Reflective Practice: Navigating Teamwork Challenges

The assignment content discusses the challenges faced by a team member who was absent, leading to difficulties in setting problem-solving tasks. The team member's return was welcomed, but it was concluded that they would join later. The importance of incorporating the PBL plan and rubric into the learning process is emphasized. The group charter was initiated, but there were issues with recognition and collaboration. The absence of a self-appointed leader and lack of verbal contributions from two younger team members hindered progress.

Theories of State – Its Role and Relationship with its Citizens
In most general terms, a state may be defined as an organized community living under a system
that governs them. It is a territory where rules are followed and societies prosper and develop
based on its policies (Carneiro, 1970). There are different theories regarding statecraft
propounded by different theorists:
1) Evolutionary theory of state: according to this theory, a state is the product of gradual
process of social development. It is developed from simple and basic social structures
that take a long time to evolve.
2) Force theory of state: according to this theory, state came into existence because of
aggression, war, invasion and subjugation. It says how one person or a group of persons
took control of a population by force.
3) Social contact theory: according to this theory, from the beginning humans have been
living in the state of nature, with no government or law to control them. Subsequently,
they came together and made arrangements for themselves and devised rules and laws.
4) Theory of divine right: this theory talks about the doctrine that kings are bestowed by
enormous power by god in order to rule the people. Any attempt to go against his will
was like going against the will of god.
Apart from the above theories, Marxist theory attempts to define an ideal state that is most
closely associated with what people feel a state ought to be. It challenges and tries to address the
loopholes of a liberal state by emphasizing on the realization of collective aims (Jessop, 1990).
He was of this view that without this approach the emancipation of common men would not be
possible.
Australian Political System
The official name given to Australia is Commonwealth of Australia. The system of government
in Australia is based on both liberal representative democracy and constitutional monarchy.
Queen Elizabeth 2 is Constitutional head of the state. This democratic foundation is based on
pillar of religious tolerance, freedom of speech and association (Marsh, 1983).
The commonwealth of Australia was established on 1st January 1901 with a conglomeration of
six different self-governing parties that used to be the former British Colonies. They came
together to form a union, which are now six states of Australia. The governing laws of this new
union of states, which was now a nation, were laid down in the Australian Constitution. These
were the first crucial laws that defined as to how the Commonwealth government would operate
(MCALLISTER, 1998).
The Australian federation and Constitution
The Australian federal system is primarily divided between Commonwealth and State and
Territory governments. The parliament of Australia consists of the Queen, which is represented
by Governor-General, the Senate and House of Representatives. Having so many important
organs of the government, Parliament is the place where laws are passed that are intended to
affect each and every citizen of the country. The State governments and Commonwealth do not

always converge on all matters but they do cooperate on education, transport, health and law-
enforcement. The State governments constitute their own legislatures, bureaucracies, courts and
police much the same way as the local government bodies are created by state and territory
legislation.
The Constitution of Australia is the supreme body that lays down the roles, responsibilities and
powers of national parliament, the government as well as the courts. It is the guardian that
protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. The Constitution also provides
provisions for the possible amendments (Hirst, 2000).
One important principle being laid down in the constitution is “Separation of Powers”, which,
from any point of view, as far as any healthy and working democracy is concerned, is very
important feature. So, the power of making laws rests with the federal legislature, while the
power of implementing the law solely rests on the executive (the government). Finally, the
judiciary is being solely given the power to interpret the laws. All these bodies will, therefore, be
allowed to function independently without interfering in one another’s domains.
Political Parties and Elections
In Australia, there are primarily three major political parties – The Labor Party, The Liberal
Party and The National Party. Apart from these there are numerous smaller parties such as
Nationals and Greens. The Parliamentarians belonging to Commonwealth, States and Territories
are directly elected by the people. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), as per the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, is responsible for conducting the federal elections. The AEC
for quite some time has been doing a commendable job by carrying out its roles and
responsibilities. As per the above mentioned Act of 1918, the AEC is obliged to determine the
electoral boundaries, maintaining electoral rolls, registration of political parties, and security of
votes as well as keeping track of public funding (Bean and Mughan, 1989). So, all of these duties
have been well dispensed by AEC on its part as the people of the country have been seeing full
and fair elections.
So, it will not be an overstatement to make that in Australia, because of prevalent of proper
electoral system and all the related electoral institutions in place, there is a profound public
participation as well as a fair degree of trust in the political system. If we try to make a
comparison with other countries, Australia indicates a significant level of public satisfaction. So,
as we rightly found out that these elections are a reflective mechanism for electing government
with adequate power to act and at the same time ensuring government accountability as well as
its responsiveness.
Critical View of Australian Federalism and Constitutionalism
Historically, the founding of federation, in essence, was based on colonial concerns regarding
defense as well as efficiency, which were grossly accommodated while the Westminster was
inherited. So, in that sense, the federation became a helping hand in understanding the Australian

