ComS 100B

Presentations of First Study

Dr. Mark Stoner

Check to make sure your group and name is on the schedule.

As a community of learners it is important that we commit to supporting our colleagues by 1) attending, 2) listening, 3) asking good questions or making significant observations about how communication works drawn from their presentations.

At the same time, it is important that you prepare a presentation that clearly articulates your insights and provokes your colleagues’ thinking about and understanding of communication based on your study.

Date / Obama / Jordan / Savio / Yousafzai
10/22 / Hammond, Chantal
Cannon, Kristen
/ Perron, Ashley
Usher, Linda
Hua, Holly
Purifoy, Keisah
10/24 / Velazco, Amanda
Ellis, Tyara
Singh, Raj
Ibrahim, Khalil
Mehan, Evan
/ Cvitanich, Frank
Brackens, Chanelle
Rose, Kyle
Mehan, Jackie
Smith, Taryn
10/29 / Mulderrig, Savannah
Mann, Michael
Harlin, Christian
Bell, Jason
/ Lopez,Alejandro
Sierra, Diana
Aguilar, Heather
Urena, Marisol

Requirements for Presentation of First Essay

1) Discuss the insights you developed from your various analyses. Explaining your different approaches and the effects of them on your understanding of rhetoric as communication is critical here. As a group, be sure you engage each other in discussing strengths, weaknesses, surprises, etc. that you each encountered in your study. This is the heart of your presentation, so be sure that you as a group attempt toteach your listeners what you discovered was happening with the message. Be sure to focus on your various claims and related outcomes of the process of supporting your claims.

2) Note, to the degree that you can, any insights you have about what it takes to do message analysis in a more expert fashion (i.e. how are you thinking about messages now compared to your habits seven weeks ago.

3) Where possible, discuss your present plans for developing your study; how do you plan, at this point to revise your work?

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

Competent (3) / Approaching (2) / Still developing(1)
1.Clarity of ideas / a. Terms properly used; appropriate examples provided; well-organized / b. Terms generally correct; some examples provided-may or may not be appropriate; effort to organize ideas notable / c. Mistakes in use of terms; few or no examples; weak organization
2. Depth of ideas / a. Concepts treated as complex; new insights provided; conclusions moved past the obvious; a strong grasp of rhetorical theory evident / b. Some new idea or ideas; potential for new insight, but not much developed; mostly obvious or very simple ideas presented / c. Superficial treatment of ideas; conclusions are common at best or may be confusing and contradictory
3. Creativity in analysis and uses of theory / a. Highly creative; indicates clear grasp of theory / b. Somewhat creative; theory was used properly but some weaknesses in understanding evident / c. Little creativity; mistakes in understanding theory were evident
4. Delivery / a. Direct eye contact with audience; extemporaneous presentation; met time constraints; treated all topics thoroughly; adapted to context / b. Generally spoke to audience; met time constraints or close to time allotted; minimal adaptation to context / c. Self-directed; tied to notes or script; imbalanced treatment of topics; very short (undeveloped) presentation or ran overtime—little planning or control of the presentation evident.