View the TEDTalk “Why I live in Mortal Dread of Public Speaking” by Megan Washington (TEDx, 2014). Then, view the Sources of Communication Apprehension

View the TEDTalk “Why I live in Mortal Dread of Public Speaking” by Megan Washington (TEDx, 2014). Then, view the Sources of Communication Apprehension presentation (adapted from Engleberg & Wynn, 2015). In light of the TEDTalk, the presentation, and your own experiences respond to the following questions:

  • What strikes you as most interesting about Ms. Washington’s talk?
  • Do you relate in any way to her talk or to the Sources of Communication Apprehension presentation?
  • If you had to pick one or two sources of communication apprehension that you feel relate to you, which ones would they be and how do you manage them?

Be sure to respond to your peers as well. As a note, aim for full credit and connect to a scholarly source beyond the TED Talk to show how the discussion ties to your studies in the course. For this post, an integration of a scholarly course should go beyond a mention of the apprehensions from the text above. 

References 

Engleberg, I. N. & Wynn, D. R. (2015). Think communication. Boston, MA: Pearson 

TEDx. (2014). Megan Washington: Why I live in mortal dread of public speaking.

Share This Post

Email
WhatsApp
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Reddit

Order a Similar Paper and get 15% Discount on your First Order

Related Questions

follow instuuctions attached  Comprehensive Psychotherapy Evaluation 1 1. Compose a written comprehensive psychiatric evaluation of a patient you

follow instuuctions attached  Comprehensive Psychotherapy Evaluation 1 1. Compose a written comprehensive psychiatric evaluation of a patient you have seen in the clinic. 2. OAP is an acronym that stands for Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan.   S =  Subjective data: Patient’s Chief Complaint (CC); History of the Present Illness (HPI)/

***CASE STUDIES ATTACHED*** You should respond to both discussions separately–with constructive literature material- extending, refuting/correcting, or

***CASE STUDIES ATTACHED*** You should respond to both discussions separately–with constructive literature material- extending, refuting/correcting, or adding additional nuance to their posts.  Minimum 150 words each reply with references under each reply.  Incorporate a minimum of 2 current (published within the last five years) scholarly journal articles or primary legal