IntroductionGroups are usually formed by people who come together for various reasons. It is human nature to form groups from the simplest for at the family level to more complex forms of groups like a nation (state) or a country (Forsyth, 2009). However, in this paper, the focus is on an academic group. The elements of this discussion will include the key roles of the members, what I have learned from the group, group dynamics including the difficulties group work presented, how the group overcame them, and what I learned about myself from this process. The five members of the group were tasked with the responsibility of discussing “The advantage of being part of a professional computing body such as the BCS or IEEE”.
In this group, all of the members offered to take responsibilities. The group thought that by allowing its members to choose the tasks alone was to give colleagues the opportunity to take responsibilities that they were comfortable with. One member took the responsibility of being the chair. The role of the chair was to govern and direct the proceedings of the group discussion.
Another member was the editor of the group and his role was to record the groups’ findings. The rest of the group members were to do research on the question that the group had to attempt, besides, they were to assist the editor to compile the final finding of the group. In addition, the other members were to collect and bring into the discussion the relevant references they used to be used to produce the bibliography. I learnt that while presenting, one needs to do this through the chair.
I did not know this prior to the discussion. Perhaps this is so; to make sure that order prevails during the process of the discussion. From the process of group discussion, I also got more insight on the question from the members; who seemingly did very good research. The group work was an eye-opener regarding the questions that we were to tackle. Socially, I learnt some new social skills like cooperation, tolerance, acceptance and accommodating others with the same or divergent views from mine (Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010).
In this group, some members were more active than others. I thought about those who were inactive and came up with these possible reasons. These reasons range from lack of interest, some students were unconfident, or others just thought that there is nothing much they could offer concerning the given topic; because everything had been said (Rickaby, Miers, & Clarke, 2009). Besides, some members were relaxed in taking responsibilities. They appeared lethargic and this left some roles unpicked. For example, few members wanted the position of the chair.
I think because members thought it was a challenging position. However, ultimately one member volunteered to take the position. In addition, some members neglected their roles that they chose. A few did little research prior to the discussion, maybe because they were overwhelmed by the general college work among others. On the other hand, some members were very assertive in the group and felt very confident while contributing to the discussion questions. Maybe they were more conversant with the topic of the discussion. The chair used his position to control the domineering members and he regulated their time, to give the inactive members time to contribute as well.
I personally think that it is not good etiquette to dominate the group discussion. Another challenge that we faced in the group was lack of consensus and at times we had arguments and counter arguments. Some members wanted to appear as authorities in the given topic of discussion. They disregarded other members’ worthwhile contributions and only stressed on their point. These particular members seemed unaware of others’ needs and why they need to be appreciated however little they contributed.