Talk:Symbolic convergence theory

Untitled

I'm writing this because I may as well put my essay on the subject to good use. Forgive the fact that I have not used sources - it's currently 9.15pm and I have an exam tommorow :P AQjosh 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have with the permission of Dr. John Cragan added his content in to this article. 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we get this to read more like an article and less like an essay? It's really not all that helpful in its current state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.111.71 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

United States Education Program course

Hello, my name is Brendan. I am a grad student in Georgetown University's Communication, Culture & Technology grad program. As part of my course in Communication Theory and Frameworks, I will be editing and updating this page. I will be working with a Wiki Ambassador on campus, but please let me know if you have any guidelines or suggestions for my work. I look forward to becoming a part of this community. Thanks! Willycutpro (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brendan, I like what you have done with the article so far. Your definition of Symbolic Convergence is more compact and clear than the previously offered definition. I also liked how you separated the various topics discussed by the previous author into a clearly labelled and well structured outline of the basic concepts. One issues that I also came up with while correcting my own article was that some of the examples seemed out of place, I also took most of them out, but I don't know how helpful examples can be to help people understand the theory. I look forward to see how you develop this.

Gesund (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Gesund Gesund (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be more understandable

Ok so I know that this page is not that old and started as an essay but I do not understand much of what this about. My best guess is that it is where people guess what will happen in a specific event based on similar past events. Please clean this up. Now I have to go to another site to figure out what this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.180.181 (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC) I posted this before I got an account Guy who couldn't get a username (talk)

Communication Theory and Framework Contribution

Hi, I am tj180, I am a student contributing to this page. I added a little bit more on the connection to fantasy theme analysis. I also added more to show SCT is used in real life examples. The examples are how the Cold War rhetorical vision expanded the knowledge on SCT as well as how war rape survivors coped with what happened to them using SCT and Fantasy theme analysis.

I want to see how you think the beginning of the page is, I find it a bit too confusing but I did not change the first paragraph and just added onto the next paragraph. I also wanted to give examples, did they help? Are there other parts you think examples could help? Or is it not needed at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj180 (talk • contribs)

Peer Review from Wanyu

Thanks tara! I think this is one of the most complicated theories so far. Need many life experience and in-depth thinking though. I agree with you to start from fantasy theme analysis, polish a little bit more to make that clearly and good support when you start mention the SCT to interpret how war rape survivors this real case, it's definitely helpful to understand this theory better. I think the first section is just okay to get the key points however the last paragraph it's not very make sense to me, they list three part structure and do not linked any of them with any section again right? Anyway, I like the real world uses from you, more clear and touch the point very well. Well done!--Yeahunicorn (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Leyi's Review

Hi Tara. I read the first part several times, to be honest, it is a bit confusing. Instead of any language problem, I think it is too academic tone. I think a simple example explaining each concept will help a lot. Also, I think the first part is a little bit too long, do you think it would be possible to curtail it a bit?

I love how you organize this page. The structure is very clear and I love how you frame it like "real world use", "why is it useful". I love those phrases. As Wikipedia is for everybody not academic only, speaking the human language here is really important. I really appreciate the way you bridge two worlds together.

I always like reading the application part. I enjoy combining the theories with real life examples. I love the two examples you added. However, the first one about cold war seems a bit confusing to me. It would be even better if you can add more detail about how the cold war related to the study/the theory.

In all, your page is clear and well-developed. And I like how you frame the titles!! Hope the suggestions helps.

ML1462's Review

Hi, Tara. SCT is really a complicated one. I agree with Leyi that the first part has a strong academic tone, which is too much for a reader. And it is too long. For me, I think maybe you could delete the "SCT has a three part structure" and move it to the following body section. I think you did a great job on organizing the article. The structure is clear and concise. I love the way you listed the key concept like "1...2...3...4...5..." or "Stage 1; Stage 2; Stage 3". It is like overlooking the big picture of the theory, everything is clear at a glance. I love the phrases "Real world uses" and "Why it is useful", which are very engaging. However, I think these two sections should be contiguous and the "Real world uses" is better in subsequence to the "Why it is useful" section. Anyway, the Criticism section between them is kind of awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ml1462 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review From Moruomi

Hi Tara, I agree that this one is a tough one. I am sorry that I cannot help with the content. I do like the structure and I think examples help a lot. Just some other suggestions: 1. I think it will increase the readability if you could add some pictures or graphs to the page. For example, you could add a Cold War related picture to the "Real world uses" part; 2. More applications in the real world will help the readers to better understand the theory; 3. You might consider merging "Criticism" part with the "Why it is useful" as I think "why it is useful" is a part of the "usability". Hope it could help!

Peer Review from YinYing

Hey Tara! I totally agree that the overview section of this page is confusing. I think it is too long, since it includes too many redundant details, such as the deliberation of attribution theory and the list of three-part structure, that can be curtailed or moved to other sections. I also find the structure of the overview section sort of weird, because the history and the key person introducing this theory are mentioned in the second half of the section. I think it is better to note these in the beginning of the section.

As to examples, I think it is a great idea to use examples to support the contents, and to make the ideas more relatable to readers. Personally, I enjoy reading the real life examples the most in such pages. Examples help a lot to make the abstract theoretical concepts more concrete and tangible to readers. For instance, in the 5 stages of life cycle, stage 1 cites great example to illustrate the idea, and I find it is easier to capture the ideas with the help of the examples. It will be nice to include some examples in the other 4 stages as well. Finally, I will suggest to create several subsections or bold titles under the Real World Uses section to categorize the examples. It will make it easier to navigate through the real life applications. Yc609 (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

September 2018

This will be my assignment for CCTP-752. First observation of the page is a lack of graphics, illustrative or eye candy. Second, there could be links to psychological theories like Group dynamics and Groupthink Philos-o-Shark (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Symbolic Convergence Theory (CCT 2018-AV)

The fluidity of this page is not the best. The paragraphs need help with the transition from one subject to the next. I would rename the content titles as follows: Concepts, Cycle, Criticism, Utility (including Real World Issues), References and Further Reading. There are some concepts that I would elaborate on and if not all of them have an example to write about, I would take out the examples that some have. The structure of the page is not the best, some places have bullet points and other rely solely on paragraphs, plus some of the font is different in a few places. Lastly, I would move “Similar Theories” to the Further Reading section. The content of the page is good and I think it only needs the examples to explain the concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corve1994 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review from t2pitchy a Communications Theory Student at CCT

I suggest the page needs a session on religion, since most people form a sense of identity and symbol based on their religious practices as suggested in this paper Immergut, M., & Kaufman, P. (2014) References A Sociology of No-Self: Applying Buddhist Social Theory to Symbolic Interaction. Symbolic Interaction, 37(2), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.90

Also, I will recommend that the introduction into the page should be adjusted, by reducing the amount of paragraphs on the introduction to the theory.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)