I personally chose avoidance to deal with the situation in class. One of the reasons i picked it was because i felt, like it says on the "avoidance" bullet, that there was no chance of winning after a while. It got systematically more hectic further into the class. i believed i chose this because even if i had a point that made some sense,it would get swirled into the clutter of an argument and it would just get so repetitive that it would not even help. I watched most people stay quiet and avoid the whole chaos just like me. As much as i would like to compete to win, knowing myself and how i observed communication in class i would pick collaborating as the best choice.
The class had to UNANIMOUSLY come to a plan, and this made it extremely hard for it to work without a structure laid out for us as far as leaders are concerned. If the class was broken down between 3 and no more than 5 groups, i believe that we would have come to a more balanced, efficient conclusion, with head speakers in front of class having no more than 20 mins each to have all groups agree on a plan.This would help clear any problems a single person has with the package,and make it possible for us to finish in time and arrive at a solution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey Juan,
I thought I didn't come to class so I forgot to post comments!
By the way, it was a crazy discussion! everyone were trying to talk at once, and I chose to be quiet.
Making up the plan and making everyone agree on the same plan was definetely hard! Everyone have their own ideas, interest, etc. It was crazy to under control everyone!
Post a Comment