Critical Review

In this paper I will discuss karl L. Smart and Richard Featheringham's article Developing Effective Interpersonal Communication and Discussion skills (2006). They describe an alternative group communication activity that, when practiced in a professional context, can benefit conversation skills. After summarizing the authors' main points I will give reasons to support my general agreement with the process of the activity. Conversely, I will also explain why I disagree with the validity of the evaluation criteria. It is my opinion that the process is beneficial for the improvement of communication but the criteria for evaluating positive and negative behaviors are subjective.

Smart and Featheringham (2006) introduce an activity to be used in a classroom setting aimed on improving communication skills of all students involved. They promote that the activity has two aspects: a group that chooses, researches, and presents a topic, and a group that evident the performance of the first group. He also describes the process of choosing a topic, and explains the importance of this step in the overall process of the activity. (Smart & Featheringham, 2006, P. 278) Thirdly, they introduce a set of criteria for evaluating the participants’ positive and negative behaviors. (Smart & Featheringham, 2006, P. 280)

I hold general agreement with the format both on observing and discussing groups for the reason that it is highly interactive. It brings great vigor and vitality into the excise and emphasizes the value of both participants and evaluators in the discussion. Furthermore, students in activity are expected to actively help and support one another. Members share resources and support and encourage each other's efforts to learn. (Conell & Heaton & Hilton & Pun & Sampson, 2010) Thus I believe that the process of the activity not only helps its participants practice effective communication but also helps them observe and evaluate the communication of others.

I also agree with...