Study Abroad Summer 2016
1
COURSE TITLE AND COURSE NUMBER
COMM 750: Conversations about Home in Public Spaces
Communication in Europe Program Summer 2016
When you travel, you experience, in a very practical way, the act of rebirth. You confront
completely new situations, the day passes more slowly, and on most journeys you don’t even
understand the language the people speak. You are like a child just out of the womb. You begin
to attach much more importance to the things around you because your survival depends on
them. You begin to more accessible to others because they may be able to help you in difficult
situations. And you accept any small favor from the gods with great delight, as if it were an
episode you will remember for the rest of your life. At the same time, since all things are new,
you see only the beauty in them, and you feel happy to be alive. (Coelho, p. 35)
Coelho, P. (1992). The pilgrimage. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
COURSE INFORMATION
Instructor: Dr. Patricia Geist-Martin
Office: COMM 244
E-Mail: pgeist@mail.sdsu.edu
Office Hours: T TH 1:00 – 2:00, by appointment
Class Days: Alternating Tuesdays
Class times: 4:00-6:00 p.m.
Class location: COMM 209
COURSE PREREQUISITE
COMM 601 and admission to the Communication in Europe Summer Program.
COURSE OVERVIEW
Immersing ourselves in foreign cultures necessitates navigating the relationships formed as they
take shape over the course of our own acculturation challenges. Most of us enter other cultures
energized by the prospect of immersing ourselves in something new and novel; at the same time,
we discover that accepting cultural difference is quite different from our experiencing of these
differences. In fact, through such experiences we usually discover the limits and discomforts in
our own perceptions and understandings. This course is designed as an examination of the ways
that we construct understanding of other cultures through conversations about home—theirs,
ours, and what we create as temporary locals. Through readings and course assignments students
will gain insight into their own process of cultural immersion—their comforts, discomforts, and
discoveries about themselves and others. Our focus is on the difficult questions that students
confront in immersing themselves in other cultures and writing about that experience.
Student Learning Objectives
1. Articulate a definition of social construction.
2. Distinguish major theoretical threads and research trends in culture and social interaction.
3. Identify the conceptualizations, benefits, and challenges of cultural immersion.
4. Reflect on the comforts and discomforts experienced in cultural immersion.
5. Enact conversational methods to construct reflections and stories of cultural immersion.
6. Understand autoethnography as a method for investigating cultural immersion.
Study Abroad Summer 2016
2
COURSE MATERIALS
Chawla, D., & Holman Jones, S. (Eds.). (2015).Stories of home: Place, identity, exile. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Bochner, A., & Ellis, C. (2016). Evocative autoethnography: Writing lives and telling stories.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Various readings in PDF on our BlackBoard site
COURSE STRUCTURE AND CONDUCT
Our class will function primarily as a focused and collaborative discussion. And because this is a
discussion-intensive course, I ask you to keep up with assigned readings and come to class
prepared to talk about them. The success of this course depends upon your active participation.
I will provide introductory overview of our course material, especially early in the semester, to
help frame our discussions, but I hope that we can spend most of our time actively talking
together about what we will read and see its relevance in our course and in our world.
COURSE ASSESSMENT AND GRADING
In this class, your grade is based on FIVE major assignments, as listed below.
Assignment
Participation/Engagement
Reflective Response Papers
“Temporary Local” Group Presentation
Culture Team Presentation/Discussion
Final Research Paper
Total Points
Points
200 points (20 %)
200 points (20 %) 5 @ 40 points
200 points (20 %)
200 points (20 %)
200 points (20 %)
1000 points
Evaluation and Assessment
Your final grade will be determined according to the following grading scale:
1000 – 930 = A
929 – 900 = A899 - 886 = B+
885 - 830 = B
829 - 800 = B –
799 - 776 = C+
775 - 730 = C
729 - 700 = C-
Study Abroad Summer 2016
3
DESCRIPTION OF ASSIGNMENTS
Participation and Engagement (200 points, 20 %)
You are expected to attend all spring semester pre-departure class sessions (see schedule) and are
responsible for all the material we cover. In addition, you must attend all classes and all
scheduled tours/excursions in Europe, unless you have a verified medical emergency approved
by the faculty. If you have a medical reason for missing a class, you must notify the faculty in
advance, or as soon as possible, to avoid point deductions. Students who meet these
requirements and attend all classes on time will receive the full 200 attendance points.
If you do have to miss a class, contact your professor in advance to let her know (if possible),
then seek out another student to catch up on what you missed. Being classified as absent means
missing more than 15 minutes of class. Each absence in San Diego and in Europe will result in a
deduction of 25 points from your participant engagement grade. After one absence for the
semester, each subsequent absence will result in a 30 point deduction.
