Date of meeting: June 27th, 2009
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom in D2L
Time of meeting: 11:56am - 2:30pm
Names of members present: Jason Nesler, Kristen Underhill, Kevin Jack, Nate Anderson , & Amy Sanders Names of members absent: All Present
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
For this special meeting, we focused on the final project. It was a rainy Saturday afternoon, so it made it easier on us to sit on the computer to work. We started just to have a little conversation amongst ourselves. As I said in an earlier blog, we started to open up more a little bit as we got to know each other.
As soon as everyone arrived, that's when we got down to business. We started with the roles each and everyone played. I noticed that I kind of hung back of this question. Even though I've noticed through out the class (and in groups/teams in general), I tend to be more of a follower than a leader. I've always been the laid back type of person, who only talked when I needed to. When I'm outside of class or work, I tend to be more of a leader. Since I spend a lot of time roaming the streets of the Twin Cities, I tend to know more about what's happening around town. But I will admit that I have my times that I'm a follower. Going back to groups inside of school or the workplace, I like to avoid conflict as much as I can, hence why I don't get involved unless if I have to.
Speaking of conflict, we all agreed that there wasn't very much conflict within the group. We knew that time was our enemy and wouldn't have time to do things if we had conflict all the time. While we knew that conflicts is a normal thing in life, we worked everything out to make sure that our goal was met: Getting the assignments done. But I will admit that there was a little conflict amongst the group but it was easily resolved. The part about wanting to do the discussion questions BEFORE talking about the final project still upsets me (it was mentioned in a previous blog). Again, I just went with the flow of things. One of the biggest things that we agreed on regarding conflict was the environment that we were in. As I said in my first blog, this was the first time I used the chat feature on D2L. To be honest, I wasn't a big fan of it. More than often, we would have the problem of trying to move on to a different topic but after that's introduced, the previous conversation continues. A lot of times, I got confused on topics, especially in an online environment. It's often difficult to monitor other people's nonverbal communication in online environment. Trust me. I've gotten people mad at me or I've gotten mad at people because of what was said in an online posting. We didn't have that problem here all that much (everything was pretty much straight forward) but I'm just making a point of what can happen in any kind of online environment. Personally, I wanted to use that web program that we were supposed to use.
We talked about how everyone made some sacrifices to meet at least once a week. Since we all have busy schedules (some work during the day, some work during the evening/night, have classes, etc), we did a very good job making concessions in order to meet together. At first, we were skeptical on Wednesday nights. Two people had to work during the evenings and 2 others worked during the day (I got my work hours cut on Wednesdays so I was available all day). We used e-mail, the D2L chat room and discussion boards as our main ways to communicate with everyone.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Reflection 7
Date of meeting: June 24st, 2009
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom in D2L
Time of meeting: 5:25pm - 7:10pm
Names of members present: Jason Nesler, Kristen Underhill, Kevin Jack, Nate Anderson , & Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: All Present
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
For the most part, we talked about the discussion questions and the final group project. One thing I've been noticing as we go through the weeks is that were starting to discuss a little bit more about us. In the past, we went right into the task at hand but now, we always start by talking about our weekend or what's happening in our lives.
I thought it was rather strange that the group wanted to discuss the discussion questions BEFORE talking about the final project. People were thinking that we had two weeks to work on the project. I brought up the fact that it was due a week from Thursday, July 2nd. However, everyone seemed eager to discuss the questions before talking about the project. Whatever the case might be, it was strange that everyone wanted to discuss the questions before the project, knowing full well that it was due in just over a week.
Be that as it may, as usual, we agreed on who should be laid off. We based the information on who should get cut on performance and attendance. Madeline seemed have have both those problems. She was calling in sick way too often and had the most customer complaints amongst the work group. We thought of others, like Antonio for example but it was determined by this group that Madeline should be the one to go.
After discussing that we talked about what made a great leader. We all agreed over what should make a great leader.
This meeting was a relatively smooth (and short) meeting. One thing that I've been noticing that we have been agreeing on everything. I believe that with time constraints, we worked together to have our points made, but made them so they would agree with everyone. Another point that I would like to make (and I made it at the beginning of the blog) is that we decided we do something that we can already discuss on the boards but didn't talk about the most important thing: The final project.
