then perhaps this is a reflection of trends in many areas besides conferences -- such as in classrooms and on the internet -- and therefore is not necessarily cause for alarm. I have only presented at conferences twice, but both events featured the typical 20- minute readings. In just five years, obviously this is no longer typical. My first reaction is to descry the change, but then questions arise:
_____What is precipitating these format changes? Obviously some people do have the attention span of a wasp's thorax. But how much is a function of the rapidly changing emphasis these days on electronic media? Many of us now forgo the long letter every other month and dash off email letters to colleagues, family and friends several times a week. Is one form of communication "better"? Is a 20-minute reading "better" than a poster or a 5-minute position present- ation followed by discussion? What do these different formats have to offer?
After listening to Lyotard speak at a symposium two springs ago at Texas A&M, a colleague and I found ourselves most fascinated by the impromptu discussion he then had with Hayden White, who was sitting in the audience. I found myself wishing for the transcript of Lyotard's reading I could study at length and so allow more time for listening to these two greats spar back and forth. In this case I believe I would have preferred a more non-traditional format.
That conference reading was wonderful even as it was, of course, and like Cynthia, I would hate to see the 20-minute panel readings disappear. They can be compared to a good newspaper story vs. CNN Headline News. But I do think there is a place for these other formats. Rather than simply hawking "wares," I think that conference participants in these new venues provide another opportunity for discussion, participation, and expression, ways that are not necessarily better thanthe traditional paper, but not any worse than email is to the long letter.
We are all caught up inthe great flow of information, and it remains our job, I think, as rhetoricians in the classroom, to teach our students the various means they can effectively navigate the flow. As rhetoricians among our colleagues, I think we may be able to view these different presentation formats similarly, simply as different means to achieve an effect, to make a truth claim, taking advantage of the increasingly diverse way of dipping our toes into the stream.
Joan L. Richmond, Tarleton State University
In the classroom, I have begun to imagine myself teaching on a quantum theory model -- I find myself expressing something like quantum "packets" to students over the course of a class period: I dicuss a reading, offer several minutes for discussion, cover more of the reading, give them time to respond in writing, have a pertinent punctuation discussion, open up the class for discussion of their written work, etc. I first began this technique when teaching at the secondary level, but I find that now, after six years of teaching college freshmen, that students haven't changed and that my "packets" approach still keeps them busy and engaged (at least the ones who want to be busy and engaged).
But I do not despair at this; after all, no one is more bored with a whole class period of lecture than I am whenI am doing the lecturing. However, Cynthia brings up anobservation that is a new one for me -- the possibility that "human attention . . . is so scarce that conferences like CCCC are the hotbeds of protests against reading. . ."
If the current trend of presentation formats made by rhetoric scholars at rhetoric conferences continues, then perhaps this is a reflection of trends in many areas besides conferences -- such as in classrooms and on the internet -- and therefore is not necessarily cause for alarm. I have only presented at conferences twice, but both events featured the typical 20- minute readings. In just five years, obviously this is no longer typical. My first reaction is to descry the change, but then questions arise:
_____What is precipitating these format changes? Obviously some people do have the attention span of a wasp's thorax. But how much is a function of the rapidly changing emphasis these days on electronic media? Many of us now forgo the long letter every other month and dash off email letters to colleagues, family and friends several times a week. Is one form of communication "better"? Is a 20-minute reading "better" than a poster or a 5-minute position present- ation followed by discussion? What do these different formats have to offer?
After listening to Lyotard speak at a symposium two springs ago at Texas A&M, a colleague and I found ourselves most fascinated by the impromptu discussion he then had with Hayden White, who was sitting in the audience. I found myself wishing for the transcript of Lyotard's reading I could study at length and so allow more time for listening to these two greats spar back and forth. In this case I believe I would have preferred a more non-traditional format.
That conference reading was wonderful even as it was, of course, and like Cynthia, I would hate to see the 20-minute panel readings disappear. They can be compared to a good newspaper story vs. CNN Headline News. But I do think there is a place for these other formats. Rather than simply hawking "wares," I think that conference participants in these new venues provide another opportunity for discussion, participation, and expression, ways that are not necessarily better thanthe traditional paper, but not any worse than email is to the long letter.
We are all caught up inthe great flow of information, and it remains our job, I think, as rhetoricians in the classroom, to teach our students the various mea [moderator, we goofed. we will search bk through the logs to complete this post.]
To PTIssues and the conversation.