1. Everyone in the group played the role of contributor, communicator, and critic. We all provided facts from the case reading and verbally stated our opinions of who the murder could have and could not have been. We all also critic each other by disagreeing with some of the things stated. I remember I made a wrong analysis on why a certain person couldn’t have been the murderer because I interpret the reading incorrectly. Amanda played the role of contributor because she usually is the one that writes down all the information
2. My group did not know that all the papers had different information until it was announced at the end. I think it would’ve helped, but we were still able to correctly solve the mystery by listening to each other. I think we worked well as a team so did not needed any role changes. I guess one role that would have been very helpful is a coordinator. We usually don’t plan things out in advance and just handle things as they come. We never have a real plan on action until we are in the situation or a problem arises.
3. During this activity, I think that my group was in the norming stage of the development. We’ve been working together all semester so we were already passed the forming and storming stage. Everyone read the case and afterwards we started exchanging information. Talking about our findings out loud helped us realize why certain people could not have been the murderer. We all had equal roles in this activity because all of us were blurting out facts that we read and came to a consensus on one murderer, which ended up being the right one.
-Tina Nguyen
No comments:
Post a Comment