Group #1: Sarina Rizzo, Danielle Barakat, Brianne Mintz
Research Question for analysis:
Q: 1. What did the group do? What does this behavior show about the class culture?
We define class culture as “a group of students who have similar interests, majors, and goals.”
Professor’s Role:-How much is noted about the Professor’s role?
-In “Things I remember later” note taker #5 stated that Dr. Chandler pointed out his actions during the mingling. #10 stated that Dr. Chandler was the one who initiated the conversation
#9 mentions Dr. Chandler asking them to move frequently. #5 in Observations about what happened: People stayed in groups of 2 or 3 until the professor told us to move around
* The evidence shows that Dr. Chandler was the main person who initiated the conversations amongst the members of the community. Her role is key in not only the function and actions of the group, but she influences the culture because without her actions, none of the data would be possible.
Environments:
-They all expressed a similar environment; each person played a role. Everyone had something to say about the person they spoke to.
- What do the topics say about the group as a whole? (No one discussed marriage, children, buying a house, etc.).- The topics were almost “safety net” topics due to forced interaction due to the environment. For example, because they were students, they chose to discuss majors and feelings about classes, jobs, et cetera. The culture is shaped by their environment.
- The environment influenced the communication topics.
* The evidence shows that the environment affected the topics discussed. Instead of discussing outside lives and families, the classmates discussed their life in school for the majority of the time.
Conversations:
-The class discussed different majors, interests and jobs: Note-takes #2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all mentioned being asked or asking about majors in the jottings.
-About 70% of students mentioned where they are from in either jottings, headnotes, or observations.
-What are the evidence of student relationships?- In Things I Remembered Later, #8 mentioned discussing tattoos with another classmate.
- #5 in Observations about what happened: Certain people tended to dominate conversations.
*Relating the the environment, the conversation topics were limited due to the environment. There were similarities in environment and topics, which also showed both the confidence and shyness that the members felt when trying to communicate. The topics came from basic ideas that were assumed to be common by everyone.
Emotions:
-We learn from each other.
-Evidence shows that observer #5 in Observations about what happened: noted that he/she felt that everyone was nervous/apprehensive.
* The evidence shows that while everyone was nervous, they eventually opened up and shared a little bit about what they were studying, their opinions, et cetera.
Observers:
- As a group, the data shows that there was a lot of conversation going on and the group was very active.
-Are they a discourse community? - Yes, because of common language (how they talk about majors, observations) shows that the commonality is that they are uncomfortable. They are a discourse community because they share a common goal. #9 in Things I Remember Later discusses their environment and notes on their classmate’s moods. #10 also mentions the room and how they “moved around twice.”
-What did the group do?- The group became observers: We can break the observers up into three groups: close in observers, far out observers, and those who did both.
- Note taker 10 was very general. Wrote the simplest observation as possible, while note takes #7 and #1 were specific and included many details from their observations.
-commonalities within the group:
-Jottings, Things I Remembered Later seem to be where everyone was making “in depth” observations.
* The observers were the members of the group, but also the people looking in on it. The different types of observers show different roles in the group which in turn makes this community a discourse community. All the language is based off the environment and is similar, and that is a result of the environment that held the discussion.
