Here are two examples of writing that does get to gist: A conservative explains When ‘Identity Politics’ is Rational, and the Douglas Adams-inspired website offers up a summary of a different kind of economics.
What did Rafael find inspiring about Thump’s post, and what could not be taken away from a representation of Steph and Rafael’s conversation to keep it clear that you are referring to our conversation?
Students proposed a wide range of reasons for Rafael’s appreciation of Thump’s post, including the quality (style) of the writing itself, the actual content, literal quotes, and analytical inferences. I’m interested in these explanations because their diversity illustrates the challenge of pinning down “meaning”. (Neither philosophers nor linguists agree on the meaning of meaning.)
One way to answer the assigned question: “What was it about Thumpasorus’s decision-making post about not attending the No Mas FARC protest that impressed Rafael so much?” was to extrapolate directly from what Rafael wrote. Several students noted the contrast Rafael made with reasons posed by other students (see donwayneleach for an acknowledgment), leading to the conclusion that Thump “did not take the easy way out” by citing common reasons for not attending, and one student quoted Rafael’s statement that “there was something more. Worth reading.” These literal “meanings” are sufficient if one is only interested in the transmission of a simple message with unambiguous content. I would venture to suggest that these real and factual statements are evidence of a larger frame. Perhaps the words themselves indicate particular meanings, but the meaningfulness of the conversation is in/from the frame(s).
Many students noticed the high quality of Thump’s writing, describing it as “thoughtful,” “thorough, ” and “in-depth.” For instance, “The thought process that she presented was extremely well thought out and was articulated in a concise, intelligent manner.” Additionally, some students remarked that this post was “realistic” and “more revealing,” beginning with the opening, in which Thump’s “initial reaction [was] written in a very honest way.” The quality of being “honest” was mentioned frequently and described as “refreshing.” Someone thought Thump shifted into an explanation of “the real reasons for not attending.”
One of the interesting aspects of this particular interaction among all of us (teacher, students, community activist) is how we might identify and address feedback. It is possible to get stuck in a narrow definition that says “feedback” is a particular kind of commentary that offers either criticism or praise. But feedback is any kind of communication that is delivered in the present, about something that happened in the past, with potential to affect the future (Seashore, Seashore, and Weinberg). By identifying what you think Rafael meant, you give him information (feedback) about how other people read his words, but even more than that (!) you give information about yourself: in other words, given the question of identifying the gist (!) of Thump’s post you inform me (and anyone else who is reading) what you find important – either to yourself personally, or that fits some criteria you’ve learned that supposedly defines the category. By noticing what you do and don’t “find” – or at least, what you do and don’t say that you’ve found – I gather feedback (!) that helps me decide on the next activities.
Since we are studying ourselves as a group (in this course on group dynamics, with an emphasis on decision-making), I’m committed to bringing our focus to the task of sorting through the inevitable diversity of responses which can all be considered “right” to one degree or another. The reason for this is that in all groups with a task there is always a twofold outcome: the product (content) and the evaluation of how well the content matches up with the intention (process). For evaluation to be meaningful, there must be a standard of measurement. Can we be even more specific about what earned Thump the “congratulations” of someone not even in our class?
Several of you did name much more particular elements and/or describe what differentiated Thump’s post from the others. These more analytical responses fall roughly into three groups: those that evaluated Thump’s writing on the basis of engagement with Rafael’s issue of concern (FARC), those that evaluated Thump’s writing on the basis of engagement with material in our class, and those that evaluated Thump’s writing more generally, on the basis of broad application.
Thump “showed some knowledge of FARC.” Admitting the delay in memory, the author brings up many ideas from the conversation between Steph and Rafael, “actually [giving] some thought into the proper approach for dealing with FARC,” going so far as even to “[bring] up the valid point that the US should be more involved in dismantling FARC.” In fact, Thump even “told his friends in Boston.”
As far as applying course material, both leadership and decision-making are identified. “Thump analyzed his decision-making unlike anyone else in the class,” with another student concluding, “Thump’s decision-making process was not entirely selfish.” The combination of all the features identified lead to a recognition of leadership: Thump “displayed leadership skills: even when everyone in the class seemed to have the same ‘boring’ answers.”
