Bioreaction conversatin
Communication requires both parties to make choices. These choices determine if the conversation will create value or create waste. These choices mostly consist of recognizing when a bioreaction occurs, how it impacts listening, and being aware of listening differently.
REQUIREMENTS
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Select a conversation where you had a disagreement that had an impact on you and triggered a bioreaction. The conversation could have been a long time ago or recently.
- Explain what happened during the disagreement by answering the following questions:
- Describe the situation that led to the conversation.
- When did you realize that there was a disagreement during the conversation?
- Describe a bioreaction(s) that was experienced during the disagreement.
- How did the conversation end?
- Analyze the conversation by answering the following questions:
- Using the four levels of the conversation meter, what level were you listening at, and what level was the other person listening at?
- Give examples of twofactors that describe how you and they were listening in at these levels in the conversation meter: feelings, behaviors, language, or tone.
- What were your points of alignment or disagreement?
- Reflect on how the conversation encouraged you to listen differently by answering the following questions:
- How could you have listened differently moving up the conversation meter, and what effect would that have had on the disagreement?
- How could you incorporate listening for needs, purpose, or concern to create value in the conversation (including describing what that would look like)?
- What have you learned about accuracy and authenticity that could be used to improve the conversation?
The Conversation Meter
Pretense is a direct conflict between what you say in one situation and what you say in another (lying, withholding information.)
Sincerity or Brutal Honesty is defined here as an honest report of my point of view; includes thoughtless certainty that my view is accurate.
Accuracy is defined here as separating mutually observable facts from explanation of those facts. This includes the recognition that my perceptions are not reality.
Authenticity is defined as a genuine appreciation of various views and factors, researching where they intersect, for new insight and opportunity.
- DESCRIPTION OF CONVERSATION:
| NOT EVIDENT
An explanation of what happened during the disagreement is not provided. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The explanation is missing or unclear details of what occurred during the disagreement. Or the description of the situation or bioreaction(s) is unclear or includes minimal details of when the disagreement occurred. Or the explanation is missing the conclusion of the conversation. |
COMPETENT
The explanation includes contextual details of what occurred during the disagreement, including a clear description of the situation and bioreaction(s) experienced, the realization that there was disagreement, and the conclusion of the conversation. |
- ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATION:
| NOT EVIDENT
An analysis of the conversation is not provided. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
An analysis of the conversation includes an unclear description of the listening levels of both parties, or it does not reference the four levels of conversation meter. Examples of specific behaviors, language, and tone are poorly detailed or insufficiently support the listening levels identified for either parties; or the analysis includes an unspecific or missing discussion of point(s) of alignment or disagreement. |
COMPETENT
The analysis of the conversation includes a description of the listening levels of both parties, according to the four levels of conversation meter. Examples of specific feelings, behaviors, language, or tone are well detailed and support the level of listening identified for both parties. The analysis also includes an appropriate discussion of point(s) of alignment or disagreement. |
- IMPACT OF CONVERSATION:
| NOT EVIDENT
A reflection on how the conversation encouraged the candidate to listen differently is not provided. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The reflection demonstrates a lack of, or unclear, understanding of the effect of listening differently during the disagreement, including an impractical explanation of how accuracy and authenticity can be used to improve the conversation. The reflection includes unclear insights of how incorporating listening for needs, purpose, and concern can create value in a conversation, or it does not address how that would look in practice. |
COMPETENT
The reflection on how the conversation encouraged the candidate to listen differently demonstrates a thorough understanding of the effect of listening differently during the disagreement, including a feasible explanation of how accuracy and authenticity could be used to improve the conversation. The reflection includes insights on how incorporating listening for needs, purpose, or concern create value in a conversation and what that looks like in practice. |
- PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:
| NOT EVIDENT
Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic. |
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective. |
COMPETENT
Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding. |
