Writing
Develop 2 Dialogue Reflection Paper

Question Description

I need help with a Writing question. All explanations and answers will be used to help me learn.

Use the attached document  4  5  6  to develop the assignment from it.

complete a 2-3 page total (6 pages)  reflection on the dialogue  that was held by a group of student in a CONF dialogue class one involved me (Syria one) and the other not (Islam phobia)  

You are required to integrate concepts from the course readings into this reflection assignments so please refer to the documents above 4,5 and 6 on that " provide supporting evidence/examples in order to make a cohesive written product"

check  below doc for that and ask me before the time end if you needed more information

This lead the in-class dialogue had the title of war and Syria I was responsible for it with another member so here is his paper if you needed information about it, use his paper and reflection paper as a LOG to dialogue,

His paper are the one that we should do in another word I mean the assignment was the same Here it is :

1  and here is an extra one from another classmate 2 << again refer to these two to know what happen in class that other day Doc 1 was one of the members of the group that did that dialogue that other day with me, 

2- As for the second reflection paper the other 2 to 3 pages I was an observer for another group and here are the paper from  a class mate hope you do the same but change the contact and refer to the readings above here it is HERE  

Again you should focus on the interaction that happened and the dialogue it self rather than the topic,


Thank you  


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Reflection #5 War is a vast topic that is able to describe anything ranging from civilian roles in wars to the politics of it as well. The sheer amount of information that is possible to obtain from talking about the concepts of war can shed light on various parts of our everyday lives such as the current war on Syria occurring now. During my own group’s instructor session on November 11, 2015, on the topic of war, we decided to educate the class on the dynamics and the current news of the Syrian war. I believe the group had a successful presentation overall due to achieving our goal of educating the class throughout the various activities, however, even though many hardships occurred, I still gained a good amount of teaching experience. The war on Syrian presentation included many activities that increased the knowledge about the conflict throughout the class. The group started of with the conflict spectrum and the question, “Where do you stand on war.” Questions that were meant to trigger response from both sides of the “for war” and “against war” created a discussion that was full of great opinions that drove the conversation. This opener was meant to see where the audience stood on war, and later the group would repeat this process again at the end to see if anyone’s mind had changed. According to Kraybill’s book this process is best used as warm ups to realize where each person stands in certain situations (Kraybill, 2006). After this process we transitioned into the main introduction of war, which gave a brief summary of the events that have since occurred in the conflict. About halfway in the introduction we stopped to give personal stories of encounters of the war and listening to the stories we encouraged people to share their own. I regret not staying silent for long as no one shared any stories, however, if I had been confortable with the silence, then there would have been a possibility of a great discussion from the class. As Chung and Wright have in their book, nonverbal communication plays a huge part in communicating, and if ones communication skills are not correct, then it would throw off the whole conversation (Chung, 2012). However, the opener not only allowed the group to warm up to the future activities that they participated in, but it also gave them knowledge on the Syrian war. The discussion gave our group a chance at finding new ways to educate the audience and try new activities. The next activity, which I enjoyed greatly and hopefully plan on one day incorporating into my own class, came from Professor Michael’s suggestion on what to try in our discussion. When our group had hit a rough patch and we were not too sure on what we could do next the Professor suggested a new technique that he had not seen yet called the snowball. The snowball technique is a brainstorming and conversation generating activity that has the students write down a question on a piece of paper, throw it like a snowball by crumpling it, then answering the question. As we finished writing down our question we got into a circle and had our “snowball fight.” It was really enjoyable and I believe the students really got into it by being able to ask their own questions then playing around for a bit before getting serious again. This is definitely a technique that I would like to see once more. The snowball technique, however, was not the only new activity presented by our group. The last of the activities were meant to be not only finishing activities, but also the goal was to leave the students thinking about war. The last of the main activities was the choice scenario activity that put the students into the action, as they had to find the best possible choice to the problem they had faced. I felt that this activity was nice, even though it could have been set up a little better due to the distance between the groups and the set up prior to the activity. At the end, though, I did enjoy the conflict spectrum that rounded up and brought the discussion to a close. I had set this one up to be an opener and finisher combo that would have the students reflect on