I assigned four new and one review article for the final paper for Interpersonal Communication Online. As I prepare to read the students' actual self-reflections, I hope they will make certain connections, and am eager to be surprised by the wisdoms I cannot anticipate.
Buber is definitely tough, dense language and dated, but brilliant. We read Elements of the Interhuman, which is from The Knowledge of Man (1965) [A summary is provided in this application piece on Martin Buber’s Philosophy of Dialogue and the Relationship between Self and Nature.]
I might hope students pick up on the distinction between I-It and I-Thou: "According to Buber, the individual always lives in the world of I-It; the person can enter the world of I-Thou" (Stewart, p. 664). Another important distinction is between being and seeming: "One must at times pay dearly for life lived from being; but it is never too dear" and "We see the forces of real life at work as they drive out the ghosts, till the semblance vanishes and the depths of personal life call to one another" (Buber, p. 672). Later, Buber refers to "the invasion of seeming, and the inadequacy of perception" as two examples of things that "impede the growth of life between [humans]" (675). A third distinction is between imposition and unfolding. Buber characterizes imposing as the act of propaganda, and unfolding as education "by meeting, by existential communication between someone that is an actual being and someone that is in a process of becoming" (675). Finally, they ought to pick up on some of what he says about genuine dialogue, "a turning of the being" (677) by "keeping nothing back" (687): "To keep nothing back is the exact opposite of unreserved speech. Everything depends on the legitimacy of 'what I have to say'" (678). Ideally, students will recognize "unreserved speech" in the section we discussed on the skill of disclosure (when, what, and why not).
A few points I don't expect students to follow up on but which intrigued me involved Buber's criticism that "An effort is being made today radically to destroy the mystery between man and man" (674). I waver on the edges of certain academic circles because I embrace the mystery! And I love Buber's phrase, "imagining the real" (674).
Concerning feedback, I love this book, What Did You Say? by a married couple and an professor I actually took a class from back in the days of earning the MA degree. They say, "the simple, straight interactions do not account for 99% of our time during the working day, because they just happen in a few seconds and then are forgotten. The most complex kind of interactions may account for less than 1% of our interactions during a typical working day. Yet, because we cannot untangle them, or untangle ourselves from them, we find ourselves spending half our time, or more, in such unproductive interactions" (1992, 20-21).
Students will hopefully grasp the definition: "Feedback can be defined as
~ information about past behavior
~ delivered in the present
~ which may influence future behavior."
The brief summaries of Freud's defense mechanisms, the particular defense mechanism of projection, and the concept of the unconscious are useful. We did not discuss them but students may make connections. (I'm a believer, btw, in this contemporary critique and 'rescue' of Freud's unconscious through dialogic repression by Michael Billig).
I often use an activity based on the Johari Window when I teach in the traditional classroom. (I hadn't yet considered how to use it online. Hmmmm.) I particularly like the way the model illustrates a region of ourselves which we might be unaware of, and also that there is a totally unknown zone, which I always explain as a quadrant of capacity (for growth, development, regression (!), etc).
Additionally, systems theory comes from cybernetics (Herbert Weiner), which students might recognize (as a bit of an intuitive leap) from our talk of structure (e.g., episodes) and patterns in what gets said - or even is able to be said. My experiential pedagogy stems directly from the work of Kurt Lewin's action research, "the use of real human learning groups as laboratories in which to study interaction" (p. 16). We did not openly discuss Carl Rogers (scroll down for two charts on positive regard and incongruence) or Virginia Satir's Interaction Model this time around, but both privilege the interactive, cyclical, interdependent and systematic nature of communicating and relating. I don't expect students to cover all of these, just to make connections if the models or ideas help to integrate whatever lessons are uppermost in the student's minds.
Tom Isgar's piece, On Responsibility, Or, "Who's Responsible Around Here Anyhow?" will probably resonate in reference to the small group projects, but I hope students grasp its application to the entire class. "...participants are first and foremost responsible for themselves" (p. 4) "...responsibility for learning and for conduct is shared by the participant and trainer" (p. 5). I wonder if anyone will note the example of an instrumental relationship and connect it to the conversation held during the presentation on Communicating with Friends and Family?
Isgar's piece is in Reading Book for Human Relations Training, Seventh Edition, along with another article by Ronald Lippit, The Circular Process of Social Interaction, which details how "individual's self-image and attitudes toward others condition what happens in any given interaction. In other words, people respond to someone largely on the basis of how he behaves toward them; and his behavior toward them is produced primarily by his attitudes toward them and his feelings about himself" (p. 75). Again, plenty of connections with structure.
Finally, the students were to review the introductory reading from W. Barnett Pearce on the differences between the transmission model of communication and the social constructionist model.
Finally, I hope students will return, somehow, to the definition of interpersonal communication given by our textbook's author, John Stewart:
Final Paper:
Remember that the teacher’s pedagogy is experiential, which means: “rather than tell you what to learn, I am trying to teach you how to look.” This paper is your demonstration that you have learned “how to look” at the abstract subject and concrete practices of interpersonal communication.
Grammatical Correctness and Organizational Structure Matter: if headings will help you organize the Final Paper and keep track for yourself, then please use them. Please write (like you ought to, for a college level paper) in standard academic paragraphs with clear introduction sentences, supporting sentences (body of paragraphs), and conclusion/transition sentences.
The point is that the audience (the readers: the teacher obviously but also potentially your classmates) should not be left guessing if you did/didn't do everything. Organize the paper's content however you want - be creative, write well! - but make sure readers can follow what you are writing and can identify which (of what you write) fulfills what (element of) the criteria.