You must also be on time to class. Being classified as tardy means arriving any time after I have
begun taking attendance. If you are tardy to class in San Diego or Europe, your engagement
grade will be automatically lowered 10 points. If you fall asleep in class, you will also lose 10
points. In my experience, most students keep all their points, so this is a “cushion” for your
course grade. However, losing all points can result in dismissal from the program without refund
and a grade of F for this course.
Behavioral Expectations:
All SDSU rules apply while we are in class in Europe, in the base city hotels or hostels, or on a
field trip. You are an “ambassador” of the university and your country; thus you must behave
appropriately. All scheduled group activities require your attendance – they are not optional.
You must be respectful of all local personnel, other students, guests, field trip guides, bus drivers
and other who assist us with our travel. From the moment you enter a base city hotel/hostel,
train, or bus you must be quiet and respectful of others. You may not have loud parties in your
rooms that could disrupt others. You may not yell, run, or cause disturbances in the hallways.
You may not allow people to spend the night in your room that are not assigned and approved by
the faculty. Violating this rule is a major violation (see below). The continuation of this program
depends on maintaining good relations with each hotel/hostel and its staff. If you seriously
threaten that relationship, you will be dismissed from the program. By following these simple
rules, we believe the Communication in Europe Study Abroad program will continue to be
successful and you will have an outstanding experience. Thank you for your cooperation.
Minor violations of our rules, or of the host country, will result in deductions from your
engagement grade. Major violations that are detrimental to the program’s reputation with host
facilities, corporate partners, or local representatives will not be tolerated. If a major violation
occurs, the student(s) responsible will be dismissed from the program immediately, will be
assigned a grade of F, and will be ineligible to participate in any further program activities (e.g.
tours, events, hotel lodging & meals). Due to safety concerns, your parent(s) or guardian(s) will
be notified. No program fees will be refunded.
Study Abroad Summer 2016
4
Reflective Response Papers (5 @ 40 points = 200 points, 20 %)
You’ll be completing five 2-page reflective response papers before we depart for Europe. Four
of the response papers will be over the readings. After reading the week’s assigned readings,
you will write a reading response and turn it in at the designated spot on blackboard by midnight,
the day before class meets. Bring a copy to class as well and be prepared to participate in the
discussion of the readings based on your response. The paper should follow all APA guidelines,
including a cover page with a creative title, a header, page number, and a reference page. As
well, each of the following 4 criteria should be met.
1. Thesis Statement (1 paragraph, 5 points): An opening paragraph that states your thesis or
focal point of what YOU want to discuss and respond to about the reading. This is your
chance to reflect on what you have read and offer an insight of your own.
2. Evidence (2-3 paragraphs, 15 points): Draw upon 2-3 statements in the reading that
support your thesis. This is NOT a summary of what the article states, but instead you
are demonstrating an in-depth understanding and careful examination of the reading.
Utilize evidence to persuade your reader of the value of the insight offered in your thesis
statement.
3. Closing (1-2 paragraphs, 10 points): Close the paper in a provocative way by tying back
to the thesis, but then offering some personal reflections which connect YOU and your
experience to the topic. Close with questions for consideration for a possible focus for
the research projects and for gathering data in Europe
4. APA & Mechanics (10 points): Be sure to proofread your paper for appropriate
grammar, spelling, punctuation, and APA.
The rubric for evaluating the Reading Response papers is on p. 17.
The FIFTH response paper will be a reflective response to the group presentations, due Tuesday
May 10 by noon, before our meeting at the home of Dr. Geist-Martin and J.C. Martin at 4:30.
The Reflective Response should be two pages, in APA style from the cover page through to the
Reference page and should include the following.
1. Insights: Two or three predominant insights you gained from the presentation.
2. Anticipations: Two or three things that you are NOW anticipating with more excitement
than ever about the trip.
3. Apprehensions: Inevitably, most people experience some anxiety or apprehension about
traveling in other countries. Describe two or three apprehensions that became clearer to
you in the presentations.
4. Distinctions: Reflecting on all five presentations, describe one aspect from each
presentation that you feel distinguished them as outstanding.
5. Surprises: Finally, close your presentation with one or two surprises that led you to
appreciate a city in a way that you had not before the presentations were delivered.
Study Abroad Summer 2016
5
“Temporary Local” Team Presentation in San Diego (200 points, 20 %)
Students will be assigned to a team composed of 2 to 3 graduate students. This is the team that
you will work with for both the “Temporary Local” Team Presentation here in San Diego and for
your Culture Team Presentations in Europe (the same groups for both my class and Dr.
Winslow’s). The rubric that will be utilized to evaluate this presentation is on page 18.
Content
Each team will be assigned one of the five cities in Europe. The team will build a presentation to
help prepare their classmates to become temporary locals in the city they have been assigned.
The content of the presentation must include
1. An Introduction (engages audience, states focus of the presentation, previews what will
be covered)
2. Information to prepare and guide students to become temporary locals, which could
include any of the following (this is a start, but not a comprehensive list)
 Leisure activities
 Typical climate when we will be in that city
 Topography
 Leisure activities
 Labor (industries and jobs)
 Politics
 Famous tourist sites
 Celebrities
 Typical Dress
 Pet Peeves
 Other?