We made an appointment to meet again on Saturday afternoon at noon to discuss the final project.
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom in D2L
Time of meeting: 5:25pm - 7:10pm
Names of members present: Jason Nesler, Kristen Underhill, Kevin Jack, Nate Anderson , & Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: All Present
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
For the most part, we talked about the discussion questions and the final group project. One thing I've been noticing as we go through the weeks is that were starting to discuss a little bit more about us. In the past, we went right into the task at hand but now, we always start by talking about our weekend or what's happening in our lives.
I thought it was rather strange that the group wanted to discuss the discussion questions BEFORE talking about the final project. People were thinking that we had two weeks to work on the project. I brought up the fact that it was due a week from Thursday, July 2nd. However, everyone seemed eager to discuss the questions before talking about the project. Whatever the case might be, it was strange that everyone wanted to discuss the questions before the project, knowing full well that it was due in just over a week.
Be that as it may, as usual, we agreed on who should be laid off. We based the information on who should get cut on performance and attendance. Madeline seemed have have both those problems. She was calling in sick way too often and had the most customer complaints amongst the work group. We thought of others, like Antonio for example but it was determined by this group that Madeline should be the one to go.
After discussing that we talked about what made a great leader. We all agreed over what should make a great leader.
This meeting was a relatively smooth (and short) meeting. One thing that I've been noticing that we have been agreeing on everything. I believe that with time constraints, we worked together to have our points made, but made them so they would agree with everyone. Another point that I would like to make (and I made it at the beginning of the blog) is that we decided we do something that we can already discuss on the boards but didn't talk about the most important thing: The final project.
We made an appointment to meet again on Saturday afternoon at noon to discuss the final project.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Reflection 6
Date of meeting: June 21st, 2009
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom in D2L
Time of meeting: 11:57am - 1:00pm
Names of members present: Jason Nesler, Kristen Underhill, Kevin Jack, & Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: Nate Anderson
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
This was a special meeting for us to meet to discuss the Survivor project. Jason e-mailed us earlier in the morning about his thoughts to parts 2 and 3. We discussed how were setting up the paper. We decided to go with Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and conclusion.
Everyone thought the work Nate & I did on part 2 from the previous day was good. So we went with what was on the chat room from the previous day. Part 2 competed.
Then we switched topics yet again. This time it was to figure out the whereabouts of Nate. No one had any idea where he was. He was MIA (missing in action). Then we talked about our summer classes and who is taking what, whens the start date and finish date. Then we went back to the task at hand about Survivor. Again, I'm seeing the norm of the group. Switching topics that has nothing to do with the task at hand.
Back to Survivor. We had a hard time coming up with more characteristics of the people participating in the show. We got a little confused regarding whether or not Part 2 got finished from the previous day. This was my fault. I may have misunderstood the question whether or not part 2 was complete. That I backed tracked and said it was done, but feel free to make any changes to it. However, when Amy asked "we need to finish part 2 right kevin", I responded by saying "um... I don't think so but you can add to it if you need to". I think part of the problem was we were typing at the same moment and everything got a little confused amoung the others. Therefore, Amy thought part 2 wasn't complete. A little misunderstanding in the part of the chat room. We all got a little confused. But we figured it all out!!!!
At that point, we detirmened who was going to put the paper together and who was going to turn it in.
Besides the little confusion in the group regarding part 2, we seemed to figure out who was going to do what, when it needed to be turned in and how it was going to be presented.
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom in D2L
Time of meeting: 11:57am - 1:00pm
Names of members present: Jason Nesler, Kristen Underhill, Kevin Jack, & Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: Nate Anderson
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
This was a special meeting for us to meet to discuss the Survivor project. Jason e-mailed us earlier in the morning about his thoughts to parts 2 and 3. We discussed how were setting up the paper. We decided to go with Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and conclusion.
Everyone thought the work Nate & I did on part 2 from the previous day was good. So we went with what was on the chat room from the previous day. Part 2 competed.
Then we switched topics yet again. This time it was to figure out the whereabouts of Nate. No one had any idea where he was. He was MIA (missing in action). Then we talked about our summer classes and who is taking what, whens the start date and finish date. Then we went back to the task at hand about Survivor. Again, I'm seeing the norm of the group. Switching topics that has nothing to do with the task at hand.
