last updated 2/9/16 -

 

Chapter Discussion Leaders [ 2 X 2 X 2 + 2]

  This semester, everyone will have an opportunity to be  designated "lead" discussion moderator for a specified chapter as well as serving as an "assistant" discussion leader on another chapter. "Leads" & "Assistants" should confer & coordinate in order to ensure the material highlighted is presented in a way that is relevant for the people in this class. 

Please note, even though the leaders are expected to have read & be familiar with everything in their assigned chapters, this is not meant to be an standard oral presentation, per se. The primary responsibility will be to initiate & moderate the discussion by presenting the three areas prescribed below... plus some follow-up questions directed to your listeners.

presentation components:

 <1>  TWO of the most important items mentioned in the chapter (in your supported opinion)    
<2> TWO of the chapter items that are  most subject to misunderstanding/ misinterpretation by readers (in your supported opinion)
<3> TWO of the items (conceptual OR methodological)  that could be relevant to YOUR project
<4> TWO specific questions to ask your classmates [either about something in the chapter OR about one of the accompanying activities/examples given by your Professor ]
   
  click [or scroll down]  to see an example of how to prepare: DiscOutline for Chapter 8 { Merrigan, 3rd ed   ''  2nd ed- Chap12}

The class time devoted to each chapter is flexible,  but you can expect a 15-20 minute slot per chapter. (Remember,  this is not a 15 minute individual speech but rather an opportunity to highlight enough key points & questions to stimulate discussion for that amount of time. Be aware that your Professor may also be part of the discussion. In addition, SOME of the chapters will have accompanying class activities to which the discussion leaders can refer. )

Chapter        [in chronological order] Presentation Date Discussion Leaders
   13 [2e=7] [survey]    M 2/6/17  
primary:   MARROCCOLI_ /  asst: Alu__
                                                                                                    { class activity = slide show preview}
   14 [2e=8] [exper]   W 2/8/17  
primary:  _CAPALBO  /  asst:  Velez__
                                                                                                     { class activity = slide show preview-}
  12 [2e=9] [content]   M 2/15/16   
primary:   _BENTON__  /  asst:  Lowe_
                                                                                                        { class activity = Omaha Public Meeting}
   8 [2e=12 ][conv/disc anal]   M 2/17/16 primary: part1 = [pp.137-150 ]   LIES   /  asst: part1 = Holmes                    
               part2 = [pp 151-163]    SEDODO    /  asst: part2 =  Langan                 
                                                                                                                       { class activity = Omaha Public Meeting}
   7 [2e=13] [ethno]   W 2/22/16  
 primary:  part1 = [pp. 107-116 ]  VELEZ_      /  asst: part1  = Benton            
                 part2 =  [pp. 117-132 ]  SOUMADORO   /asst: part2 = Willis_

                                                                                                                                { class activity = Office Door Ethnography}
   9 [2e=14] [rhet crit]   M 3/7/16 &  cont->M 3/14/16  primary: part1 = [pp. 167-179+]  MAROTTA   / asst: part1 = Lies
                     part2 = [pp. 180 - 192]   ULRICH    / asst: part2 = Soumadoro
                                                                                                   {  }
   10 [2e=15] [critical studies-emph CLAIMS & EVIDENCE vis-a-vis Rhet Crit] M 3/14/16  primary: [pp 195 - 207]    LOWE    /   asst: Capalbo__                                                                                                           
                                                                                                           
  10 [2e=15] [crit std,  [ emph: ANALYTICAL MOVES vis-a-vis Deconstruction & ETHICS M 3/14/16 & W3/16/16 primary: [pp.  207-214 ]    LATORRACA    _/ asst: Sedodo                                                                    
                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                              { }                                   
   15 [2e=10] [Dstats+Hypo] W 3/30/16 &
cont->M 4/4/16 		  
 primary: part1 = [pp.313-328{skip scnshts}]  WILLIS _/  asst: part1 = Marotta__
                     part2 =  [pp. 331-337]              ALU         / asst:  part2 = Marroccoli
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   { class activity = Statistics Talk}  
                                                        
   16 [2e=11] [inf stats] W 4/6/16 &
cont->M 4/11/16 		  primary: part1 = [pp.341-361]  LANGAN  _/ asst:_part1 = Ulrich__
                    part2 = [pp.371-386]   HOLMES    / asst:  part2 = Latorraca
                                                                                       {class activities = Statistics Talk/Testing Maslow}                                                                                                        
     
  IMPORTANT BUT NOT IN CURRENT TEXT:  [naturalistic] [narrative]
[historical crit]   		   TBD: extra credit volunteer opportunities available:
    team x - tent=
team y - tent=
team z - tent=
   