3. A one page language guide with a list of basic words or phrases in your country’
language (hello, goodbye, please, thank you, cheers, how much does this cost, where is
_____, what time is ____, and others that the group deems essential). You could decide
to put this on a laminated card for ease of use in travel.
4. A description of a set of concepts, ideas, or topics from the reading that is connected to
the city in some way (should be a foreshadowing of what you will focus on more
extensively in your Europe Team presentation).
5. A brief activity to involve audience in one of your key points. This should be only 3-5
minutes of your presentation.
6. Closing (briefly summarize what you have covered and close with something that is
fascinating, provocative, or has staying power in the minds of your audience).
Delivery
 Teams will present on Tuesday, April 26 when Dr. Geist-Martin and Dr. Winslow will
both be present in class.
 Team Presentations must be 20-25 minutes in length (with 5 minutes for Q & A)
 Team Members must participate equally
 The presentation should be well organized, engaging, and fulfill all 6 criteria above
Study Abroad Summer 2016
6
Culture Team Presentation, First Day in Europe (100 points, 10 %)
On the first day of class in each city in Europe, one team will give a 15-20 minute presentation to
the rest of the students about their city. On the second day of class in each city, the same team
will lead a discussion of the topics that are related to their city and the course readings (The
Culture Team Discussion is described on the next page).
The Culture Team Presentation has four parts:
(1) First, the team will provide a general introduction and orientation to the city that could draw,
in part, from the team’s first presentation in San Diego, but now it is focused more on one topic
from the readings that the team has determined is critical to their team’s focus.
(2) Second, the team will provide a specific description of the city’s public gathering spaces-locations where people hang out, converse, and people watch, which includes: (a) a broad
description of public spaces throughout the city, (b) the philosophy of that city toward public
spaces, (c) a thorough description of ONE public space and a rationale for going there to engage
in conversations about home in that specific public space.
(3) Third, the team will engage in a discussion of two or three concepts (and related questions)
from the reading that might inform their own or other team’s investigation of conversations
about home in public spaces.
(4) Fourth, the team will offer a specific assignment for their classmates to engage with and be
prepared to discuss on the second day of the class in that city. For example, your team could ask
each student to find one place in the city that feels like home and write a brief journal entry about
that place and what they have learned from someone else they meet there, or you could ask
students to go to one of the public spaces and talk with at least two people to find out what
makes them feel at home in that place and write up their responses, or . . . the list goes on and on.
But whatever you come up with in this third part—make it clear, make it simple to do, and
design it so classmates can complete it in a short period of time and come to class the next day
with a few paragraphs (no more than one page) hand written that they will share with others and
turn in to the professor for engagement credit). Your report and oral presentation will offer your
classmates links, readings, and thought-provoking questions that you know will be part of your
Discussion on the second day of class. The Rubric for this presentation is on page 19 of the
syllabus.
Some examples of public spaces in our cities include:
Barcelona, Spain, Park Güell
Resting atop a hill in the Gracia area of Barcelona, Antoni Gaudi's whimsical playground park
was constructed from 1900-1914 and it was originally designed as a site for an aristocrat's
residence. In addition to the plethora of mosaic sculptures, structures, and pathways, the park is
also home to the world's longest park bench.
Grindelwald, Switzerland, Indoor Rope Adventure Park
Five different courses, with 40 elements all about mountains, the Indoor Rope Adventure Park
has many highlights. Overcome giant icicles, soar through the air with the Haul Bag, or wend
your way over the challenging Hintersoisser Traverse – in any kind of weather.
Study Abroad Summer 2016
7
Munich, Germany, Contemporary art in public spaces in Munich
Munich gets its fourth plant project presenting contemporary art in the public space. 7 locations
are chosen: Odeonsplatz, Wittelsbacherplatz, Englischer Garten, Gärtnerplatz, Dachauerstrasse ,
the courts in the Rathaus and the Marienhof behind the Rathaus. Danish artist Michael Elmgren
and Ingar Dragset from Norway are curating this project and they ask how a city constitutes its
own identity in 2013. http://www.munichfound.com/article/spacecalledpublic/
Prague, Czechoslovakia, Franciscan Garden
In the very epicenter of the city of Prague is Prague's stunningly beautiful Franciscan Gardens.
Located between Vodičková Street and Jungmannovo Namesti, the Franciscan Gardens are a
quiet rose-filled oasis with a beautiful view of the church of Our Lady of the Snows, right in the
center of the very heart of Prague.
