Index: L1 / School Social Work / Children and Young People / Recording / 70144153
Keywords: Educational and mutual aid group / youth leadership / clients’ self-understanding / dealing with conflicts / use of recording
Abstract: Presented below are recordings of the eight group sessions of the educational and mutual aid group organized by the placement student. The recordings of the first three sessions are documented in greater details. Each recording follows a systematic discussion of the following: identifying data, process summary, evaluation of the achievement of objectives, members’ participation, evaluation of the group process and dynamics, evaluation of the use of activities, suggested areas for improvement and follow-up work. Recordings of session four to eight are briefly presented with identifying data and a brief summary of the session content. Of special mention is the fieldwork instructor’s comments/feedback (in italic) that are inserted in the recording of session one. The reader will find it useful to see the exchange between the placement student and fieldwork teacher and the potential use of social work recordings in facilitating fieldwork learning.
Date: 17/03/00
Time:
3:45-5:00p.m. (planned time)
3:45-5:05p.m. (actual time)
(Keeping record on this helps to monitor the “time” dimension in the implementation process of the group programme.)
Session number: 1
Venue: Classroom
Worker-in-charge: Q
Attendance: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K
Objectives of the session:
(A standard version of the session plan for the first group session. Why setting group norms and contracting up front? Whose norms? What is the contract for? Norms and contracts should be aspects of a group’s life. Norming is a process, rather than a task of the worker. What do we “introduce” between and among workers and members? It isn’t an objective if it means going through the convention of going around identifying names, etc. What do we mean by “a good relationship” right in the beginning of the group’s life? I suppose what we do in the first group session is to start off the interpersonal process and to create certain conditions within the socio-emotional life of the group. )
All members arrived at about 3:40 p.m. I asked them to help me to push the tables and chairs. After that each of them was sitting on a chair in the arranged circle, which was in the center of the classroom. I did not give them labels to write down their names to stick on their clothes. It was because all of them were classmates. I then introduced myself and took their attendance. As part of the ice-breaking game, I asked them to assign one food item in the restaurant to represent each of them. During this process, I found that they had some perception of each other through the particular type of food they would select to represent some members. It seemed focus on member (I). (Be more specific about this. Do you mean something negative?) Then they reflected about the feeling of this game and disclosed their experience. (Why didn’t you report on this? That will help me to have a crude image of the interpersonal process in the beginning.)
Before playing the game, I asked them to make sure there was nothing behind their chair so that it would be safer for them. (I) laughed and said it was not necessary to do this, since they were old enough to protect themselves. (Did you find this remark of special meaning to you?) After this, I asked them to be careful when they were playing the game. Suddenly (D) fell down when he was struggling to get to a chair. Then (I) helped him to stand up and it was not too serious. After that all of the other members blamed (I) because he said it was not necessary to take the safety precaution. I could see that (D) felt embarrassed and told us that he did not know it would happen. I asked if everyone should have responsibility in this case and told them to push the tables and chairs to the side to create more space. (Note that this was the first time the group got into a situation in which a member was “blamed” by others. How did you perceive this event from a group work perspective? Your “intervention” expressed your authority – as an arbitrator of fault/responsibility.) It was because I wanted to change their focus from (D) to other things.
After playing the game, I asked them to share their experience in leading game. They talked about the reasons of their failure in leading game. After all of them had expressed their experience, they began to discuss the ways to overcome their failures. (K) said that he wanted me to teach some techniques of game leading. He had joined a leadership training program which was provided by the school. It did not talk about these topics. He felt it was not helpful for him. (B) took part in a leadership training camp last summer. It was compulsory for the student leaders in the school. The camp provided a chance for the student leaders to lead games as well. But it did not evaluate the feedback on the games. Therefore (B) did not know what he had learned through the games.
