There are 4 stages in group development. The first stage is orientation. During this stage of group of development, we got to know who each person was and what they were studying. My group members were Chris Davis, Maria Agosalim, Myra Portillo, Russel Clay, and Abrahana James. Our group leader was Abrahana James, an 18 year old business major. She assigned everyone to a certain task and made sure that everything was in order. Russel Clay, a 21 year old AG Economics major, was responsible for finding the background information on our problem. Maria Agosalim, a criminal justice major, was given to the task to host interviews with the cafeteria staff and taking pictures of the food stations in the cafeteria. Chris Davis, a 19 year old psychology major, and Myra Portillo, a 19 year old business management major, were responsible for providing the group with surveys to our problem. I am an 18 year old biology major and I was responsible for typing up all of the information that was provided by each group member, printing out the Agendas, and creating the power point presentation. When it was time for our group to come up with a topic for our problem, we faced a few difficulties. Which brings us to stage 2 of group development: Conflict and tension. Our first idea for a problem was “The Cafeteria Hours.” After being assigned each part we made a decision to have our first group meeting. In the meeting we discussed the possible ideas for a problem but we faced a problem of our own. The information that each group member found did not correspond with the topic. We noticed that our topic was too broad and this caused our group members to become stressed. We had to start over from the beginning and come up with a new topic. We made a list o... ... middle of paper ... ...r audience did not have a full opportunity to express their opinions because we ran out of time. However, we still pulled it together and had a successful presentation. Working with my group was exciting, frustrating, and challenging. We did struggle with communication in the beginning. For example, some of the group members were not happy with the ideas that were picked for our problem and they didn’t voice their opinions about it. Nothing gets solved until you express how you truly feel. So we were left with group members that were unhappy and the other group members didn’t have a clue why they were upset. It took for us to have multiple meetings for us to truly understand the best way to voice our opinions without causing any unwanted issues. In the end, our group accomplished a lot of obstacles but I can honestly say I had a great experience working with them.
The next stage of our group development was ‘storming’ where differences in opinion begin to arise (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977). The main issue we faced at this stage was contrasting opinions on what topic should be chosen as we could not find an area which all group members were satisfied with. In order to resolve this problem I suggested the group should have a vote on which topics we would be happy to work on, four of our six members voted for the same topic, and the two...
The group discussion has just passed, and it was really a hard work and challenging. There were many precious lessons I got, and, hopefully, so did with my friends. Our group was consisting of four students. As a quantity, reasonably, we had had enough power to do a better work and gained a satisfying result. As I flashed back to the group discussion, it was enriching my memories. Some were in high spirit, remarkable and enjoyable. Opposite to it, few were disappointing.
I thought the communication for the group I was in was pretty good. We worked together on the entire project and no one shot each others ideas or suggestions down, but we instead listened to what each other had to say and discussed our opinions as a group. Even when we would disagree on something I believe that we all treated each other respectfully and tried to either come up with a compromise or a majority rule of how most of the group felt on a particular issue.
1.1 Identify Key Issues and Theories Relating to Group Working and How These Were Applied in their Group
However, my friend and I were playing roles to break the ice between the team. After our first meeting outside of the classroom, I found out that my group was friendlier as we started getting more comfortable with our team members. The first issue we encountered was how we should communicate to do the work. I was the person who created a group on WhatsApp and Skype in order to make the group communication more effective. The second issue we faced as a group was that we seemed to be stuck in the brainstorming stage. I could say that we spent more than two weeks in that stage just because there were lot of disagreements between team members on how we should be conducting our project. Each one had different idea and point of view. But after numerous meetings, we were finally able to come up with a detailed plan on how we were going to conduct our project, and we specifically defined each other specific
Having now completed my group work task, I can look back and reflect upon the process that my group went thought it get to the presentation end point. Firstly my group had to form (Kottler, Englar-Carlson 2010 p.93). There are many theories on how groups come together and the stages they go though. Tuckman is a commonly used theories due to the simple nature of his five stage theory. Tuckman believes that in order for a group to form they must go through his five stages: forming, storming, norming and performing (Tuckman 1965 p.17). In 1977 along side Jensen Tuckman added mourning to his process.
In week 7 our seminar leader allocated us into smaller groups of six to work together, get together and to start preparing for the mock debate in week 9 and the debate in week 10. When we started to get alone with each other, it was seen that it is not going to be easy to achieve our goals, not just because in our group had a strong activist, reflector, theorist and pragmatist, but we also needed to face some solvable difficulties as our first meeting of the week was cancelled by problem like the lack of communication, miscommunication and the ability to listen to another.