Budapest, Hungary, Heroes Square
Located at the end of Andrássy Avenue, Heroes’ Square is the entrance to the City Park as well
as one of the most spectacular venues in Budapest. The three main sites of the square include the
Hall of Art, built in 1896, the Museum of Fine Arts, inaugurated in December 1906, as well as
the Millennium Monument, linking both buildings visually. The latter includes a 36-metre
central column, topped by a statue of the archangel Gabriel who holds the Holy Crown as well as
a two-barred apostolic cross, the same way as the founder of the Kingdom of Hungary, St.
Stephen did in his sleep according to a legend. The crescent-shaped monument was built in
Eclectic style. The semi-circular arcades of the monument on the left and right-hand side each
hold bronze statues of seven outstanding personalities of Hungarian history.
Culture Team Discussion Leading, 2nd Day in Europe (100 points, 10 %)
On the second day of class in a city, that city’s team will equally participate in guiding a
discussion. The key point here is that the team members are NOT providing information, they
are facilitating a discussion of the course concepts they have selected to weave into the focus the
team has selected for the city. For the discussion leading, each group will provide links,
readings, and thought-provoking questions for the class to consider on BlackBoard. This can be
posted by the team prior to leaving for Europe, but must be available the day BEFORE their
presentation. Leaders may assign readings, videos, or activities for the class to complete prior to
the discussion via the blog space for that city. Discussion leaders will prepare discussion topics,
probing questions, and activities in order to engage the class for 30-40 minutes. The grading
rubric for the Culture Team Discussion Leading is on page 19.
Final Research Project (200 points, 20 %)
In each city in Europe, you will be gathering data focusing on conversations about home in
public places. These meanings are often fluid. The meanings for home evolve when you miss
home, when you find a comfort that feels like home, when you see that home here in Europe can
be better than what you feel your own home is, when you are immersed in meanings of home
that feel more comfortable or different than your own home. The two textbooks and readings will
help you to explore the wide range of meanings for home—what is comfortable and
uncomfortable, reassuring and disturbing, and a wide range of other meanings.
Study Abroad Summer 2016
8
You are asked to buy a field notebook that you will carry with you at all times. You will be
writing observations and conversations about home that you encounter on a daily basis. These
meanings of home are both discoveries about others’ meanings for home, but also your own
reflections about what home means to you. Here is what our text says about home:
Home is quite possibly one of the most definable and indefinable ideas that litter the
landscape of our contemporary cultural lives. Besides being experienced as a place, a
space, and a structure, home is also memory, feeling, and affect. Home can be an idea
and a hope, thereby becoming both anticipation and promise. What is sure is that the
experience of home—in its presence or absence, in its materiality or lack thereof—lies in
the stories of those who tell it. Home might first, or might most simply be the space of a
story. (Chawla & Holman Jones, 2015, p. xi)
Write in your field notebook every day, beginning the first day of class in San Diego. At the top,
write the date, the time, and the place of your observation. Write as descriptively as possible
what you are doing (sitting on the grass, stretched out across a rock, clustered together with two
friends on a bench), what you are observing (sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, & most
importantly feelings), who you are interacting with (locals, temporary locals, sightseers), and the
composition of your reflections. Reflections are what you observe and write about your
emotions and thoughts, simultaneously as you observe. But also, reflections may occur later,
when you read back over your notes. Through these reflections you can discover something
anew about your experience, a meaning that wasn’t there at first, but has slowly evolved.
Slow down, don’t try to write a summary of the whole day, or even afternoon. Instead, focus
your observations and reflections on one singular moment and the ordinary affects. Stewart
(2007) describes ordinary affects as the:
varied, surging capacities to affect and to be affected that give everyday life the quality of
a continual motion of relations, scenes, and emergencies. . . . They can be experienced as
a pleasure and a shock, as an empty pause or a dragging undertow, as a sensibility that
snaps into place or a profound disorientation. They can be funny, perturbing, or
traumatic. (pp. 1-2)
Some of these moments will be mundane. Some will be profound. And some you will write and
not know why you wrote about them until much later as you accumulate thick descriptions and
reflections of these ordinary affects.
The readings in the course will help you to begin to focus your writing, reflecting, and analyzing.
In addition, you may find that your conversations with other students on the trip draw you
together in some way toward a similar focus. There will be times in the trip that you are
frustrated, may even want to go home. There will be other times when you have to pinch
yourself because you are inspired and changed in ways you never imagined. And then there are
a bunch of other times in between where you experience a wide range of emotions. At some
point during the trip, you (or you and your partner) will meet with me to narrow the focus of
your research. When we return to the U.S., I will be happy to meet with you as you work toward
completing your research papers. We return on Saturday, June 11 and your final research paper
is due on Monday, June 27. The rubric for your final paper appears on page 12.
You can choose to work on the research project yourself or with a partner.
