Thanks to the COM352 students for contributing a bunch of new pages! I'll be moving these pages into the main area of the wiki soon.

From UMassWiki

First Reports based on Schein's categories

• Task and Maintenance Behaviors Report One

• Decision-Making Procedures

• Communication Skills

• Self-Oriented Behaviors. Hmmm, do we need to revisit these?! "Bring back the Caramels!" Steph^(talk) 10:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Second Reports, Teams slightly revised

Task Team Report #2

original

Significant progress is being made in our group coming to a decision about the content of our Wiki page. That said, several tasks have been tackled in the process. In the last fishbowl, several initiations were made. First, Steph made the initiation to suggest to us that we should come to some sort of decision by the end of the session. From there we floundered about for a few minutes. During this time, Eric (who had missed a previous session) asked for clarification on the decisions made during the past class. In turn we informed Eric about the confusion of the last fishbowl. Stemming from this, it was proposed and decided (by consensus) that we should try to decide upon an acceptable approval percentage. After some exchange, it was decided (consensus again) that by a three step process in which each fishbowl edits the proposal made by the previous we will come up with a concept everyone would participate in without much gripe. After this, someone initiated the proposal that we should define the gist of our concept, if not the title. Quickly, we summarized the concept as it had been shaped so far. After, the group members provided a series of clarifications and elaborations which did not ultimately form anything concrete. Again, Steph made an initiation suggesting we should try to define our audience. More clarifications and elaborations ensued. Eventually we formed a modified definition of the previous target audience which we titled the "Umass Community." This was finalized by a verbal consensus. Throughout this entire process the group sought approval with the others in an attempt to maintain productivity.

addendum

Sorry for the delay. I wasn't sure what Fishbowl i was suppose to analyze but, after navigating the wiki for hours, i figure it was the fishbowls from week 6. Since there were two fishbowls activities i do recall participating in one (Fishbowl I). If anyone thinks differently please let me know. Once again, sorry for the delay.This past week has been crazy with spring break around the corner and mid-terms.

As a member of the Task or Maintenance Behavior vs. Self- Oriented Behavior member I was in assigned to observe and analyze the Giving Information or Opinion behavior of participants in Fishbowl H on March 3, 2008. This particular behavior encompasses a very important aspect in making a healthy decision among a group of people. The giving information on opinion task allows members within a group to bring in factual or opinionated sources that can help shape the dynamic of the group. In Fishbowl H, were asked to have a discussion about , “ After Dachau” book in class. Groups members such as Ally and Brian provided factual background information on the book. Dan and Alice also made references to the book as well and also gave detailed facts on events that occurred in the book. Dan made an interesting comparison to the book and the class. I don't recall what the comparison was but, Jose also agreed with Dan on his idea. Many suggestions were made on the topic that was being addressed.

Maintenance Team Report#2

We noticed that students in the fishbowls of week 6 and 7 were trying to reconcile disagreements. Most of the time, students tried to facilitate the participation of others. They shared their ideas and opinions in an orderly manner. They also kept the discussions going by asking questions, for instance, students would ask if the questions had been answered during their discussions. They would ask if everyone agreed to the suggestions as well and initiated solutions to the disagreements. The fishbowl in week 7 was a bit different than the previous ones because Steph was nominated by the class to participate in the fishbowl. Steph asked questions for students to clarify. She also helped by asking questions to lead the students in the fishbowl focused on the topic.

Abccccc 04:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Decision-Making Report#2

First received email

In the fish bowl there was ERIC AMANDA JUSTIN STEPH JOSE ALLIE ERIKA AND GINA. Topic: The important decison that need to be made today? Now! Eric asked about last weeks vote. Justin made a decison to answer, gave information no one from group opposed. Steph Decison about the name survival guide being a problem decison by minoirty beause no one in the group opposed. Erika and Jose were shaking their head in agreement Gina made a decison that the workding needs to be left out and we need to focus on content. Group agreed by silence again. Jose suggest we decide on the "gist" of the web page, others agree again by omission. Just Erika Allie agree on including surrounding area info, however no decison was made to do this. - Angela S.

