Talk:Coordinated management of meaning

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yeahunicorn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amb549.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I performed an update to the introductory paragraph and first paragraph of the history section. I propose to make additional edits to the article to bring current with the most recent publications related to CMM including:

Making social worlds: A Communication Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

--Ellswood (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joshua! Your Wikipedia page is a very thorough overview of the theory, and I don't feel like it's missing any important information. If anything, I think it might be overly complex for the average reader, and some of the sections are a bit long (ex. the Introduction is a great overview of the theory, but is maybe a bit long for a normal Wikipedia page). The only part I think is a bit confusing is the part about charmed/strange loops. A few other things I noticed: to help the page flow better, it might be helpful if the theory developers had come closer to the beginning rather than the end. Similarly, under the Theory criticism section, perhaps you could condense the 6 rules down to one short paragraph, which would make it easier to read. Also, I don't think the links to related communication theories at the end are needed on this page. Good luck with the rest of the project! Mb1809 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Joshua- I think you do a wonderful job by expanding the introduction to give Coordinated management of meaning a more comprehensive overview without bogging it down with too many unnecessary details for an overview. You also do a great job by replacing the once bulky and choppy portion of "People have unique interpretations of the world around them - they have different "meanings" of what they encounter. ..." with "People live in a world where there are constant communication. In communicating with others, people assign meanings in their messages based on past conversational experiences from previous social realities." That being said, I do agree with Megan in that it should probably read even lighter than it already is as this is for the lay person but I do like what you've done so far!

A concern I have is your change in structure from moving History and orientation down and "CMM Basics." up. Also, I am unsure if basics is the right descriptor for this portion of the piece and may border slang or colloquialism given the informal nature of the word. While CMM Basics is fine if used as part of a larger phrase, I am sure this could be an easy fix-- or perhaps even Basics of CMM.

Overall, incredibly thorough and good job! All the best with the rest of your changes! - Lois Lg696 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xingjiaxi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from The University of Dayton

This Wikipedia page does a nice job with distinguishing the three concepts of CMM in a way that can be easily understood. I thought that page could use more emphasis on the impact that CMM has on our intended actions as opposed to just the heavy focus on interpretation of actions that are done. I appreciated the distinction between constitutive rules and regulative rules. However, I think it would be beneficial to add an example to the section about unwanted repetitive patterns, as this concept can be difficult to understand. In the coordination section, when the author states that there are three possible outcomes of coordination, it is important to note on #1 (People in the interaction achieve coordination) that individuals can never fully understand each other due to differences of experience, however coordination to achieve goals in interaction is possible. I also found the theory criticism section to be beneficial in providing another element of understanding to the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBurchfield (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

let's share — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahunicorn (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, this is wanyu and thanks so much for helping me check this page Yeahunicorn (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Do you guys think the non-necessary hyperlink looks so annoying when you reading CMM theory from Wiki? And I'm going to delete at lease half of them and make this page looks discrete 2. I began a new section of application of how this CMM theory related to social issues. still thinking to make this part more detailed. I wondering if compare with your theory, do you think the application part of CMM seems too vague? I want to focus on school this specific content to talk about CMM. 3. Any new idea to make this theory more clear to you all? Since we all learned this theory at the beginning of this semester so probably you guys can share with me some special or in-depth insights, thanks again :)

Yeahunicorn (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

tj180 Reply to 2016 Peer Review

To your question about links, I had commented on another’s wikipedia, I suggested that to give a short definition for key terms but still use a hyperlink for those who are interested in learning more. I really like that you used social issues examples and how your theory relates to them. I added two examples to my theory and how it is used. I think examples help clarify definitions and concepts. The organization of the page is really good. The only thing is that when you scroll down to scan, the “Meaning” sub sections are a lot while “Management” and “Coordination” have bigger paragraphs. I would suggest to give them sub sections but not as many as the 6 that are in the “Meaning”, somewhere in between them. Hope this helps and looking forward to seeing your edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj180 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Young

Hey Wanyu! I like your ideas about cutting those abundant hyperlinks which are really unnecessary, but keep those words sound normal but are actually terminologies.
Other than that, I think the application is indeed a little abstract and hard to understand. Maybe some application study in practice will help. But the good thing is you have this nice separation by different models which makes it logical. I hope you can find corresponding articles of applying those models in the real world.
Lastly, the whole page is basically well organized and fairly divided. I personally think the 1.2 Meaning is ridiculously long and not quite informative. It would be nice if it could have a better outline in that part. Hope it helps and good luck!

Yy362 (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Noura

Wanyu,

I agree with you that there are unnecassary hyperlinks like (concepts, language, threats, message...etc), you can remove those while hyperlinking other terms that needs more explanation. In regard of the application section, I think the idea of adding more points related to media issues is interesting, especially if you already have resources that includes information about the relation between CCM and media. At the same time, I do not think you should worry about the section being vague, I do not think it is. Something I would think about is moving the history section to the top, it is something that people would like to read before getting into the details of the theory. Also, if you found more meaningful information in your sources that you can add to the 'meaning' section, that would help enriching the content at that section. Points like (content, and relationship) needs more explanation or maybe examples to make it clearer. Looking forward to see how you edit this page, good luck.