When (J) talked about his experience in leading game, he felt it was too difficult to avoid argument amongst members. (C) also showed he had faced the same problem before. I wanted them to elaborate more about their meanings of `argue’. (And what is your “practical argument” for them to elaborate?) (J) said that members would disobey the game rules. He did not know how to handle it. I asked the other members what would they do when they faced this problem. (This is a process intervention. Again, what is your “practical argument”?) (E) told us they would stop the discussion topic. (G) responded that he would stop the dialogue between the members in conflict. (Did you recognize this as a “group problem solving” episode?) All of them felt escaping the conflict was the most suitable method to handle it. Through the discussion process, I found that they began to talk about their bad experience and showed their understanding by self-disclosure. It was because their experiences were quite similar. They talked more and more about their experiences. I appreciated their active sharing of past experiences. (What we are seeing is a process of “building good relationship”. Note the sharing of failure/difficult experience involves risk-taking. Also, responding to another member’s difficulty by offering advice would also be an expression of care.)
After the sharing, we discussed about the group content on each session. I suggested to them about each session, which were planned. (Including members to work out the group content – what they are going to do in the group is a sign of shared group ownership. Very often, members would go along with whatever the worker put forward. So, do treat it as tentative plan and prepare members for later revision – when they have better idea of what the group can serve them.) All of them agreed. (H) hoped all sessions would be more interesting. I promised them I would try my best to do this. (Don’t promise too early. You assume ownership – as though you are the person to make it “more interesting”. Moreover, you missed the opportunity of helping members to examine what they valued – “more interesting”. What is it?) I told them that we might have some homework to do before each sessions. And they should attend each session on time. They also should get over 75% and above attendance to gain a certificate. Furthermore they should keep confidential about the content of each sessions. They also agreed and signed the contract. (Now, it is rather transparent that you are the one who “leads” the group.” I suppose this is by “design”. Or is it by “default”?)
Then I put forth my suggestion that in the last session, we would chose one member who had participated most actively in the group. This would encouraged them to pay attention to the other members and hopefully encourage their involvement. They welcomed this idea and smiled at each other. (Yes, this is the sort of structure that we can have leverage on shaping the group processes. It is also an instant of norming – that participation is valued. On the other hand, it would also mean introducing “status hierarchy” into the group.)
At the end of this session, I summarized the objectives of this group. I wanted to collect their feedback of the group design. Most of them enjoyed the session. They felt good because they had the chance to share their experience with the other members that they had not shared before. (A) said that he feared to talked this problem with the others. He thought it was only his problem. (Good that you reported the details because members’ feedback is important.) I stated that I hoped they could enjoy the group. Then I reminded them to prepare one game to be presented in the next session. After that they actively tidy up the room and I praised them what they did.
The group orientation was set as an objective in session one. We had introduced each other, the group content and established the group norms and contract. I felt sorry that I could not let all members share their experience, such as (F). But he also gave his reflection of feeling about the other experiences.
(What is important is to “evaluate” the interpersonal process and the sort of socio-emotional climate that was evolving in the group. I don’t think it is all that important to evaluate “achievement of objectives” – as though the group is some sort of planned exercise.)
I felt members’ participation was more than I expected. Although the group was in the pre-affiliation phase, the group members could actively share their experiences with one another. Some of them expressed they felt happy to have a chance to share their experiences and feelings. I was pleased that they could encourage the other members to express their feeling through self-disclosure. (Right, this is something we look for – not just whether they participate in a spontaneous manner but rather the quality of interaction – like “encouraging other members to express their feeling…”)
Members’ interaction patterns:
In the first 5 minutes in sharing, the maypole interaction pattern occurred. At that time I acted as a central figure and communication occurred from leader to members. I tried to ask the other members to share their feelings about that situation. Since all members were classmates, they knew how to understand the others’ feelings and gave emotional support for the members. Thus, free floating pattern occurred. All members took the responsibility for communicating. When one member expressed his experience, another member would also share and give feedback to him. (Good that (a) you were monitoring the interactional pattern and your part in it, and (b) you did bring in classroom learning in making sense of your practice.)
Group atmosphere:
The overall group climate seemed to be warm, friendly and relaxed. It showed high degree of spontaneity in their participation. (Yes, “spontaneity” is a good marker of the socio-emotional state of the group.) The social climate was supportive. Through self-disclosure, they could know more about other members and gave encouragement to others.
Group cohesion:
Although it was the first session, the group cohesion was obviously high. It was because all members were classmates. During the sharing, they showed interest in other members’ experiences. They also actively arranged and re-arranged the tables and chairs before and after the session. It was because they were familiar with each other and had many opportunities to cooperate before. (Note the kind of markers you referred to in “assessing” group cohesion.)
