SMALL GROUP TEAMS COMM 202
SMALL GROUP TEAMS COMM 202 202
Ivy Tech Community College
Popular in Small Group Communication
Popular in Language
This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hailey Wilson on Friday February 19, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to 202 at Ivy Tech Community College taught by Scott O'Daniel in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 85 views. For similar materials see Small Group Communication in Language at Ivy Tech Community College.
Reviews for SMALL GROUP TEAMS COMM 202
Great notes!!! Thanks so much for doing this...
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/19/16
CHAPTER 6 NOTES REASONING LOGICALLY Basic outlook: Making thewrong decisioncan be ahindrance toyourlife.It’simportanttoanalysiscorrectly.When done correctlyitwillcausecriticallythinking toproperlyunderstandthesituation.The four statements areassumptionsofour beliefsaboutusesofanalysisin society. Important Points: 1. “Statistics and research are only data”Aperson needstoapplytheresearchin amannerto properlysupport the conclusion needed.Meaning youcan have alltheresearch,but ifyou can’t applyitproperlyyou haven’tproven athing. 2. “Essential tools ofan effective team” careful,objective,cooperativeanalysisis an essential toolfor democraticsociety.Thisallowsdiscussion,debates,arguments,andawaytotryand persuade peopletoexplainwhythey’re right. 3. “Humans can make rational decisions” AnalyticalTechniquesare awaytoprovide disciplined thinking,aswellasachieving ameasureofrationalitywhen making decisions. 4. “Ethical Choices” information shouldbe fromcredible sourceswhen beginning an argument. When bringing up the information you shouldpresentitbalanced,andfair perspective.Ethical team’sdecisionsaremadeon what’swrong andright. EXAMINING ASSUMPTIONS AND VALUES When membersbring theirindividualvaluesandassumptionstotheir group,theseissues permeate everyaspectofcooperativeanalysis. Warrantsemerge-consciouslyor unconsciously-fromvalues,andfallacious reasoning often resultsfromassuming factsthat arenotin evidence. Nature andEffects 1) An assumptionisanuntestedbelief,oftenunconsciousandusuallyunstated,thatsomethingistrue. a) Can be abeliefaboutanything b) Manywarrantscan be assumptions c) The problemisthat assumptionsareoften treatedasifitwere afact. d) One assumptionmaybe basedon another 2) Avalue isdifferent.Itis a personal,internalunderstandingabouttheworthandimportanceofan idea,action,orwayofbeing. a) Valuesarethefoundation for human behavior. b) Valuesoften areunstatedandmaybe unconscious. c) Valuesandassumptionsare easilyconfused,becausefrequentlyaperson assumes that anotherperson holdsparticular values. EVALUATING INFORMATION CRITICALLY NORMS FORCRITICALANALYSIS Somespecificnormstobeginwith: Qualityofdataiseveryone’sresponsibility. (Alldatais agreedupon byallmemberstobe worthwhile andofhigh quality.) Analysisisa collaborativeactivity. (Expecttoanalyze information; reason; lookfor connections, fallacies,and/or problems; listen toanddraw conclusionsoffofone another’sideasand insights.) Analysisisobjectiveandnotpersonal. (Avoidpersonalitiesandblame; focuson information and reasoning.) Disagreementandmind-changingarepartofcooperativeanalysis. (Expecttodisagreeand/or change waysofthinking; probedisagreementsourcesandlisten carefullytooneanotherto reachbestinterpretation.) Theteamownsallinformation. (Refrain fromattaching thememberthatfoundthedatatothe dataitself.