Team Report

Schein Team Report (Part 2)
Decision-Making Procedures
(By The Fireballs)

Self-Authorized Agenda (Decision by one)

by Dan

In the last group of fishbowls, I observed very few examples of decisions made by one, or any clearly self authorized agendas. These decisions usually happen at the very beginning of fishbowl sessions in the introductions. In this case, during each fishbowl, a member of the group started the discussion with something like, “Oh, we forgot to do names, my name is…” or “Lets do a round of names, I’m …” Other than these examples in the introductions, the only other self-authorized decision making that I observed came in the first fishbowl. A member of the group wanted to move on to a different topic and made a comment to the effect of, “We should talk about the voting now, I think that …” and went on to offer their many opinions on the subject. For the most part, not many decisions are made by one individual in these fishbowls, more of a consensus is reached. And when an example is found, it is usually a minor thing like deciding to do introductions at the start of the discussion.

Decision by Minority

by Angela S.

In the fish bowl there was ERIC AMANDA JUSTIN STEPH JOSE ALLIE ERIKA AND GINA. Topic: The important decision that need to be made today? Now! Eric asked about last weeks vote. Justin made a decision to answer, gave information no one from group opposed. Steph Decision about the name survival guide being a problem decision by minority because no one in the group opposed. Erika and Jose were shaking their head in agreement Gina made a decision that the working needs to be left out and we need to focus on content. Group agreed by silence again. Jose suggests we decide on the "gist" of the web page, others agree again by omission. Just Erika Allie agree on including surrounding area info, however no decision was made to do this.

Consensus/Polling

by Alison & Mike

Fishbowl 1 (After Dachau)

1st thing said was by Alison and she asked the group if they could talk about a certain topic that she wanted some clarification on. Not everyone legit spoke the word, 'yes' but there was enough nodding and motion that made it an essential agreement by all.

Fishbowl 2 (What’s the Gist?)

My job in the decision making procedure group was to recognize polling. There were many attempts to poll throughout the fishbowl, and eventually Jill and Jazz initiated the polling, and the class voted for or against, or impartial to the “Surviving Umass” Wiki idea. Many people not in the fishbowl shouted out saying “let’s vote.” The class ended in udder chaos, however, the decision that was made was that as a whole, we were not in agreement about the Wiki project, and so the class needed to come up with a different idea.

Communication Group Report #2

Our group has begun analyzing the communication of the fishbowls in a less structured manner, attempting to focus on the "deeper" issues of the communication dynamic. While we still paid attention to how often people spoke and interruptions, these subjects were part of the larger attempt to identify unique tendencies of the group.

Week 6 Fishbowls

Fishbowl 1- After Dachau

Aaron & Kat Observers/ Jose & Aly Fishbowl

• What people said in regards to whether they agree or didn't agree: We found that no one stated that they "disagree" but did state that people "agreed". For instance if someone disagreed or were confused they started their sentences with "I think…" not "I disagree." But when people agreed they flat out stated that they agreed. Anthony and Aly led the conversation by speaking the most, and asking questions to instigate conversation. The content of Joes's communication was historical/social aspects of the book.
• In regards to the body language it was seen that the people who were more involved in the conversation and were sitting up straight, while the other members of the fishbowl who were not participating as much were sitting slightly slouched.
• There were not very many interruptions, which shows that people were showing respect for other members in the group, which could be seen as a progression to the adulthood behavior.

Other Observations:

• Some people in this fishbowl showed signs of being nervous and confused. They participated in behaviors like, looking up and around when speaking, uncomfortably laughing, saying "um" and "like" a lot, etc. It seemed like people wanted to make decisions, but were still pretty nervous about what they should be doing.

Fishbowl 2

Jose, Aly, Sara / Aaron & Kat Fishbowl

• Francisco was the first one to talk. Throughout the conversation he acted as a mediator suggesting "We're never going to get anything done" and "it is difficult to make a decision."

Jill's responses were seen as very defensive when people began to question the idea of the Umass wiki.

• Mike used Aarons name when saying that he agreed, along with apologizing when he interrupted Jill. ::*Justin and Francisco stated that weren't necessarily against the idea of theUmass wiki, but they were open to hearing new ideas about what we were going to do.
• When Amanda finally stated that she didn't like the idea, Jill stated that she was happy that other members were voicing their opinion, however her body language was seen as defensive, and it seemed that she was angry about it. Her body language and what she was saying seemed to conflict.

Other observations:

There were many agitated and frustrated looks on people's faces. Many people seemed uneasy within the fishbowl. And once one person displayed their frustration it had a domino effect on the rest of the group.

