The user of the Logical-Historical Model organizes a presentation as a number of stages or phases – usually connected by the time factor. But the whole can be more that the sum of its parts – and as long as listeners only hear the parts, they may never understand the whole.
Speakers usually start with the PAST- the background, possibly including a short history. They then tell who participated and what were some of the other factors affecting the situation.
The next step is to describe the PRESENT -the current situation, state or status – all with the good intention of making it easier for the listener to understand how the "presenter" has thought, reasoned and worked. The speaker means well, but if the listener is sitting wondering where the speaker is headed, he will soon have difficulty following along. Once again, who is the presenter trying to reach?
When the presenter has finished all this, the FUTURE - the proposal, results or point are presented. All the pieces are supposed to fall into place, a clear picture forms, and the listener exclaims:
The Logical-Historical Model is based on the assumption that the listener really listens, and that what is said is always more interesting than the listener's own thoughts and other distractions. This is rarely true. Even for people who are motivated and want to listen!
Can you imagine what this means for students, particular the low achiever, but even the good student? Or for the harried or poorly motivated worker?
We currently expect them to store a lot of separate pieces of information so that eventually it may all fit together to form a whole. How and why will they listen unless it is interesting?
As a speaker, you are extremely vulnerable! The Logical-Historical Model simply can't deal with spontaneous questions. The questions you get prevent you from getting to the point, they destroy your plan and force you either to put off questions or to get side-tracked by what you consider to be nonessential details. The audience may seem to be more interested in the hole in the donut than the donut itself. You feel as if neither you nor your presentation are getting a fair chance...
No, the Logical-Historical Model isn't a good one for presentations. It is sometimes jokingly referred to as the "class-trip model" and is used by students who have to write a report on it afterwards. How many reports have begun like this?
Our class-trip
The 20th of May at 8 in the morning we met at our classroom. Our teacher, Mrs. Smith, told us all to get on the bus. The bus left town and drove south to Carlton on route 47 and then turned left on route 62. We rode east about 25 miles on route 62.....
(For teachers: One way to avoid having your student apply the ”class trip” approach is to not give them ”Our class trip” as a topic. Alternatives such as “England – a country I want to visit again.” or “There is no place like home.” might work better.)
But if the Logical-Historical Model isn't any good, then why is it so prevalent?
Mostly because most of us have never learned the difference between how to do the work, a study, an analysis, etc. - and the way to describe the results or outcome of what we did.
The Logical-Historical Model is fine for fiction, detective stories or when you are going to tell a funny story or a story with a surprise. It's not suitable for presentations that have something real to tell or propose and where it's important that the message be delivered as clearly as possible.
In fiction, the author tries to let the reader fill out the story.
Joseph Conrad, a Polish-English writer, wrote to a close friend:
- What wonderful news that you enjoy my book since one writes only half a book, the other half is the reader's responsibility.
God grant smart readers to all of us who write!The Swedish writer Olof Lagercrantz comments:
If 50% of a book is written by the reader, then it follows that the book becomes better with an intelligent reader who loves to read.
If several people read the same book or see the same theatrical performance, then there can be stimulating discussion afterwards. But we can experience the same book or play so differently! And this is often what the author wants!
- But if someone is presenting a motion or describing research results, it is catastrophic if afterwards people are saying:
- - I think he meant ...
- - No, that must be wrong. I think he meant ....
about what you mean,what you claim or what your conclusions are.
Your conclusions should be so obvious that your listeners or readers do not have to guess
or fill in the gaps. When they have understood what you mean, then they can critically evaluate
and question your conclusions – and not what they think you mean!
What should I do instead?
Back to my Home Page