CONTENT: During this semester we’ve covered the following topics: similarities and differences between online (monitor-to-monitor) and face-to-face interpersonal communication, functions of interpersonal communication, goals of interpersonal communication, distinguishing interpersonal from mass communication, various factors influencing individual and cultural ways/behaviors of interpersonal communication, definition and origins of meaning, the influence of interpersonal communication being public or private, conceptions of language, uses and meanings of silence, the social construction view of communication, the social scientific study of communication, role and production of values in/through communication, the communicative behavior of ‘nexting’, the moral dimension of communication, “logic of meaning and action” (Pearce), temporality and communication, perception, listening, definition/experience of social vertigo (and remedies), the notion of “inhaling”, the notion of “exhaling” and the relationship between the two, loops/patterns in communication, the tension of dialogue, the episodic nature of communication events, structure and communication, role of expectations in interpersonal communication, emotions and communication, the production and re-creation of meaning, the transmission view of communication, representation (words as symbols, identity as constructed in interaction), holding your ground, experiencing ‘the otherness’ of the other, differences between form and content, uses and misuses of authority, managing conflict, nonverbal communication, repair, social construction of misunderstanding, written vs spoken language, gender socialization and intimate relationships, social construction of friendship, ethics in personal relationships, interactional disconfirmation, interactional confirmation, dealing with hurtful messages, violence reduction through communication, co-construction of deception and betrayal, attention, intentional ordering of information in consciousness, differentiation, integration, productive conflict, destructive conflict, and the role of blame in interpersonal conflict.
A definition of interpersonal communication was drawn from Stewart and reinforced throughout the semester. In this paper, please
PART ONE:
1) rank the top three skills you have learned concerning interpersonal communication and explain
a. what you learned (precisely)
b. why learning this matters (in general)
c. how you will use (or are already using) this learning (in particular.
b) Similarly list and describe the three skills you wish you had learned more about. Include
a. The reason why you believe this skill is important
b. The situations in which you feel you need this skill
c. What prevented you from learning more about it during this course.
PART TWO:
Using the six items listed in Part One (sections A and B), explain how the assigned readings for this paper
a) Deepen your knowledge of what you already learned well
b) Fill in gaps and/or suggest ways you can pursue learning those things you wish you had learned
c) Point you toward new learnings you had not yet considered or did not list.
HOW to read the assigned reading for this paper in order to accomplish the tasks listed above:
Think about the skills you have learned. We covered many topics but I do not want you to summarize the topics themselves - I want you to consider what skills and/or tools you now have (or have improved upon) that you did not have (or not so well) before this class.
The assigned readings (for the final paper) are all by way of a "summary" of what I think are key lessons of the whole course: one approach as you read them is to notice what you are reminded of, what you realize you did not know/understand/notice before, what/why/how you think of "interpersonal communication" in new/different/expanded/(etc) ways now than before.
I've noticed in the Peer Review threads that those of you who - as participants - have posted about the Team/the Presentation have written things like, "I learned alot" but only a few of you actually say WHAT you've learned, or ... you might say something in particular, but not in very specific terms. I want the examples of what you did differently and/or how what you did "worked" accompanied with an explanation of the principles: what is the mental map you bring to communicating interpersonally ? Which models show or otherwise illustrate, make sense of, what you actually did or did not say? Which models and theories illuminate the skills you use in approaching - and doing! - interpersonal communication? What are you thinking about/considering/imagining in terms of what can/cannot be accomplished through interpersonal communication?
These are the kinds of questions to ask yourself, now, as you read (and re-read) the assigned articles and chapters. It wouldn't hurt to scan back over the whole course, either....refresh your mind about the topics we discussed, the issues that arose, how issues/problems/concerns were resolved (or not), if conversations actually developed - and, if so - about what?
In other words, while there is a framework that allows me to grade the final papers according to standards that can be measured (below), I also intend to build in flexibility so that you can be very precise and specific about what you learned that matters the most to you (which may be different than what another student learned most importantly for themself).
Assigned Reading:
In the text:
1) Chapter 16: A Philosopher's Approach p. 663-681 (8th Edition), p. 679-696 (9th Edition).
In ereserves:
2) Isgar, Tom. On Responsibility. Reading Book for Human Relations Training. pp.4-5
3) Lippitt, Ronald. The Circular Process of Social Interaction. Reading Book for Human Relations Training. pp. 75-77.
4) Seashore, Charles N. Part 1 Facts and Fantasies About Feedback. What Did You Say. pp.3-21.
5) [review] Pearce, W. Barnett. Understanding Communication. Interpersonal Communication, Making Social Worlds. Pp 18-30.
PART THREE:
Before you turn in your paper (and AFTER you've written it!), compose an introduction that both summarizes your overall experience of this class and introduces the rest of your paper.
PART FOUR:
Finally, craft a conclusion arguing why the subject of interpersonal communication is a specific and worthwhile field of the study.
GRADING:
The paper is worth 150 points.
First, I will read to confirm that you have completed all four parts, thoroughly. Any missing subpart will result in a deduction of five points. (If, for instance, you did not include a, b, and c in relation to one of the skills you wish you’d learned more about, that’s 15 points gone. If you do not include a, b, and c for all three items in Part B, that’s 45 points lost.) This means do all the parts! (Because doing them will deepen your thinking, and that is what I am after.) Another example, if your introduction does not include an overall summary (docked five points) or a segue into the rest of your paper (bye bye 5 points!)
Second, I will read to see that you understand the difference between the transmission and social construction models of communication. This is a quality component of the grade, worth 30 points.
Third, I will read for supporting quotes and/or cited paraphrases from the assigned readings. If you include one per article, that is a “break even” score – no earned points, but also not lost points. For each additional quotation/paraphrase (cited) from an article (above the required ONE per each), you will earn three points (unless it is used inaccurately, so don’t just slap ‘em in for the heck of it!). If you do not cite one of the required readings, that will be a loss of ten points, each.
Leave a comment