the activity by explaining what they learned. There was not too much movement in the spectrum, not to my surprise, but a good conversation still held. After this we ended with a video that a group member had found halfway that really surprised me because it added so much more depth to the discussion that without it would have been weakened. With that the discussion ended with reviews from the professors. The experience gained from presenting with a group to the class was a great way for me to prepare myself as a future teacher. Although there were plenty of hardships throughout the setup of the dialogue, the end result was a great experience for everyone involved. I learned a great amount of new information and tactics from not only setting up various activities in my own group, but also seeing each technique work for each group and the final response from both professors made me reflect at the end of the day and think about how I could apply the techniques for future instructor sessions. The end result of presenting the Syrian war to the class with my group gave me a great opportunity to demo teaching as a career. Works Cited Chung, L. C., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2012). Understanding Interpersonal Communication. Kraybill, R., & Wright, E. (2006). The little book of Cool Tools for Hot Topics. Syria, a Bloody Mess Creating and facilitating a dialogue on a topic such as war is no easy task. Such topics are so broad, and the time allowed may not allow for proper closure. The group facilitating chose to use a case study on the war in Syria. This was wise choice; it kept the participants focused, and gave us insight into how the war unfolded, as well as how it escalated. The facilitators were well informed and tried to insure that participation was balanced as well. We were given background information through hand out sheets, and as well as the facilitators speaking about some of their research. The information was extremely helpful in helping us to map the conflict. We know the triggering event, who the players are, and what happens to countries such as Syria due to war. One of the formats used to initiate dialogue was a conflict spectrum. Within the spectrum participants are asked to take positions on a question posed. In this scenario we were asked to stand with others who were either for war, against war, or undecided. I decided to stand with those who believed that war is necessary, even though this is contrary to my beliefs. We were asked to stand against the wall at the location that represented our position. Two observations that I made were that I was uncomfortable standing against a wall. It reminds me of a Police lineup, or worse a firing squad. The other observation I made was that I took an opposite position in an effort to increase the likelihood of good dialogue, however at the end of the spectrum I found myself with the undecideds. This tells me I am learning not to come to conclusions as quickly as I had before, and not to take positions till the “jury is out”. A couple of suggestions in using the spectrum in dialogue are’ “invite individuals to talk about why they chose the spot they are 1 standing on, or invite people to call out from where they are standing and talk to the whole group” (49). 1 One of the group’s most effective means of creating dialogue came from another handout in which a scenario that was of national security was described. The groups were asked to read the information and to pick a plan of action, and to describe the advantages and disadvantages of this strategy. There was a lot of back and forth in the group I participated in. It was balanced and each member had strong opinions on why our strategy was the best way toward resolution of the incident. We were also privy to a process which I can only describe as throwing snow balls. We were all asked to write a question pertaining to the topic (war), and to crumble it up and throw it like a snowball at another group member. This took place within a circle, this gave a more intimate feeling to the exercise. We all gave our personal insights to the questions contained in the “snowballs”, A personal insight gained from this exercise was that I don’t need to blurt out the first thing that comes to mind. I chose to do my breathing exercises, which allowed me to contemplate on the question and offer my true perspective, rather than just trying to sound good. Some other insights gained from the dialogue came from our professor’s. One suggestion was that “silence is about listening”. I was able to relate to this since i have facilitated many times, however never became comfortable with silence. In the past I would try to fill the gaps with humor or trying to force the conversation. I will be mindful of this in the future. Topics such as war can be quite emotional, it is important to give people time to process what they've seen and heard, this might require silence. This is part of the process. Another critique was that the video that the facilitators used might have been more effective at the beginning of the dialogue, 1 See Kraybill and Wright 49, The Little Book of Cool Tools for Hot Topics. 2 rather than as a “rap-up” of the meeting. I tend to agree, I felt that a samoan circle or a similar format can actually help people gain closure on the topic, or to at least give insight into what they've taken away from the dialogue. Overall I think this group was well prepared and facilitated an excellent dialogue. Works Referenced 49, Kraybill, R., & Wright, E. (2006). The little book of cool tools for hot topics: Group tools to facilitate meetings when things are hot. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. 