I've decided to reprint my comments here in an effort to further the conversation (and avoid the hassle of creating original blog content). Enjoy:
"I agree with those who have stated that you can’t really police whether the students are paying attention. After all, even if you take away their laptops, Blackberries and Etch-a-Sketches, they can still find many ways to NOT pay attention (just as we did during our senior year(s) of college, right?). Seriously, they can doodle, create to-do lists, or, as they do in my seminars, stare blankly into space while fantasizing about the speaker.
That being said, I’m not sure that we can embrace the attitude of “It’s their time and money. What do we care?” After all, we are supposed to provide continuing legal EDUCATION not continuing legal ATTENDANCE. The justification for making CLE mandatory in most states is based on the very sound premise that the public is better served by lawyers who update their knowledge and skills on a regular basis. That same justification doesn’t hold true if we are going to just warehouse lawyers in Marriott conference rooms while they check e-mails, take the latest “What Teletubby Are You Most Like?” quiz on Facebook, or complain that the room is too hot (while sitting next to a person who is complaining that the room is too cold). Our lawyers (and the clients they served) are no better off unless they actually pay attention at our courses.
And since we can’t make them pay attention (through technology policies or otherwise), I think we might want to consider ways to make them want to pay attention by providing programs that not only contain relevant and timely information, but are presented in ways that capture the audience’s attention. For example, I would bet that not many people play Bejeweled through a presentation by Todd Winegar or a Periaktos Production. They are too busy listening to the presentation and, against their best efforts, actually learning something. The same holds true for your local volunteers who actually take the time and effort to engage the audience by employing multimedia effects, utilizing game show formats, and the like.
Interestingly, most of your speaker guidelines offer suggestions on keeping the audience’s attention. The challenge is, of course, getting your presenters to fully utilize them. This is particularly challenging when working with volunteers. After all, they are already doing you a favor by volunteering their time. Can you really demand that they go the extra mile to make the presentation interesting? I would say, “YES!”
In truth, the presenter who just reads his law review article (including the footnotes) or flips through so many Powerpoint slides that half of the audience has a seizure (in my view, the lucky half because they get to leave) isn’t doing anyone a favor. This person hasn’t imparted any useful information or skills to the attendees. Furthermore, they have made it that much more difficult for the attendee to get something useful out of the next CLE program. After all, if I sat through six hours of Ben Stein in Ferris Beuller's Day Off, I wuld make sure that I brought my laptop, iPod and maybe even a pillow to the next seminar. In my never-to-be-humble opinion, you (and your attendees) have EVERY right to demand a presenter who actually makes the audience WANT to pay attention.
How do you do this specifically? How would I know? Does the humorist have to think of everything around here?
Posts
