Having weathered the first group collaboration for ETL504 case studies, I have come away feeling relatively optimistic. From the posts I have read so far, it is clear that there have been various levels of participation amongst case study groups. I have seen posts crediting between two and five participants and I am assuming that the original groups were assigned with no more than a one student variance between groups (I am guessing either four to five per group or five to six per group based on my group of five).
I feel lucky to have gotten an engaged, competent and participatory group. All group members participated in both organisational and content-based interactions. This contributed to what I feel was a solid, task-fulfilling response delivered on-time and formatted appropriately.
At the end of Module 3.2, we were asked to do a questionnaire (McGraw Hill Global Education Holdings, 2018) to determine our preferred conflict handling style(s) and reflect on the results.
According to the model, my preferences for conflict handling followed the following pattern:
Minimally strong preference (the bottom score on the “strong preference” range) for:
Avoiding: 13/20, and
Problem Solving: 17/20
Moderately strong preferences (one mark below the top of the “moderate preference” range) for the conflicting styles of:
Yielding: 12/20, and
Moderately low preference (the bottom of the “moderate preference” range) for:
This would seem to indicate that I avoid conflict where possible. When I do engage in a conflict situation, however, my goal is to optimise solutions (aim for a win/win where possible) rather than to achieve a 50/50 compromise. I find the similar scores for the opposing styles of yielding and forcing an interesting outcome. I suppose it indicates that I use a situational approach where I yield or stand up for my position as seems most appropriate for solving the problem in an optimal fashion.
Does this match to how you think of yourself?
When I interpret the results as discussed above, I can see myself in the description. If possible, I prefer to avoid confrontation. I endeavour not to lie or mis-represent my position and to stand for my viewpoint with integrity but also make an effort to do so as diplomatically as possible. I definitely see myself as someone who goes into a conflict wanting to understand all sides and bring about a resolution that everyone is happy with, rather than merely a compromise which has demanded equal concessions by each party but left no-one truly satisfied.
What areas do you think you need to develop?
While I am equally likely to sit back in a yielding or avoiding style as to confidently promote my opinion in a forcing style, I am not always 100% sure that I choose the right moment to implement them. I could certainly learn to pick my tactics more carefully. Another area for improvement would be reducing my tendency to avoid conflict so that I can deal with conflicts when they are minor rather than waiting until they cannot be ignored.
Case study groups were released today at 5pm. I am in Case Study Group 9. After sending an initial group email, I had a quick look at the blogs of my group members and did a forum search to see what they had posted so far in the Discussion forums.
I am optimistic about my group as we seem to be active participants in forums and blogs for the most part. Everyone seems to have a reasonable handle on referencing and synthesis of information as well. I am hoping that we mesh well together and can create a successful and effective team dynamic to fulfill the group case study component of our coursework.
I have created a new link list in the sidebar with links to the blogs of my group members… now for us to come up with a team name and colour scheme ;-).
Inspired by my classmate Liz’s post where she started to get out her ideas for the first ETL504 Assessment, I think I will start some brainstorming of my own.
My understanding of our task is:
Using what you have learned in Module 2 and 3 – design the ideal 21st Century Learning change-oriented school leadership structure, including the TL/Library within that structure.
Pick 15 – 20 key concepts to portray that leadership structure visually in a concept map.
Write an argument that critically analyses your leadership structure – referring to your concept map and the literature.