Finally, some students suggested even broader grounds for marking Thump’s post for special notice. Not only did Thump respond to the direct (required) question, Thump “linked the ideas about the rally to other parts of their life.” The writing was “eloquent and thorough” enough that an outline could be identified:
1. Direct (personal) experience
2. Social action in general
3. Reason for not attending
Two other features of Thump’s post were identified that do not easily fit into the categories above. One is the way Thump acknowledges “aware[ness] of his own apathy” and the second is how the hypothesis offered by one student that having done such careful analysis in writing is what actually “produced for the writer a way to make some impact -> educating friends.”
We’ve been talking (in class) about frames (according to Goffman). Pedagogically, I want students to recognize the frames they bring to the classroom. Theoretically, they will also hopefully learn to develop two generalizable skills: recognizing the frames they bring to other situations, and realizing when their own frame is in conflict with other people’s frames in that situation. This is the crucial foundation for grappling with the unpredictable permutations of group dynamics. Simultaneously, we’re reading After Dachau. I am trying to establish wonder as the normative principle for dealing with difference.
Somehow, the students need to combine this theoretical information into the practical task of creating a course wikisite. As they grapple with defining the gist of the site – that specific, precise point or idea that links everything together – I hope they will consider the interaction of frames they build upon and the one they model. For instance, some of the things that gave students pause while reading After Dachau include:
- “…why each place of time is different. I think of time passing by and effecting the next day ahead of it.”
- the mystery of ““trying to piece it together like it was written today”
- the dilemmas of “culturally enforced ethics & history”
- and
- the role and conceptions of language: (e.g., sign language? Deaf? Can’t speak? Learns speech so fast?)
The novel (which is fiction) takes “a big turn” at a certain point. Will students design a site that invites/engages readers in “turning” (i.e., breaking frames) or will they choose to deliberately reproduce a particular frame?
I wonder. 🙂
A Place in Space 
Monday February 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Interesting final paragraph. I don’t know what went on in class last week but I remember us talking about potentially creating a website in regards to surviving UMASS. In a way I think this can be considered “turning” if turning is defined as breaking frames. Would one expect Umass students to post ideas on a Umass sponsored website about how to beat the college system? I wouldn’t think so, but will we in fact do that? I wonder 🙂
Sunday March 2, 2008 at 12:54 am
In regards to where the class is at while trying to create our class project I feel as though we are still in stage II, the adolescence stage. I feel that we are here because the last class discussion surrounding what our class project should be did not go smoothly in my opinion. I thought the fishbowl was repetitive, and yet didn’t accomplish anything when it was brought to the rest of the class. Overall, no decisions were made, and “individuals are beginning to challenge differences in a bid to regain their individuality, power, and influence.” I feel that this part of Weber’s article correctly describes what went on last class. Everyone had their “own” idea as to what the best process would be when creating the Survival Guide to UMASS, and in turn nothing got accomplished because the group as a whole was not united in wanting to create this guide. I will be interested to see what the next class has to offer and if our group dynamic can shift to the next stage, or if we will stay in the perpetual battle or trying to retain our individuality?
Sunday March 2, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I agree with Samsies that it seems as though we are still in the adolescent stage. This was seen in the last class where there was no regard to authority, and how the fishbowl was an absolute mess as Samsies stated above. I think the reasoning relates to what Weber stated in the Adolescent stage, “the leadership is one of counter-dependence. ie., attempting to resolve the felt dependency of Stage 1 by reacting negatively to any leadership behavior which is evident. This was clearly seen when Jazz tried to focus the class and have them have some structure. Her leadership was largely disregarded and the chaos continued.
