The Super Death Machine
AWARDS!
The Super Death Machine - the Most Peterly, Best Group with the Worst Name.
Annika Ruvich - For being the most dramatical, connected (as in knowing), creative, Best Improv performer who put up with a delirious PVB during the team project.
Dana Litchman - For being the most enthusiastic cheerleader with the best backflips rooting for the lamest sports team.
Jen Trovato - For being the most courageous, cheerful, task-oriented energizer who is MIA and Most Deserving of an A despite being absent.
Lauren Rosenblum - For being the best dressed with the best tan, most diplomatic and generous group compromiser who is most always hungry in class.
Mary Horan - For being the most studious, attentive, Best Artist, Best Team Player who most always has food with her.
Pam Grewal - For being the most out of her shell, sweetest, quietest, most talkative and best Dorito sharer.
Pete Van Buren - For being the most ‘death machine’ like, humorous, ‘wise owl’ with the best attitude who is always saying quirky funny things and simply rules.
Peter Chan - For being the best commentator, comic, and enthusiastic leader who is most likely to encourage carrot eating.
Deathies lost early lead in Pictionary/Charades Competition
Folks! Don't forget to send my your award nominations! I need these by Saturday midnight! You
must nominate each person in your identity group for an award.
Please!
Also, whoever was present on Friday can gain extra credit/make-up by posting about the stage of development of your group. Name the stage and cite evidence from each of the four dimensions.
Only two more days! Don't slack off now! :-)
As to Friday's game day, a valiant effort but no cigar. Jen, you might have been surprised by the enthusiasm with which Peter C. threw himself into the event (he was cheering for winning the right just to participate in the coin toss for the
choice of whether it would be a pictionary round or a charades round). The Deathies were the best represented team - I think everyone was there, eh? No guilt, Jen, but I'm sure everyone was thinking about you.
Pam~extra credit
In class today, our group definatly showed signs of norming/preforming. We showed affection to one another when we score a point, or did not score a point for that matter. We collaborated to guess the answers, and we were productive because we got so many points. Also we were interdependant, because we relied on the group to guess the answers.
I am not sure if you wanted anything else Steph, because I a pretty sure all you asked for was to use the activity to show which stage we were in. Please post if I need to add anything else to this blog. Have a great weekend!
Pete's awards for sdm
Jen gets my award for courage. We'll be thinking of you Jen, good luck.
Peter C. is awarded most likely to encourage carrot eating.
Mary is awarded most studious, beating out Pam in a tight race.
That's all right because Pam gets my award for best Dorito sharing.
Lauren gets the best tan award, and Dana gets the award for rooting for the lamest sports team.
Annika wins the award for putting up for a delirious PVB during our group project, and I hope I'm
not forgetting anyone. I don't get an award, I just rule. Yeaaaah
annika
what was the decision-making process?
the process was informal. we talked as a group and there was more than one conversation happening at some points. i suggested a couple ideas, peter wanted to cancel class, mary didn't say very much, lauren thought of charades but couldn't remember the name of the game at first, i didn't percieve any conflict and we (that spoke anyway) agreed that class outside would be good. so the process was making suggestions and writing them down
who took up which roles?
peter recorded, others made suggestions, i don't know who the leader was, mary i think was following, dana, pam, pete, lauren and i were suggesting
what stage of group development does your process illustrate?
can i say synergy? cause we are awesome as a group? and we are greater than the sum of out parts? if it's not that then norming. by process of elimination, we weren't forming or storming.
Pam
The decision making process on Wednesday was not that complex in our group. Everyone was just throwing out ideas initially, and we used polling to come to a decision within the last couple of minutes of class. As Mary said in her post, she took more of an individual role, Peter took the recorder role, and Lauren, Annika, Dana and I all shared the Giving Information or Opinion Role.
The stage of group development that our process illustrates is Norming. We were interdependent because we relied only on the group to come to a decision. We had Functional Relationships, and Affection because we all had roles and we were all comfortable with one another. We were also in Cohesion Negotiation because we negotiated to come to our final decision.
Mary: class decision for friday
1. The decision making process – We didn’t really figure out our final decision until five minutes or so were left. Before that people in the group were talking about how we should have class canceled or play games instead. Other things were discussed I don’t remember what they were.
2. It seemed like everyone was contributing except for me – I was doodling. I was really distracted by what I was drawing, didn’t pay attention much or contribute. Which means I took on more of the individual role.
I can’t really remember who played what role in the group: all I can remember is Lauren contributing a lot saying how we should have a picnic and charades.
Someone mentioned about bringing their own food.
