A good friend of mine (I've known him since I was five) and I sit on different sides of the political ideology spectrum. We were teenagers when Reagan took office and maybe a little too interested in politics for our own good. My friend still reminds me of how I'd scream in frustration, "The man is a God-damn actor!" Needless to say, you can guess which sides of said spectrum we respectively claimed as our own.
Over the years, I've often raised ire over the commentary and mere presence of William F. Buckley, Jr. One of my favorite shots was the official spelling of his middle name. "Who the hell spells 'Frank' as 'Franque'?" Now maybe I made that up or read it on some liberal tear sheet, but it always provided an easy lead in to a number of cogent, insightful, beer-induced political discussions with my friend.
This morning my friend emailed me the following: "William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P. But you new that was coming."
I responded in kind:
"You beat me to the punch. I got the CNN news alert last night and started composing the diatribe in my head. He was an easy target for everyone slightly left of neo-conservatism, but he was a brilliant commentator. George Will aspires to hold his jock. He came of age at a time when people read the news to know how to think, so it was important to be smart, sure, and committed to your ideals. He was never vitriolic (OK, maybe a little, but that was only to Gore Vidal), which is probably why I cringed every time I heard him speak. It would have been easier to hate the guy if he wasn’t so matter-of-fact and intelligent. I have an issue of National Review from 1974 (I started collecting stuff like that when I was balls-deep in my poli sci courses in Germany). I’m going to dig it out just to re-read his editor’s note. Homage enough from a Democrat, right?"
Homage enough? Maybe not. Buckley's prose, while abhorrent in message to some, is some of the finest political writing in the last 100 years. His social commentary is filled with sharp metaphor and deathly concise logical structure. His mastery of rhetorical strategy make his writing incredibly hard to dissect and counter. In his passing I'm reminded why I was drawn to politics and government studies in my ideologically naive years. In those studies you could always find thoughtful and meaningful content in which to immerse yourself. Buckley's eloquence was always there to provide inspiration and aspiration.
He will be missed.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
make mine blue
Last night H and I took S to see the Blue Man Group. Amazing. There have been countless reviews and critiques (positive and negative), so I'll refrain from that sort of commentary. What impressed me the most was the integration/overlay of textual elements throughout the entire show. Social commentary aside, it was an incredibly effective use of text -- as oppositional and complimentary elements to the visual and aural.
I found myself wondering (amid the gut-bouncing percussion) about online learning - particularly about learning styles and learning style assessment. How effective would be the course that literally floods the learner's sensors with information? It's more than just giving the learner the option to mute the narration while the text displays along the marquee. It's a matter of overwhelming the learner with different types of information at the same time. Force the learner to decode and decipher -- to decide how and why the information is important. Gorilla instruction? The problem: Deciding what percentage of information you need to stick to make the learning event meaningful. Hope that the determined "amount" of learning can justify the expense of developing such a media-rich course.
In a perfect world, with the perfect budget, at the perfect school that has half a vision about the possibilities of online learning.
I found myself wondering (amid the gut-bouncing percussion) about online learning - particularly about learning styles and learning style assessment. How effective would be the course that literally floods the learner's sensors with information? It's more than just giving the learner the option to mute the narration while the text displays along the marquee. It's a matter of overwhelming the learner with different types of information at the same time. Force the learner to decode and decipher -- to decide how and why the information is important. Gorilla instruction? The problem: Deciding what percentage of information you need to stick to make the learning event meaningful. Hope that the determined "amount" of learning can justify the expense of developing such a media-rich course.
In a perfect world, with the perfect budget, at the perfect school that has half a vision about the possibilities of online learning.
Monday, February 25, 2008
finding yourself
Tom Johnson has a funny and insightful little post about how to screw up your next PowerPoint presentation. I found the timing creepy because I've spent at least 16 hours over the past five days screwing around with a presentation we're preparing for a large regional developer that is promising thousands of jobs, millions of tourism dollars annually, and an overall greener CNY in which to work, live and play.
The information in the presentation is well-organized and the tone/style are consistent. Overall, I think it's a relatively consistent and effective little presentation (12 slides total, not counting transition/effects slides). What's missing is the "space" between myself (as the principle author) and the content.
Tom's post refers to the space as the distance between the author and the content. My personal biases toward said developer aside, I think I need to move closer the content -- make it more of a story than an information product. I'm always telling my students to think of their technical documents as narratives in an ongoing story; of weaving a consistent theme (be it a particular design criteria or over-arching functionality) through their documents. Make the technical document something personal, give it a voice and style. Make it such that the reader immediately identifies with the content.
It's hard enough to do this with something like a functional specification or test script. And I don't know if I've ever listened to a presentation in which I could locate myself. I'm sure I've seen a few presenters get lost in their work, but I think that's something different entirely. We'll see where I can take this thing over the next few days. The show is on Friday. Details then.
The information in the presentation is well-organized and the tone/style are consistent. Overall, I think it's a relatively consistent and effective little presentation (12 slides total, not counting transition/effects slides). What's missing is the "space" between myself (as the principle author) and the content.
