one of the better speakers i have heard was angela davis, university of california professor and civil rights activist. i was drawn in by the topic of her speech which was the prison industrial complex and by the fact that she is a living legend insofar as well known black activists who remain active in speaking out against the continued injustices going on in this country. i was impressed by her ability to provide an historical context for her argument and beliefs. the timeliness of her speech was also a factor because she spoke on the problems surrounding the corporatization of prisons and the impact on black and latino men at a time when few were publicly talking about this issue.
one of the worst speakers i have ever heard was a seminar instructor i had at san francisco state who has thankfully retired. maybe it was the age difference and generational differences insofar as what i expected from a professor lecturing but i found his presentations dry, not insightful and outdated. it didn't help matters that he did not like to be challenged by divergent views. i think the main thing i remember from this instructor was that his area of historical expertise had evolved and changed in ways his lectures did not reflect and therefore his message was no longer relevant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That would probably be one of the worst speakers, not keeping updated with the newer facts and the different inputs that others may give him. These days there's always updates to everything from new trials and new cases that evolve. It seems that that professor was very old fashioned indeed, and only stuck to what he knew and what was relevant when HE learned about it. That would be frustrating to help him give him by giving him a new perspective but wouldn't take it or believe in it. Public communication is important with ethos but should also know what he's talking about with logos. Keeping in the context is important.
ReplyDeleteHello nyp! You mentioned a bad speaker at SF State. Besides the outdated message, what could this person have done to connect with their audience? What was it about the presentation itself that turned the audience off? In your opinion, is there a separation of message and the way it's presented? Or do they go hand in hand?
ReplyDeleteteaching is a learned skilled. simply because one has a phd doesn't mean one will be able to effectively teach what one knows the tone in which he spoke was rather monotone and the give and take, that most students take for granted today, was non existent. he expected students to take notes and not challenge the ideas he was presenting even thought they were outdated. in order to connect better with students he should have integrated more up-to-date historical perspectives to what he was teaching after all, he earned his phd over 30 years ago! in this case, there is a connection between message and the way it's presented. he could have couched his historical perspective with the current views which would have added to his credibility as a speaker. i wasn't biased because he happened to be much older than the rest of the tenured faculty but his perspective was that of the early 1960's. his unwillingness to account for the change in historical focus within the last 30 years undermined his message.
ReplyDelete