Back to Survivor. We had a hard time coming up with more characteristics of the people participating in the show. We got a little confused regarding whether or not Part 2 got finished from the previous day. This was my fault. I may have misunderstood the question whether or not part 2 was complete. That I backed tracked and said it was done, but feel free to make any changes to it. However, when Amy asked "we need to finish part 2 right kevin", I responded by saying "um... I don't think so but you can add to it if you need to". I think part of the problem was we were typing at the same moment and everything got a little confused amoung the others. Therefore, Amy thought part 2 wasn't complete. A little misunderstanding in the part of the chat room. We all got a little confused. But we figured it all out!!!!
At that point, we detirmened who was going to put the paper together and who was going to turn it in.
Besides the little confusion in the group regarding part 2, we seemed to figure out who was going to do what, when it needed to be turned in and how it was going to be presented.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Reflection 5
Date of meeting: June 20th, 2009
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom on D2L
Time of meeting: 10:59am - 12:50pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack & Nate Anderson
Names of members absent: Amy Sanders, Kristen Underall & Jason Nesler
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
This was an optional meeting to discuss the paper for the Survivor project. Some people had committed obligations (work, weddings, ect). Nate & myself discussed part 2 of the assignment.
We started to discuss Maslow's theory of interpersonal needs and how it affects the tribe members. We agreed that the Fang tribe wasn't meeting the theory. They were not able to get past the first, most basic physiological need. Afterwards, I thought it was a good idea to put in the paper what Maslow's theory actually is. We thought it was a good idea to include that in the introduction of the paper.
I talked about how the theory affected Kota. Nate thought that "applying the theory to the Kota tribe we can see that they have satisfied many of their needs".
While Nate was working on that statement, I was working on the introduction of the paper. I worked on the groupthink section. I thought groupthink was happening with the Fang tribe. They had more conflict with that tribe, were attempting to finish the challenges as quickly as possible.
Because of a prior commitment, I had to leave at this point. We got through part 2, even when we thought we would at the very least start it.
All we did for this meeting was discuss Survivor. Not once did we change the subject for any reason. We waited until the very end to get the last minute announcements for the group.
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom on D2L
Time of meeting: 10:59am - 12:50pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack & Nate Anderson
Names of members absent: Amy Sanders, Kristen Underall & Jason Nesler
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
This was an optional meeting to discuss the paper for the Survivor project. Some people had committed obligations (work, weddings, ect). Nate & myself discussed part 2 of the assignment.
We started to discuss Maslow's theory of interpersonal needs and how it affects the tribe members. We agreed that the Fang tribe wasn't meeting the theory. They were not able to get past the first, most basic physiological need. Afterwards, I thought it was a good idea to put in the paper what Maslow's theory actually is. We thought it was a good idea to include that in the introduction of the paper.
I talked about how the theory affected Kota. Nate thought that "applying the theory to the Kota tribe we can see that they have satisfied many of their needs".
While Nate was working on that statement, I was working on the introduction of the paper. I worked on the groupthink section. I thought groupthink was happening with the Fang tribe. They had more conflict with that tribe, were attempting to finish the challenges as quickly as possible.
Because of a prior commitment, I had to leave at this point. We got through part 2, even when we thought we would at the very least start it.
All we did for this meeting was discuss Survivor. Not once did we change the subject for any reason. We waited until the very end to get the last minute announcements for the group.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Reflection 4
Date of meeting: June 17th, 2009
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom on D2L
Time of meeting: 5:18pm - 8:30pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack, Nate Anderson, Kristen Underhill, Jason Nesler & Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: No one absent
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
Some of us had had some computer problems at this meeting. One couldn't watch episodes 3 & 4 and one had severe computer problems. Part of the reason for this was D2L wasn't functioning properly. Several times I had to leave the chat to refresh the D2L page but at times, I kept getting error messages.
Throughout the entire meeting, we talked Survivor. We talked about the tribes and the individuals in the tribes. We agreed on most individuals and their personalities. We really didn't disagree on any of the individuals on the tribes since we all saw the same thing coming from the tribes. In the middle of the chat (again), we switched topics. This is starting to be the norm of the group - switching topics and going back.