--Nha33 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from YinYing

Hey Wanyu! Overall speaking, I think your page is well organized and easy-to-read. I really like all the examples and quotes cited in the page to support the illustrated ideas. For a person encountering the theory for the first time, the page offers a nice overview of the theory. As to your questions, I totally agree that several unnecessary hyperlinks can be deleted, such as language, message, funny and etc. Rather than being helpful to navigate the ideas, those hyperlinks are just annoying as browsing the page. Meanwhile, I think several hyperlinks could be added to terms/concepts that may sound unfamiliar to the general public, such as micro-social and serpentine, to make it easier for readers to find out what they mean with simple clicks.

My page have a huge coverage on applications, and I'm debating whether to add more to this part. As for your page, yes, I think it is a great idea to create a new section dedicated to applications. Application section offers readers a picture regarding to the practical uses of the theory. However, instead of putting it under the models title, my suggestion is to create a whole new section for it. In addition, I think you may take the courtroom conversation example illustrated in the introduction part of the Models sections out, and integrate it into application section.

Finally, as to other thoughts about how to improve the page, I have two suggestions. First, I am not sure if History and Orientation section should be put in the second half part of the page. In my opinion, it is better to put this section right under the overview section. Second, I am wondering if it is possible to outline the key ideas, constitutive rules, regulative rules, unwanted repetitive patterns, under the Management title in the same way as the Meaning part. This will make the key ideas clearer to readers. Finally, there is a trivial thing I notice. When I read the abbreviated term URP, it took me a few seconds to figure out what it means. I'll suggest to have the abbreviation laid out as the term "unwanted repetitive patterns" first appears in the page. Yc609 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Jiang Yang

Hi Wanyu: First of all, I strongly agree with you on the annoying hyperlinks -- I guess it's because the previous editor wanted to "demonstrate" that he did a lot of work to the page which actually make the page super messy. I am doing CPM page and there's a theory application entry in my page. I believe it's good to have the teory matched to practice. School could be a good place to apply the theory and good luch with that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yj122 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coordinated management of meaning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20120128222529/http://Pine.A32.3.91.950701161836.165555B-100000@garnet.acns.fsu.edu/ to http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060919092240/http://www3.baylor.edu/communication_conference/Extending_CMM.pdf to http://www3.baylor.edu/communication_conference/Extending_CMM.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908033545/http://www.fielding.edu/hod/ce/dialog/faculty_bio.html to http://www.fielding.edu/hod/ce/dialog/faculty_bio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Victoria's Peer Review

My first thought when I saw this page was how many hyperlinks it has. I do believe that they are important but not in as many words as it has on the page.

In the history and orientation part, I think that is unnecessary the long quote from W. Barnett Pearce. Maybe if it could consolidate a little bit or paraphrase would be better.

Also, I think it would be interesting to put some images on the page. There is this figure on the Introducing Communication Theory Analysis and Application book that is very easy to understand how miscommunication happens because people fall in different parts of the pyramid.

--Vk1993 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

References

peer review, cct 2019

Hi! I will be editing and evaluating this article to the best of my ability during my course. I understand there is a lot of over-lapping research, so I will try to use other articles or sites that can help expand what has already been said and done with this theory, tweak previous claims and structure, and use other examples to further the subsets of the theory and its phases. Ideas could be to use newer examples and incorporate visuals or a few photos to show how it looks to others. Another goal I want to accomplish would be to improve the lead at the beginning of the article, try to re-configure a better definition of CMM, and use more examples or other findings to further expand previous points in the layout. Would love to know any thoughts or contributing ideas to help make this page more concrete and updated!

This article does a great job of using an ideal layout and covers the basics of how the theory can be broken down. They used over 40 sources and tied in similar theories and other case studies that give a good foundation to expand on. However, Some cons that it is lacking that I aim to fix would include, furthering the organization of flow, transition sections better with more examples or findings, and try to find at least one credible image of how this would look perhaps in a pictograph. Would love to hear other suggestions, ideas, or comments below from fellow peers. I have also included some other thoughts from my own talk page if needed, which can be found here Amb549

Amb549 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review, CCT 2019

Hello there. The wikipedia page for Coordinated Management of Meaning already offers a pretty great explanation of the theory, including listing critiques, applications, and all of the intricacies involved with the theory. However, I do think it could use some more applications and studies within the Model and Applications section, as it is rather limited. It would be great to relate this theory to more real world applications, or even popular culture references, to see how it is demonstrated and portrayed in today's society.

One source that could be added to this page is the book: The Reflective, Facilitative, and Interpretative Practice of the Coordinated Management of Meaning: Making Lives and Making Meaning, as this book specifically focuses on the application within Coordinated Management of Meaning.

A second source that could be used is the article by Hataitip Jirathun, titled: Rhetorical Exigence and Coordinated Management of Meaning: Alternative Appliance for Compliance Gaining Studies. Within this article, Jirathun discusses differences between Asian and Western culture, and how Coordinated Management of Meaning can be applied to this.

NateNuddy (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Peer Review, CCT 2019

Hey there, I think this page offers a solid outline to work with. The headings are broken down clearly and the theory itself is presented in a similar fashion the Turner/West text. Within the history section though, I noticed that the description didn't provide links to W. Barnett Pearce's or Vernon E. Cronan's personal Wikipedia pages. Both of those pages could offer some more insight other research these two academics produced throughout their careers and could possibly link to more current research. I agree with this semester's other peer editor that the Applications section could also be expanded. Great suggestions, Nate!

Additionally, I noticed one small spelling error under the Basics heading (Coordination subheading). I believe the list should read like so : "There are three possible outcomes of coordination:"

Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leahcormier (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hencatalan, Ryankaty14.

— Assignment last updated by Kwv2014 (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)