“A process evaluation is an assessment, generally by group members, as to aspects of the group that were useful or detrimental. Feedback about techniques and incidents that blocked or enhanced progress is of immense value to the group leader. With this information, the leader can hone certain skills, eliminate some materials, and give direction for approaches and materials to add. Feedback can add confidence or be critical and if the feedback is highly critical, it can be humbling or devastating. It is far better to make changes suggested by the evaluation than to reject and deny the feedback and repeat the same mistakes in future groups and leaders should welcome criticism and respond constructively” (Zastrow, 2015, p.507-509).
Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (2010). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Facilitation, (10), 43-48. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global.
Overall, I feel that each member demonstrates reliability, shares the work, actively listens and responds to discussions, and treats each other in a respectful and supportive manner. Overall, I am able to safely exercise and rely on my unique knowledge and experiences when working with group members, in order to distinguish my strengths and use their skills to achieve the end goal. This is commonly put into practice when collaborating with group members or even out in the field when collaborating with school faculty members, such as counselors or teachers, for guidance when implementing and facilitating student programs. There are many times when I feel hesitant about situations, feeding my indecisiveness and procrastination.
In the beginning of the research process planning was a necessary component. Some of the aspects that were planned was finding our main topic, which outlet we were to focus on, and collecting research material. The first step of planning that was carried out was on what was the main topic we would speak about. Rian got manipulation on social media, Mary Kate received advertisement of the past, Jaqueline received the counterargument and refutations, and finally I received manipulation on television. As we slowly started to look for research materials Mary Kate assumed the position of group leader; she was very positive and when asked gave helpful feedback. As our plans were being put into action one of the most important skills that every person need was put to the test.
For the fist couple weeks, our task group remained in the forming stage. During our first meeting, I could see that Lindsey, the assigned group leader, was not comfortable with leading. She asked for each member of the group to spend some time talking about what interest them but was not comfortable taking charge of the group. While everyone shared, Connie took over the first meeting with a topic she wanted to use because it was personally affecting her daughter. We decided to go with physical and verbal abuse with adolescents as our topic. While everyone agreed on this topic, I think it was chosen because Connie voiced her opinion
The first stage in the group work stage theory is forming a group. This stage is about the formation of a group plan. Corey and Corey (1997), describe this stage as being extremely important in terms of expressing the expectations and outcomes you will have of the group. This means that the better the planning, the better the outcome for the group and if the planning is lacking, it will show later in the group. In our particular lab group, our planning involved making a course outline for a parent help group who were having trouble with their children’s behaviour, or a group of young adults who were using drugs and alcohol. As the facilitators of the group, we had the task of coming up with a ten week plan together. Corey, Corey and Corey (2010), explain that careful thought and planning are necessary in order to lay a solid foundation for any type of group, which is something that should be considered when facilitating any of these two groups; or any other group, no matter the seriousness of the issue. The type of group that we were facilitating is known as a ‘formed group’. Garvin (1986) describes formed groups a...
In order to gain some purpose while working in a group, I know it can be challenging task to do because every group member is required to agree and cooperate. I am privileged to become a part of a group and completed our task successfully. Our group consists of 5 members and we experienced the stages of group development along with which different roles being considered. Our group formed with the common interest of competing and representing ourselves as competent and knowledgeable. The storming phase involved a trial being held to determine the capabilities of each other and positions were found to be disputed due to which we voted on leader of team. In the norming stage, roles of every group member have been stated and identified with the
We believe this was the moment our group began to transition into the Norming Stage. During this part of the assignment it was crucial for us to communicate effectively in order to ensure that everyone had an understanding of what was required from each perspective. Thus, once we began the research, everyone did a great job of keeping the group goal in mind by finding sources that could be used for every perspective. Additionally, each member kept their personal goals in mind and submitted the required research to our shared document at the agreed upon time. This was a perfect example of how we dealt with a group dialectic. Another dialectic arose when it came time to finalizing who would present each perspective. Some of the group members did not want certain perspectives because they did not have as much knowledge in that subject area as other members did. Furthermore, some group members did not want a certain perspective because their personal opinion might have had an effect on the assignment. In the end, we were able to balance the heterogeneous and homogeneous characteristics of our group members by asking questions, having trust and exhibiting strong communication