Sunday March 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I feel that our class is split into two different levels. Some of us seem to still be in Stage I: infancy (forming), and other members of our class have initiated Stage II, the adolescence stage of “storming.” While some still seem to be confused about their own roles in the group and whether or not they wish to be included, others have begun to “bid for” and “attack” power. The evidence of this is clear when reflecting on our last class. I felt some tension in the group as members tried to establish their leadership, and that leadership was often “attacked” when the other group members resisted or ignored suggestions and attempts to get on task. This split in our class has caused us to be divided as a group. We have not been able to get anything accomplished, and have not confirmed or attempted to find out if everyone is even on the same level. It seems as though it has been assumed that we have all moved forward together at the same rate. I do not feel that this is the case and have no explanation as to why this has happened. I can only assume and hope that the chaos will soon subside, and that we will begin to move forward as a class and become a more organized group.
Sunday March 2, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I think the class seems to be in stage II where people are still brainstorming on what to do on the wiki page. As the direction of the task becomes clearer, ‘group members react and will generally attack the designated leadership, as well as any emerging leaders within the group’. We have not gotten into stage III yet because we didn’t come up a conclusion in last class. We as a group haven’t decided on what to do and put on the wiki page. The voting did not happen as people in class were still throwing out ideas. Therefore, it shows that people are trying to gain their individuality, power and influence by throwing out their ideas.
Sunday March 2, 2008 at 10:21 pm
If the stage of our group’s progress were to be categorized using Weber’s guidelines, it would probably lie in the “adolescence” stage, although it does seem to linger slightly in the “infancy” stage. I say this because no individual has risen as a recognizable leader. Certain students seem to be making movements in the leadership direction, however. For example, Eric nominated himself as the much needed moderator in our group discussions. Also, Sara has inevitably taken a dominant role in the discussion as the popular idea of a “survival guide” to Umass was hers. It appears that we are approaching stage two, “Adolescence,” because we have a basic concept our webpage will likely adopt. Some still debate whether the Umass Survival Guide should be our final decision, but I don’t see it feasibly going any other way. Much effort has already been devoted to this concept, and with limited class time it would unlikely for all this work to be scrapped. Also, were it to go to vote, only a small minority would likely vote against it. It is a creative idea, however I feel like it was accepted so quickly because it is a very easy solution. Having everyone do his or her own thing requires little orchestration. Also as evidence we are treading in “adolescence” waters, there has been a limited amount of conflict in our discussions. As I recall, a few people raised concerns about whether the class as a whole would be pleased to build this “survival guide.” Such sentiments can be found on the wordpress threads as well.
Monday March 3, 2008 at 11:28 am
I agree with Thump’s comment. Although I was part of the group who suggested the “Survival Guide” it seems as if it definitely is to late to be able to even try and suggest anything else since so much time has been devoted to this project. It seems as if there are members of the class who may have other ideas of what to do but are either afraid to bring these ideas up or realize that it would be to difficult to switch at this point so they are going to just go with what has pretty much already been decided. I do think that although last class it seemed as if not much got done, like voting on whether or not to actually have the site, never actually happened, that towards the end certain people began to take on leadership roles to facilitate the process. I think we are consistently making strides and I am eager to see where today’s class will go.
Monday March 3, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Although a small amount of the class may still be in the Stage I infancy category because they still seem to be “forming” into the possible leader role that is necessary for Stage II, the majority of the class has definitely moved to the Stage II Adolescence category because they have reached the “storming” aspect of their strive to be leaders. It seems to be very apparent however, that no one has moved onto Stage III in the class yet. Those in the Adolescence stage seem to know what should be happening but they do not appear to be completely organized and nothing has really been accomplished yet. Mike, Matt, Eric, Jill, Sara, Dan, and Jazz all did a great job in the fishbowl last week brainstorming ideas but at the end they were all still throwing out ideas with no real conclusion being made. This fact is what is keeping the students in our class from reaching Stage III. The article states that, “until individuals break out of this frustrating cycle of reaction and begin initiating independent and interdependent behavior they will remain in Stage II”. Some students definitely seem to be leaders and taking initiative, but no standout work by either group as a ‘leader’ has been made yet. I agree with Thumpasorus and Bradytomoss that we seemed to go with the decision to make a “Survival Guide” not just because it was a good idea but also because it was an easy decision and so much time was devoted to this project already. Hopefully we can all make a decision soon and progress to Adulthood in Stage III.