Sub-groups:
In this session, I did not notice any sub-groups. I found that they did not have any regular sitting arrangement. However, I found an isolated member, (I), who received negative attention from the other members. For example, they gave him a nicked name, which had particular meaning. (Why is it that you would attend to the presence/absence of sub-groups? Is it a standard item that we need to attend to in our role as a group worker? Be that the case, we need to examine why they are considered standard items.)
Group development:
The first session was in a pre-affiliation phase. It was the beginning phase of a group development. According to Harford (1971), it was used to pre-group planning, convening and group formation. I thought they tried to gain trust and build relationship in the group. (Identify the markers that lead to such impression/assessment – that “they tried to gain trust and build relationship…)
It was good to use game to warm-up in the group. Group members seemed to welcome and enjoy this game. It led the group members to interact with each other and also reminded them of their experience in leading games. They also would compare the difference between now and before. It provided a chance for the members to know more about the others. They could gain support from the others members’ encouragement.
In the first session, my role was to be a facilitator of the group. It was because I suggested organizing the structure of group interaction, sharing and discussion. Actually, I would ask some questions to facilitate their participation between members and members. I also acted in partnership between members and me. It was because I would cooperate to discuss the task with members and also collected their opinions on the session plans. (Good that you offer a role description here – what facilitator means and what partner means.)
(Please examine your practice experience. What was it like for you to act as a group worker in this session? Compare it with your experience/impression in skill laboratory.)
Suggested areas for improvement:
I should provide more chance for each member to express their feelings and share their experience in the group.
Follow-up work:
Activities:
3:45-3:50 Moving chairs and tables
3:50-4:05 Warm-up game and introduction
4:05-4:30 Sharing experience in leading games
4:30-4:35 Group introduction: session contents, group norms
4:35-4:40 Asking for each expectations and ideas
4:40-4:45 Feedback on the group contents and session plans
4:45-4:50 Group contract making
4:50-4:55 Set homework
4:55-5:05 Evaluate the first session
Date: 24/03/00
Time:
3:45-5:00p.m. (planned time)
3:50-5:05p.m. (actual time)
Session number: 2
Venue: Classroom
Worker-in-charge: Q
Attendance: A, B, C, E, G, H, J, and K
Objectives of the session:
Process summary:
All of the members arrived at about 3:45p.m. They actively helped me to arrange the tables and chairs. After that each of them was sitting on a chair in the arranged circle, which was in the center of the classroom. After I had taken their attendance, I asked them “ Did you remember to do the task?” It was because I wanted them to think and be reminded about session one’s content. I asked for a volunteer to introduce the game he had prepared. I asked them to try their best to present their game. During this process, I found that they were shy to be the first one. At that time, all members kept eye contact with each other, but avoided eye contact with me. Suddenly, (E) told us he wanted to try first. I told all the members to clap their hands because I wanted to give encouragement to (E). Firstly, (E) explained about how to play the game. All members kept discussing how to play the game. (H) asked (E) to do a rehearsal before playing the game. After the rehearsal, (E) asked “Do you have any question?” All the members agree to start to play the game. During the process, I found that some problems had occurred. They argued about the ambiguous pointing system. For example, some members did not know that another member was pointing at them with their fingers. After three rounds, they felt no interest to play the game.
When the game had finished, I asked all the members to give their opinions and feelings about the game. They seemed focus on the regulation of this game. (A) said that “It was too difficult to identify the direction of the pointing finger.” (K) agreed that “I did not know exactly who was pointed at.” (C) suggested that “ We should have more space between one another to reduce this situation.” (J) also suggested that “Someone who was pointed at by the other could stand up. It could let the members know.” (G) said that “I felt it was a little bit boring because there was no punishment.” Many members agreed it should set some punishment or price because it could make the game more exciting. After they reflected on their feelings on the game, I summarized their feelings and opinions.
Before playing the second game, I asked them to keep in mind about the suggestion in the first game. (A) said he wanted to present his game. All members were clapping their hands and laughed at his behavior. Then he also presented the regulation first and a punishment rule. It was a game about repeating a series of actions. During the process, I felt all members, except (G), seemed to enjoy it more than the first one They were not only focused on repeating their actions, they also focused on seeing the others’ actions. (G), however, seemed not interested to repeat the actions.
