1
COM 494
Seminar in Small Group Communication
Fall 2013
Classroom: Fell Hall 152
Dates & Times: Wednesdays, 6:30- 9:20 p.m.
Instructor: Kevin R. Meyer, Ph.D.Email:
Office Phone: (309) 438-3277Cell Phone: (309) 299-1961
Office: Fell Hall 426
Office Hours: Mondays, Wednesdays, & Fridays 10:00 – 11:00 a.m.; Wednesdays 4:30 – 6:30
p.m.; or byappointment
Required Readings:
Required course readings can be found on the course ReggieNet website free of charge. Citations appearin this syllabus. A reading packetis available for purchase (by checkor Redbird card debit only) at Eastside Rapid Print in Old Union Building, room 116. Packets are print-on-demand, so call ahead to order (309) 438-3911 or email Lee Delong at
In addition, you will need a copy of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition).
Course Description and Objectives:
The purpose of this class is to teach you theories and skills related to successful communication in a group context. According to the graduate catalog, this course is to cover “Advanced examination of selected areas of theory and research in small group communication.” We will explore opportunities for applying small group theories in the professional context of our own classroom and beyond. Thus, this course is designed to accomplish the following objectives:
- To provide students with a comprehensive knowledge of small group and team communication theories, processes, and skills.
- To provide students with the ability to apply conceptual ideas about effective group discussion techniques to practical communication situations (i.e., in-class activities, group meetings, a cooperative examination, a group research paper project, and group presentations).
- To develop students’ communication competence in small group and team settings.
- To provide students, within the framework of an intact group, with practical experience in conducting a data-driven research project concerning a topic related to small group communication.
To these ends, we will use intact groups for the duration of the semester to gain first-hand experience in group interaction and to complete a data-driven research project. Although working with groups can initially be perceived by graduate students (who are used to working individually) to be a discomforting proposition, since working in research teams is a common route to publishing in our discipline, it is important for all graduate students to experience team-based research. I have two general goals for this seminar: first, we will build your scholarly knowledge of small group communication theory and research so you will be prepared to explore such content further in a doctoral program or apply the concepts covered in the course to your professional pursuits; second, we will use the course to build your curriculum vitae by producing a useable end-product that can be submitted to a scholarly conference and, later, for publication.
Professionalism:
Learning is maximized by reading class materials, note-taking, critical listening, and cognitive engagement. Professionalism includes listening to others’ opinions (although not necessarily agreeing with those viewpoints), actively listening to those who are speaking during lectures and discussion, and working together in a spirit of cooperation. Collectively, we are a team working together to improve and learn. Each student must be a productive, contributing member of our team. Be on time for class. Use of any electronic device should not interfere with your ability to pay complete attention or become a distraction to classmates or myself.
Special Needs Accommodation:
I am happy to accommodate any special needs you may have, although I require written documentation from the Office of Disability Concerns for ongoing accommodations.Any student needing to arrange a reasonable accommodation for a documented disability should contact Disability Concerns in 350 Fell Hall, 438-5853 (voice), 438-8620 (TDD).
Academic Misconduct Policy:
Students are expected to be honest in all academic work, consistent with the academic integrity policy as outlined in the Code of Student Conduct. All ideas are to be appropriately cited in both oral and written form when borrowed, directly or indirectly, from another source. Inadequate citation, unauthorized and unacknowledged collaboration, and/or the presentation of someone else’s work constitute plagiarism. Students found to commit intentional acts of dishonesty (including cheating on an exam, falsifying evidence, or plagiarizing an assignment) will receive a failing grade in the course and will be referred for appropriate disciplinary action through the office of Community Rights and Responsibilities. For group assignments, the same principle applies: intact groups may not plagiarize the work of others outside that group. As graduate students, you must develop a habit of being diligent about carefully and accurately citing sources while avoiding plagiarism of any sort.