[Example:referring todataasJune’sstudyrather than theGallup Poll]Thisallows datatobe quoted,praised,criticized,andeven dismissedcompletelywithoutegoinvolvement or defense byanyone.) Applying these normsleadstoateamthat can handleinformationwith goodcriticalthinking. CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS Teammembersneedtodiscussandshare criteriain twoareas: theinformation’ssourceandthe informationitself. The Information’s Source: THREEBROAD CATEGORIES OFCRITERIA: Theexternalcredibilityofthesource’s expertise o Qualifications:Istheexpert reallyan “expert”on the issue? o Reputation:Isthepersonacknowledgedand respectedbyother expertsin the field? Do otherexpertsusethispersonasasource? Thehabits of communication thesourceexhibits o Habit of Search: the knowledgeable,thorough presentation ofsoundinformation o Habit of Justice: fairnessin presenting information sothat an audience can assessit withoutbias o Habit of Preferring Public to Private Motivations: openlyletting peopleknow about thesource’sown sources,plans,andexpectations o Habit of Respect for Dissent: theabilitytoremain objectiveandtoencourage dialogue aboutopposing argumentsandpositions Theethical inferences youcan makefromthecontentofthesource’smessages o Respect for the audienceandthematerial. THE INFORMATION ITSELF Conclusionsfromdataare almostneverabsolutelytrue The majorityofthetime,itissuggestive ofsomething Toanalyze information,ask: Istheinformation valid? Doesitaccuratelymeasurewhatit’ssupposedto? How recentisit/is itstill relevant? Arethedatareliable? Isitconsistentwith itselfandother data? Istheinformation truthfulandobjective?What’sthesource?Isthereaconflictofinterest? Coke fundedstudysayingsugarisn’tsobad Istheinformation sufficient?Whatmoredoyou needtoknow? Almostneverwillyou get alltheinformation fromonesource DRAWING CONCLUSIONS - Evidence thatwe gatherwillnotdraw conclusionsfor us - Wehave tousereasoningandthoughttoevaluate the information andcome toour own understanding - Ourmindsmakean inference,aconnection betweenthedataandtheconclusion,sometimes withouttheindividualbeing aware oftheprocess - The processofreaching aconclusion can alsobe calledmaking a“claim” - The thinking processincludesa“because”clause,whichisalsocalleda “warrant”,that provides thereasonsfor theconnection ANALYZING WARRANTS - Warrantsarenottypicallystatedoutloud,sometimestheyarenoteven recognized - In discussions,membersmayassumethat theyperceive issuesin the samewayasother membersandthattheyshareacommon connection between dataandtheclaimThisis critical because peopleprobablymakemoreerrorsin perceptionthan errorsin thinking - Teammembersneedtoexamine potentialdifferencesin individuals’perceptionsand assumptions - The warrantiscriticalfor understanding thelogicalprocessesmembersare using - Differentreasonscan motivate the same warrant,andexamining the reasonsfrequently pinpointsethicalissuesanddilemmas IDENTIFYING RESERVATIONS - Almostanyclaimhasreservationstochallengeit - Areservationrecognizesthepossible argumentsagainstaclaim - Reservationsmayin somewayrefute the data,thewarrant,or thereasoning - Playing the“devil’sadvocate”can raise allpossible reservations QUALIFYING CONCLUSIONS - Conclusionsneedtobe qualifiedtoindicate thelevelofcertainty,itisimportanttousethese qualifiersappropriately: - POSSIBLEmeansthe conclusion hasonlyasmallchance ofbeing true,butcouldstill be so - PLAUSIBLEimpliesahigher probabilityoftruth thanpossible buttheconclusionstill is notthemostlikelyinterpretation - PROBABLEappliestoconclusionswith agreater-than-50%likelihoodofbeing true (but thecertaintyshouldbe in the 95-99%tobe acceptedasprobable) - CERTAINmeanstheconclusion is100%guaranteed,using certain mayeliminate qualifiers EXAMINING COMPLETE ARGUMENTS Ifyou diagramafullargumentor statement,you can trackandevaluate visuallythe thinking behindit, whichcan be helpfulin manyways: 1. The warrantandthereservation showhow the inference connectsthedataandthe claim 2. When yousee reasoning,youmaysee other alternatives 3. Youcan see thedegree ofprobabilityor possibilitythatmodifiestheargument(is the claimprobable enough toaccept?) 4. Youcan assessthe ethicalprioritiesinvolvedwith thedecision Youcan examine thetrustworthinessandcompetence ofyoursources
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'