For Assessment 3B- Personal Reflection we would like you to reflect on your beha

Question

For Assessment 3B- Personal Reflection we would like you to reflect on your behaviour within the group and assess its impact on the goals and outcomes of the group, as you worked towards completing the group report assignment and presentation. In simpler terms, what did you do well or perhaps poorly, and how did it effect the group?

As an option, you are allowed to include some design or creative elements if you wish such as images, photos etc for the purpose of enhancing or explaining your personal reflection.

However, you are expected to use some academic literature to help support and explain your reflections. Remember … you have access to considerable literature referred to throughout the semester. Some key readings and other sources considered throughout the semester include:

Teamwork readings from week 8 E.g. Belbin’s team roles

Giving Feedback and Johari Window readings from week 7

E.g. Harms and Roebuck, 2010, ‘Teaching the Art and Craft of Giving and Receiving Feedback’, Business Communication Quarterly 73: 413.

The Team Charter and readings from week 2

Planning readings from week 5

You will be assessed specifically on your:

Ability to explain your behaviours within the group with reference to relevant events over the semester (40%):

Assessment of the impact of your behaviours on the goals and outcomes of the group (30%)

Structure and communication (20%): Includes reference to: Organisation and planning; fluency and style of communication; accuracy of grammar, spelling and punctuality.

Reference to reading and other sources of information (10%): Includes reference to: Use of references, accuracy of referencing, balance of quotation and paraphrase, and a reference list.

Word Length:       1000 (+/- 10%)

QUESTION: Write reflect on your behaviour within the group and assess its impact on the goals and outcomes of the group, as you worked towards completing the group report assignment and presentation. In simpler terms, what did you do well or perhaps poorly, and how did it effect the group?

Explanation / Answer

Unluckily, organizations can with no trouble become being much less, rather than more, than the sum of their parts. Why is that this?
On this part, we recall the hazards of workforce tasks and methods instructors can use to avoid or mitigate them. In finding different strategies and examples here or contact the Eberly center for teaching Excellence for help.
For scholars, common challenges of team work comprise:
Coordination expenses
Motivation fees
intellectual fees
For instructors, normal challenges contain:
Allocating time
teaching process skills
Assessing system as good as product
Assessing character as well as group learning
Challenges for students
Coordination expenses signify time and energy that group work consumes that person work does now not, together with the time it takes to coordinate schedules, arrange meetings, meet, correspond, make choices mutually, integrate the contributions of crew contributors, and many others. The time spent on each and every of those duties might not be first-class, however collectively they're big.
Coordination charges can't be eliminated, nor must they be: finally, coordinating the efforts of multiple group contributors is an principal skill. Nevertheless, if coordination costs are excessive or aren't factored into the structure of workforce assignments, groups have a tendency to miss cut-off dates, their work is poorly built-in, motivation suffers, and creativity declines.
Instructors will have to observe that coordination fees develop with:
group dimension: The more individuals within the crew, the more schedules to accommodate, parts to delegate, opinions to remember, pieces to integrate, and so on. Smaller companies have decrease coordination expenditures.
Undertaking interdependence: tasks in which team members are particularly reliant on one one other at all levels tend to have better coordination bills than duties that enable students to divide and conquer, although they would possibly not fulfill the same collaborative ambitions.
Heterogeneity: Heterogeneity of staff individuals tends to raises coordination bills, above all if there are language issues to deal with, cultural variations to bridge, and disparate talents to integrate. Nonetheless, considering the fact that range of perspectives is likely one of the principle advantages of groups, this should now not always be avoided.
Procedures: To help slash or mitigate coordination expenditures:
preserve organizations small.
Designate some classification time for workforce conferences.
Use workforce resumes or skills inventories to support teams delegate subtasks.
Assign roles (e.G., workforce chief, scheduler) or encourage scholars to take action.
Factor pupils to digital tools that facilitate remote and/or asynchronous conferences.
Warn scholars about time-ingesting levels and tasks.
Actively build communication and conflict decision capabilities.
Designate time within the undertaking schedule for the crew to integrate elements.

Motivation costs refers to the antagonistic outcome on pupil motivation of working in businesses, which more often than not involves a number of of these phenomena:
Free using occurs when a number of crew participants depart most or the entire work to a couple, extra diligent, participants. Free riding if now not addressed proactively tends to erode the lengthy-term motivation of rough-working pupils.
Social loafing describes the tendency of workforce contributors to exert less effort than they may be able to or will have to considering that of the decreased sense of accountability (suppose of how many men and women don't bother to vote, figuring that any person else will do it.) Social loafing lowers group productivity.
Conflict inside businesses can erode morale and intent contributors to withdraw. It may be delicate or reported, and may (however isn't always) the motive and result of free riding. Clash if no longer quite simply addressed can go away group contributors with a deeply jaundiced view of groups.
Strategies: to deal with both preexisting and abilities motivation problems:
give an explanation for why working in businesses is valued at the frustration.
Establish clear expectations for staff contributors, via atmosphere floor principles and/or utilizing group contracts.
Develop character accountability via combining crew assessments with individual assessments.
Coach clash-resolution knowledge and reinforce them by using function-enjoying responses to hypothetical crew conflict eventualities.
Verify group techniques by way of periodic system experiences, self-reviews, and peer reviews.

Mental bills seek advice from traits of group behavior that can lessen creativity and productiveness. These include:
Groupthink: the tendency of agencies to conform to a perceived majority view.
Escalation of dedication: the tendency of corporations to come to be more committed to their plans and tactics even ineffective ones over time.
Transparency illusion: the tendency of workforce members to think their thoughts, attitudes and explanations are extra apparent to others than is certainly the case.
Long-established know-how result: the tendency of agencies to focus on expertise all contributors share and ignore certain knowledge, nonetheless significant.
Methods: To slash mental bills and expand the creativity and productivity of agencies:
Precede crew brainstorming with a interval of individual brainstorming (regularly called nominal team manner). This forestalls groupthink and helps the crew generate and consider extra distinctive suggestions.
Motivate group members to ponder and highlight their contributions in periodic self-reviews.
Create structured opportunities at the halfway point of projects to enable pupils to reevaluate and revise their systems and methods.
Assign roles to workforce participants that scale back conformity and push the workforce intellectually (satan's recommend, doubter, the fool).
Challenges for instructors
whilst workforce assignments have advantages for instructors, they also have complexities that instructors should recollect carefully, for example in these areas:
Allocating time: even as group assignments may keep instructors time in some areas (e.G., grading ultimate initiatives), they may add time in different areas (e.G., time wanted up front to identify proper assignment themes, contact external consumers, compose student businesses; time in the course of the semester to meet with and display pupil businesses; time on the end of the semester to determine the contributions of character crew individuals.)
instructing approach expertise: Functioning simply in teams requires scholars to strengthen strong communique, coordination, and clash resolution potential, which now not all instructors think qualified to instruct. Many instructors are also reluctant to devote category time to reinforcing these knowledge and is also uncomfortable dealing with the interpersonal problems that can arise in businesses. In different phrases, dealing proactively with team dynamics could push some instructors out of their relief zone.
Assessing procedure as good as product: Assessing teamwork advantage and group dynamics (i.E., procedure) may also be a long way trickier than assessing a groupâs work (i.E., product). Mighty evaluation of system requires considerate consideration of learning ambitions and a combo of comparison methods. This creates layers of complexity that instructors would possibly not expect.
Assessing character as well as group learning: staff grades can cover colossal differences in learning, but teasing out which crew members did and did not contribute to the team or study the teachings of the venture can be complicated. Once once more, this provides complexity to workforce tasks that instructors mainly underestimate.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.