This reflection is on an EBL (Enquiry-based learning) experience of working in a team which was sometimes dysfunctional.
I have chosen Kolb’s learning cycle for this reflection as I believe it to be the most suitable model for the nature of the reflection as it includes a chance to plan for the future.
((Kolb’s Learning Cycle) n.d.)
I also draw on Tuckman’s group theory, which describes five development stages within a team process: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. ((Team Development Stages) n.d.) According to Tuckman, a group has not functioned effectively until all four stages are complete. (Bonebright, 2010)
I use Belbin’s team roles – nine behaviours which individuals display whilst working in a team: …show more content…
((Team Development Stages) n.d.) Initially, the group planned the ‘Situations in need of information’, allocating everyone a topic for individual research; mine was the effects of cataracts. According to Belbin’s team roles, a co-ordinator focuses on the team objectives, allocating tasks to everyone appropriately (Belbin Associates, 2015). Here, I related to the co-ordinator, being involved in the allocation of tasks, ensuring everyone was comfortable with their topic and its relevance to their nursing field. However, my team role changed after this: when individually researching my topic, I became a resource investigator, researching information and different ideals to share with the group (Belbin Associates, 2015). The above scenario had reached the forming stage: members were unsure of their role and purpose within the group, however guidance was provided where …show more content…
((Team Development Stages) n.d.) Creating the presentation proved difficult: there was a lack of communication, with the communication that did take place breaking down due to misunderstandings. Belbin describes a shaper who motivates the group. A shaper’s weaknesses include unintentionally hurting other team member’s feelings. (Belbin Associates, 2015) I changed from co-ordinator to shaper due to unintentionally hurting a team member’s feelings. The scenario had now reached the storming stage, with conflict and power struggle between myself and another member.
The third stage of Tuckman’s group theory is norming: adjustments are made to accommodate opinions and form agreements. ((Team Development Stages) n.d.) When the disagreement had been resolved, we were able to work towards completing the presentation. Belbin describes a completer-finisher as an individual who finishes tasks to a high standard. (Belbin Associates, 2015) I took on this role by tidying up the presentation and checking it was completed fully. By now, we had reached the norming stage: we were functioning as a team, agreeing with each other, and accommodating other’s
I have chosen Kolb’s learning cycle for this reflection as I believe it to be the most suitable model for the nature of the reflection as it includes a chance to plan for the future.
((Kolb’s Learning Cycle) n.d.)
I also draw on Tuckman’s group theory, which describes five development stages within a team process: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. ((Team Development Stages) n.d.) According to Tuckman, a group has not functioned effectively until all four stages are complete. (Bonebright, 2010)
I use Belbin’s team roles – nine behaviours which individuals display whilst working in a team: …show more content…
((Team Development Stages) n.d.) Initially, the group planned the ‘Situations in need of information’, allocating everyone a topic for individual research; mine was the effects of cataracts. According to Belbin’s team roles, a co-ordinator focuses on the team objectives, allocating tasks to everyone appropriately (Belbin Associates, 2015). Here, I related to the co-ordinator, being involved in the allocation of tasks, ensuring everyone was comfortable with their topic and its relevance to their nursing field. However, my team role changed after this: when individually researching my topic, I became a resource investigator, researching information and different ideals to share with the group (Belbin Associates, 2015). The above scenario had reached the forming stage: members were unsure of their role and purpose within the group, however guidance was provided where …show more content…
((Team Development Stages) n.d.) Creating the presentation proved difficult: there was a lack of communication, with the communication that did take place breaking down due to misunderstandings. Belbin describes a shaper who motivates the group. A shaper’s weaknesses include unintentionally hurting other team member’s feelings. (Belbin Associates, 2015) I changed from co-ordinator to shaper due to unintentionally hurting a team member’s feelings. The scenario had now reached the storming stage, with conflict and power struggle between myself and another member.
The third stage of Tuckman’s group theory is norming: adjustments are made to accommodate opinions and form agreements. ((Team Development Stages) n.d.) When the disagreement had been resolved, we were able to work towards completing the presentation. Belbin describes a completer-finisher as an individual who finishes tasks to a high standard. (Belbin Associates, 2015) I took on this role by tidying up the presentation and checking it was completed fully. By now, we had reached the norming stage: we were functioning as a team, agreeing with each other, and accommodating other’s