3 Islamophobia, or Misinformed? This week’s dialogue was a well thought out, well planned, and well facilitated discussion. Some of the methods used by the facilitators were quite innovative. The first thing they did was passed out papers on which the participants were asked to answer the question, what is Islam? Next they shuffled the papers and asked us to read the response and to give their perspective on how the other group member answered the question. When my response was read I realized that the person who read it had a different take on it then I did. Let me explain; I answered the question saying, “Islam is just another religion, an Abrahamic religion”. I guess I have bias toward religion, while I’m all for spirituality I know the damage caused by religion and in it’s name. The important thing to note here is that my classmate who read my response didn’t take it that way. Here we see how one’s past experiences or understanding shapes perception. There is a caveat, one of the facilitators tried to explain what I meant as well. I do not believe that a facilitator should interpret information. This differs greatly from reframing or summarizing, which might be necessary during dialogue. Another tool that lead to good discussion was the hand out prepared by the facilitators. A Sikh American was mistaken for a Muslim, or follower of Islam, and was the victim of verbal, and physical abuse. We also were made privy to another incident in which a U.S. Army veteran burst into a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and shot six people to death. It is obvious that Sihks are often mistaken for Muslims. Our group also saw themes of white supremacy, overt racism, and out right hatred on the part of the perpetrators. Being a victim of abuse, it is easy for me to empathize with the victims, and question what leads people to act with such violence? From what I have learned through Buddhism, “you will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger”(Buddha). Many people never get to experience other cultures because of this. I am grateful that I have emerged myself in conversation with people from different cultures, as well as being able to experience diversity by returning to school. One of the critiques given by our Professor was that the dialogue that that transpired might have been too ‘safe’, I tend to agree. On September 11, 2001 I reported to my job site in Brooklyn. My co-workers and I heard the news on the radio when the first plane crashed into the world trade center. We all ran to the roof-top and saw the second plane hit the towers. There was no doubt in any of our minds that this was an act of terrorism and the first thing that came to mind was to find some Muslims and seek some form of revenge. Fortunately, I had time to gather my thoughts and realize this was not the right course of action. Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn, has a large community of Muslims, there had not been any acts of terrorism on their part. This was something I could have brought up, especially the original feelings I had linking these same Muslims to the radicals that brought down the World Trade Center. Another thought that comes to me after reflecting is how I perpetuated racism, or hatred to Muslims was by standing by while many of my friends and co-workers used epithets such as: camel jockeys, diaper heads, sand n word, and others to describe Muslims. This might have lead to some good dialogue. Another reflection I had was that I was always uncomfortable mentioning my background (Jewish), when I was around Muslims. This is due to the fact that for quite a while I supported Israel’s position in dealing with the Palestinians. I was tired of hearing about why the Palestinians had a right to be angry and how Israel was violating their human rights. I saw the suicide bombings, and attacks on innocent Israelis on buses and in the streets. Naturally being Jewish I couldn’t see what part Israel was playing in all of this. Today, I am able to see the objectification and mistreatment of the Palestinian people by the government of Israel. Another topic that I could have brought up was how I felt when I was referred to as an infidel by Muslims. Many Muslim students at Northern Virginian Community College are Muslim. Many of them were out to convert students of other faiths to Islam and believed that those who did not believe in the prophet Mohammed were in fact infidels, and in some way inferior. This is not different from many evangelical Christian groups telling me that I’m going to hell because I don't accept Christ as my savior. There was also a lot of power struggles in regards to what would be served in the cafeteria. This may sound trivial, but I like Bacon. I couldn't get Bacon for breakfast at Nova because the Muslim students threatened to boycott the cafeteria if they served it. This really annoyed me and I held this resentment, not because I couldn't get Bacon, but because I felt they were imposing their beliefs on others. In hind site I wish I had brought this up during the dialogue. While I thought these feelings had passed, they are still in my memory. Today I would not allow my friends or co-workers to objectify Muslims, nor would I allow my past experiences to dictate my behavior. I don't allow media to tell me how I should feel, nor do I trust reporting from biased sources of news. If I want to know about Islam, or how Muslims feel about certain issues, I ask them. This is one of the advantages of attending diverse schools like George Mason University. I hope that I can be more open in future dialogues. ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Mrs Alpha (807)
Cornell University

Anonymous
Solid work, thanks.

Anonymous
The tutor was great. I’m satisfied with the service.

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations !

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4