   

 

REMEMBER: [ 2 X 2 X 2 + 2]

 

Summary

    primary presenter asst. presenter

Thomas

Alu

 (15)DESCRIPT STAT2 (13)SURVEY

John

Benton

 (12)CONTENT ANAL (7)ETHNO1

Maria

Capalbo

 (14)EXPERIMNTL (10)CRIT1

Michael

Holmes

 (16) INFER STATS2 (8)CONV/DISC ANAL1

Kevin

Langan

 (16) INFER STATS1 8)CONV/DISC ANAL2

Vincent

Latorraca

 (10)CRIT2 (16) INFER STATS1

Anna

Lies

 (8) CONV ANAL/ DISC ANAL1 (9)RHET CRIT1

Lauren

Lowe

 (10)CRIT1 (12)CONTENT ANAL

Anthony

Marotta

 (9)RHET CRIT1 (15)DESCRIPT STATS1

Nicole

Marroccoli

 (13)SURVEY (15)DESCRIPT STATS2

Mawuena

Sedodo

 (8)CONV/DISC ANAL2 (10)CRIT2

Madia

Soumahoro

 (7)ETHNO2 (9)RHET CRIT2

Ryan

Ulrich

 (9)RHET CRIT2 (16) INFER STATS2

Charles

Velez

 (7)ETHNO1 (14)EXPERIMNTL

Christopher

Willis

 (15)DESCRIPT STATS1 (7)ETHNO2

sample Presentation Plan for a Chapter Discussion Leader

CHAPTER 8: Conversation & Discourse Analysis  (a sample 2 X 2 X 2 +2}

 

Introductory statement: This methodology represents a variation on content analysis research and, in practice, it aligns primarily with the Discovery paradigm. In other words, the goal is to unearth the communicative structures of linguistic features evident in the utterances-- such as semantic and syntactic patterns.  However, because it derives from the field known as ethnomethdodology    (which includes examination of communication in natural occurrence)  in practice, Conversation Analysis research includes a presumption that these language-based dynamics are also subject to Interpretation. This additional alignment is due to  the ways context (including cultural) influences how the communicants co-construct meaning as they interpret & react to the communicative codes.

 

>TWO of the most important items mentioned in the chapter (in my supported opinion)    

TURN TAKING rules  --conversational involvement is  co-constructed via discrete units that are highly rules-driven    /

ADJACENCY PAIRS-- linguistics often mandate who does what/in social interaction based on the building block of paired actions ( e.g. If one party says "Hi" [= a  FPP ] the other party knows that there is a specific appropriate response [= a SPP] -- such as "Hi".

 The presenter should accompany these clarifying explanations with illustrations &/or visual | audio aids.

 

 >TWO of the items most subject to misunderstanding/misinterpretation by readers (in my supported opinion) 

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS vs DISCOURSE ANALYSIS [ including their different transcription formats] -- primary differences include the unit of study ( e.g. topic vs word vs phoneme)   /

INDUCTIVE REASONING-based argument model  The level of detail in the  transcriptions of the recorded discourse = the data but the warrant is based on also pointing out what actually happens in the social interaction/conversations.

 >TWO of the items that are most relevant to YOUR project  this section = an abbreviated hypothetical

 IN AN UPCOMING  RESEARCH PROJECT INVOLVING ANALYSIS OF EMPATHY & PERSPECTIVE-TAKING  [ RQ= In what ways do explicit manifestations of interpersonal empathy affect the collaborative process in labor conflict negotiations ]

{Can effective communication ever be achieved if there is no empathy? ] { What are the implications of non-empathic behaviors. Is it enough to merely understand/sympathize with the other?}

p. 148 {2nd ed = p217}: SOCIAL PRACTICE  / p. 158 {2nd ed = p227}WARRANT: triangulation; extra fine (rich) transcription format & sociolinguistic studies showing the sociological/cultural dynamics of language and social interaction. Reinforce validity  & reliability

 

>TWO specific questions to ask your classmates [either about something in the chapter OR about one of the accompanying activities/examples given by your Professor ]

(1) With its emphasis on audio/video recording, does the CA methodology present a significant ethical dilemmas for the researcher. Based on principles mentioned in Chapter 3 (2nd ed. - Ch2)?

 (2) More so than discourse analysis research, Conversation Analysis uses extra-fine transcription formats to illuminate rhythms and coordinating  dynamics of social interaction --which clearly are present but  are often so subtle that the communicants are not always conscious aware ( i.e. many of the communication dynamics are occurring out-of-awareness . Therefore, is there any purpose to doing such detailed study into communication patterns?