Monday March 3, 2008 at 12:40 pm
In order to maintain a successful and cohesive group I think the most important thing for our class to do is to understand frames. I missed last class and noticed that Samesies felt as if the fishbowls were unsuccessful and that the discusion about our project also didn’t go smoothly. If we all realize that each of us come into a situation with differing frames, and that we will not all agree, our group will be able to flourish. I often notice that within our group members “react and will generally attack the designated leadership (facilitators), as well as any emerging leaders within the group. Many times frustration is aimed at Steph when she introduces new concepts or does not give the group as much information as they are used to. After reading Weber’s piece, I realize that this sort of “attack” reaction is a pertinent part of a group’s growth and development. I feel as if our class as a whole is struggling through the “storming” stage, maybe because we don’t know each other well enough yet (there are lots of people in our class). I suggest that our unfamiliarity with one another is preventing the development of our group because of my experiences in smaller groups within the larger class. Within my small group (the candy ones) I feel as if we are at the “Norming and Performing” stage because of the time we have spent working collaboratively. I also feel as if our experience of accomplishment after we presented our communicative pattern findings also provided a powerful unifying force. Maybe once our whole class reaches a consensus about what our big project will be, or at least recognizes the difficulties and diversities that will come with making these decisions we will be able to move forward as a unified and successful unit.
Monday March 3, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I believe that our class in stage 11 of Weber’s A cycle from Birth to Death. This stage is known as Adolescences , “storming” This stage is known to be the most difficult because our group is dealing with major decision making procedures and looking for leadership. There have been a few classmates that seem to have leadership qualities, but this becomes mistaken with classmates that like to vocalize their opinions, and feel powerful within the group. As a class we pretty much know what to be expected of us in terms of the group Wiki Project, In terms of the class many feel confused due to the lack of structure that we as college students are accustomed to. I can speak for myself when I say that this class is unlike any that I have taken, and I am used to the teacher making the decisions not the students, especially when we can’t even decide on what to create for the Wiki. Interpersonally the group is looking or directions and there own contributions in terms of how much control they want to have. The leadership issue is that of reacting. Many people are juts spouting out ideas or voicing opinions but as a group we have not made any concrete decisions just talking about what we might want to do. No one has opposed the Wiki “surviving Umass” and many are attempting to create decisions, but for some reasons (stage 2) we never came to a conclusions last class.
Monday March 3, 2008 at 1:34 pm
As do many of my classmates, I agree our class is in the adolescences stage as defined by Weber. Although we have produced many positive ideas and generated a lot of conversation, we do not yet have a consensus. This is what Weber refers to as “storming.” Many students are still lobbing ideas around and not actually getting specific goals accomplished. As a group, there is still a struggle with the frame of the classroom and the conflict between trying to get things done and how we have learned to behave in a classroom setting. For example, last class Jazz attempted to finalize the “Surviving UMASS” guide idea with a class vote, although the idea was repeatedly brushed aside in favor of more discussion. I guess we’ll see what happens when we get back to discussion…
Monday March 3, 2008 at 2:14 pm
As seems to be the usual so far, I also agree we as a group fit best into the adolescence stage. I do think chocolatemilk has a couple good points. Our class is not all on the same level; with some students having not spoken, by default they seem to be in the infancy phase. This also strongly suggests we are not all on agreement regarding this survival thing, but as others above me have pointed out, we are somewhat invested in the idea thus far and with little class time, I think it will likely be produced. I also agree that there is a void in leadership. I think that this is something very specific to our class and its group dynamic. With absolutely no relative power structure, I think people are hesitant (myself included) to assume leadership roles in fear of coming off as controlling. I don’t really know what the best answer is to this problem, but I think that someone needs to either take control or be nominated soon, and follow on structure of the group will likely come more naturally. How will we reach our full potential with zero leadership? We may be able to move past storming, but I feel our group sessions are so inefficient without some organization.
