For the last paper of the semester, I will explain how my group worked through

the deliberative dialogue assignments and presentation. Using the Tuckman Model of
Group Development as a basis for my opinions, I saw that we went through each stage
of the model. At first when we got together for the first time on Friday for Stage #1, or
Forming Stage, we were put together into our group. As we all knew each other there
was very little in the way of needing to meet one another. Also we fell into the roles
naturally. During Stage #2, the Storming Stage we were thrust into the middle of the
assignment. Each of us began exploring the issue and talking about how we thought we
should handle the assignment. During this stage two of my group members, JoonWoo
and Erika, were pretty silent. Hyun, Chris and I really broke things down and tossed
ideas around. When we reached Stage #3, or the Norming Stage, which started to
happen around the end of Friday, we clearly had our roles ironed out and knew what we
had to do. We laid out responsibilities on a broad scope and entered into Stage #4, the
Performing Stage. This stage was the most problematic for us. We left Friday in the
Performing stage, and remained in it until the minute we began our presentation. We
had divvyed up our tasks and had thought that everyone understood them. On Monday
morning we found that some of our group members hadn’t grasped what we were doing
and we had to rewrite our introduction. Also, the division of work was skewed. We had
to tell members of our group what to do minutes before the presentation in order for it to
come off as well as we could hope for. When we entered Stage #5, or Adjourning it
was with a sense of relief. The question and answer section of our presentation was
pleasant as it allowed us to show a bit of knowledge on the subject.
Tasks were supposed to be divided up as follows. I would work on the layout of the
professional letter and the paragraph detailing the study. JoonWoo would do the
introduction, Hyun and Chris would write about the things we could do right now to
solve problems as a stop-gap solution and the improvements to the website. Erika would
handle the conclusion. These tasks largely were divvyed out democratically, no one
ordered anyone to do them. We picked what we wanted to work on and went with it.
Our group was not able to work together effectively I felt. There was only real
interaction between Hyun, Chris and I. JoonWoo and Erika were silent the entire time.
Additionally, JoonWoo wrote an introduction that was not pertinent to our subject, he
only wrote about ESL students that had a hard time with English. That was rewritten.
I’m also not sure if Erika wrote anything for the letter or not. Chris and Hyun handled
the powerpoint. Between Chris, Hyun and I, we were able to get everything completed.
This would indicate nonparticipation to some degree.
I think it’s fair to say I emerged as the group leader. No one came out and said I was,
it happened because I pushed for the main point of our topic to be a study as I felt
strongly about putting nonsensical ideas forward as a solution. I tried to exhibit
affiliative and democratic leadership styles. When JoonWoo was talking about ESL
students, I pushed him to talk to the group about it. I also never ordered anyone to do a
specific task, we all picked them ourselves and decided them as a group. This might be
democratic also.
I believe we engaged in dialogic communication during the project. No one spoke
in terms of “you” statements, or interrupted one another that much. I think if anyone did
I was the worst offender, however I always felt I was allowing others to speak fully.
Those of us who engaged in the conversation were taking notes, especially Chris as he
documented the Faculty Senate information. I asked a lot of rhetorical questions in order
to prompt Hyun and Chris to see why I was recommending a study and not throwing
money at the problem. I think this could be a bit of a reverse asking clarifying
questions. None of us were disagreeable, though non-participation was a bit on the
disagreeable side. All of us though recognized that we had to have a solution that worked
for everyone. This fell into the ethical integrity attitude that’s needed for good
communication. We knew that if we didn’t do what was good for the group, the project
would suffer. Also everyone was pretty open minded about what our solutions were. I
wasn’t as open minded as others because I was pretty adamant about not throwing out
solutions that had no merit. Not that a study is a perfect solution, however I think it’s
better than “get money to fix it”.
I think that the final proposal was fine at the end. I feel it would have been nice to
have time to practice the presentation together, as two of our group members didn’t know
what to say really. One went off track and read the introduction to the professional letter,
which we had gotten rid of. That was annoying. It showed a lack of interest and respect
for the group as a whole. I regret that this was so rushed. I think by the second time we
met as a group, we had enough interest between Hyun, Chris and I, where looking deeper
into the problem was a possibility. I liked that we didn’t do anything flashy with the
power point presentation. I really dislike the focus of presentations being slides as I think
the important aspects are what the people are saying. Thankfully the group agreed with
me on that. I supported the proposal, as I was the main proponent of it. Overall I was
comfortable with what was shared. I wish we worked in that there was a 1200 person
wait list for the writing lab as it would have really driven home that using the writing lab
is only a stop-gap and isn’t sustainable as a real solution. I think our presentation was a
bit lacking in making that clear. I think that everyone’s perspective would have been
considered if the entire group actively worked on the issue. In the end, only Hyun’s,
Chris’s and my perspectives really mattered. Erika and JoonWoo just were to silent and
uninterested in things to push their own thoughts forward. Chris and Hyun had no
problems speaking their mind and countering anything they felt wouldn’t work.
As far as grades, I am assuming that I am not to grade myself. With that said, I would
give Chris an A for the project. He took notes and contributed at all phases of the group
project. Chris worked on the power point and the letter. He came prepared to the
presentation and did a good job speaking in front of the class. He was quick on his feet
and had enough knowledge of the subject to field questions as if he was an authority on
the subject when the class began the question phase of the presentation. Hyun gets an A-.
She worked hard on the letter and the power point and held her own during the
presentation. She was actively contributing during all stages of the group and never
shirked work. JoonWoo is tougher to decide. I want to say lower than a C or D, however
he did write an introduction to the professional letter. Granted it wasn’t applicable, but
he did something. It was his lack of participation during all stages of the group work that
make me recommend a low grade and his performance during the presentation. His role
was handling the introduction. I had to step up and start the presentation off with
introductions. Then he just read the introduction he wrote for the professional letter,
which wasn’t applicable really. He didn’t pay attention and didn’t contribute much at all.
The same goes for Erika. She spoke a little, but really sat back and let us do the work.
I’d say a C or D for Erika. She at least read her slide correctly. I feel she was a non-
entity during the project.