After playing the game, I asked them to share their experience in leading the game and playing the game. (E) talked about the reasons of his failure in leading the first game was that he was too passive. He felt (A) led better because he could introduce the game by talking and showing at the same time. (A) reflected that “I was also frighten, but I thought I should enjoy presenting it so that others could also enjoyed it.” (H) said that many members could see the others when they were playing the game. (G) looked embarrassed and told us that he found it difficult to distinguish between right and left in this game.
After all of them had expressed their experience, they began to discuss the solutions. (G) suggested “We could stand on a horizontal line, so that we could keep in front of the leader.” (C) agreed that “It would provide the leader to see clearly and avoid members to see the others.” (B) said that “We should set some rule which should obey the leader’s result to prevent members from disagreeing with the result. Through the discussion process, I found that they began to think more about how to lead a game. And they talked more and more about their suggestion. I appreciated their active participation.
After the sharing, we discussed the feedback for this session’s content. (C) said that he forgot to prepare a game before this session. Several of them also told me that they had also forgotten to do this. (G) reflected that it would affect the group climate. Then they agreed to prepare the task before the following session. They welcomed this idea and smiled at each other.
At the end of this session, I summarized the objectives of this group. I wanted to collect their feedback of the group design. Most of them enjoyed the group. (A) felt good because they had the chance to think more about game leading. (B) said that he did not think about those things before. (C), (H) and (J) felt sorry about not preparing the task. (G) hoped to have a chance to a lead game with others. (K) was pleased that he had a chance to see others leading games and thought it could help him to prepare himself for game leading. I stated that I hoped they could enjoy the group. Then I reminded them to prepare one leadership experience that they could present in the next session. After that they actively tidied up the room and I praised them for what they did.
In session two, we had discussed about the advantage and disadvantage of games, which were prepared by the group members. I felt sorry that I could not let all members lead their game. But all of them could reflect on their feelings about the games and gave their opinions and suggestions about the games. It provided a chance for them to share their opinions with the others. It also provided a chance for them to discuss what they did. This action was taken to enable the development of relationships.
Members’ participation:
I felt members’ participation was less than I expected since they did not prepare well for their task. It was in the power and control phase and they tested the members’ responses. Some of them expressed they felt happy to have a chance to share their feelings that they did not share before. I was pleased that they could encourage the other members to present their planning task and also express their feeling and opinion to each other.
Members’ interaction patterns:
In the first 3 minutes in leading game, there was silence. At that time I acted as a member. Since all members were classmates, they knew how to begin together and give emotional support to each other. During the discussion, a free-floating pattern occurred. All members took the responsibility to communicate with each other. When one member expressed his experience, another member would also share and give feedback to him. After that, I would summarize the ideas and help them to see the points more clearly. I did not want to talk too much and dominate the group.
Group atmosphere:
The overall group climate seemed to be warm, friendly and relaxed. The group showed a high degree of spontaneity in their participation and sharing. However, they were passive and shift their responsibility to others when presenting the task. The social climate was supportive. Through self-disclosure in sharing, they could know more about other members and gave encouragement to the others.
Group cohesion:
Although it was the second session, the group cohesion was obviously high. It was because all members were classmates. During the sharing, they showed interest of the members’ experiences. They often used ‘we’ ‘our group’ to present their opinion. It showed that they saw the group working together as a unit. It was because they were familiar with each other and had much cooperation from before.
Sub-groups:
In this session, I did not find any sub-group through the process. I found that they did not have any regular sitting arrangement. They always talked with a free-floating style in the group.
Group development:
The second session was the power and control phase. It was the beginning phase of a group development. According to Harford (1971), it was used to pre-group planning, convening and group formation. I thought they tried to openly express their feelings.
(Comment: The placement student has used similar ways of evaluating the group process and dynamics. In some areas, exact wordings as that used in session one were used, apart from making some minor changes. Following a standard format is not a preferred way of doing a recording. In evaluating a group session, the worker needs to actively examine and interpret the social encounters that had taken place amongst the participants.)
