1. I feel that all of us together took on most of the ten types of team roles. We were all kind of in the same boat when it can to the knowledge each of us had on the subject. No one knew more than the other in terms of being a contributor with expertise in solving a case. I tried to to be more of a contractor, because organizing and summarizing things are something I like to pride myself in. As I read the blue sheet I made sure to write down pertinent information to the case, then relayed that to the rest of the group. Ryan played the completer and coordinator role, while Mike was the communicator and calibrator.
2. Communication was key in the discovery that each blue sheet contained different information. Also having me as the contractor and Ryan as the cooperator let us quickly identify the differences in the sheets and rule out suspects. Having a contributor with significant expertise would have been great, although we were doing just fine ourselves. But there was a lot of information for each of us to sift through and some of it got left behind when it came to determining our suspects.
3. I believe when group 1 solved the mystery, our group was somewhere in between the norming and performing phase. We were comfortable enough with each other to find it easy to establish goals and gather common reasoning for the case, but we were not quite at the peak of our performance because I got the group stuck on determining the ages of the suspects incorrectly.
--Kaitlin Reichel
No comments:
Post a Comment