Talk:Interpretive discussion

[Untitled]
I just put up the basics, so fingers crossed it doesn't get deleted. Hopefully someone will just mark it as a stub. Anyway, I got all of the references off ERIC, but didn't really add details from them. I'm not sure how we want to proceed, if we all just want to take a section, or add things randomly, but please make what I've got up less ponderous to read. It's awfully hard to describe.Aro948 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Took Lauren's suggestion about cleaning up the first sentence of the intro. and I like it much better now. Also added a few more sentences.  I think it needs citations, though.  Will try to use cites from the stuff G. found.Aro948 (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, based on our email conversation, how does this sound for subtopics:

1. Main introduction/description

2. Interpretive vs. evaluative vs. fact-based questions (plus concept of the "cluster?")

3. "Benefits"/Goals of interpretive discussion

4. Leading an interpretive discussion

5. Shared Inquiry (just so it's not so SHG-centric)

Good? Who wants what?

...I'm not sure if we can use The Art of Turning the Soul, lovely resource that it would be, since it's not published yet. There might be some intellectual property problems with that. We could say it's forthcoming, though, somewhere. Aro948 (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I will work on interpretive vs. evaluative questions vs. fact based. I will try to work in the "cluster" if I can. Any good online resources out there? --MSEd101 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I added evaluative, and fact based comparisons. I also added a nod to the BQ. I will continue to add to that section. I will also add a subsection about cluster questions. How do you all feel about the layout? Do you think the bq, clusters, fact vs. interp, and eval. vs. interp all work under the main heading of interpretive questions? Or, do the BQ and cluster fit with "leading an interpretive discussion"? Feel free to edit and suggest changes!--MSEd101 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the BQ might fit best with the "Leading a Disc." section. Then the BQ, cluster and leading components will flow naturally.Swimmer9999 (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think all of that BQ/cluster stuff is an SHG/Northwestern thing. I'm not sure that having a cluster of eight questions is strictly necessary for having an interpretive discussion more generally.  Like, if we all watched a Charlie Kaufman film, and afterward we had a discussion about what the point of it was, would that qualify as an interpretive discussion?  I think it would.  Seems like clusters would only apply if you were going to have a formal discussion with a formal leader, so I think I'm going to agree that it should go under the leading part.Aro948 (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I think perhaps I should not make "goals" its own section because it is so short-- what do you think? Should I just combine it with benefits?  If there are any goals you think I should add to the section, please let me know!  It feels extremely concise right now.  2) I realized my reference is actually the same as the first one on our page (1 and 5 are the same). Does anyone know how I can list the same source a second time without it coming up as a different source?Swimmer9999 (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was originally picturing goals and benefits as kind of the same thing, but the way you've approached it makes it seem like it really should be two separate sections. I wouldn't lump it with benefits at this point.  Maybe we can talk about the endpoint of a discussion?  I guess I'm still not really clear on what the endpoint is.  Is the group supposed to arrive at a single answer they're all happy with?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having multiple possible answers?  It's tricky.  If this section still looks lonely, maybe we can lump it in with the introduction?  I guess that's where all non-elaboratable (new word!) things are supposed to go.


 * I'll leave the placement of this section up to you. In her manuscript, Sophie takes great pains to explain that the end point of a discussion does not need to be a resolution of the DPD. I know we are not using her book as a reference, but I am afraid to put resolution as an end goal as she seems dead set on resolution not being necessary for the discussion to be a success.  According to Sophie, the discussion succeeds if the members of the group come to a better understanding of the meaning of the text.  (Still, I agree it seems ideal that a resolution would result from the discussion!) Swimmer9999 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that resolution business is in the intro of Turning the Soul as well, so I'll just add that and cite it.Aro948 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppose we go Chicago style (the best style) on these citations (the format of which I'm sure I completely made up), and just say "Haroutunian-Gordon, 1998" for the second cite?Aro948 (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I'm having trouble with the citation-- there is a way to refer to the same source multiple times, but I am having trouble (read: little success) making it work. I will take your advice (which seems good!) unless someone else figures out how to make double-citations work.Swimmer9999 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I added my best attempt at the Leading an Interpretive Discussion section. I feel like I overcited, but I guess that's better than the alternative? Since I actually used a book I found on Google Books with real page numbers and everything, should I cite with those page numbers, or should I just cite as the book in general?Smiles0671 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No such thing as over-citing. Obviously where there is a direct quote I'd definitely include the page number.  I see you included them in other instances as well-- I think that's fine.  If the purpose of the reference section is for a reader to check the original sources for more information (which, presumably it is), you are doing the reader a favor by pointing him in exactly the right direction.Swimmer9999 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually found references to the basic question and cluster questions in other sources than just SHG actually (otherwise I obviously wouldn't have added it!). I will add the information on cluster questions. If anyone wants to add it to the section on leading then go ahead! As it stands right now I think the cluster and basic question descriptions make more sense under the heading of interpretive questions. They can then be referenced to in the leading a discussion section. Whomever wrote that they overcited,remember, this an encyclopedia article, it should be overcited! --MSEd101 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I added to the Shared Inquiry subsection. It was difficult to talk about Shared Inquiry without sounding like I was promoting the Great Books Foundation. I tried to sound as unbiased as possible but I may have slipped in a few places; the best source of information about Shared Inquiry is the GBF website so that added to the promotionary aspect of my initial post. If you think it needs to be more straightforward please let me know. I included all my sources though. Lwg723 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's research to back up everything you wrote, so I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not like everything came from Great Books themselves, so I think it sounds pretty good!Aro948 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some stuff from SHG's first ID book both to my section and the section on leading. What do you all think about the intro? Am I missing anything?Aro948 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. I just made a couple of small edits in two sections.  I'm wondering if we should add an example of a fact based, evaluative and interpretive question, so the reader has a concrete example of each.  I can do this, for sure-- what do you think?  Would it make the differences between question types more clear or is that unnecessary?Swimmer9999 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see "clusters" is still under the question section instead of the leading section. I think it actually works fine there now, but I know we discussed moving it. Are we all ok with its current position?Swimmer9999 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it looks just fine there. It's a cohesive part of the section, and it at least mentions that question formation is part of the leader's job.

You guys, I really hope SHG Googles this one day and finds our masterpiece. This is awesome.Aro948 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)