Pam elaborated on things like we should do.
Peter looked like he was going to record what the groups final decision was.
Annika and Pam were also contributing giving their opinions or side commentary to what was being discussed.
3. I’m not sure exactly what answer u are looking for here so: I’d say that the group was probably in norming – functional relationships everyone was trying to get to a final answer yet a little off track and excited that we could decide the class on Friday. A lot of negotiating going on last five minutes of time the decision was needed to be made. For some time there has been affection in the group so… it guess it all points to Norming.
fyi from Steph
Liz emailed a question about the "dimensions" I mentioned in the HW question about stages of development. (My response got kicked back for some reason so I'm posting here.)
Look back at the circle diagram to the dimensions listed around the outside edges. There are four types of "evidence" one can look at to see what stage the group may be operating within. I'd like for you to generate evidence for EACH dimension staying WITHIN the particular stage you select. So, if you pick norming, for instance, all the evidence should be examples of the things listed in the circle of norming (no examples from other stages).
Hope this clears it up!
response to Annika
I just read your blog responding to my feedback on the "persuasion" question. I think what I tried to do is to be anonymous when the feedback might be taken more critically and to identify the author when its unequivocably praise. I
know (some of) you think I
live just to embarass you but its not true! :-) Now, everyone go back and read your paper to see if it was "you" who weren't as persuasive as you could have been! (grinning!)
Revised Presentation Grade
hi Jen - nice to "see" you in here. :-) I hope everything is going as best as can be expected.
Dear Deathies,
Peter talked with me about the presentation grade that he and Dana received, reminding me that I had said I'd grade a bit easier on whoever went first. I'd already made an adjustment to their grade so I was hesitant to do more, however, as I've continued to think about it I realize that I really didn't take into account a "lighter" grading scheme, and I did say that I would do that. So, Dana and Peter's grade has been revised up to a 92, which will push your group's average up at least a point (I think). Once I do the math (probably over the weekend), I'll let you know the final outcome.
:-)
Jen
hey guys...
I'm really sorry I haven't been in class all week.I talked to Steph, and she gave me the good sugggestion thatI put something in the blog instead of have her talk to you for me. I'll even use some terms we learned!
I don't think I will be back in class for the rest of the semester (or at least the next week or two). I hope it doesn't bother anyone that I share some personal stuff (the Johari Window theory would be saying that I am revealing unknown information to the group, making that quadrant larger)
My dad got really sick last Tuesday night, and when we went to the hospital, they found that he has a malignant brain tumor. They can't operate because of how big it is and where it is located, so they don't really know how much they can do for him. I am staying home to be with him and help out with his treatments for a while.
Steph knows all this, and I asked her to tell you guys I wasn't just skipping class for no reason. I don't think she knew how much information to tell you all, so I decided this would work out better.
I'm trying to keep busy by doing all my work, and this paper is taking up lots of time(which is good). I'm reading the blog often too, so if we have any assignments in here I will join in the discussion if I can.
Hope you all have a good weekend, and I'll hopefully see you in class sometime in the next few weeks.
Pam- I hope this helps you guys out!!!
Hey everyone,
I talked to Steph after class today, and she broke down what she meant when she said she wanted 15- 30 LEARNINGS, and I think you guys are confused about the same think I was. I hope this helps everyone out....
One of your paragraphs can have at least 2 to 3 learnings in them; she knows what you could have learned from the example you are using, but she wants you to explain it to her (even if it is obvious) so she can make sure that you know you learned it.
****For example, one of my paragraphs was about connected and separate knowing, and I used an example were Peter and I had a debate about what stage of learning we thought our group was in. I said that I learned the difference in how connected knowers (me), and separate knowers (Peter) communicate.
BUT, Steph pointed out that I could have learned more from that one example, like if I used the Johari Window-because I disclosed that I had a difference in opinion, I revealed unknown information to the group. (I just got 2 learnings out of a paragraph that I thought only had one- basically, if you just think about what you wrote for a second, you might be able to find another learning.)
***When she said 30 learnings- she did not mean 30 paragraphs- you could have five paragraphs/examples, and just explain 30 things you learned. Just try to tie things together and explain what you learned from it!!
GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!!!
~Pam
annika
steph, why don't you specify which one of us you're quoting when you describe things we said? including individual recognition would make it easier to understand how the group answers work as a whole. and jen and peter, i agree that i don't know how to begin my paper but since it appears so open, "describe what you've learned," then i'm sure steph will be exceedingly open minded when she reads and grades our wonderful papers. after all only we really know what we've learned, and as long as we prove that we know plenty of terms, vocab, and examples, then she can't argue with our conclusions as to what we've learned from the class.