Attendance Policy:
Regular attendance and active engagement are required. You are expected to come to class prepared to discuss and engage in activities associated with the daily readings. Perfect attendance is expected, as your group members should be able to count on your presence and because by enrolling in this course you have made a commitment to being present during all class meetings. Being absent deprives you of valuable class discussions and in-class activities. Historically, there has been a strong correlation between absences and grades; the more class time that students miss, the lower the grades they tend to earn. Graduate students should not have issues with attendance, but be aware that missing more than the equivalent of one class period will result in a 5% deduction from a student’s overall course grade for each additional unexcused absence.
Late Work and Incomplete Grade Policy:
All assignments are expected at the beginning of class on the due date. If you are unprepared to deliver a presentation on your assigned day or do not come to class on the final exam day, you will forfeit your points for that assignment. An automatic 10% of the points possible will be deducted from late papers, with an additional 10% deducted for each 24 hours the paper is late. As a general rule, incomplete grades will not be given.
Final Examination:
COM 494 is a group-based course. As a result, the comprehensive final exam will consist of both an individual-accountability and cooperative-group assessment. Each student will be assigned to an Intact Groupfor the duration of the semester, taking the cooperative examination with their group. Exams are closed book/closed notes. All group members will be given a copy of the exam, but only one copy will serve as the group’s official answer sheet. Multiple-choice questions will have four possible answers(anywhere between zero to four answer options may be correct). One point is deducted for every error of omission or commission on the multiple-choice questions. True-false items follow standard form, but will require a written explanation/correction of any false answer. Two points are deducted for every wrong answer on the true-false items, and one point is deducted for false answers missing an appropriate explanation/correction.Any group member not present for the cooperative group exam or arriving after the exam has begun must take the cooperative version of the exam separately from the group, receiving whatever grade is earned (often significantly lower than the group score on).
Individual accountability is determined by a second exam (consisting of the same question format) given to all group members who work separately without the benefit of group interaction. The combined grading scale is as follows:
100 – 90% on individual exam = group exam score plus 10 points
89 – 85% on individual exam = group exam score plus 5 points
84 – 75% on individual exam = group exam score
74 – 70% on individual exam = group exam score minus 5 points
69 – 65% on individual exam = group exam score minus 10 points
64 – 60% on individual exam = group exam score minus 20 points
59 – 50% on individual exam = group exam score minus 30 points
49 – 0% on individual exam = group exam score minus 40 points
Group Research Paper Project and Presentation:
Each student will be assigned to an Intact Group. Research topics must be approved with me. All group members will receive the same score for each related assignment, unless voted less than a 100% share by other group members. Any student wishing to vote another group member less than a 100% share of the group score must email me the specific share percentage and a detailed rationale justifying the percentage (i.e., didn’t complete work, absent from meetings, failed to participate fully in the assignment, etc.). Emails must be received no later than 24 hours following the assignment due date, and will be kept confidential.
The Topic Abstract should consist of a 1-2 page description of the research topic, concepts and theories to be addressed, a set of research questions and/or hypotheses, proposed research methods, and possible data analysis procedures.
The IRB Protocol should be complete and include all necessary attachments (i.e., informed consent page, and survey instruments or interview questions). Begin this assignment early and consult with me to avoid delays due to revisions. The IRB approval process takes some time, so early submission guards against delays in beginning data collection.
The Research Proposal should consist of a title page, abstract (no more than 250 words), complete literature review (approximately 10 pages), research questions and/or hypotheses, partial methods section, and references list. The paper must conform to APA style, 6th edition.
The Rough Draft Paper should be a full-length manuscript containing a title page, abstract (no more than 250 words), complete literature review, research questions and/or hypotheses, as well as the methods, results, and discussion sections. A complete references list should also be included. The paper must conform to APA style, 6th edition.
The Paper Presentation should last approximately 10-15 minutes. Your group’s task is to present the results of your group project to the rest of the class in a conference-style format. All group members should be equally active and vocal participants in the presentation. Although a brief description of relevant literature and theories may be necessary, the primary focus and balance of your time should be spent on the methods, results, and discussion.
The Final Paper should be a full-length conference paper (approximately 25 pages, excluding title page, abstract, references, tables, figures, and appendixes) containing a title page, abstract (no more than 250 words), complete literature review, research questions and/or hypotheses, as well as the methods, results, and discussion sections. A complete references list should also be included.The paper must conform to APA style, 6th edition.
