Group Dynamics and Communication - Essay Example

? GROUP DYNAMICS AND COMMUNICATION WITHIN GROUPS by of School 29 September Introduction Being a part of a group can be termed as human nature. It is almost impossible to find a human being who lives their entire life in isolation separated from the rest of human kind. Right from the point at which one is born, they belong to a group known as the family. One is nurtured in a group with siblings or neighbours. People join school and study in groups throughout their school life; socializing in groups, carrying out tasks in groups, playing in groups, and forming relationships in groups. The work environment also teems with groups, either of friends or groups put together to facilitate the achievement of a specific organizational goal. The next stage in life is to form families of their own which are also groups with the cycle beginning all over again. Almost all activities carried out by people are done in groups, making them a core element of study with relation to understanding human behaviour. According to Forsyth, groups have long been the subject of interest to both researchers and scholars (2006). Extensive studies have been carried out with regard to how groups are conceived and how they are later dissolved; this includes how they are transformed and how they are used to either realize set aims, or how they can be used to execute offenses (Forsyth 2006). This paper discusses group dynamics and communication within a group of first year undergraduate nursing students’, participating in a peer-led team learning group. I participated in a peer-led team learning group in my first year as a nursing student; therefore, this assignment is an overview of my observations of the group. The use of peer learning is a practice that has been adopted in many universities worldwide, as a means to improve students understanding of concepts through supportive discussions that take place in small groups, and where the discourse encourages as many questions as there might be, from students (Peer-Led Team Learning 2013). It is a fact that most students feel free around their fellow students, rather than around their lecturers and professors. This makes them more inclined to discuss concepts and questions with other students, than with a lecturer or professor. Peer-led team learning holds the strengths of being a method that enhances student engagement and motivation in learning, as well as overall performance (Centre for the Study of Higher Education 2002). This is due to the fact that in the process, students learn to communicate effectively as they work in teams, while peer leaders gain self-confidence, learn a number of group management skills, and how to teach. In this context, students were requested to band themselves into groups of four. Two peer leaders (i.e. group leader and assistant group leader) for each group were then selected from third and fourth year students, who had displayed exemplary performance in class. As a way of equipping them with the necessary skills, the peer leaders were taken through brief training mainly focussed on how to handle groups. When this was set, each group was given a structured problem to solve. According to the guidelines, each group was required to meet twice every week, and members were given the privilege to choose the best time for their discussions. Description of Peer Leaders and Group Members Characteristics and Behaviours 1. Tom (Group leader) He is a fourth year nursing student. He is firm, confident, and resourceful. His resilience and optimism helps him conquer complex problems. He also has a very open minded approach to things. He is however quite poor in time management since he often comes late for the discussions, and is usually late to meet deadlines. His lack of respect for time and set deadlines is at times considered as lack of respect towards the assistant group leader and group members. 2. Olivia (Assistant group leader) She is a third year nursing student. She managed to emerge the best student during all semester examinations in her second year, despite being a part time student and having to be on and off school, as she works to fund her education. She also led in her third year first semester examinations. She is proactive, very optimistic, a good time manager, respectful, very good at working in a group, and maintains a very good relationship with the group members. She is however a very emotional person (this could be due to the difficulties she has had to go through), has difficulties saying no to people, and has a bad relationship with the group leader. 3. Mary She is the most assertive among the group members. She is also persistent and much focussed. She maintains a very good relationship with Rachel, Stan, and the assistant group leader. 4. Joel He is reactive, fairly conservative, a poor communicator, selfish, and quite a joker. He maintains a very bad relationship with the group leaders and other group members. 5. Rachel She is quite conservative and cannot be regarded as a proactive individual. She is however very hardworking, respectful, and a good time manager. She maintains a fairly good relationship with both group leaders and other group members. 6. Stan He is tough, success oriented, and confident. He however pays too much attention to the fact that he is one of the best among the first year students, and always wants to emerge the best in debates. Consequences of the Different Types of Characteristics, Behaviour, and Interpersonal Skills Due to the different characters of the team members, a number of issues were bound to arise. Disagreements began prior to the group meetings, when members met to select the best day and time for their discussions. This was bound to happen given the different characteristics of the group leaders and group members. For example, despite being the first time the group was meeting, Tom was thirty two minutes late; the rest of the team was not happy about this, especially Rachel and Olivia. At some point, Olivia, who ended up getting late for her evening work shift, got so emotional that she began crying. During meetings, Stan had the habit of generating arguments from debates, and always strived to prove his intelligence over all other members of the team. This did not go so well and at some point, the rest of the members considered discussing the issue with the professor to have him removed from the group. Joel, who once came in late got some punishment from Tom. This generated a heated argument between the two, as Joel refused to do what Tom was asking arguing that he (Tom) was the worst in keeping time, despite being the group leader. However, due to his firm nature, this did not deter Tom from having Joel serve his punishment. Analysis of the Group’s Effectiveness, with consideration of Leadership, Decision Making and Conflict Conflicts are common occurrences within groups; they occur mainly because individuals are different and sometimes differ in their behaviours and opinions. However, groups are able to handle conflicts when they occur, and focus on important issues. This group emerged the second best in solving the question assigned. The minimal level of ineffectiveness that existed can be attributed to a number of factors such the poor observance to time and deadliness by Tom who was appointed as the main group leader, Olivia’s softness, Joel’s lack of seriousness, and Stan’s tendency to pay attention to issues that were of no relevance to the group. The American College of Medical Quality asserts that “leaders understand and act on the fundamental elements of reflective groups , including scope and purpose , structure time management, participation strategies,...and impact assessment” (2005, p. 108). This clearly shows that Tom failed as a leader for having such poor time management skills in comparison to his associate and group members. According to Rowland H. and Rowland B., examples of norms that promote effectiveness within a group include absence of competition within different units of a group, but rather all members should work in cooperation (1997). In this context, all members of the team were able to avoid any form of competition; this could be the reason they emerged second best, given that competition only serves to tear members further apart. Reference List American College of Medical Quality. 2005, Core Curriculum for Medical Quality Management, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Massachusetts. Centre for the Study of Higher Education 2002, Assessing Group Work, viewed 2 October 2013, < http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/group.html>. Forsyth, D. R. 2006, Group Dynamics, Thomson Wadsworth, California. Peer-Led Team Learning 2013, viewed 2October 2013 . Rowland, H. S. & Rowland, B. L. 1997, Nursing Administration Handbook, Aspen Publishers Inc, Maryland. Read More