Overall, I thought Giambattista Vico's On the Study Methods of Our Time was a fairly interesting comparison of the differences between the education methods of the two time periods. I was particularly struck by the statement that "young scholars should not be admitted to the study of eloquence unless they had previously studied their way through the whole curriculum of learning" (877). This goes against the educational system I found in college and now the high school in which I teach. At both levels students are encouraged to take public speaking as soon as possible, usually within the first two years of a four year program. At first glance, this seems logical. Not only do students who jump right into Speech class get that graduation requirement out of the way, they also are gaining skills to utilize through the rest of their educational career. From the perspective of the instructor it is in some ways useful to get the younger students. Their attendance is usually better and, quite frankly, it's typically a lot easier to keep younger students in line (this may be true at the college level as well, although I don't know for certain). With reasoning along these lines, I have believed that getting students in Speech earlier was better for the past three years.
Seeing Vico's words and thinking of the students that I currently have in Speech, my position is now shifting. This year, the course itself is 90 minutes long, every other day. There are currently 20 students, although I often have a few more than that. Most of these are ninth-graders, as per recommended by the counselor. With the exception being the first time I ever taught Speech, this class has been a constant struggle. I don't know how many days have ended with me wondering if any of the students draw anything useful from the class (which I feel could be most useful to them). And I'm beginning to think it's because they haven't mastered "the whole curriculum of learning." (Although they could just be yahoos; I'm not completely dismissing that.) Concepts I see as basic are elusive to them, things I assume to be prior knowledge are mysteries, and in all reality they can't handle being in the same room for more than an hour. Silly little kids. In past years, when the upper-class students were extremely rare, it was easy to dismiss it as kids having no appreciation for communication skills. This year, however, I have a handful of juniors and seniors. And they are brilliant. That, of course, is a lie. But they do have a broad base of knowledge from which to work (which does seem to be one of the important things to Vico), but also, and perhaps more importantly, they are closer to that "real life" I keep warning students about. They can actually name possible situations where they may use their newly developed speaking skills and they ask for focused instruction in the specific areas they know are necessary for their future lives.
So, perhaps I am teaching only four or five students last block. Perhaps these are the only few that should actually be there. With any luck we'll all survive and the other yahoos will still have their notes when they grow up enough to realize that I'm not completely full of crap.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think what you are teaching is very useful. Speech is something that people have to grasp because it is an important part of life. However, as I remember it from my high school years, I was terrified of speech class. It might just be that your students are self-concious and are afraid of how their peers will view them. I was always stressing out in that class to make sure my topics were interesting and not weird. I think students at that age are under so much peer pressure that they feel awkward. However, through speech, students can find commonalities among each other.
You have outlined a dilemma that even Vico could not solve for every student (and every teacher). On one hand, those freshies could use the wealth of practical information you have to share with them to build a foundation that will help them excel in other classes. But, yikes, what can you do if the attention span of the young'uns won't stretch to 90 minutes and they're not ready to apply themselves to learning the subject? Plus, the fear of public speaking has outranked the fear of death, in some surveys. In the old days of my background, speech was a 9th-grade subject, and it did help us prepare for the many in-class presentations required in high school. I don't know the policy at your school, but if the kids currently are able to choose when they take speech, then one might assume they would be ready for action when they show up in your classroom. (Ha-ha, that's a joke, Genesis; I taught English in a couple high schools and learned never to assume.). . . Judy
Some aspects of your post remind me of Hannah's comments on Astell.I mean, you've got to at least have something to say (let alone, something worth saying)before you can organize, edit, and deliver. But what about the idea that oration and composition give opportunities to learn about something so the speaker can talk about it?
On a (possibly) related note: Where I work, the Speech Center is just getting off the ground (began 2 semesters ago). They presently share space with us, the Writing Center, and I've helped a few students work their way through speech outlines over the past few years. We were talking the other day about HOCs and LOCs--and my boss said, I think the order's reversed in speech. (At least, I think that's what he said.) I kinda think they're of equal weight in oration. Any thoughts?
And another kernel from the boss man, on teaching:
1)never assume your students know anything you haven't told them;
2) never assume your students know anything you have told them
:-)
Post a Comment