He begins by trying to relate to the students by mentioning facebook and twitter, while at the same time trying to add some humor. When he mentions twitter, his tone has a bit of sarcasm in it, which generates a chuckle, because the audience sees him as "old" and not very familiar with technology and social networking sites. Even though it displays a difference between him and the students, it's still effective in creating a bond with the audience, because it establishes trust through the use of ethos. By admitting that he doesn't know that much about technology, he seems more human and more trustworthy. He continues to relate ideas to technology because that is something the students will relate to themselves. The only problem with this is that when he tries to be serious and act like he does know a little about technology, he fails. He tells students that if they take risks and challenge themselves in school, they will be prepared to go out into the world and be innovative. But his example of technological innovation was to, "invent a device that makes an iPad look like a stone tablet". This is probably the worst example his could have given, because it doesn't make sense. Isn't that a bit backwards? The goal of the iPad is to be small, thin, and light, the exact opposite of a stone tablet. Also, changing the appearance of the iPad isn't really an "invention". This just shows just how little he really knows about technology, except for this time, he wasn't using it as a joke to establish ethos, he was trying to seem informed. I think this created distance between him and the students because it shows how very different they are.
He also uses his own educational experiences to try and relate to the students. He "tells us a little secret" about how he wasn't the greatest student in high school. This is another use of ethos to establish trust. He is not the valedictorian of his high school, telling them that they are stupid and they should do better. He is just an average student wishing that he had paid more attention. His intentions were good but the example falls though when you think about where being a "not so great" student got him (being president of the United States!). It could lead to the idea the, "if he didn't have to try that hard in school, and he still became president, then why should I have to try any harder." He probably could have used a better example.
Overall, I think his message was good: try harder in school, go to college (graduate from college), challenge yourself, make the world a better place, etc. I think his delivery could have been a bit better though. His inflection was pretty monotone. I wasn't really inspired to do anything. His goal was to motivate, so he should have been a bit more excited, like a motivational speaker. Compared to the MLK's speeches that we watched in class this week, this was pretty boring. This is another example of how he fails to understand his audience. If he were talking to adults, his calm delivery would have been appropriate. But because he is speaking to young students, he should have been a bit more excited. If you want students to do something, they need to be "pumped" to do it. There wasn't one point where the students responded with enthusiasm. They didn't clap or cheer or even nod. They just sat there with blank expressions. He could have raised his voice more at key moments, made more dramatic pauses, and showed a little more emotion in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment