Magnet School Group Analysis

1. How well did your team balance the four group personalities? Which personalities were present in your group? Specifics?
My group consisted of me my, my friend, and my roommate. We were able to balance personalities fairly well. This may be due to the fact of having arguments about various topics before. My roommate would be a communicator facilitator. He has been homeless in his lifetime this caused him to be sympathetic to students with personality and social issues. My friend would be a collaborative inventor. He understood the big picture of choosing the students with the absolute best chance of being successful at this school. He also did a lot of listening before actually speaking. My analytical nature made me a contributor analyzer. I was very persistent in making sure they toke this activity seriously. I logically broke down the pros a d cons of each student based on the data.
2. How did you manage (or did not manage) conflict? Specifics?
We were able to manage conflicts we had through persuasion and discussion. We agreed beforehand that this was a simple friendly argument and was not to be taking personal. The main goal is to come to a consensus together on why or why not each student should be allowed entry. We each raised the pros and cons of each student and had equal opportunity to present their list to the group.
3. How well did team members use listening skills? Which listening skills did your group use? Specifics?
When each group member was explaining their student’s pros and cons I noticed promoting between individuals. There was nodding and obvious signs of active listening. Summary statements were used to confirm the big picture a group member was trying to convey. This was often need for my roommate who had a lot to say about each candidate. When my roommate described how he was able to be successful in life without parents, it made me use feeling statements. I wanted to show I sympathized and understood where he was coming from.
4. What methods for reaching consensus did the team use? Specifics?
We all took time to read each students case and formulate our own opinions and ideas before bringing them before the group. Each group was giving all the time they needed to prepare there discussions. We were able to reach consensus by listening to the opinions and feels and arguments of all other group members. We actively listened to each other point of view. After each group member spoke we discussed the reasons behind their answers.
5. Draw a pie graph or create a chart indicating the approximate amount of “talking time” for each member.

6. Indicate which candidates your group accepted and explain your criteria for acceptance. Provide specifics from unit lessons—be sure to show your understanding of the unit material by providing examples from the group in your discussion.

After discussing the topics were able to come to a consensus to allow students 1, 3, and 6 into the school. We were able to agree on the fact that the students with the highest chance of success should be allowed into the school. This would be based on the student’s track record and whether they possess positive mental and social state of mind. We agreed that well rounded students who were already self-determined stood a good chance of maximizing their potential in the school. My roommate originally wanted to accept students with social issues. Eventually we all came to the consensus that even though each student qualified attend the school; it may not be the best fit for some. My friend suggested that the students with social and personality issues should attend a school that could help them in these weak areas. Student 1 and 6 displayed their own sense of self determination. They were already good students who were determined to be successful without the push of outside sources. Student 3 was just as capable of these students as long as he was able to play football. Attending this school allow student 3 to maximize both talents. All 3 group member were impressed by student 6 knowledge of foreign languages.