It was good to use task to shift leader role from social worker to members. I made use of the opportunity for group members to plan the game. It was a way to lead members to actively experience their learning. Group members seemed to welcome and enjoy this educated method. (Comment: What does `educated method’ mean?) It led the group members to contact with each other and also remind them of their experience in leading games. They also would compare the difference between members and I. It provided a chance for the members to know more about the others. They could gain support by other members’ encouragement.
In the second session, my role was to be a member of the group. It was because I was doing less in the production role. (Comment: What does this mean?) I experienced more friendliness and teamwork. I tried to shift the leadership role to the other members and would discuss the task review with members. And I also collected their opinions about the session content.
During the sharing part, I show my acceptance of several members’ apologies for not preparing well for the task. I got them to get into a practice of preparing for the following session because it might affect the group climate. I tried my best to lead the members to showing their ability through reviewing the task.
Suggested areas for improvement:
I should provide more chance for each member to present their task for review and share their experience in the group.
Follow-up work:
Activities:
3:50-3:55 Arranging the chairs and tables
3:50-4:05 Reviewing task - game 1
4:05-4:20 Sharing and giving opinion in game leading
4:20-4:35 Reviewing task - game 2
4:35-4:50 Sharing and giving opinion in game leading
4:50-4:55 Setting homework
4:55-5:05 Evaluating the second session content
Date: 31/03/00
Time:
3:45-5:00p.m. (planned time)
4:15-5:30p.m. (actual time)
Session number: 3
Venue: Classroom
Worker-in-charge: Q
Attendance: A, B, C, D, E, G, I and K
Objective of the session:
We held a birthday party for (B) before we started our session. All of the members arrived at about 4:15p.m. . They helped me to arrange the tables and chairs actively. After that each of them was sitting on a chair in the arranged circle, which was in the center of the classroom. After I had taken their attendance, I asked them to divide into two groups. This game required them to discuss and make decision. During the discussion process, I found that they used many methods to get other members to agree with them. For example, some members would spend much time to express their point of view. After that, we used a calculation method to find out who were most dominant.
I told them to share their feelings during the process. At that time, all members kept eye contact with each other, but they avoid doing this with me. I invited the member (I) who had the lowest score to express his feeling first. I told all the members to clap their hands because I wanted to give encouragement to (I). (Comment: The placement worker is directing the members to do what she wanted them to do. Is it necessary to be telling the members what they should do, in this case, give encouragement to (I)? It would be better for her to be encouraging towards (I) without making the members do likewise. The members can then act in ways that they see fit and this can be in an encouraging way or something else.) (I) told me that he analyzed the advantage and disadvantage to the members. (K) responded, “I would agree with his point after his explanation.” (B) said, “(I) would say something, which I did not think before, so that I would agree with him.” (E) explained that he had misunderstood the game instruction which was why he hardly gave his opinions during the process.
In the other group, (A) expressed they had similar opinions, so that they made their decision more easily. (C) told me that he found each members had equal participation in their group. (D) and (G) said that they would use simple majority vote when they could not resolve a disagreement. But (G) said that seeking differences of opinion were a better method to make agreement. However it was a time consuming method. I appreciated that they could have active participation in the game and discussion. I told them they should try to involve everyone in the discussion. (Comment: It will be good if the placement worker had reflected on how she had interacted with or responded to the group’s experience of making use of majority vote to resolve disagreement or the seeking of differences of opinion in coming to an agreement. If she had not, then it is a missed chance to examine with the group two rather different processes in dealing with difference. The group worker is not simply looking for active participation but helping members to appreciate how they are participating or how they are making sense and connecting with others’ experiences and ideas.)
Then I asked them, “ Did you remember to do the task?” I wanted them to recall session one’s content. I asked for a volunteer to share his leadership experience. (K) told us he wanted to try first. He talked about his experience in a football team. He said he would use something to force members to practice. For example he would hold their team shirts. After had finished sharing, I invited the members to respond. (A) said, “It was too difficult to for the members to enjoy themselves in the team. (C) agreed and said “But I felt (K) used too ruling method. (D) suggested that (K) could use some punishment for members who were absent for practice. (I) further suggested, “The team members who behaved well could receive a reward.” (G) said, “I felt it was a positive way to encourage members to practice.” Many members agreed some punishment or rewards should be set because it could get the team to have more cooperate and a better climate. After they had shared, I summarized what was said.