Study Abroad Summer 2016
9
TENTATIVE CLASS SCHEDULE
Week
Topic
Readings and Assignments Due
January 26
Orientation: Drs. Geist-Martin &
Winslow
February 9
Conversations about home in public
spaces; Critical Autoethnography
Read: C & HJ: pp. vii-xxiii
BB: Boylorn & Orbe; Ellis & Bochner
Due: Response Paper # 1
March 1
The Meanings of Home: Place,
Movement, and Identity
Read: Parts I & II 1-112; BB: Denzin
Due: Response Paper # 2
March 22
Re-visioning, re-visiting Home
Read: Parts III-IV, pp.113-218; B& E,
Preface, S #1; BB: Chawla
Due: Response Paper # 3
April 12
Evocative Autoethnography of
Finding/Missing/re-thinking Home
Read: B & E, S # 3 4 5 6; BB: MacLure
Due: Response Paper # 4
April 26
Dr. Geist-Martin & Dr. Winslow
Due: Class Presentations
May 10
Departure Preparation Gathering
Home of Dr. Geist-Martin & J.C. Martin
Due: Response Paper # 5
Barcelona
May 22, am
Barcelona Culture Team Presentation
May 23, am
Barcelona Culture Team Discussion
Read: B&E, S #7; BB: Pawluch, Shaffir,
Mial
Due: Team’s Engagement Assignment
May 26, am
Grindelwald Culture Team Presentation
Read: B&E, S #8; BB: Chang et al.
May 27, am
Grindelwald Culture Team Discussion
Due: Team’s Engagement Assignment
May 30, am
Munich Culture Team Presentation
Read:B&E-Coda;BB:Cardinal
May 31, am
Munich Culture Team Discussion
Due: Team’s Engagement Assignment
June 4, am
June 5, am
Budapest
Prague Culture Team Presentation
Prague Culture Team Discussion
Data Sessions
Due: Team’s Engagement Assignment
June 8, am
Budapest Culture Team Presentation
Data Sessions
June 9, am
Budapest Culture Team Discussion
Due: Team’s Engagement Assignment
Grindelwald
Munich
Prague
Study Abroad Summer 2016
10
Blackboard Readings
February 9, 2016
Boylorn, R. M., & Orbe, M. P. (Eds.). (2014). Introduction: Critical autoethnography as method
of choice. Critical autoethnography: Intersection cultural identities (pp. 13-26). Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher
as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd
ed. (pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
March 1, 2016
Denzin, N. K. (1997). Standpoint epistemologies (Chapter 3). Interpretive ethnography:
Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
March 22, 2016
Chawla, D. (2003). Rhythms of dis-location: Family history, ethnographic spaces, and
reflexivity. In R. P. Clair (Ed.), Expressions of ethnography: Novel approaches to
qualitative methods. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
April 12, 2016
MacLure, M. (2009). Broken voices, dirty words: On the productive insufficiency of voice. In A.
Y. Jackson & L. A. Mazzei (Eds.), Voice in qualitative inquiry: Challenging
conventional, interpretive, and critical conceptions of qualitative research (pp. 97-113).
New York, NY: Routledge.
May 22, 2016
Pawluch, D., Shaffir, W., & Miall, C. (Ed.). (2005). Part 1: Doing ethnography: Challenges and
strategies (pp. 25-35). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholar’s Press.
May 26, 2016
Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F. W., & Hernandez, K. C. (2013). Collaborative autoethnography. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast press.
May 30, 2016
Cardinal, T. (2013). Autobiographical narrative inquiries: Stepping stone or saving story. In D. J.
Clandinin (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
(Reprinted from Cardinal, T. (2011). Stepping stone or saving story? LEARNing
Landscapes, 4, 79-91).
Study Abroad Summer 2016
11
Resources for Research Project
Books
Carbaugh, D. (2010). Cultures in conversation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Chawla, D. (2014). Home uprooted: Oral histories of India’s partition. New York, NY: Fordham
University Press.
Davis, S. H., & Konner, M. (Ed.). (2011). Being there: Learning to live cross-culturally.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Giardina, M. D. (Eds.). (2015). Qualitative inquiry and the politics of research.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Gergen, M., & Gergen, K. J. (2003). Social construction: A reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haydari, N., & Holmes, P. (Eds.). (2015). Case Studies in intercultural dialogue. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt.
Holman Jones, S., Adams, T. E., & Ellis, C. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of Autoethnography.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Stewart, K. (2007). Ordinary affects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Journals
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies
Communication Monographs
Critical Studies in Media Communication
Departures in Critical Qualitative Research
Discourse and Society
Journal of Applied Communication Research
Journal of Communication
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication
Mass Communication and Society
Organizational Aesthetics
Qualitative Health Research
Qualitative Inquiry
Semiotics
Text and Performance Quarterly
Western Journal of Communication
Women’s Studies in Communication
Study Abroad Summer 2016
12
POLICIES
Class Technology
We will be using Blackboard extensively before and during our trip, for supplemental readings
and assignments. Make sure your Web Portal e-mail address is one you check regularly, as I will
send e-mails from our BlackBoard site. If you’re not planning on bringing a laptop or other
device that will enable you to post and read documents from BlackBoard, plan on visiting a
cyber café in each of the cities we’ll be visiting. Log into the system with your Red ID and PIN
at https://blackboard.sdsu.edu/webapps/login
APA style
Please use APA style in writing your papers for this class. An abbreviated APA style guide is
posted under the Course Documents tab on BB.
