I thought the Group Observation Project was extremely useful
in that it provided an opportunity to observe in real life what I had been
learning. I learned that a structured group allowed the group to know what to
expect, which put everyone at ease. I observed that five to seven group members
really does make an effective group, whereas a group with two members
definitely was counterproductive. I observed effective active listening being
modeled by the group leader and adopted by the group members. I watched as the diversity
of the group members helped the group come up with creative solutions.
The good part about the project was being required to attend
at least two groups. If it hadn’t been a requirement, the learning I did while
in this course would not have been reinforced. It was quite interesting to see
the concepts we studied this semester played out in a real group. As I
observed, I would say to myself, “Oh, that went well because the group is
cohesive,” or, “he’s saying one thing, but his non-verbal language is saying
another,” and so on.
As to how the project could be improved, I believe perhaps
requiring three meetings rather than two might be helpful. Then if one of the
two meetings is less than successful due to whatever reasons as happened in the
second meeting I attended, the two more effective meetings would provide enough
first-hand experience to use when writing the paper.
I totally agree that we need more meetings for the 2500 word paper. Either more meetings to fulfill detail demands or maybe less words for the project overall. It was interesting to see a group's work in progress right before our eyes but I feel that the meetings aren't as long and as lively as we expected it to be. I felt as if the final project's guidelines on the project was expecting all groups we observe to be active and kicking but I honestly feel that some groups that we observe can be as active as a dead horse. In short, I agree with you and Good Post!
ReplyDelete