Astronomy

Seminar Leadership Discussion Suggestions:

An important part of the course is leading class discussions. You can use any of the following
suggestions as a guide; feel free to mix and match. Try to focus on ways to contribute to and
promote class discussion. Remember, the articles may be written at a high level, but you are not
expected to cover all the points, or to have all the background theory expected by the author(s).
Just hit the key points as you understand them. Communicate clearly with your group members
in order to develop a strategy for your leadership. Note: each group member will receive an
individual grade, but the cohesiveness of the group as a team will have a positive impact on
each member’s final mark.

provide a summary of key ideas from the reading. Your summary should be brief, without
trying to cover every aspect the author is discussing. It’s possible that 3 or 4 people could do
quite different summaries of the same reading, depending on individual focus. What is the
author trying to say? A summary should try to make key points clear, and does not necessarily
include a critical evaluation of the reading (i.e., strong points/weak points; agreement/
disagreement). Your 300 word paper that goes with your class discussion should highlight the
points you wish to summarize.

analyze the reading critically. Your analysis should be a clear discussion of what you believe
the most and least important and interesting points are in the reading. What is your opinion of
the author’s argument? Explain your reasons for agreeing/disagreeing with the author. What
points in the article are unclear, confusing, ‘wrong’, and so forth? What should the author have
included to make the reading clearer? What did the author do to make her/his ideas clear? Your
300 word paper should indicate the main parts of your brief analysis.

invite the class to actively participate. You can ask questions of the class in order to encourage
discussion. For example, you might read a provocative quote from the article and ask students to
comment. You might invite the class to ask their own questions; you don’t necessarily have to
know every answer, of course. If you take this interactive approach, you may find it difficult to
elicit responses from your classmates. Nonetheless, feel free to give it a try! I’ll be considering
how you try to engage others, not how much others actually say. In your 300 word paper, you
can outline your questioning strategy, but you should also provide a brief summary or a brief
analysis.

illustrate how the article connects to your experience. You may find points in the article that
relate to events in your life. Take key elements of the article (examples, concepts, etc.) and share
how you have encountered these things in some way. Attempt to create a narrative that paints a
picture for the class in a creative way that uses concrete references (stories, feelings, etc.). Don’t
assume that the class will immediately see the connections you make: as you discuss something,
seek comments from your peers. For your 300 word paper, provide clear links between your
experiences and the author’s points in the article.

More information on assignments will be given in class. Please ask if you have questions!
Article

Interaction Between Road Users:
Offering Space in Traffic

Space and Culture
2014, Vol. 17(2) 176­–190
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1206331213508498
sac.sagepub.com
Haddington and Rauniomaa I89

References

Adey, P. (2010). Mobility. London, England: Routledge.

Garfmkel, H. ( 1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press (Original work pub-
lished 1967)

Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York,
NY: Free Press.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goffman, E. (2010). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
(Original work published 1971)

Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at tum-beginning.
Sociological Inquiry, 50, 272-302.

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York,
NY: Academic Press.

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics,
32, 1489-1522.

Goodwin, C. (2003). The body in action. In J. Coupland & R. Gwyn (Eds.), Discourse, the body and identity
(pp. 19-42). New York, NY: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic
anthropology (pp. 222-244). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Haddington, P., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (2013). Being mobile: Interaction on the move. In P. Haddington,
L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 3-
61). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Haddington, P., Nevile, M., & Keisanen, T. (2012). Meaning in motion: Sharing the car, sharing the drive.
Semiotica, 191, 103-118.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Jensen, O. B. (2010). Negotiation in motion: Unpacking a geography of mobility. Space and Culture, 13,
389-402.

Katz, J. (1999). How emotions work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.

Laurier, E. (2005). Searching for a parking space. Intellectica, 41-42, 101-116.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

McIlvenny, P., Broth, M., & Haddington, P. (2009). Communicating place, space and mobility. Journal of
Pragmatics, 41, 1879-1886.

McIlvenny, P. (2014). Vélomobile Formations-in-Action: Biking and Talking Together. Space and Culture,
17(2), 137-156.

Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multi-
modal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1977-1997.

Nevile, M. (2013). Seeing on the move: Mobile collaboration on the battlefield. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada,
M. Nevile (Eds.), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 153-177). Berlin,
Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Relieu, M. (1994). Les categories dans 1’action. L’apprentissage des traversées de rue par des non-voyants
[Categories in action. Blind persons learning to cross the street]. Raisons Pratiques. L ’enquéte sur les
categories, 5, 185-218.

Ryave, A. L., & Schenkein, J. N. (1974). Notes on the art of walking. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology
(pp. 265-274). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of tum-
taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduc-
tion. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds), Embodied interaction: Language and the body
in the material world (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Urry, J. (2006). Inhabiting the car. In S. Bohm, C. Jones, & M. Paterson (Eds), Against automobility
(pp. 17-31). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Downloaded from sacsagepubcom at Cape Breton University Library on May 14, 2015

Place this order with us and get 18% discount now! to earn your discount enter this code: special18 If you need assistance chat with us now by clicking the live chat button.