As future health professionals, working in multidisciplinary teams is a must. This necessitates reflection as it is a critical component of learning. Reflection is the process of participating in conscientious, discerning, exploratory, and frequent observation of thoughts and behaviours (Nguyen, Fernandez & Charlin, 2014). This means that we must scrutinize our understanding and actions to internalize what we learned. As the purpose of the task was to reflect on group work, this essay will utilise the Gibbs ' model of reflection as it stressed the importance of considering the event description and the feelings involved so as to evaluate repercussions and possible actions (Schutz & Balman, 2013). The model consisted of six steps- the description,
…show more content…
She often does too much or too little of the work. At first, she was in Group I. Initially, Group I wanted to do the "Drugs and Alcohol" topic which another group was already doing so she convinced them "Dementia". It was a fascinating topic for her because it is prevalent and terrifying. She felt that she had to take charge as they were not focusing on the tasks. However, they changed topics halfway through without her input. This was incredibly upsetting for her as she felt that they were being inconsiderate. She then proceeded to panic and asked Suzy for a transfer. This was approved. In Group II, she felt as though she was doing too little and was not contributing but she felt better about the direction they were taking. She was really nervous about the presentation but her group was really supportive so she felt calmer. She felt really proud of her group 's effort and the content they …show more content…
In Group I, difference in interests regarding topics was a significant impediment (Monk-Turner & Payne, 2007). The writer assumed leadership and assigned tasks as they were distracted. Perhaps, she was being forceful because a week later, they told her they were doing the first topic. The members were probably reluctant to voice their disagreement at first. However, she was informed that one of the members actually posted a disparaging post on Facebook. This caused dysfunction because all group members must support the sharing of ideas and objections (Strathman, 2015). Additionally, the lack of communication, focused on active listening and respect, exacerbated the dysfunction (Tomescu-Dumitrescu, 2016). In contrast, Group II had structure and effective communication skills. Even though the literature suggests that limiting the group size was best (Monk-Turner & Payne, 2007), the structure of the group was clearly defined and well balanced. Each member was given a specific task by the leader, Chesca. There was a bit of trouble when the writer first joined but Chesca managed to organise things quickly. In particular, Shally was responsible for statistics, Leana for factors, Khanh for symptoms, Chesca for long-term health implications, and Rayen for health professionals. However, after the research was done and the presentation was being put together, group members were
She often does too much or too little of the work. At first, she was in Group I. Initially, Group I wanted to do the "Drugs and Alcohol" topic which another group was already doing so she convinced them "Dementia". It was a fascinating topic for her because it is prevalent and terrifying. She felt that she had to take charge as they were not focusing on the tasks. However, they changed topics halfway through without her input. This was incredibly upsetting for her as she felt that they were being inconsiderate. She then proceeded to panic and asked Suzy for a transfer. This was approved. In Group II, she felt as though she was doing too little and was not contributing but she felt better about the direction they were taking. She was really nervous about the presentation but her group was really supportive so she felt calmer. She felt really proud of her group 's effort and the content they …show more content…
In Group I, difference in interests regarding topics was a significant impediment (Monk-Turner & Payne, 2007). The writer assumed leadership and assigned tasks as they were distracted. Perhaps, she was being forceful because a week later, they told her they were doing the first topic. The members were probably reluctant to voice their disagreement at first. However, she was informed that one of the members actually posted a disparaging post on Facebook. This caused dysfunction because all group members must support the sharing of ideas and objections (Strathman, 2015). Additionally, the lack of communication, focused on active listening and respect, exacerbated the dysfunction (Tomescu-Dumitrescu, 2016). In contrast, Group II had structure and effective communication skills. Even though the literature suggests that limiting the group size was best (Monk-Turner & Payne, 2007), the structure of the group was clearly defined and well balanced. Each member was given a specific task by the leader, Chesca. There was a bit of trouble when the writer first joined but Chesca managed to organise things quickly. In particular, Shally was responsible for statistics, Leana for factors, Khanh for symptoms, Chesca for long-term health implications, and Rayen for health professionals. However, after the research was done and the presentation was being put together, group members were