Monday March 3, 2008 at 2:19 pm
It seems as if most people agree that our group is in “Stage II: Adolescence.” Our group does embody many of Weber’s characterizations of Stage II. Weber says that any emerging leaders bids for power may be addressed with “direct attacks” or “covert nonsupport.” As Moses84 talked about, “This was clearly seen when Jazz tried to focus the class and have them have some structure. Her leadership was largely disregarded and the chaos continued.” Our groups disregard to Jazz’s attempt to “focus the class and have them have some structure” was met with “covert nonsupport.” Now that we have the opportunity to read about Weber’s interpretation of the group cycle, I think that our group mentality will change. I don’t think that it’s an accident that, after our large group conversation where not much was solved, Steph gave us this guide to the stages groups go through. Weber has shown us how our groups will progress and in turn has given us the information on what to look for and how to progress to the next stage. Today our group will most likely successfully progress to Stage III.
Monday March 3, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I think like others (Chocolate,Thump,etc) we are not completely in any stage, but rather a combination of stage 1 and 2. While some members of the class are trying forge ahead others are not sure about what is going on. I think this was shown towards the end of class when people were trying to ask questions and figure out confusions while others were trying to vote.
I didn’t see any clear leader emerge yet either, like others have mentioned I do feel Eric did do the most by making himself a moderator when things were getting out of hand. I think by doing this the class got a little back on track with everyone having a say instead of people interrupting each other etc.
As for the “Surviving Umass” idea, it seems that is were things are heading. I understand the concerns posted by some saying it doesn’t seem everyone is interested in doing it. The only problem is I haven’t heard anyone mention any other idea for people to think about. I have heard concerns, but no other ideas on what we could do. Hopefully today we will be able to figure out some more things, make a conclusion and move along with something.
Monday March 3, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Our class seems to be in Stage 2 when deciding on what to put on our class wiki page. When we were divided into two groups, process and content, that was the infancy stage. We were all evaluating our project, and how the people in our group would all be involved. Now at the Adolescence stage we are all beginning to establish our opinions. We are slowly figuring out our thoughts on the subject and making sure that our opinions are heard. This is where the “attack the designated leadership” part comes into play. Once we have finally established what our Wiki page will entail and how we will go about it, then Stage 3 will come into play and we can start making some progress. Hopefully by the time we begin Stage 3, everyone in our class is also at stage 3. Now I agree that some of the class is set on their goals and have moved to stage 2, ready for stage 3. Other people are still trying to figure out what they want in stage 1. As a group it is important to make sure most of the group is agreeing on decisions. If some people are ready to move to a different stage and some others are not, this will only hold the group back as a whole, even if some people think the group should be ready to move on. It takes the whole group to communicate and agree in order to come to a decision.
Sunday March 9, 2008 at 11:27 pm
[…] (only 4, overtly; two more conceding partial evidence; and 4 – ohmgod – admitting they had no idea what “gist” was being referred […]
Monday March 31, 2008 at 3:23 pm
It’s funny because while I was reading the Webber article, I actually laughed out loud at some lines within his descriptions of group stages. I’ve been in plenty of groups and none of them ever looked like the ones Webber describes. The thing I found most amusing was how emotionally he described things… well, who would have guessed how emotionally our class would get in class 6? People were actually yelling. Personally I was nervous – which is seriously not my style. So I guess Weber was right (or is this a bizare case of class imitating class reading? I highly doubt that, somehow). I agree with the assessments of other students that we are in the Storming/adolescent phaze of our group. And just like real adolescence – it isn’t very much fun. It’s stressful. But maybe last class was some sort of fluke – a full moon was out maybe – and class today will be calm, friendly, and satisfying. We can hope, and also each do our best to keep our emotions in check and our minds open.
Thursday August 7, 2008 at 11:26 pm
[…] August 8, 2008 Feb 23: Getting to Gist […]
Sunday August 17, 2008 at 9:37 am
[…] regain their individuality, power, and influence.’” – but Moses stir up even more heat in hisbid to regain powerand influence. Moses brings up Jazz, who apparently attempted to facilitate the discussion process […]
Sunday August 17, 2008 at 12:02 pm
[…] has an interesting outlook on frustration in her class. She is not speaking about her own frustration, but the expression of […]