Tom's post refers to the space as the distance between the author and the content. My personal biases toward said developer aside, I think I need to move closer the content -- make it more of a story than an information product. I'm always telling my students to think of their technical documents as narratives in an ongoing story; of weaving a consistent theme (be it a particular design criteria or over-arching functionality) through their documents. Make the technical document something personal, give it a voice and style. Make it such that the reader immediately identifies with the content.
It's hard enough to do this with something like a functional specification or test script. And I don't know if I've ever listened to a presentation in which I could locate myself. I'm sure I've seen a few presenters get lost in their work, but I think that's something different entirely. We'll see where I can take this thing over the next few days. The show is on Friday. Details then.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
ye ole practices
My lapse is textual. There was plenty going on in the noggin. Five days in Myrtle Beach with the fellas. Lots of great weather, decent golf, tremendous laughs, and a modest amount of beverages and puros. Always a blast. Always.
On return I was presented with an opportunity to advance some work I'd been mocking up in regard to SecondLife opportunities for UC. Two different fronts made requests, with different requirements. Should be interesting.
Interactive training course for external client looks like a go. The definition of the term "interactive" is going to be interesting. Pending project to revise a fair amount of copy for a community development portal. Got me jonesing for some ol' fashioned hack and slash editing. Should do me good.
Need to revise the position of IT as a non-strategic organizational driver. Finding that when other business initiatives fail, it's all too easy to suggest the failure is somehow tied to IT. The move is interesting to watch, particularly when the move maker is continually looking up for a falling axe.
People are funny. "Everybody funny. Now you funny too."
On return I was presented with an opportunity to advance some work I'd been mocking up in regard to SecondLife opportunities for UC. Two different fronts made requests, with different requirements. Should be interesting.
Interactive training course for external client looks like a go. The definition of the term "interactive" is going to be interesting. Pending project to revise a fair amount of copy for a community development portal. Got me jonesing for some ol' fashioned hack and slash editing. Should do me good.
Need to revise the position of IT as a non-strategic organizational driver. Finding that when other business initiatives fail, it's all too easy to suggest the failure is somehow tied to IT. The move is interesting to watch, particularly when the move maker is continually looking up for a falling axe.
People are funny. "Everybody funny. Now you funny too."
Sunday, February 10, 2008
what we're teaching
I'm trying to jump-start a restart of the exams, looking back over the volumes of notes I drafted during my reading last summer. I came across an interesting line of reasoning; interesting because I'm at the point in my WRT 407 where the students are begining to reuse information objects across their documentation suites (from spec to testing script to implementation/user guide). At this point in the semester I always question how much of the writing activities are serving the students' professional requirements (requirements that they'll be all too familiar with in a matter of months). Is it the skills and activities or the concepts and theories that will serve them best?
Carol David and Donna Keinzler have taken a cognitive approach to the question about student preparation, casting the discussion in a context of "emanicpatory pedagogy." They note that TechCom and Comp courses are increasingly using assignments that reflect the interpretive and emancipatory goals of academic departments and industry. More instructors in both disciplines are requiring that problem-solving skills be based on ethical, economic, political, and social issues in addition to technical issues. Again, I see this discussion as an extension of the ongoing conversation about situated learning in real-world contexts. I'm feeling a bit validated however; that TechCom and Comp writing courses that employ emanicpatory practices (critical thinking and problem-solving skills) can share common pedagogical practices: student centered, value questioning, problems set in real-world contexts; find, analyze, construct, and evaluate data, arguements, actions, and policies.
At the other end of the discussion are social constructionists like Jack Bushnell who take issue with the TechCom course that simply places the student in a pre-professional context for the purpose of preparing the student to meet corporate or industry requirements (something I claim to be guilty of).
What's needed - what it is I think I'm working toward - is a higher level reconsideration of TechCom pedagogy - one that considers activity theory and genre (similar to Spinuzzi’s call) as theoretical frameworks in which to place TechCom writing instruction. Such a framework could be shaped by social constructionist theories and an emphasis on traditional humanities instruction (similar to Miller’s call in 1979). A tall order, but one worth considering.
Carol David and Donna Keinzler have taken a cognitive approach to the question about student preparation, casting the discussion in a context of "emanicpatory pedagogy." They note that TechCom and Comp courses are increasingly using assignments that reflect the interpretive and emancipatory goals of academic departments and industry. More instructors in both disciplines are requiring that problem-solving skills be based on ethical, economic, political, and social issues in addition to technical issues. Again, I see this discussion as an extension of the ongoing conversation about situated learning in real-world contexts. I'm feeling a bit validated however; that TechCom and Comp writing courses that employ emanicpatory practices (critical thinking and problem-solving skills) can share common pedagogical practices: student centered, value questioning, problems set in real-world contexts; find, analyze, construct, and evaluate data, arguements, actions, and policies.
