From UMassWiki

Communication Skills

Contents 1 First Report (Class #5) 1.1 overview 1.2 Interruptions and Filler words 1.2.1 Filler words 1.2.1.1 USES 1.2.1.2 Analysis 1.3 Body Language 1.3.1 some specifics 1.4 Content 1.5 Tone, leadership, volume 1.6 who talked, How often, and order 2 First Report Addition (late) 2.1 Content/ Group Functions 3 Second Reports

First Report (Class #5)

overview

After our first group presentation we realized, with the help of Steph, that our categories could have been dispersed differently so our first move within the group was to make more sense of our categories. After observing the Communicative patterns of the fishbowl studies during our last class, it was evident that the participants felt more comfortable doing this task.

Interruptions and Filler words

in both fishbowls (D and E)

Fishbowl 1 stats:

Filler words

(i.e. um, uh, you know, like, etc)

USES

ERIC – 15 MATTY – 35 ANTHONY – 22 JUSTIN – 15 EMMA – 8 BRIAN – 50 ANGELA – 3

Justin interrupts amongst general group murmuring. Brain cuts Justin off mid-sentence but after his thought has been essentially expressed. Anthony cuts through group murmuring to address Brian and the rest of the group. Justin interrupts Emma in order to clarify a point of confusion. Angela interrupts Emma.

Analysis

A relatively low rate of interruption (as compared to typical casual conversation) is observed in both fishbowls. Perhaps this has to do with the critical environment in which the fishbowls are operating, with all members aware of being observed (and potentially judged).

Many filler words were used in both groups, but primarily during individual participation - as opposed to filling gaps of silence within the group discussions. This is possibly a natural result of inexperienced public speakers.

Body Language

in Fishbowl #2

Basically everyones body language was fairly different. Everyone had their own fidgety moves. Some were very smiley and laughing, others had a more serious demeanor. All the girls had their legs crossed, while the guys had their legs straight out under their desks.

some specifics

Alex: uses one hand when speaking. Looks around questioningly when speaking, and then looks down. Seems interested when other people speak, looks involved. Francisco: He often rubbed his hands together. Generally looks at one person at a time, when speaking. Played with his pen. His body was leaning over his desk in a very relaxed and calm demeanor. Jazz: Was tapping her foot a lot. Had her hand on her face. Nodded in agreement. Finger in mouth. Her body was slouched, was very happy, smiling, and laughing. Ashley: Uses both hands when speaking. Had very good posture and had a happy, friendly demeanor. Laughed a good amount. Gina: Both of her hands were moving on the desk. Generally looked very serious sometimes judgmental. Slouched over and had a "I don’t really care" demeanor.

Content

Map of the conversation during Fishbowl #2: Alex starts things off. The group tried to generally summarize all information. Ashley makes a general statement about group function. Gina states an opinion. Jazz points out a discrepancy between concepts. Francisco tries to give some perspective to Jazz’s point. Jazz clarifies her point. Ashley tries to add more perspective. (in some ways to counter Jazz’s argument) Francisco makes a modified argument combining his points with Ashley’s. They take turns picking examples from the list. Francisco searches for and then points out a recurring theme. Gina agrees with him and expands upon his point. Jazz agrees and attempts to add a reason and perspective. Gina gives a personal account. Francisco realizes a large point of confusion. The group tries to clarify any and all other points of confusion. The conversation takes a turn into providing reasons (rather than simply observation) Francisco tried to refocus the group conversation. Alex responds to him directly. Gina offers an analogy. Alex offers a hypothesis for the findings. Jazz provides a meta-reflection: “Did we answer all the questions?” The group murmurs and then ends the fishbowl.

Tone, leadership, volume

Throughout the two fishbowl discussions I was listening to the participants and observing tone of voice, name use, leadership and volume. Because I have been in charge of generally the same categories since February 11th I was able to realize that even though the people within the fishbowl change, the same people seem to take the lead within the conversations.

During Fishbowl One both Anthony and Matty took leadership roles, Anthony by agreeing with what others said and then adding his own two cents, and also by asking questions to spur discussion and Matty by asking questions and making sure everyone understood the gist of the topic: “Everyone clear what the gist is?....I would say the gist is…”. Matty spoke clearly and loud enough to be heard, he also used his hands often during times he spoke and always had eye contact with whomever he was speaking with. By the end of the conversation Matty sums up their main ideas and suggests taking a vote. Angela was interesting when she spoke because she looked at her peers (specifically Emma) for reassurance and also seemed to have a tone of voice that suggested that she needed reassurance. Emma nodded her head as a way to reassure Angela and tilted her head to make sure it was evident that she was listening. After Emma listened she contributed, Emma spoke well and her eye contact remained on the piece of paper in front of her until the end. She spoke with her arms crossed in front of her and in general spoke quietly. Erik is in my opinion, always a good contributor to fishbowl conversations. He listens well, speaks loud and clear and feels comfortable speaking his mind without being too overbearing. Many times throughout the discussion a group member would listen to someone speak and say that they agree with their statement and add on more. It seems as if this is the least offensive and interruptive way to keep the group conversing. When studying the communicative patterns in the group I always feel as if participants are very careful as to not offend anybody. Generally, the volume of the participant’s voices would be quiet in the beginning of a statement and increase in volume if they continued to speak.

Fishbowl two was very interesting. Like I said earlier, I feel as if the students within the fishbowl feel more and more comfortable within this setting. Early on I noticed that Alex and Jazz tended to lead the conversation. Throughout the discussion Jazz spoke often and moved her hands and papers around a lot. She was argumentative which might have motivated the other members of the group to also be that way. Gina was noticeably a little bit angry, and this was evident not only from her frustrated tone of voice, but also by the fact that she interrupted another student: “But it wasn’t for this class!” Gina interrupts Ashley who is speaking about whether or not it was necessary to read previous students blog posts. The conversation gets more heated as it progresses, at one point Alex gets a little offended and jokingly says that he’s retracting his previous statement in a comical tone. The general tone of the group turned to a bit of a comical one once the group members got frustrated. I feel as if this happened as a way to lighten up the conversation, I don’t think anyone in the group wanted anyone else to get mad at them or feel as if they were attacking them. This is a good step for our fishbowl studies because I feel as if the students are feeling more and more comfortable within this setting. Once everyone feels comfortable the conversations will be more interesting and less careful.

who talked, How often, and order

(order actually not recorded this time)

Fishbowl 1: Angela talked the most with 12 different times. Matty talked for the most time. Angela talked in more short incraments. Everyone talked at least once, some longer then others.

Fishbowl 2: Alex and Ashley tied with speaking 14 times each. The fishbowl got conversational at times and then also had times where they took turns saying stuff for longer times. everyone talked, it was interesting to see that Jazz would almost always talk only after another female spoke

First Report Addition (late)

here are the findings of the final member of the pepperment group:

Content/ Group Functions

Matt S- Started things off by beginning the conversation. By beginning the conversation Matt also directed where the conversation was going to go. Angela - Was focused on getting the general consensus of thoughts, tried to find what Steph wanted. Erik- Was interested in the breaking down of the material in front of them Justin- Brought forth a new point of view, and redirected to the next question

I found that the group functioned in a way that all were able to speak with almost no interruptions except for clarifications. Generally, all wanted to wait for one to finish speaking before comments reflects etc. Justin as a "follower" seemed to be the one who was task oriented and concerned with keeping the group on task in order to answer as many questions as possible.

Second Reports

Steph asks: Do you want these here (with your first report) or in some kind of combination with the other group's reports? Steph^(talk) 10:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)