Week 7 Fishbowls

Fishbowl 1

• The overall mood of this fishbowl was calm. People seemed to be more aware of the other members in the group. When someone interrupted another person, they always apologized afterwards. People were laughing a little bit to lighten up the mood.
• Erika spoke the loudest, while Jose spoke the most. Justin and Gina both used common phrases such as, "so we decided?" "does that make sense?" These kinds of phrases are used as a check-up towards the rest of the group to make sure everyone is agreeing, or on the same page. Because Steph was in this group there were some people who seemed to look at Steph more than any other person in the group, looking for approval. At the same time Steph seemed to have an inquisitive and almost concerned look on her face during the fishbowl. She listened attentively and asked many questions to the group.
• Some people in the group were concerned with the process of the whole wiki project. They kept asking about how it would get done, or who would be reading it, etc. Erika and Allie both appeared to be more concerned with the content on the page: what types of articles, information, etc.

Third Reports, combining norms/skills with stage of development

Maintenance Team Report #3

In class our Fishbowl K talked about their different ideas for the course wiki. Aly brought up an idea to change direction and make personal pages. At the beginning of the Fishbowl Matt brought up his idea of a "target" audience. He said that he wanted the "target" to be more about our group and the dynamics within our group, then about an outside audience. Jill didn't think was what she wanted to do. Brian did a good job of performing "maintenance" when he talked about each sides ideas and how he could see both points of view.

Many members of the Fishbowl conducted maintenance and that helped the overall group discussion to flow easily. We think that many of the maintenance was present by people not interupting each other. There were many instances in the Fishbowl that people talked at the same time as each other and everyone was always polite and this is one of the most important aspects of trying to "improve relations within the group."

Task Team Report #3

As stated above, several proposals about our Wiki page were made during Fishbowl K. Clarifying and elaborating are steps necessary when refining an idea in a group environment. Upon listening to the proposals made during the fishbowl, other members interpreted them and in turn discussed possible issues that would arrive from such solutions. For example, significant time was spent elaborating on the possibility of having personal pages. This discussions raised several questions and as a result no decision was reached.

Based on how members of the fishbowl were seeking information, I noticed that Matty started by requesting that a target or goal be made for the Wiki page. Jill asked what the audience or target would be. Fransisco and Ashley both mentioned a sense of individualism within the page, while Sara questioned whether it would turn out to be like a MYspace page. While information was questioned, an exact plan has not yet been established, but we are on our way to that.

Decsion-Making Report #3

Consensus Testing- In fishbowl K, no one individually engaged in consensus testing, however as a whole the group was seeking essential agreement by all in the aspect of limiting the Course Wiki to something smaller and strictly a view of Com 352 in regards to Umass.

Polling-In Fishbowl K, there was a lot of talk to about making decisions but there was no final decision made. Sara stated in a question “ I think we al agree on this right?” referring to working together in groups. The group did not respond with a simple yes or no, but continued to talk about ideas. Steph had stop the fishbowl because time ran out.

--As far as decisions made by one (self authorized agenda) in the last fishbowl, I really did not pick up on many. The standard “Lets do names… I’m ..” decision by one happened during the introductions, but other than that I did not observe any decision making processes of this kind.

--There was alot of proposals followed by either no objections which makes them a decison by minoirty because there was no disagreement. Sarah at one point attempted to take a poll however it wasn't very successful. I feel that this last fish bowl served as more of a discussion period rather then decision making time, which makes it difficult for me to report out any valuable information.

Initiating:

Participants in Fishbowl K : Jill, Brian, Matty, Franciso, Ash, Sarah, Ally.

- Matty initiated the conversation and discussion on the topic of "target."

Matty believes that our goal is to execute an idea regardless of what the "target" audience is. Matty also supports the idea that no matter what the site will entail, it will eventually shape its own target audience (viewers).

- Sarah disagreed with Matty's response. Sarah does not what our final product

to mirror personal pages such as Myspace and Facebook.

- Ally suggested that we should continue to work toward creating a personal page.

These were examples of task behavior among participants in fishbowl K. Participants are still uneasy on certain ideas that have been proposed. We need a clear definition of what a "personal page" mean and defining what our target audience should be.

fourth and final reports, observing ourselves at work