To stay on track, aim to research the literature review during weeks two through four, write the proposal during weeks five through seven, collect data during weeks eight through 11, write the rough draft weeks 11 through 14, and complete the final draft (integrating revisions) as well as prepare the presentation during weeks 15 through 16.
Course Assignments and Grades:
The grading scale is as follows: A= 100-90%; B= 89-80%; C= 79-70%; D= 69-60%; F= 59% and below. Percentages will be calculated based on points earned from:
Points Possible/Your Points
Final Examination150/_____
Topic Abstract5/_____
IRB Protocol10/_____
Research Proposal25/_____
Rough Draft Paper25/_____
Paper Presentation25/_____
FinalPaper100/_____
Research Pool Participation5/_____
Total345/_____
References
Aakhus, M., & Rumsey, E. (2010). Crafting supportive communication online: A communication design analysis of conflict in an online support group. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 65-84. doi:10.1080/00909880903483581
Anderson, C. M.,& Martin, M. M. (1999). The relationship of argumentativeness andverbal aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups. Communication Reports, 12, 21-31. doi:10.1080/08934219909367705
Becker, J. A. H. (2005). A Goffmanian analysis of (in)attentiveness as involvement in group therapy sessions.Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 6, 51-58.doi:10.1080/17459430500262174
Black, L. W. (2008). Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments. Communication Theory, 18, 93-116. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00315.x
Bonito, J. A. (2006). A longitudinal social relations analysis of participation in small groups. Human Communication Research, 32, 302–321. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00277.x
Bonito, J. A., DeCamp, M. H., & Ruppel, E. K. (2008). The process of information sharingin small groups: Application of a local model. Communication Monographs, 75, 136-157. doi:10.1080/03637750802082078
Broom, C., & Avanzino, S. (2010). The communication of community collaboration: When rhetorical visions collide. Communication Quarterly, 58, 480-501. doi:10.1080/01463373.2010.525701
Brown, T. M., & Miller, C. E. (2000). Communication networks in task-performing groups: Effects of task complexity, time pressure, and interpersonal dominance. Small Group Research, 31, 131-157. doi:10.1177/104649640003100201
Emery, C., Daniloski, K., & Hamby, A. (2011). The reciprocal effects of self-view as a leader and leadership emergence. Small Group Research, 42, 199-224. doi:10.1177/1046496410389494
Frank, M. G., Paolantonio, N., Feeley, T. H., & Servoss, T. J. (2004). Individual and small group accuracy in judging truthful and deceptive communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 45-59. doi:10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011945.85141.af
Galanes, G. J. (2009). Dialectical tensions of small group leadership.Communication Studies, 60, 409-425. doi:10.1080/10510970903260228
Garner, J. T., & Poole, M. S. (2009). Opposites attract: Leadership endorsement as a function of interaction between a leader and a foil. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 227-247. doi:10.1080/10570310903082057
Gastil, J. (2008, November). One of these things is not like the others: Developing a typology of small groups to organize group research.Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. (2008). Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication, 25,23–46. doi:10.1080/10584600701807836
Gillespie, D. F., Rosamond, S., & Thomas, E. (2006). Grouped out? Undergraduates' default strategies for participatingin multiple small groups. The Journal of General Education, 55, 81-102. doi:10.1353/jge.2006.0022
Gladwell, M. (2009). What the dog saw: And other adventures. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., Eden, J., & Cruz, M. G. (2006). Examining the symptoms of groupthink and retrospective sensemaking. Small Group Research, 37, 36-64. doi:10.1177/1046496405281772
Johnson, S. K., Bettenhausen, K., & Gibbons, E. (2009). Realities of working in virtual teams:Affective and attitudinal outcomes of using computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 40, 632-649. doi:10.1177/1046496409346448
Kramer, M. W. (2006). Shared leadership in a community theater group: Filling the leadership role.Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 141-162.doi:10.1080/00909880600574039
Leighter, J. L., & Black, L. (2010). “I’m just raising the question”: Terms for talk and practical metadiscursive argument in public meetings. Western Journal of Communication, 74, 547-569. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.512281
Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Jr., Cheney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presenceon small-group communication does computer-mediated communication make a difference?Small Group Research, 37, 631-661. doi:10.1177/1046496406294322
Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47, 531-552. doi:10.1177/001872679404700504
McNamee, L. G., Peterson, B. L., & Pena, J. (2010). A call to educate, participate, invoke and indict: Understanding the communication of online hate groups. Communication Monographs, 77, 257-280. doi:10.1080/03637751003758227
Mu, S., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2003). Developing synergistic knowledgein student groups. The Journal of Higher Education, 74, 689-711. doi:10.1353/jhe.2003.0040
Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Self-construals, communication processes, and group outcomes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Small Group Research, 32, 19-54. doi:10.1177/104649640103200102
Park. H. S. (2008). The effects of shared cognitionon group satisfactionand performance: Politeness and efficiency in group interaction. Communication Research, 35, 88-108. doi:10.1177/0093650207309363
Pavitt, C., & Aloia, L. (2009). Factors affecting the relative proportion of reason and preference Statements during problem-solving group discussion. Communication Research Reports, 26, 259-270. doi:10.1080/08824090903293692
Peterson, J. L. (2009). “You have to be positive.” Social support processes of an online support group for men living with HIV. Communication Studies, 60, 526-541. doi:10.1080/10510970903260368
Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Czienskowski, U. (2010). Decision-making groups attenuate the discussion bias in favor of shared information: A meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 77, 121-142. doi:10.1080/03637750903514318
Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Hinsz, V. B. (2010). Naïve groups can solve the hidden-profile problem. Human Communication Research, 36, 443-467. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01383.x
Roy, M. H. (2001). Small group communication and performance: Do cognitive flexibility and context matter?Management Decision, 39,323-330. doi:10.1108/00251740110391501
Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does deliberative democracy work?Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 49-71. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633
Ryfe, D. M. (2006). Narrative and deliberation in small group forums.Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 72-93. doi:10.1080/00909880500420226
Salazar, A. J. (1997). Communication effects on small group decision-making: Homogeneity and task as moderators of the communication-performance relationship. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 35-65. doi:10.1080/10570319709374561
Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Deliberating groups versus prediction markets (or Hayek’s challenge to Habermas). Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3, 192-213. Retrieved from
Yuan, Y. C., Fulk, J., Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2010). Expertise directory development, shared task interdependence, and strength of communication network ties as multilevel predictors of expertise exchange in transactive memory work groups. Communication Research, 37, 20-47. doi:10.1177/009365020351469
*Please note that APA style requires double spacing the References page. Single spacing is used here to conserve paper.
1
Tentative Schedule
Week 1 / Topic / Assignments DueW, Aug. 21 / *Philosophy of the Course and Syllabus (rationale for activities, research project, presentations, and final examination)
*Activity (definition drawing)
*Small Group Communication Concepts Overview
*Formation of Intact Groups
*Brainstorm & Select Research Topics
*Research Methods (Writing Research Questions, and Hypotheses, Null Hypotheses)
*“The Talent Myth: Are Smart People Overrated?”
*Professional Development (Writing an Abstract, Reporting Academic Research to the General Public, Applying Academic Research to/in the Private Sector) / *Read Syllabus
*Bookmarkwebsite for ReggieNet
*Download PDF required readings or purchase reading packet
*Read Gladwell (2009)
*Review Rothwell (2010) glossary
Week 2 / Topic / Assignments Due
W, Aug. 28 / *Metatheory (Metatheoretical Considerations, Metatheoretical Perspectives, Kuhn’s Scientific Revolutions, Popper’s Idea of Falsification)
*Theories (Uncertainty Reduction Theory, Symbolic Convergence Theory, Social Exchange Theory, Functional Theories, Systems Theory, and Structuration Theory)
*“One of These Things Is Not Like the Others: Developing a Typology of Small Groups to Organize Group Research.”
*Professional Development (Conference Paper Writing, Submission, and Presenting)