Tag Archives: communication

Face to Face in the Classroom

Problem Practices, Rhetorical Mastery, , , , , , , ,

 

Source: TCNJ
                 Source: TCNJ

There are compelling arguments for the need to keep college affordable and accessible. But at what cost?  

In an informal reception on my campus, media theorist Douglas Rushkoff wondered why universities would go to the trouble of creating ideal environments for students and teachers to jointly “conspire together,” only to be so indifferent about giving these advantages up for the disembodied world of a computer screen. It was a good observation, and a reminder of how precious the idea of a physically connected academic community actually is. I sometimes wonder if sages a few decades from now will puzzle over why many academics privileged to be a part of thriving bricks-and-mortar campuses were so willing to allow the interpersonal richness of their classrooms to be eclipsed by instruction reduced to the frozen gaze of a monitor.

I regularly remind my students of the durable verity honored by leaders who run many of the world’s great businesses and institutions. As a former head of Sony Pictures noted, success usually comes to those passionate enough to want to be “in the same room” and “breathing the same air” with clients and associates. No CEO expects to successfully lead a powerful organization using Skype. The fact that there are so many people who know they must foster personal relationships surely accounts for why our airports and airliners are packed.

There are indeed compelling arguments about the need to keep college affordable and accessible. But at what cost?  We are already seeing students who have grown too comfortable alone in front of a small screen.  For many, screen time now rivals sleep time.  “Screen addiction” in South Korea that it is now recognized as a full blown mental health problem.

To be sure, online courses are cheaper to run, and may contain some compelling but necessarily “canned” presentations. Often an online “hybrid” course is only nominally “interactive.”  Feedback to the student is usually limited, unilateral with the online teacher rather than multi-lateral as happens when people actually meet in the same space.

I know that the training I’ve taken online has been completely forgettable: little different than  the maw of electronic content that washes over all of us daily.

The cost problem is also aggravated as well by unnecessary status-striving.  Too many families make decisions about higher education as if they were choosing an expensive car.  The choice may be more aspirational than practical. Money spent for tuition to an “elite” private college  certainly yields an ersatz kind of social prestige.  But the renown of many private institutions regretfully lies more in their corporatized athletic programs than their devotion to undergrads.

A lot is at stake for new a first-year student.  Will their first classes more closely resemble an airport waiting room prior to an overbooked flight?  Will the person in charge be able to learn their names?  Answer their questions?  Are the best faculty teaching freshman?  Are individual class sections intimate enough that it is actually awkward for a student to not participate?  There is real genus in the liberal arts college model of “small” classes and dedicated professional teachers.  It continues to make possible what communication theorist John Peters sees as the baseline for the richest chances at connection with others: meeting in the same space where we are close enough to touch each other.

Comment at: woodward@tcnj.edu

Seating: A Concern For More Than Brides

Models, Rhetorical Mastery, , , , , , , ,
Negotiating Table Inside the Joint Security Area Separating North from South Korea Photo South Korean Government
Negotiating Table Inside the Joint Security Area Separating North from South Korea
Photo: South Korean Government

Seating arrangements subtly govern how individuals are likely to respond.  Some arrangements encourage interaction.  Others discourage it. 

Movie stars, producers and other supplicants summoned to the office of Louis B. Mayer in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s complex in Culver City often remember their first impression. Mayer was the very definition of a movie mogul in charge of the studio that defined Hollywood’s “golden age.”  Befitting his place at the center of a industry that worshiped visual impressions, visitors passed through massive carved doors to enter his inner sanctum. Then it was another 60-foot walk between white leather walls to his massive ship of a desk at the far end of the room. The short man who gave us The Wizard of Oz apparently liked the idea inscrutability. All of the office trappings were meant to remind a visitor that any decision that would come out of the meeting was likely to be exactly what Mayer wanted.

Studies of non-verbal elements of communication include seating as a crucial variable.  Seating arrangements subtly govern how individuals are likely to respond.  Some arrangements encourage interaction.  Others discourage it. The arrangement of furniture for a gathering is nearly always consequential as an important communication variable.

Capture.JPG of seating arrangmentHere’s the drill on what to consider. For smaller groups a round table (B) is perfect for encouraging and even equalizing participation. No one has a power advantage by virtue of their place.  Any leader is visually an equal among peers.  Note, too, that at a round table everyone has at least some possibility of eye contact with others: a key variable that helps to encourage participation from the naturally introverted. The downside is that anyone around the table can use even minimal facial cues to undermine a speaker’s point. We’ve all probably used a frown worthy of an M-G-M closeup to telegraph our displeasure at a leader’s point. For good reasons the round table model needs a genuine commitment from all participants to work in common cause.

A rectangular table (A) is more likely to distribute advantages to some and limit participation by others.  In a typical rectangle the power positions are at the both ends.  From these vantage points it is easier to be seen and to control the participation of others.  And so we may be able to push “reluctants” out of their shells by placing them in these positions (even though introverts will often resist being placed at the head of a table).  Conversely, “dominators” will have a harder time controlling a discussion if they sit on one of the long sides of the table on one of the corners. Those positions make it difficult to have eye contact with some participants, especially those on the same side of the table.

A rectangular table is also the preferred arrangement when the objective is to carry on two-sided talks.  Labor-management negotiations, meetings in the “dead zone” between North and South Korea, and other situations where there are distinct “sides” are visually maintained this face-off arrangement.

Source: Wkimedia.org
     White House Cabinet Room                                      Source: Wikimedia.org

Interestingly, in the White House Cabinet Room a President usually sits along one side of the long oval table, not at the head.  But the oval preserves some of the virtues of a round table.  And it looks good in photo ops to have the president appear to be one among others. By contrast, with the serious business of discussions in the basement Situation Room, the President is usually at the head.

Rows of chairs facing a single source, as in the seating pattern represented in  the above diagram as “C” lends itself to giving one person in front maximum control.  It’s an obvious point, but for an interesting reason.  When a member of the audience has only the back of another’s head in their foreground view they have little choice but to give more attention to the presenter, even when that person is some distance away. Audience members are essentially denied most of the non-verbal facial cues that other members can give that would undermine their faith in the presenter’s message.  So arena or “classroom” styles of seating give all the advantages to the single source at the front.

We tend to forget that hundreds died in Vietnam over the Winter of 1968 while talks scheduled to begin in Paris were stalled. The issue? The shape of the negotiating table.  Were these essentially four-party or really two-party negotiations?  Only putting a round table in between two rectangular tables radiating out from the center finally settled the issue. The arrangement saved the South Vietnamese from having to deal with the Vietcong as an equal negotiating partner.  Seating can matter that much.

Comment at woodward@tcnj.edu