As a part of the assessment of Big-League Group’s work on the problem of autism, an individual report will be used for evaluating the performance of the group and its members. The present paper is an individual report on the meeting held on Monday, June 21 in Fawcett Hall, led by S.A.
Evaluation of Peers
Based on the purpose of the formation, our group can be categorized as a task group. Accordingly, the functions performed by the members of the group are task functions. The role of B.N. in the meeting can be seen as a summarizer, providing a summary of the minutes of the previous meeting. Such a role contributes to the group, by putting previous work performed in a pattern (Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, 2010). Such a pattern can be acknowledged in the context of the work planned at the beginning of the meeting. Accordingly, it can be stated that B.N. also took the role of the initiator, as she got the team started by providing information on what was already done. It should be noted that according to the tasks distributed between all team members that all the peers took the role of a summarizer at some point, providing a summary of the work that was performed.
My role as the leader of this meeting can be described as oriented and direction giver (Learning World, 2010). During the discussions, the team might wander into conversations that are not related to the specific tasks assigned for the agenda, where my role was to return the discussion to the topics assigned in the agenda. Thus, my role can be seen in helping keep the discussion relevant (Clark, 2003, p. 69). In that regard, such a role can be seen as a part of my role as a regulator and evaluator in the meeting. As many of the tasks in the agenda were reviews of the responsibilities assigned in previous meetings, B.Z. and B.C. took the role of information giver. B.Z. provided information on the work performed for the sub-group to which the task was assigned B.Z, S.A, and A.S.
B.J. and B.N. was not emphasized individually, and thus, their contribution was as a part of the team. In that regard, such roles can be seen as opinion givers, participating in brainstorming and decision-making activities in the meeting.
Group Evaluation
Evaluating the group performance. It can be stated that the group was in a working phase. The group already practiced open communications, and accordingly, some topics were summarized and objectives that were established from previous meetings. Group members summarized and volunteered ideas for the next meeting, which can be considered as a signal that the group already moved into the working phase (Clark, 2003, p. 63). The interaction patterns in the group can be described as free-floating, i.e., all the members took the responsibility for communication. In that regard, the interaction patterns can be stated to be group-centered (Toseland & Rivas, 2005, p. 70). Such interaction patterns might have emerged due to open communication channels between group members, which are beneficial to members’ commitment to group goals and group morale (Toseland & Rivas, 2005).
The decision-making model in the group is John Dewey’s reflective thinking model. My role in the decision-making process was in regulating and evaluating. Such a role corresponded to the free-floating interaction patterns, where my role was merely to control the objectives set in the agenda and state of each objective. As we had a specific task to accomplish, our group can be characterized as a task group. Thus, the main priority was set on the tasks that should be performed and the decision that should be made about them. All the tasks set in the agenda were accomplished, and thus, it can be stated that the group succeeded in adhering to its purpose. The strength of the group can be seen in following a functional approach toward the goals and the responsibilities. As the goals and the tasks were established in previous meetings, there was not much work for me as a leader to do, taking maintenance functions. The weaknesses of the group can be seen in the formation of a sub-group within the group, in which the roles and the responsibilities also should be divided, and the decision-making processes are individual from the main group. In that regard, being a leader and a part of a sub-group in this meeting, along with the fact that the leader changes in each meeting can be seen as a hindering process that extends the periods of orientation, development of norms, and role testing.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the meeting went as planned with each member performing his/her assigned task. Among the factors contributing to the success of the meeting that is most important can be seen in the open communication between the members of the group. Accordingly, there were no processes that hindered effective group work.
References
Clark, C. C. (2003). Group leadership skills (4th ed.). New York: Springer Pub.
Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. (2010). Working in Groups. Harvard University. Web.
Learning World. (2010). Summarizer – Orienteer – Harmonizer – and Other Helpful Roles. OpenLearningWorld. Web.
Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2005). An introduction to group work practice (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.