We determined that we needed to meet again. We picked 12:00pm on Sunday, 6/21. I told the group that I maybe late by a couple minutes since I was attending the meeting from the library and the library didn't open until 12:00pm on the dot. Then we went back to discussion the characters on Survivor (back to our regularly scheduled chat).
Back to Survivor. While discussing the characters or actors, we seemed to agree on mostly everyone. We went in order based on the actor's first name. After discussing someone for a little bit, someone decided to move on to the next person. And agreed... and agreed... and agreed. No one really took the "devil's advocate" role and disagreed with the other group member (meaning enrolled in the class, not the tribe).
Amy & Jason left the meeting early since both had to get ready for work; therefore leaving Kristen, Nate & myself discussing what to do next. Due to the fact that the project was due on Monday and that left us with very little time, I thought that meeting Sunday might be crunching it a little bit and I suggested an optional meeting on Saturday to discuss part 2. Kristen mentioned in the chat that her sister was getting married and was in the wedding itself and wouldn't be available to attend. Sunday we would finalize part 3 & the paper.
After the meeting, I sent out an e-mail that stated:
All,
We decided to split Part 1 in groups of 3s or 4s. According to the description of the assignment, we're supposed to: Describe roles, values, needs, behaviors, types of messages sent, and so forth. Below is what we decided on who should cover who.
1 - Ace, Bob, Charlie (Kristen)
2 - Corinne, Crystal, Dan (Nate)
3 - Danny/GC, Gillian, Jacquie (Amy)
4 - Kelly, Ken, Marcus, Matty (Jason)
5 - Michelle, Paloma, Randy, Susie (Kevin)
Amy and Jason, can you please e-mail the group by Friday on your thoughts and ideas about Parts 2 & 3?
This is just a reminder that we will meet in the D2L chat room Sunday, 6/21 (the first day of summer and Father's Day!!!) at noon. There will be an optional meeting on Saturday, 6/20 at 11:00am. Amy & Jason, can you join Nate & myself? We'll be discussing part 2 on Saturday and finalizing part 2 & discuss part 3 on Sunday. Kristen won't be joining us on Saturday since she has a wedding to attend.
Remember to post your discussions on the board, especially 8a, the case study question.
Thanks and have a great rest of the week and "see" you this weekend!!!! :)
Kevin
We didn't have time to discuss the case study since it was getting to be too late. It was easier to discussion on the boards instead of wasting more time.
This meeting went a little too long. Almost a 3 hour meeting, when in previous meetings, they lasted an hour to an hour and a half. While I don't mind these types of meetings, I can't be starring into a computer screen (and sitting for 3 hours straight). I start to get a little antsy sitting down for an extended amount of time, without some type of break.
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom on D2L
Time of meeting: 5:18pm - 8:30pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack, Nate Anderson, Kristen Underhill, Jason Nesler & Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: No one absent
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
Some of us had had some computer problems at this meeting. One couldn't watch episodes 3 & 4 and one had severe computer problems. Part of the reason for this was D2L wasn't functioning properly. Several times I had to leave the chat to refresh the D2L page but at times, I kept getting error messages.
Throughout the entire meeting, we talked Survivor. We talked about the tribes and the individuals in the tribes. We agreed on most individuals and their personalities. We really didn't disagree on any of the individuals on the tribes since we all saw the same thing coming from the tribes. In the middle of the chat (again), we switched topics. This is starting to be the norm of the group - switching topics and going back.
We determined that we needed to meet again. We picked 12:00pm on Sunday, 6/21. I told the group that I maybe late by a couple minutes since I was attending the meeting from the library and the library didn't open until 12:00pm on the dot. Then we went back to discussion the characters on Survivor (back to our regularly scheduled chat).
Back to Survivor. While discussing the characters or actors, we seemed to agree on mostly everyone. We went in order based on the actor's first name. After discussing someone for a little bit, someone decided to move on to the next person. And agreed... and agreed... and agreed. No one really took the "devil's advocate" role and disagreed with the other group member (meaning enrolled in the class, not the tribe).