Then (A) said he wanted to present his bad experience in leading. All members were clapping their hands and laughed at his behavior. During the process, I felt he was very unhappy in leading the committees in the House. (A) felt he had too much workload in the House. Also, he could not cooperate well with the committee members. (B) said he was also a House chairman. He would shift some responsibility to the committee members. It could help them to be more committed and be more involved in the House. (E) agreed that power was a significant factor in leading group. Leader should avoid absolute power in a group. Otherwise members would loose their effect in the group. (Comment: (1) What does `loose their effect in the group’ mean? (2) Some group members had shared rather good ideas on leadership, sharing responsibility, absolute power, etc. How was A’s interacting with these other opinions? Did he feel that his experience and feelings were being heard or attended to?)
At the end of this session, I summarized the objectives of this session. I wanted to collect their feedback on the group design. Most of them enjoyed the group. (E) felt good because they had a chance to hear more about others’ experience. (A) said that he felt good to share something he had not shared before. (G) and (D) felt that the time was limited and they did not get a chance to talk about their experience. (C) hoped to have a chance to share in the next session. (K) was pleased that he had a chance to share and to collect others’ feedback. He thought it could help him to prepare himself the next time. (Comment: Yes, it is good to know how K feels about sharing his experience and the responses from other members. The group worker is not just about getting group participants to share or talk but keenly attuned to the quality of the social and emotional exchange between and amongst members. How do members experience the process? Do they feel validated and respected?) I stated that I hoped they could enjoy the group. (Comment: What does `enjoy’ means in this context, particularly since the worker has stated this repeatedly in the last three recordings?) Then I reminded them to prepare one substance, which would represent them and present on next session. After that they actively tidy up the room. And I praised them what they did.
In session two, the planned objective was for the group members to explore their self-understanding. (Comment: It is not apparent in this recording so far how this objective was experienced in this session.) We had discussed about the methods for making decision and leading a group or team. I felt sorry that I could not let all members have a chance to express their experience due to the limited time. All of them could reflect on their feelings and share their opinion and suggestion about the games. It provided a chance for them to share their opinions with the others. It also provided a chance for them to discuss what they did. This action was taken to enable the development of relationships and self-disclosure next time.
Members’ participation:
I felt members’ participation was more than I expected because they had prepared well in their task. It was in the power and control phase and they tested the members’ responses. Some of them expressed they felt happy to have a chance to share their feelings that they did not share before. I was pleased that they could encourage the other members to present their planning task and also express their feeling and opinion to each other. It showed that they had developed the bond, purpose and cohesion.
Members’ interaction patterns:
In this session, members’ participation was different from the first two sessions. It showed a broader participation among members. I acted as a member and they took turns to lead the group session. I encouraged the members to participate in the group. During the discussion, a free-floating pattern occurred. All members took the responsibility to give feedback to each other. When one member expressed his experience, another member would also share and give feedback to him. After that, I would summarize the ideas and help them to see the points more clearly. It was because I wanted the members to have a deeper interest and involvement.
Group atmosphere:
The overall group climate seemed to be harmonizing and relaxed. It showed high degree of spontaneity in their participation and sharing. They were attempting to pay attention to one’s self through self-disclosure. The social climate was supportive. Through self-disclosure in sharing they could know more about other members and gave encouragement to others.
Group cohesion:
The group cohesion was obviously high. I used discussions and sharing to encourage interaction among members. During the sharing, they showed interest in other members’ experiences. They often used “we” and “our group” when sharing their opinion. It showed that they saw the group working together as a unit. It was because they were familiar with each other and had much cooperation before.
It was good to use task to shift leader role from social worker to members. It could act as an information seeking method. Members could get suggestions from the others. On the other hand, they also acted as a role of sharing information and personal experience with the others. Group members seemed to welcome and enjoy this educated method. They also would compare the difference between members and I. It provided a chance for the members to know more about the others. They could gain support by other members’ encouragement.
In the third session, my role was to be a directing role. It was because I was raising an issue for discussion. After that I would summarize their point of view. I experienced more friendliness and teamwork. (Comment: To reflect on the contradicting terms ‘directing role’ and ‘teamwork’.) I tried to shift the leadership role to the other members.