Disability Accommodations
If you need additional accommodations for our class meetings before departure, you must first
contact Student Disability Services at (619) 594-6473, TDD/TTY (619) 594-2929, and provide
the appropriate paperwork to me before I can provide any accommodations.
Sensitive Subject Matter
We may be experiencing work that deals with issues of a potentially sensitive nature. Some of
our readings will frankly address race, ethnicity, health, and sexuality among other topics. While
you are not required to self-disclose in assignments or discuss information with which you are
uncomfortable, I do expect you read and discuss in class the articles and chapters assigned. If
you anticipate problems completing the readings or participating in class discussions, please talk
to me well in advance. A good grade in this class is not dependent on what you disclose in your
writings and performance, though self-reflexivity is a necessary and important characteristic of
performance studies research. So, please take care to be aware of what topics about which you
are comfortable writing.
Plagiarism and Cheating
Plagiarism will not be tolerated in this class. Students caught plagiarizing, defined as
misrepresenting another’s work as one’s own through omission, evasiveness, and/or improper
citation, may receive an F on the assignment and in the class. Common yet no less egregious
plagiarism includes using verbatim other authors’ summaries of research and then citing the
primary source rather than citing the author who summarizes that primary source. Below is more
information on the policies of the School of Communication and SDSU:
Plagiarism is one of the highest forms of academic offense. It represents several ethics violations.
It is theft of intellectual property. In academe, a scholar’s words, ideas, and creative products
represent essential intellectual property, which are the primary measures of scholarly identity,
status and achievement. It is fraud. Students should be assessed on their own ideas and abilities;
not the ideas and abilities of others. It is unfair. It introduces bias and inequity in the assessment
process, producing grades for fellow students based on disadvantaged standards and expectations.
It is corruption. It undermines the credibility of higher education by misrepresenting the meaning
of university grades and degrees to the rest of the public. Whether by ignorance, accident, or
Study Abroad Summer 2016
13
intent, theft is still theft, fraud is still fraud, inequity is still inequity, and corruption is still
corruption. Therefore, the offense, no matter how minor in quantity, is still serious, and is treated
as such.
The 2008-2009 SDSU Graduate Bulletin policy1 states:
Plagiarism is formal work publicly misrepresented as original; …. Work shall be
deemed plagiarism: (1) when prior work of another has been demonstrated as the
accessible source; (2) when substantial or material parts of the source have been
literally or evasively appropriated (substance denoting quantity; matter denoting
qualitative format or style); and (3) when the work lacks sufficient or unequivocal
citation so as to indicate or imply that the work was neither a copy nor an imitation.
This definition comprises oral, written, and crafted pieces. In short, if one purports
to present an original piece but copies ideas word for word or by paraphrase, those
ideas should be duly noted. (Lindey, 1952, Plagiarism and Originality)
The 2008-2009 Graduate Bulletin continues by stating:
San Diego State University is a publicly assisted institution legislatively
empowered to certify competence and accomplishment in general and discrete
categories of knowledge. The president and faculty of this university are therefore
obligated not only to society at large but to the citizenry of the State of California
to guarantee honest and substantive knowledge in those to whom they assign grades
and whom they recommend for degrees. Wittingly or willfully to ignore or to allow
students’ ascription of others’ work to themselves is to condone dishonesty, to deny
the purpose of formal education, and to fail the public trust.
One of the primary objectives of higher education is to advance humanity by increasing and
refining knowledge. Such an objective is therefore threatened by students who commit plagiarism,
in which the evidence of the student’s knowledge is not genuine. Given the gravity of the offense,
students suspected or accused of disregarding, concealing, aiding, or committing plagiarism must
be assured of thorough, impartial and conclusive investigation of any such accusation. Likewise,
students guilty of such an offense must be liable for an appropriate penalty, even severance from
the University and in some cases revocation of an advanced degree, should the demonstrated
plagiarism clearly call into question a student’s academic ethics, competence or accomplishments.
THE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY OF THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
In any case in which an instructor identifies evidence for charging a student with violation of
academic conduct standards or plagiarism, the presumption will be with that instructor’s
determination. The instructor(s) will confer with the School Director to confirm the evidence. Once
confirmed, the student will be informed and presented with the evidence. Some conditions and
terms below clarify the School policy and procedure.
Proper source attribution: Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas.
This is done by (a) providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and (b) clearly
designating the source of the text or information relied upon in an assignment.
1
San Diego State University Graduate Bulletin, 2008-2009, p. 35.