Amy & Jason left the meeting early since both had to get ready for work; therefore leaving Kristen, Nate & myself discussing what to do next. Due to the fact that the project was due on Monday and that left us with very little time, I thought that meeting Sunday might be crunching it a little bit and I suggested an optional meeting on Saturday to discuss part 2. Kristen mentioned in the chat that her sister was getting married and was in the wedding itself and wouldn't be available to attend. Sunday we would finalize part 3 & the paper.
After the meeting, I sent out an e-mail that stated:
All,
We decided to split Part 1 in groups of 3s or 4s. According to the description of the assignment, we're supposed to: Describe roles, values, needs, behaviors, types of messages sent, and so forth. Below is what we decided on who should cover who.
1 - Ace, Bob, Charlie (Kristen)
2 - Corinne, Crystal, Dan (Nate)
3 - Danny/GC, Gillian, Jacquie (Amy)
4 - Kelly, Ken, Marcus, Matty (Jason)
5 - Michelle, Paloma, Randy, Susie (Kevin)
Amy and Jason, can you please e-mail the group by Friday on your thoughts and ideas about Parts 2 & 3?
This is just a reminder that we will meet in the D2L chat room Sunday, 6/21 (the first day of summer and Father's Day!!!) at noon. There will be an optional meeting on Saturday, 6/20 at 11:00am. Amy & Jason, can you join Nate & myself? We'll be discussing part 2 on Saturday and finalizing part 2 & discuss part 3 on Sunday. Kristen won't be joining us on Saturday since she has a wedding to attend.
Remember to post your discussions on the board, especially 8a, the case study question.
Thanks and have a great rest of the week and "see" you this weekend!!!! :)
Kevin
We didn't have time to discuss the case study since it was getting to be too late. It was easier to discussion on the boards instead of wasting more time.
This meeting went a little too long. Almost a 3 hour meeting, when in previous meetings, they lasted an hour to an hour and a half. While I don't mind these types of meetings, I can't be starring into a computer screen (and sitting for 3 hours straight). I start to get a little antsy sitting down for an extended amount of time, without some type of break.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Reflection 3
Date of meeting: June 10th, 2009
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom on D2L
Time of meeting: 5:19pm - 7:20pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack, Amy Sanders, Kristen Underhill, Nate Anderson & Jason Nesler
Names of members absent: No one was absent
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
Location of meeting: Group 3 Chatroom on D2L
Time of meeting: 5:19pm - 7:20pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack, Amy Sanders, Kristen Underhill, Nate Anderson & Jason Nesler
Names of members absent: No one was absent
Names of any guests attending: No Guests
We started out the meeting talking about how far we got into Survivor Season 17. Amy, Kristen & I are on episode 4, and Nate is up to episode 5. It was determined that Amy watched the wrong season of Survivor. She was watching the episodes of when they were in Brazil, while the others were watching Gabon. However, no one really seemed to like Survivor. All of the sudden, we started to talk about the discussion board and the case study.
When we discussed the case study, we each took a certain section of the assignment to talk about it. This case study focused on nonverbal communication and how it can effect one's communication with another. We were going to answer each scene individually (for example, we all answer 1, then go back to the original scene and talk about 2 and so on). Then I came up with the idea that we should answer all the questions about that particular scene. Everyone was in favor of that idea.
Regarding the scenes, it was almost difficult to answer any of these questions without knowing the proper body movements of each scene. Some of them were self explanatory (for example, #2). We all know what happens when a girl asks a question about herself and a boy answers by going "uhhhhhhhh". I wouldn't be caught dead saying this to a girl. It was easy for us to agree on the consequences of uhhhhhhhhh.
Throughout the rest of the case study, we agreed on almost everything. No one really took an argumentive voice throughout the remainder of the meeting.
At the very end, we started to talk about the Survivor project once again. We were having some problems trying to come up with who is doing who, and who is doing what. We were going to e-mail everyone our notes from Survivor but we never did that.
