COM 557 Reading Guide Questions for March 29 - Irwin Mallin, IPFW Communication

Go to Reading Guides | Go to Syllabus | Go to Course Schedule
Go to Assignments | Go to Irwin's Main Page | E-Mail Irwin

COM 557, Spring 2011 – Reading Guide Questions for March 29

For A. Burnett and Badzinski (2000):

1. 381 - What are O'Keefe's two types of argument? Which type do these authors mean when they say "argument?"

2. 381-382 - What distinguishes juries from other types of small groups?

3. 382-383 - What are Group Polarization Theory and Persuasive Argumentation Theory? Why do they matter for jury deliberation?

4. 383-384 - In Canary, et al's scheme, what's the difference between a simple argument and a complex argument?

5. 384 - What does their lit review say about the arguments jurors brew in their heads while the trial is going on?

6. 385 - What does their lit review say about jurors making decisions when they come together as a group?

7. 385 - So what's their research question? Why is it a research question and not a hypothesis? What do you think of their "contention" and the four "rationales" that inform it?

8. 385-386 - So who were their "jurors?" What was their "trial?" How were their deliberations analyzed?

9. 387-389 - How do they answer their research question?

10. 389-390 - What do they identify as the implications of their findings. Is this consistent with what we've been saying about jury decision making to this point?

11. 390 - 391. Are they persuasive in defending the use of students as jurors?

For D. Burnett (2001):

As you read Burnett's story, make note of

- Things that confirm or contradict your beliefs about juries

- Things that confirm or contradict what we''ve read so far in this class (or in all your other COM classes)

- Things that strike you as particularly noteworthy

Go to Reading Guides | Go to Syllabus | Go to Course Schedule
Go to Assignments | Go to Irwin's Main Page | E-Mail Irwin