Thanks to the COM352 students for contributing a bunch of new pages! I'll be moving these pages into the main area of the wiki soon.

From UMassWiki

The theory of metacommunication states that, when knowledge is transferred from one person to another, there exists a message beyond the explicit information that helps us understand how to interpret what we are told, instructed, or commanded. These clues for how to decipher the message often derive from tone or context. When these clues are not available, taking note of the source often provides a greater background for understanding the message. After receiving a message from a particular source over a period of time, our minds construct automatic ways to decipher this information, a method of interpretation that can help us find the importance of a message without separate analysis for every reception. (Vinyerd). Thus, the implied meaning can often be confused by the receiver if the clues for understanding these messages are confused, or interpreted incorrectly. In the course of freshman writing, I have learned that the equivocation of several words has the ability to change the meaning of an entire message.

Improving upon academic writing means clarifying, organizing, and properly structuring the message conveyed in order to avoid confusion or decrease your credibility in the mind of the reader. For my unit four paper, my intended message to critique the coverage of the Virginia Tech killings left me questioning how my message would be intended, as my actual message remained in the style of my writing, and word usage. I found myself having to decipher my own intended message in several given contexts in order to avoid potentially offending someone through my words that often had double-meaning, or equivocation. I had to view my paper objectively and in an authoritative manner to verify that my paper, later submitted for a larger public, would be interpreted with the same tone with which I wrote. Specifically, I changed my paper by removing quotations from the word Massacre, which changed the implied meaning from an almost a sarcastic tone, to a factual statement which also carried a degree of judgment.

After reading my piece in the Class Magazine, which included several slight grammatical changes and changes in indentation, I was relieved to find that my writing did not carry the same offensive tone I was afraid I incorporated. The changes agreed with my intended argument; a brief explanation of how cable news outlets inappropriately handled the events. The indentation of the last sentence in the introduction, creating a new paragraph, strengthened the tone of the paper by isolating exactly how the media stereotyped this through a few simple phrases. I was pleased to learn that others were disgusted by the coverage, with others writing about the topic in different forms. As I was reading my piece, I felt that my writing flowed nicely and that I nearly perfected my goals for structural organization. Since I had not read my piece in a while, I felt informed and also surprised by the effort I managed to include given the restricted time. Without reading the other selections in the class magazine, I believe that an uninformed browser would receive my message in a manner close to the way I intended, without being distracted by amateur mistakes and instances of repetition. I can say that I am proud with the result.

In most academic writing, especially what I have done this semester, the ability to argue and convince has been an important strategy. The metacommunication, or the implied context for the papers we have written has been to argue a specific claim. When the papers are read, they are interpreted in the context of an argumentative paper and graded accordingly. For unit two, I initially summarized Kothari’s claim without offering counterpoint arguments or a critical analysis for why her claim was valid. I wrote to the Professor without anticipating a conversation, or an argument to the claim I supported. I forgot that not only my writing, but my claim and how I supported it would be graded. I removed my writing from the implied context of the assignment, and by doing so, failed to meet the requirements of the essay. Within the writing, I attempted to remove the attitude from my paper which I find usually consistent amongst all my writings, an attempt that created a robotic tone in a somewhat uninteresting paper. I’m always trying to strike a balance with personal interjections while maintaining an academic quality when arguing a claim.

I was hesitant to hand in my unit one paper because I felt that I was describing myself inaccurately. In order to provide a compelling argument for why I perform my actions with a degree of indifference, I found myself fabricating a story while trying to insert as much factual information as possible. I knew that the essay would be judged beyond grammatical accuracy and sentence construction. By writing about myself, I would be making a statement about my personality and writing process, two aspects that were not properly reflected. The essay was practice for suggesting an argument that in reality is less substantial, an exercise more valuable in rhetorical practice than some of the other assignments.

My writing on the Wiki is essentially not there, aside from homework assignments and in class activities which required posting. Looking back on the semester and my relaxed view of publishing my material to an online source, I do not understand how I managed to avoid posting my unit papers and sprucing my page to reflect any aspect of my personality. Reflecting on my webpage, I am not surprised if others believed I slacked during this semester or was too lazy to understand how to use the Wiki. I did not judge myself on how much I posted on the Wiki, but the quality and the timely matter I submitted my unit papers and assignments which truly reflected my dedication to the class. Until this point of the course, I was unaware of how many baseline points I missed by not posting correctly on the Wiki. Looking back on the quality of work I produced during the semester, and those pieces which may have helped other students, I regret not posting my unit four paper.

I have learned to provide myself with an outline before writing, in order to ensure that my writing reflects both my ability and standards. I will try and convey my messages, claims, and arguments in such a way for future works. I can see my thoughts more organized in my mind before I write them, a crucial step in this practice.

For Unit three, the subject matter of my material properly reflected my beliefs. Both my claim and implicit statement that, as an educated student I care about the environment, were both accurate and not obscured by other personal views. I knew how the paper would be received by the professor, and I was sure that her interpretation would at least partially mirror my values concerning the subject of hydrogen energy and the environment. I wanted my message to be conveyed in a serious manner, although I was quick to find material and limited by the time. My explicit message was clear, while my implicit message of a moderate work ethic and genuine concern for the subject at hand could have used some work.

Metacommunication is an aspect of interpersonal relations that is rarely deconstructed, as most of the messages conveyed are understood given the context and source. Academic writing, where there is little room for unsubstantiated claims and beliefs, needs to be deconstructed in such a manner to ensure that both the message and the implicit statements made are accurate to your true beliefs. Metacommunication not only describes the way that the author wants to be interpreted, but how the author interprets and judges the audience. In order to avoid miscommunication, deconstructing and analyzing ideas are crucial for correct understanding. Fotomaki 17:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)