last updated: 3/5/2020 (swich Chalk & DiBenedetto)
Chapter Discussion Leaders [ 2 X 2 X 2 + 2]
This semester, everyone will have at least two opportunities to be the 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 selected for highlighting is presented in a way that is interesting and 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 "quiz" 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: DiscussionOutline 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 conduct a seminar-type exploration via highlighting 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 |
7 [3e = 13] [survey] | M 2/10/20 | primary: DiBENEDETTO______ / __ asst: Kamel ________ { class activity = slide show preview} |
12 [3e = 13] [interv/focus] | M 2/10/20 |
primary: STOKES II______/ asst: Mathis { class activity = TBD Slideshow preview} |
6 [3e=14] [exper] | W 2/12/20 | primary: GRAZIANO / asst: Krause { class activity = slide show preview-} |
8 [3e=12] [content anal] | M 2/17/20 | primary: _GESSNER__ / asst: Caulfield_ { class activity = Omaha Public Meeting} |
10 & 14 [3e=w/in 8][conv anal & disc anal] | W 2/19/20 |
primary{CA}: [3e=pp.137-150 ] ADEDEJI / asst: Stokes II primary{DA}: [3e= pp 151-163] SHAW / asst: GESSNER { class activity = Omaha Public Meeting} |
13 [3e=7] [ethno] | M 2/24/20 | primary: part1 = [3e=pp. 107-116 ] MATHIS___ / asst: part1 = LUEHS part2 = [3e=pp. 117-132 ] MATHIS___ /asst: part2 = Luehs { class activity = Office Door Ethnography} |
15 [3e=9] [2e=14] [rhet crit] | M 3/9/20 | primary: part1 = [3e=pp. 167-179+] __ KAMEL / asst: part1 = Chalk DiBenedetto part2 = [3e= pp. 180 - 192] KAMEL / asst: part2 = Chalk DiBenedetto { tba }{Carnival in Belgium) |
16 [3e=10] [2e=15] [critical studies-emph CLAIMS & EVIDENCE vis-a-vis Rhet Crit] | W 3/18/20 | primary: [3e=pp. 195 - 207] part1 = CAULFIELD / asst: part1 = _DiBenedetto Chalk_ { Carnival in Belgium) |
16 [3e=10] [2e=15] [critical studies- [emph: ANALYTICAL MOVES vis-a-vis Deconstruction & ETHICS |
W
3/18/19 &
cont M 3/23/20 |
primary: [3e=pp. 207-214 ]4e=310-317] = KRAUSE / asst: Shaw_____ sample:Agenda-setting & television programming { A.D.S: Narrative|Performance} |
5 [3e=15] [2e=10] [Dscr stats+Hypo] |
M 3/30/20 &
cont-> W 4/1/20 resched> M 4/6/20 |
primary: part1 = [3e=pp.313-328{skip scnshts}] LUEHS / asst: part1 =Adedeji part2 = [3e-pp. 331-337] _____ LUEHS / asst: part2 = Adedeji { class activity = Internet SiteBan Infographic / Statistics2] |
9 [3e=16] [2e=11] [inf stats] |
M 4/6/20 &
cont-> W 4/8/20 |
primary: part1 = [3e=pp.341-361] CHALK / asst:_part1 = Graziano__ part2 = [3e=pp.371-386] CHALK / asst: part2 = Graziano__ {class activities = tentaStatistics Talk/Testing Maslow/ Super Lawyers} |
11 [dsgn disc rsrch] | tent: TBA | Focus on
items useful for evaluating the quality
of a research project extra credit opportunity__ primary: _____/ asst: __________ Statistics Talk}page to be updated { |
IMPORTANT BUT NOT IN CURRENT TEXT: [naturalistic] [narrative(partial)]
[historical crit] |
TBD= extra credit volunteer
opportunities available: KAMEL(HIST resource) |
|
team x - tent=
team y - tent= team z - tent= |
||
|
REMEMBER: [ 2 X 2 X 2 + 2]
Assignment Summary:
sample Presentation Plan for a Chapter Discussion Leader |
CHAPTER 8 [3rd ed] : 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".
|
>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- |
>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? |
MAJOR TOPICS
partial list |
In the 3rd
edition – primary coverage is in Chapter: |
In the 4th
edition- primary coverage is in Chapter: |
Intro to Comm Research |
1 |
1 |
Paradigms |
2 |
2 |
Ethics |
3 |
3 |
Claims/Making Arguments |
4 |
Within 4 & 11 |
Types of Comm. Data - |
5 |
11 |
Survey Method –
basic/conventional |
within 13 |
7 |
Survey Method-interview
formats |
within 13 |
12 |
Experimental method |
14 |
6 |
Content Analysis method |
12 |
8 |
Conversation Analysis |
within 8 |
10 |
Discourse Analysis |
within 8 |
14 |
Rhet Criticism |
9 |
15 |
Ethnographic method |
7 |
13 |
Critical Studies |
10 |
16 |
Descriptive Statistics|
Hypothesis Testing |
15 & 11 |
5 |
Inferential Statistics |
16 |
9 |
Framing Quantitative
Research |
11 |
5 |
|
|
|