At the other end of the discussion are social constructionists like Jack Bushnell who take issue with the TechCom course that simply places the student in a pre-professional context for the purpose of preparing the student to meet corporate or industry requirements (something I claim to be guilty of).
What's needed - what it is I think I'm working toward - is a higher level reconsideration of TechCom pedagogy - one that considers activity theory and genre (similar to Spinuzzi’s call) as theoretical frameworks in which to place TechCom writing instruction. Such a framework could be shaped by social constructionist theories and an emphasis on traditional humanities instruction (similar to Miller’s call in 1979). A tall order, but one worth considering.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
nostalgia and boredom
Holy crap! Is this really how I did/do define myself professionally? Makes the practice of technical writing sound about as exciting as watching rocks mate. Funny in a creepy sort of way.
I stumbled on the video from a post of a post somewhere. The narration immediately brought me back to those old black-and-white movies we used to watch in seventh grade social studies -- the ones of the picturesque summer vistas of Washington DC splashed behind the story of American democracy. There was always something just out of reach in those movies. Something that seemed too perfect to be factual. Listening to the tech writer video, I realized it wasn't the visual story (how could there be anything not real about the Lincoln Memorial?), it was the dude narrating the thing. Too perfect in tone and meter. Too middle America in accent and pronunciation. I guess this assumes that I would have found the movies more compelling if they were narrated by Joe Pesci. I think it says something about place, context, and what we bring to a subject. It's probably something I need to develop more. There's application to so much of what we try to do in the writing classroom tied up in situatedness -- in place and location.
I do find the tech writer clip a bit depressing still.
I stumbled on the video from a post of a post somewhere. The narration immediately brought me back to those old black-and-white movies we used to watch in seventh grade social studies -- the ones of the picturesque summer vistas of Washington DC splashed behind the story of American democracy. There was always something just out of reach in those movies. Something that seemed too perfect to be factual. Listening to the tech writer video, I realized it wasn't the visual story (how could there be anything not real about the Lincoln Memorial?), it was the dude narrating the thing. Too perfect in tone and meter. Too middle America in accent and pronunciation. I guess this assumes that I would have found the movies more compelling if they were narrated by Joe Pesci. I think it says something about place, context, and what we bring to a subject. It's probably something I need to develop more. There's application to so much of what we try to do in the writing classroom tied up in situatedness -- in place and location.
I do find the tech writer clip a bit depressing still.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
goodness and goodies
My goodness: The Giants win the Big Show. Contrary to comments by pundits and brother-in-laws who never played a single down of organized football, it was not a boring game. If you watched the game from the line of scrimmage (how most people who strapped it on at one time tend to watch a game), you would have seen a smash you in the throat, my guns are bigger than your guns, good ol' game o' football. Am I jubilant over the win? You betcha. Am I sorry for the Pats' defeated/undefeated season? Sure. The sportsman in me loves to see records set. But I might just be happier for Nick Buoniconti and Larry Csonka than I am for Strahan and Manning. Yes, it's good to be a Giants fan this week. Now I can focus on watching the Big East stagger into March and think up ten different ways the Mets can make Pedro and Hernandez last more than three months of the season.
On a professional note: I picked up the Adobe Technical Communication suite and am delighted at the cross-application integration and the overall improvements to FrameMaker. I've found real opportunity to reconsider single-sourcing a lot of our training documentation and online job-aids. Many thank to Tom Johnson for his posts, reviews, and interviews regarding the package.
On a final professional note: There's a post at Technical Communication about the ways in which documentation can be used to generate revenue. This isn't a new topic and many of the considerations are rehashed approaches from the late '80s, when documentation and QA geeks were increasingly finding their heads on the cost-cutting floor. This time around I'm seeing interesting similarities between value-in-documentation arguments and value-in-instructional design arguments, particularly for higher ed. It's always a fun exercise to swap out one subject for another in an argument and see what you come up with. In this case, the commentary is dead on when you consider it in the context of ID and course development. At the very least I'm thinking more about the discussions we've been having for the past five years about trying to formalize ID on this campus in a way that directly improves the quality of online and hybrid courses. More on the "Q" word later.
On a professional note: I picked up the Adobe Technical Communication suite and am delighted at the cross-application integration and the overall improvements to FrameMaker. I've found real opportunity to reconsider single-sourcing a lot of our training documentation and online job-aids. Many thank to Tom Johnson for his posts, reviews, and interviews regarding the package.
On a final professional note: There's a post at Technical Communication about the ways in which documentation can be used to generate revenue. This isn't a new topic and many of the considerations are rehashed approaches from the late '80s, when documentation and QA geeks were increasingly finding their heads on the cost-cutting floor. This time around I'm seeing interesting similarities between value-in-documentation arguments and value-in-instructional design arguments, particularly for higher ed. It's always a fun exercise to swap out one subject for another in an argument and see what you come up with. In this case, the commentary is dead on when you consider it in the context of ID and course development. At the very least I'm thinking more about the discussions we've been having for the past five years about trying to formalize ID on this campus in a way that directly improves the quality of online and hybrid courses. More on the "Q" word later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)