One thing I've been noticing about these chats is that we are going back and forth on topics. For example, this chat, we started to talk about Survivor, then all of the sudden changed subjects to the discussion board and the case study and back to Survivor. I keep hoping we stick to one topic and not change in the middle of something. That's really poor planning on people's parts.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Reflection 2
Date of meeting: Thursday, June 4th
Location of meeting: I was sitting on my home computer
Time of meeting: 5:17pm - 6:51pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack, Nate Anderson, Kristen Underhill, Jason Nesler and Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: Everyone was present
Names of any guests attending: No guests
We had to change dates for groups. When Amy and I first met, we agreed to meet Monday and Wednesday mornings at 10:00am. However, just has that happened we had to change groups. Amy & I stayed in group 3 while we got 3 new people. We ended up at square 1. For the next few days, we had to rearrange our schedules to accommodate everyone. The previous group (the three that entered out group) agreed to meet on Wednesdays at 5:30pm. I agreed to it. I said that I could Monday - Friday mornings and Wednesday and Thursday evenings since I normally don't work those two evenings. Amy had to change her schedule a little bit. So we agreed Wednesdays at 5:30pm. For this week, we had to move it to Thursday at 5:30 since I had a previous appointment I had to be at that evening.
Due to time constraints (Amy had to leave at 6:00 central time since she had to get ready for work), we started to discuss the Survivor project. It turns out that no one really watches that show. So we decided to go with the one that was posted on D2L (season 17). Unfortunately we had problems trying to watch the video since it was all clips, and not the full episodes.
After discussing what we were going to do, we went on to the case study. But before that, we discussed who was going to do the summery for the week. Now back to the case study. We agreed that the norms to the group listening to the presentation were: casual, casual dress and drinking wine. However, the "friends" presenting were just a little off. First, they showed up on time (when normally they're 30 minutes late), dressed in professional clothes when normally they were jeans and making a business like presentation. The following violations happened: Free speaking (the friend told his friend to hold all questions until the end), didn't tell the consumers what company they were working for, treating these people like strangers instead of friends and brought in props. But more importantly, when criticized, George and Margret took it the wrong way. Friends can handle other friend's criticism. They went the wrong way about that.
We all agreed that we saw no supportive communication at all. There was a little spontantaneity at the beginning (calling the friends about the business opportunity) but after that, we didn't see much of anything. It all went downhill afterwards. We also agreed that there was a little group cohesiveness but was lost when the norms started to break. There was also discomfirming responses, impersonal responses, a trangential response. Then we discussed how these four could over come their conflict. We agreed that the author and his wife may have over reacted to some of the conflict. We discussed how George and Margret could have had presented themselves a little bit better and stop trying so hard to make a sale, but more importantly, stop being secrative towards the company. Other people might think it's a scam.
Basically in this case study, we mainly just discussed it. We pretty much agreed on everything. I think we did that because it was our first time as a group and didn't know each other. I'm sure as we go further into the semester and have more meetings, we will have more more arguable discussion where people are going to agree and disagree. We ended the meeting by agreeing to meet on Wednesday at 5:30pm.
Location of meeting: I was sitting on my home computer
Time of meeting: 5:17pm - 6:51pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack, Nate Anderson, Kristen Underhill, Jason Nesler and Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: Everyone was present
Names of any guests attending: No guests
We had to change dates for groups. When Amy and I first met, we agreed to meet Monday and Wednesday mornings at 10:00am. However, just has that happened we had to change groups. Amy & I stayed in group 3 while we got 3 new people. We ended up at square 1. For the next few days, we had to rearrange our schedules to accommodate everyone. The previous group (the three that entered out group) agreed to meet on Wednesdays at 5:30pm. I agreed to it. I said that I could Monday - Friday mornings and Wednesday and Thursday evenings since I normally don't work those two evenings. Amy had to change her schedule a little bit. So we agreed Wednesdays at 5:30pm. For this week, we had to move it to Thursday at 5:30 since I had a previous appointment I had to be at that evening.
Due to time constraints (Amy had to leave at 6:00 central time since she had to get ready for work), we started to discuss the Survivor project. It turns out that no one really watches that show. So we decided to go with the one that was posted on D2L (season 17). Unfortunately we had problems trying to watch the video since it was all clips, and not the full episodes.
