Reflections on Feedback Session and Dynamics of Group Work

PART1: Reflections on Feedback Session

After the previous blog posts, we in our cohort had a feedback session. During this feedback session, we had the opportunity to both receive feedback from and provide feedback to two of the cohort members. In this post I would discuss and try to answer the questions which were raised during the feedback provided to me. I categorised the comments from my fellows into three categories:

1.      What was good

2.      What could be improved

3.      what was missing

What was good

From a reader perspective, my colleagues were of the view that my writing was good even though complex at times. They appreciated the in-depth knowledge and the interrelation of different topics discussed in the previous sessions. They also appreciated the proper usage of the references.

What could be Improved

The writing became too complex at times and therefore they recommend that I shall use headings to further refine and communicate the ideas. Also, even though the topics were explained well the writing was too academic and therefore it was difficult for general audience to at times make sense of it.  To deal with it, they recommended to use simple language rather than academic writing.

What was Missing

My reviewers were of the view that I did not reflect. Initially I was confused, since as a researcher, my view of reflection is that e.g. different theoretical lenses and competence development go hand in hand. Therefore, in my posts I reflected on this interplay and how it enhances the learning of new competences such as in planning and implementation phases. However, on further discussion, it emerged that my reviewers were asking me to also reflect on the group processes which my team had adopted to accomplish these tasks.

My Viewpoint on feedback activity

I think my reviewers made very good recommendations. I was open to their ideas and would try to use it in further blog posts. One example here is the use of headings in this post. Also, I would reflect on my own (in)actions during the group work. The overall process of feedback was very friendly and it provided me with the opportunity to put away my researcher hat and turn the focus inwards by reflecting on the dynamics of my group.  In the second half of this post I would provide few details of our group work and how it unfolds along with the synthesis towards the end.

 

PART 2: Reflections on Group Dynamics

Reflections on Group work 1

In our first group task, Tiina and Carlos took the lead. Tiina created the script for our session after discussion with the rest of the group members. Carlos took the lead with creating the jam board. Rest, three of the members provided with their comments on the script and first version of the presentation. In the second group meeting, we came up the idea of creating an introductory video for the participants of the program to introduce the topic. During the preparations, I have noticed that some of the members are more active communicators than others. However, it is not to be confused with the quality of work. Those of us having less communication felt that the others in the group have more knowledge because of their backgrounds and work experiences and may be were shy to participate early on. However, whenever, these members participated they came up with very smart ideas and also questioned the ideas of others. This healthy debate has been at the core of our team work. In my experience I did not notice anything which I would call a red flag or that would create a negative work environment. Towards the end, I presented a mock session to rest of the group to check out if we can manage within time and have enough time for the activities. During the actual session we figured out that we should also have tested the mock process with those not part of our group because the introductory video which we created did not work (the sound was not audible) for some of the groups.   

Reflections on Group work 2

For the second group work, we had our first group meeting in which we generally discussed the topic. I took the lead and agreed to make the presentation for the rest of the members to comment on. Again, Carlos was very creative with the ideas to come up with the activities that would help to develop the competences around implementation of lessons. After the first meeting and preparation of slides, we agreed to provide time to all the members so as to reflect on the content. During this meeting we agreed that instead of me, someone else in the group would conduct the mock session. In the second meeting we had a detailed discussion on the group dynamics (topic of our discussion for the cohort). We had different opinions and it helped us to bring together different perspectives on group work together. The member who agreed to present in the mock session, fell ill and another member took the lead in conducting the mock session. The member who fell ill, later on felt that they have not participated enough in the group work and wanted to do more in the next tasks. All of the members appreciated them for their work until now and highlighted that how they have been actively participating in the group work and shall not feel bad about not being able to conduct one activity due to circumstances. Overall, this group work went rather smoothly as compared to first one in terms of actual presentation. The critical difference was that we had agreed to include less activities but make sure that those included could be conducted in time. This approach helped us substantially to improve the actual execution of the task.  

Synthesis

In my experience with my group until now, we have not faced any challenges when it comes to the completion of different tasks. One of the reasons could be that three out of four members (one member left the cohort after first task), have substantial experience working as teachers and managing groups of students both in-class and through virtual means.

                        Happy Teams (From here)

However, that is an abstract explanation, since in practice, many times the groups with many experienced members could face a lot of resistance from each other (power dynamics). Then what are the concrete steps which have made it possible for us to function harmonically. In my opinion there are two major factors. one, very early on, in our group, we have agreed upon the tools of communication (WhatsApp and teams), the time slots and days when we conduct the meetings (usually Tuesdays 1530Hrs Finnish time), and the productivity tools (google tools, office 365, and tools based on the activities such as paddlet, Miro, Jam board). With these tools and routines fixed, the other thing which has worked well for us, is that all the members are responsible in the sense that we come to the meetings prepared before hand with the materials. This allows us to focus our meeting time on refinement of the tasks rather than try to complete the minimum requirements. Lastly, all the members are self-motivated. Until now we did not have to ask the questions such as “who is willing to do xyz” rather members opt to take certain responsibilities. In sum, the establishment of routines, the agreement on tools of communication and productivity, motivation of the individual members and willingness to fulfil other members’ role when needed, have been the key cornerstones for smooth work in our team.