During the sharing part, I show my appreciation towards several members’ sharing of their experience and good preparation in their task. It was because it might affect the group climate. I tried my best to facilitate the members to show their ability through reviewing the task.
I should provide more chance for each member to present their task for review and share their experience in the group. I tried to facilitate different members to share in each session and let them have more equal opportunity to share.
4:15-4:20 Arranging chairs and tables
4:20-4:35 Self-understanding game
4:35-4:45 Sharing and giving opinion in discussion
4:45-5:00 Reviewing task - express experience 1
5:00-5:15 Reviewing task - express experience 2
5:15-5:20 Set homework
5:20-5:30 Evaluating the third session content
Date: 07/04/00
Session no: 4
Venue: Classroom
Worker-in-charge: Q
Attendance: A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, K
Objective of the session:
In session 4, firstly we started to play a game in communication skills. It was about finding the advantages and disadvantages between one-way and two-way communication. Through the process, members’ felt that it was difficult to get a clear message from one-way communication. It was because they could not communicate their needs to the presenting member. On the other hand, in the two-way communication, they were allowed to ask questions both ways. They predicted it was a more effective method. However, it was not, since several members were asking questions and giving answers at the same time. This game was used to introduce the importance of the methods of communication.
After that, we started to share their experience in public talking. They presented some situations, for example, speaking during meetings or school assemblies and being a master of ceremonies. They shared about their experience and the audience’s response. They also talked about what difficulty they had faced. Then we made used of role-play on some settings to discuss how to solve the difficulty. They would do the same setting several times using different options and contrasting between each option.
Finally, I collected members’ feedback on this session. They felt the role-play method was interesting. They could share their point of view through acting. They also felt that it could make the session more fun and enjoyable. However they said that the method was time-consuming and they could not role-play for all options in one session.
Date: 12/04/00
Session no: 5
Venue: Classroom
Worker-in-charge: Q
Attendance: A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J and K
Objective of the session:
Process summary:
In session 5, we started later than the planned time because of a basketball competition in school. So I advised them to skip the initial game and move directly to review the task. Each member prepared a short paragraph on something they used to describe themselves. In the process, they would compare themselves with the appearance, habit and characteristics of a thing or an animal. After each presentation, the other members would give the member some feedback. They would discuss about his gesture, speaking tone and content.
After that we talked about our feelings for this session. They felt the pleasure to present and get feedback from other members. It showed that they had paid attention to each other’s presentation. They could analysis about the content and speaking style. They also shared their feeling in a speaking or listening situation.
Date: 19/04/00
Session no: 6
Venue: Classroom
Worker-in-charge: Q
Attendance: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J
Objective of the session:
Process summary:
In session 6, the members became closer as a group. It was because we were discussing and sharing our experience with conflicts. They interpreted the cause of conflict and discussed the solutions. During the process, the members had share their opinions towards a particular incident. They were rather fully involved at that time. It was because that incident happened in their class. Although they were aware of the incident, they had not discussed it before. They felt very happy to talk and share during this session as they seldom had the chance to do so. It could reduce the misunderstanding amongst the members.
In the next part of the session, we discussed the lunch program that would be held by them. They decided to hold a lunch radio program on the topic of love. We discussed the preparation for that program.
Date: 12/05/00
Session no: 7
Venue: Classroom
Worker-in-charge: Q
Attendance: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J
Objective of the session:
Process summary:
As mentioned before, Session 7 was a lunch radio program. The members had prepared all the things before lunch. Although they encountered many difficulties, they still managed to finish it. The group then spent some time after school to evaluate the program. They reflected that the time was limited to prepare for the program. They needed to use the weekend to discuss the program content. During the process, they experienced the concern members gave to each other. For example, they would take shift to have their lunch. It showed that they were very nervous in the process and enjoyed this arrangement. (Comment: How is this sentence linked to the preceding one?)
Date: 13/05/00
Session no: 8
Venue: Classroom
Worker-in-charge: Q
Attendance: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K
Objectives of the session:
Process summary:
Session 8 was an evaluation session. I used the review method to help them to know what they had learned. In this last session, they expressed that they felt happy to participate in the group. They also shared about their feelings during these eight sessions. I thought they had positive feelings towards themselves because they felt they had changed and built up a good relationship. At the same time, I let them to review what they had learned and encouraged them to continue to share with members.