Study Abroad Summer 2016
14
Intellectual contents: Intellectual contents include all forms of ‘text’ produced by another person
or persons. It includes: writings, course syllabi, course lectures and recordings of lectures, visual
information such as models, videos, lyrics, software, etc.
Secondary citations: Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms, it
can present similar ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing source A, which in turn cites
source B, but it is source B’s ideas or content that provide the basis for the claims the student intends
to make in the assignment. For example, assume that there is an article by Jones (2006) in the
student’s hands, in which there is a discussion or quotation of an article by Smith (1998). Assume
further that what Smith seems to be saying is very important to the student’s analysis. In such a
situation, the student should always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if an idea is
important enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important enough to locate and cite the original
source for that idea. There are several reasons for these policies: (a) Authors sometimes commit
citation errors, which might be replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors sometimes make
interpretation errors, which might be ignorantly reinforced (c) Therefore, reliability of scholarly
activity is made more difficult to assure and enforce; (d) By relying on only a few sources of review,
the learning process is short-circuited, and the student’s own research competencies are diminished,
which are integral to any liberal education; (e) By masking the actual sources of ideas, readers must
second guess which sources come from which citations, making the readers’ own research more
difficult; (f) By masking the origin of the information, the actual source of ideas is misrepresented.
Some suggestions that assist with this principle:
 When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or unique to, Smith, then find the
Smith source and citation.
 When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated more with Smith than with
Jones, then find the Smith source and citation.
 In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up what Jones is saying and
believes, and is independently qualified to claim, whether or not Smith would have also said
it; in such a case, citing Jones is sufficient.
 Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement by Jones, and reproduce the
reference list without actually going to look up what those references report—the only
guarantee that claims are valid is for a student to read the original sources of those claims.
Self-plagiarism: Students often practice some form of ‘double-dipping,’ in which they write on a
given topic across more than one course assignment. In general, there is nothing wrong with doubledipping topics or sources, but there is a problem with double-dipping exact and redundant text. It is
common for scholars to write on the same topic across many publication outlets; this is part of
developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a topic. Scholars, however, are not
permitted to repeat exact text across papers or publications except when noted and attributed, as this
wastes precious intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the particular source of
original presentation by ‘diluting’ the value of the original presentation. Any time that a writer simply
‘cuts-and-pastes’ exact text from former papers into a new paper without proper attribution, it is a
form of self-plagiarism. Consequently, a given paper should never be turned in to multiple classes.
Entire paragraphs, or even sentences, should not be repeated word-for-word across course
assignments. Each new writing assignment is precisely that, a new writing assignment, requiring
new composition on the student’s part.
Study Abroad Summer 2016
15
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences:
 Course failure: Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed
materials without proper attribution, whether represented by: (a) multiple sentences, images,
or portions of images; or (b) by percentage of assignment length, will result in assignment of
an “F” in the course in which the infraction occurred, and a report to the Center for Student
Rights and Responsibilities (CSRR2).
 Assignment failure: Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks,
but with source citation, or subsets of visual images without source attribution, will minimally
result in an “F” on the assignment, and may result in greater penalty, including a report to
the CSRR, depending factors noted below.
 Exacerbating conditions--Amount: Evidence of infraction, even if fragmentary, is
increased with a greater: (a) number of infractions; (b) distribution of infractions across an
assignment; or (c) proportion of the assignment consisting of infractions.
 Exacerbating conditions--Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge and intent to deceive
magnifies the seriousness of the offense and the grounds for official response. Plagiarism,
whether ‘by accident’ or ‘by ignorance,’ still qualifies as plagiarism—it is all students’
responsibility to make sure their assignments are not committing the offense.
 Exceptions: Any exceptions to these policies will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and
only under exceptional circumstances.
Extra Credit: SONA Information
The School of Communication offers extra credit research opportunities to students enrolled in
courses participating in SONA, an online research recruitment system. Because the School of
Communication seeks not only to distribute knowledge through teaching, but also generate it
through original research, students in the School of Communication may participate in authorized
research projects. Participation in such research provides important insights into this process of
knowledge generation.
Student accounts on SONA are automatically generated at the beginning of each semester.
Research studies with available participation slots can be accessed at the following website:
http://sdsu.sona-systems.com. Every 30 minutes of research participation is equivalent to a ½
SONA credit. Participation in each ½ credit research project will generate 2 extra credit points that
can be applied to a participating communication course.
Students under 18 are typically NOT eligible to participate in SONA studies. Alternative extra
credit assignments are provided for those students by the researcher listed for each individual
study. Extra credit cannot be guaranteed as it is dependent on the NEED of research participants
in departmental research.
1. Eligibility: Only research projects approved and listed on the SONA website are eligible.
2. Announcement of Opportunities: It is the students' responsibility to check the SONA
website for available studies. Announcements of newly posted studies are likely to be
made, but not guaranteed.