...i have no idea what my paper is going to say though.
Response to the test question on Persuasion
Question: "Carlos and Loren did not include an activity in their presentation on Persuasion. What is the most fair way for Steph to deal with this? Remember that team grades will be averaged among the entire group. Since this was known in advance, should other group members bear some responsibility for not confirming that each team was on track with all the grading criteria? Make an argument and identify what kind of persuasive appeals you are using to try and convince me."
Dear Deathies,
Most of you (said that you were) presenting information and/or making a moral appeal. One of you resorted to force – “I demand that you re-evaluate the grading”. I have to say I found the majority of your arguments quite weak because a) they ignored, dismissed, or misrepresented the known facts of the situation; and b) the moral basis of your appeals was not identified.
From an evaluative point-of-view (which is part of my job as the teacher), the inability to identify the ethic involved replicates a weakness in Carlos’ and Loren’s presentation because they also did not name the specific moral or ethical
valuein their example about Jon. In fact, I would categorize that example completely differently, as an attempt by Jon to bargain with me for a favor – that his “being a nice guy” means I should grade him “nicely” instead of by objective criteria.
In terms of presenting information, you are all over the map in terms of the grading criteria, some of you contradicted your own argument! For instance, “judge them [Loren & Carlos] on the overall, not the specifics….if it was great, A…or, if not, maybe a C” – which leaves me to wonder, which did
you think it was? A great or only average presentation overall? For the whole group, “they didn’t follow the rules, give them a warning, or in this case [ !! what other case is there? ], drop them down 1/2 or a full grade”. Again, there is
no stand taken here on the quality of the presentation, so there is
no basis for an appeal of any sort!
A stronger argument claims, as one of you did, that “they presented the material very clearly and had class examples for each persuasion presented.” This clear statement is one of perception and speaks to my role and responsibility as the instructor, which is to assess whether or not the information presented is accurate and effective. (I would argue that they presented examples for
every type of persuasion presented, but that’s getting a bit picky, even for me. :-) ]
More confusion enters when we discuss the consequences (grading) for the rest of the group. Many of you stated something to the effect that “you should deal with this by taking points off…because it was known beforehand” but then this is applied only to Loren & Carlos because other teams “have enough to worry about.” There is disagreement about how many points, how big of an impact there should be, with more contradictions: “other [teams]…have worked hard to make an activity…other group members should bear a little bit of responsibility…but I don’t think that their grades should really suffer.” Someone else wrote, “if points are deducted from Carlos or Laurens [its Loren, and my fault for the mistake :-( ] presentation then the whole presentation grading itself is flawed.” Yet throughout the responses is some resistance, ranging from hesitation to outright dismissal, of the rest of the group’s responsibility. I wonder if the reason for this is because, as one person admitted, “It hasn’t occurred to me to check on whether everyone else in my group is on track.”
The most persuasive arguments I read were those that acknowledged the actual conditions of the situation: “we were told to pick an order in our…groups and their group didn’t give [Loren] and Carlos more time by putting them at the end, or making sure they were ready….other group members need to be accountable since it was clearly stated beforehand that the grades would be averaged.” These arguments (there were two) argued that “to be fair to all the groups [teams?] that did do the assignment correctly, it should affect their grade negatively” and “it would be fair to punish the entire [group] for the [team’s] mistake.” Here,
fairness is being applied as an ethic that includes
everyone in the class, the consequences of a decision are applied not only to Carlos and Loren as the most affected, or even just to The Tangents, but to what changing the grading standards means to The Super Death Machine and The Smooth Talking Hermits.
This is an example of a
moral appeal because the effects on everyone are considered, as opposed to
emotional appeals that are based on isolated impacts upon a few individuals.
Extending the concept of fairness, the most interesting idea that came out of all your papers was the notion of “an opportunity for redemption.” For instance, “maybe if the remaining presenters in their group can use Carlos and Loren somehow, either with presenting or somehow to enhance a topic, then the extra work that the two do could be recognized.”
NOW, I see an opening for effective persuasion!
Overall, the choice of “presenting information” was weak, and its application (in terms of facts and supporting evidence) shaky and contradictory. Basically, not effective. The choice of making a “moral appeal” was also essentially ineffective because most of you never named the MORAL VALUE or BEHAVIORAL ETHIC involved, indeed, I read most of those arguments as emotional appeals, not moral ones. You may wish to consider what other persuasion strategies you could have used that might have been more effective, as well as examining the weaknesses in the strategies you did use.
