Throughout the CSI activity, different members of our group took on a variety of roles. I feel that at one time or another each of us took on a few of the same role. We were all contributors at one point or another when we would pick out certain bits of information and helped rule out certain characters based on the descriptions. We were all critics as well when we determined whether a certain reasoning for letting a character go was actually worthy or not. In order to be able to get our ideas and information out there we all had to be communicators throughout the entire exercise. Steve in particular took on the consul role because he was the one that took our answer up to the professor and then gave us the professor’s feedback. I feel that I most played the communicator, and contributor roles. I felt that my main task I completed was going back into the texts and finding the information to verify that it was really there.
I feel that if we had a strong contractor role then we would have noticed the three different copies of the text. We were more focused on getting the task done the fastest (so we wouldn’t have to write this blog post) and so we just handed each member a piece of paper to read and when we were finished we started to rule out certain characters based on the text. When some of my teammates said different (what I thought were minor) bits of information and I couldn’t remember reading them I figured I had just read a little too fast and missed the parts. If we had someone to collect all the points together and help discover that the parts were different then we would have had the correct reasoning for why certain people were dismissed.
I feel that our group is in between the norming and performing stages. It took us quite some time to warm up to each other and want to talk. Once we figured out that we had to talk at the end of class to go over what we were doing for our blog and other team projects we started to warm up and ask each other questions about other individual group projects. We still did have problems working together during in class activities to come up with the answer fast and creatively. I have noticed over the past two exercises that we have done a better job of voicing our opinion and getting down to business. I feel that the incentive of being exempt from different assignments helped greatly. Al though we should want to work together just in general I think that the incentive gave us the right kick to make us talk more and come up with more ideas instead of just sitting and looking at each other and only speaking up when we’re positive we have the right answer.
~Rebecca Doukas
I agree that we didn’t have a very strong team contractor role. If that strong role was there, we would have questioned each other more on where the information was found. Rather, we relied on our team members to provide accurate information to us. If we had questioned more, we may have been able to pick up on new information and then win the project.
ReplyDeleteI think the motives that Dr. Sheep provides to us to do well, make us work together better. Since we are all busy with other classes, anyway we can get out of an assignment we try really hard to do so. It makes us realize that one person can’t win for the team; rather we all need to work together. I know that it took me a while to warm up to the team since I have a quiet personality. I feel that I am able to provide input and help the team out during team projects and about other assignment related to class. We also have good communication by telling each other when our blog posts are up so the others can comment on them. Our team has improved our communication skills and teamwork greatly since our first assignment.
--Kristi Rudin