3. Availability of Opportunities: Research in a program ebbs and flows. Participation is only
available during the active windows of time specified by each study. Opportunities for
participation may or may not be available in any particular semester, or at any particular
time of the semester.
Study Abroad Summer 2016
16
4. Record of Participation: The SONA researchers will keep a record of student participation.
A record of awarded participation is available in each student account.
5. Grade: No more credit is available than is indicated above--there are no "additional"
projects or sources for achieving extra credit in the course.
6. Ethics: It is also important to emphasize that any attempt to falsify participation in research
for the sake of receiving unearned credit is a form of academic dishonesty, and will be a
basis for failure of a course and initiation of proceedings with the office of Student Rights
& Responsibilities.
Course Specific SONA Information
Students can apply SONA credits to this course with a maximum of 3 SONA credits (12 extra
credit points). In other words,
½ SONA credit = 2 points
1 SONA credit = 4 points.
3 SONA credits = 12 points
Questions
Course instructors should NOT be contacted regarding SONA studies, participation, or questions.
Questions regarding SONA account information or questions NOT ANSWERED in this section
of the syllabus can be directed to Dr. Rachael Record (rrecord@mail.sdsu.edu).
Study Abroad Summer 2016
First Four Reflective Response Papers Grading Rubric
Criteria
1. The paper presents a clear thesis.
2. The paper presents 2-3 statements of
evidence, demonstrating critical thinking
and understanding of the readings.
3. The paper closes by tying back to thesis,
offering personal reflections, and posing
provocative questions for research.
4. The paper utilizes correct grammar,
punctuation, spelling, and
Total Points (out of 40)
Points
1
5
6
7
8
9
2
3 4 5
10 11 12 13 14 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
Fifth Reflective Response Paper Grading Rubric
Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4.
The paper presents 2-3 insights.
The paper presents 2-3 anticipations.
The paper presents 2-3 apprehensions.
The paper presents five distinctions.
Total Points (out of 40)
Points
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
17
Study Abroad Summer 2016
18
“Temporary Local” Team Presentation Grading Rubric
Criteria
1. The team provides extensive
information about the city.
2. The team offers clear, interesting
visuals to represent this information.
3. The team offers and reviews a 1-page
language guide.
4. The team engages the audience in an
Activity related to presentation
content.
5. The presentation is spread evenly
among team members who each
seem prepared.
6. The team connects concepts/topics
from course readings to the city.
7. The team is within the time limits.
8. The team utilizes effective verbal
and nonverbal presentation
techniques.
9. The team utilizes effective
organizational skills (Intro,
transitions, closing).
10. The team effectively addresses the
questions asked by the audience
Total Points (out of 200)
Points
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Study Abroad Summer 2016
Culture Team Presentation Grading Rubric
Criteria
1. The team provides a brief orientation
to their city.
2. The team offers clear, interesting
information related to the city &
topic.
3. The team offers a description of 2-3
concepts from the readings that are
connected to the city.
4. The team provides a specific
engagement activity for the audience.
5. The presentation is spread evenly
among team members who each
seem prepared.
6. The team connects concepts/topics
from course readings to the city.
7. The team is within the time limits.
8. The team utilizes effective verbal
and nonverbal presentation
techniques.
9. The team utilizes effective
organizational skills (Intro,
transitions, closing).
10. The team effectively addresses the
questions asked by the audience
Total Points (out of 100)
1
2
3
4
Points
5 6 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8
9
10
Culture Team Discussion Leading Grading Rubric
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Criteria
The team facilitates discussion.
The team focuses discussion on a set of
concepts/topics from the readings
Each team member equally participates in
an organized presentation.
The team provides thoughtful questions.
The group utilizes effective verbal and
nonverbal presentation techniques.
Total Points (out of 100)
Points
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
19
Study Abroad Summer 2016
Research Project Grading Rubric
Criteria and Analysis
1. The introduction (1-2 pages) highlights the
significance of the topic, its relevance to
communication, and previews the rest of
the paper.
2. The literature review (4-5 pages) surveys
the major aspects of the topic and builds an
argument for its research questions.
3. The research questions are clear, concise,
and logically flow from the literature
review.
4. The methods section (2-3 pages) details
the way the author gathered, analyzed, and
represented the data, citing relevant
sources to support his or her approach.
5. The analysis (10-15 pages) poses an
argument, about the phenomenon, and
draws on specific, concrete. exemplars
from the research/data
6. The discussion (3-5 pages) presents the
conclusions, theoretical & practical
implications, the limitations, and directions
for future research.
7. The paper consistently and accurately
employs APA citation-style in the text and
on the reference page, citing at least 15
sources.
8. The paper consistently and accurately
employs APA in the format of the paper:
cover page, abstract, headings, appendices,
etc.
9. The paper is free of grammatical,
punctuation, and spelling errors
10. The paper illustrates an understanding of
concepts presented in our readings
Total Points (out of 200)
Points
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
20