After discussing what we were going to do, we went on to the case study. But before that, we discussed who was going to do the summery for the week. Now back to the case study. We agreed that the norms to the group listening to the presentation were: casual, casual dress and drinking wine. However, the "friends" presenting were just a little off. First, they showed up on time (when normally they're 30 minutes late), dressed in professional clothes when normally they were jeans and making a business like presentation. The following violations happened: Free speaking (the friend told his friend to hold all questions until the end), didn't tell the consumers what company they were working for, treating these people like strangers instead of friends and brought in props. But more importantly, when criticized, George and Margret took it the wrong way. Friends can handle other friend's criticism. They went the wrong way about that.
We all agreed that we saw no supportive communication at all. There was a little spontantaneity at the beginning (calling the friends about the business opportunity) but after that, we didn't see much of anything. It all went downhill afterwards. We also agreed that there was a little group cohesiveness but was lost when the norms started to break. There was also discomfirming responses, impersonal responses, a trangential response. Then we discussed how these four could over come their conflict. We agreed that the author and his wife may have over reacted to some of the conflict. We discussed how George and Margret could have had presented themselves a little bit better and stop trying so hard to make a sale, but more importantly, stop being secrative towards the company. Other people might think it's a scam.
Basically in this case study, we mainly just discussed it. We pretty much agreed on everything. I think we did that because it was our first time as a group and didn't know each other. I'm sure as we go further into the semester and have more meetings, we will have more more arguable discussion where people are going to agree and disagree. We ended the meeting by agreeing to meet on Wednesday at 5:30pm.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Reflection 1
Date of meeting: Saturday, May 30th
Location of meeting: I was sitting at Caribou Coffee inside Maplewood Mall
Time of meeting – note both beginning and ending times: 1:18pm - 2:40pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack & Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: Nathaniel Anderson & Benjamin Neibaur
Names of any guests attending: None
Since this was our first meeting, Amy & I talked about each other. As a get to know each other type of meeting. We discussed what our name for the group is (Against the Flow). Since neither of us had a good idea, we had to consult the Internet for this.
It was determined that no one had the same agenda, instead using the group for their own personal reasons. It was the group's main conflict. Thurman would have made a good leader since he has the need for control. Marmalde would have made the most trouble since he was brought into the group for the wrong reasons, and not to mention didn't have any interest in the group (he was brought into to the church just to do odd jobs).
Then we discussed who was going to do the summaries for the week. And made the decision to add more to the discussion boards.
As I mentioned at the beginning, we took it easy on this meeting. Prior to chatting on the chat board, it was our first times using the chat feature of D2L. I've took many classes online in the past but my first time chatting live. I'm used to chatting on the discussion boards. Amy was inexperienced in this type of environment. It made it easier on both of us knowing how inexperienced we are when it comes to certain features of D2L. This was easy for both of us. It helped us to get to know each other a little bit and the communication was very easy. It will be interesting to see how this works in the future with our new group members joining our group. In addition, it was determined that we would more than likely be using the chat room instead of the webcam feature.
Location of meeting: I was sitting at Caribou Coffee inside Maplewood Mall
Time of meeting – note both beginning and ending times: 1:18pm - 2:40pm
Names of members present: Kevin Jack & Amy Sanders
Names of members absent: Nathaniel Anderson & Benjamin Neibaur
Names of any guests attending: None
Since this was our first meeting, Amy & I talked about each other. As a get to know each other type of meeting. We discussed what our name for the group is (Against the Flow). Since neither of us had a good idea, we had to consult the Internet for this.
It was determined that no one had the same agenda, instead using the group for their own personal reasons. It was the group's main conflict. Thurman would have made a good leader since he has the need for control. Marmalde would have made the most trouble since he was brought into the group for the wrong reasons, and not to mention didn't have any interest in the group (he was brought into to the church just to do odd jobs).
Then we discussed who was going to do the summaries for the week. And made the decision to add more to the discussion boards.
As I mentioned at the beginning, we took it easy on this meeting. Prior to chatting on the chat board, it was our first times using the chat feature of D2L. I've took many classes online in the past but my first time chatting live. I'm used to chatting on the discussion boards. Amy was inexperienced in this type of environment. It made it easier on both of us knowing how inexperienced we are when it comes to certain features of D2L. This was easy for both of us. It helped us to get to know each other a little bit and the communication was very easy. It will be interesting to see how this works in the future with our new group members joining our group. In addition, it was determined that we would more than likely be using the chat room instead of the webcam feature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)