Constitutionalism as well. The founding of federation became revolutionary in a subtle yet
fundamental way as it transformed orthodox Westminster Constitutionalism.
It is an accepted fact that Australian founding of federation is an admixture of British and
American legal influences. This paved a way for influencing and shaping modern Australian
constitutionalism. The colonial constitutionalism was constituted by a number of traditions,
which particularly include parliamentarianism and the common law (Orr, 2010).
It is important to understand the innovation that made way for federalism was incorporated by
the newly formed Australian colonies. We still have insufficient knowledge as to whether the
different traditions and indigenous traditions had shaped the Australian Constitutionalism or not.
However, what seems to be clear that the colonial founding was shaped by considerable dynamic
tensions within the orthodox constitutionalism. The Westminster inheritance for a new state and
Commonwealth government largely relied on the conventions. These conventions of British
Constitutionalism were for the responsible government, which gave way for the formal structures
such as the system of the Crown, the House of the Commons and the House of Lords (Galligan
and Wright, 2002). So, these concepts regarding parliamentary and responsible government were
in the forefront for influencing the Australian founders’ understanding of political arrangement.
The tradition of English Common Law has provided a profound understanding of the common
law that underlined the importance of exercising of personal discretion by the judges and the
judiciary. So, it essentially propounded that the judges duty was to discover, not invent, as to
what were the laws that governed the cases at their hands. Also, it tried to thwart away the
ambiguities as when the cases were genuine, the judges were to proceed with a reason by
drawing an analogy to an appropriate precedent. In this regard, Sir Owen Dixon, Chief Justice of
the Australian High Court, once made a very profound remark. He said that Australia subscribes
to a very different yet constructive notion. He espoused that Australians conceive a state as
deriving from the law, not the law deriving from the state (Smullen, 2014). So, the common law
has been a source of the authority of the parliament and the English constitution played a crucial
role in that Australia had its ultimate constitutional foundation – the common law.
The democratic character of Australian federation becomes clearer when we analyze how
Australian Constitution was drafted. Two major conventions played a pivotal role in this as well
- the National Australasian Convention of 1891 and the Australasian Federal Convention of
1897. These conventions drafted the final version of the Constitution and after that it was put to
the people in the form of referendum on the Constitution Bill. After much consensus in states
and territories, the Constitution was adopted by the final endorsement by the people. So, this
whole exercise of Australian founding revealed and confirmed its democratic credentials.
Initially, the Australian federation had the profound difficulties in creating new institutions along
with allocating powers and responsibilities while making states autonomous as much as possible
at the same time. It is interesting to observe that wherever the orthodox constitutionalism had
confrontations with the new age federalism, the founders did not address them in abstract or
theoretical manner. But debates were conducted to reconcile different theoretical concerns in the
specific context of practical or institutional arrangements. One such issue was appeared in 1891

Convention that was concerning the Senate’s power regarding amendment and rejection of
money Bills. However, after tough negotiations, the Compromise of 1891 was adopted and that
restricted the initiation of money Bills to the House of Representatives (Hollander and Patapan,
2007).
The success of Australian federalism can be clearly understood in terms of relations between
states and Commonwealth. The federalism can be viewed in terms of struggle among different
forces like coordinate, cooperative or coercive federalism. So, we can conclude that the
innovative nature of Australian federalism was the churning of ideas and their ingestion in the
Australian Constitution. Therefore, this constitutionalism has immediate and practical
consequences for Australian political life.

References
Bean, C. and Mughan, A. (1989). Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Australia and
Britain. The American Political Science Review, 83(4), p.1165.
Carneiro, R. (1970). A Theory of the Origin of the State: Traditional theories of state origins are
considered and rejected in favor of a new ecological hypothesis. Science, 169(3947),
pp.733-738.
Galligan, B. and Wright, J. (2002). Australian Federalism: A Prospective Assessment. Publius:
The Journal of Federalism, 32(2), pp.147-166.
Hirst, J. (2000). The sentimental nation. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Hollander, R. and Patapan, H. (2007). Pragmatic Federalism: Australian Federalism from Hawke
to Howard. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), pp.280-297.
Jessop, B. (1990). State theory. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Marsh, I. (1983). POLITICS, POLICY MAKING AND PRESSURE GROUPS: SOME
SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM OF THE AUSTRALIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM. Aust J
Pub Admin, 42(4), pp.433-458.
MCALLISTER, I. (1998). Civic Education and Political Knowledge in Australia. Australian
Journal of Political Science, 33(1), pp.7-23.
Orr, G. (2010). The law of politics. Annandale, N.S.W.: Federation Press.
Smullen, A. (2014). Conceptualising Australia's tradition of pragmatic federalism. Australian
Journal of Political Science, 49(4), pp.677-693.
Problem Based Learning Plan

This unit uses a particular method of learning called problem (or enquiry) based learning known
as PBL, a process using small teams to work through the problem of gaps in social work
students’ knowledge about politics and policy. The diagram below represents a PBL approach:
WHAT happens
Problem based learning happens through a series of student-facilitated workshops to address
the learning outcomes set out in the SWK2112 Unit Outline / Plan.
Students work in randomly assigned teams from Week 1 on the PBL questions, all the while
keeping a journal which they use as data for their final assignment, a reflective paper. Your
team will also identify a policy topic to address for the team presentation and Assignment 2.
In Week 4 teams will be finalised and communication established on Bb. Bb tools must be used
for team communications rather than separate Facebook sites.
WHERE all this happens

On campus students: Class time will be used for working in teams to identify knowledge gaps,
identify resources and work together to collaboratively build knowledge for the class tests and
other assessments.
Off campus students: In the online teams set up on Bb and during the compulsory on-campus
Residential in Bunbury in Week 6.
WHY we use PBL as a learning method
This is a holistic approach to learning which works with the head (knowledge), heart (values)
and hand (practice skills) construct used in social work (Kelly & Sewell, 1988). As well as the
knowledge you’ll gain about the political system in Australia and how it impacts on everything a
social worker does, this approach also supports heart/values learning (through relationships)
and hand/skills learning about the self and interpersonal relationship skills, communication
skills, assessment, information sharing, team work, policy activism, planning and research.
HOW it works: The goal
This learning style works by using PBL activities (mini lectures, set tasks, audio-visual materials,
guest speakers) and self- directed individual (readings, watching lectures) and team (team
meetings, team discussions) activities to work through:
1. the unit content
Yes, when you read the unit outline to see what we are going to cover,
it is a lot! But we have 13 weeks and we are surrounded by politics
and policy every day on the news, on our internet feeds (esp The
Conversation), and in our personal conversations around the dinner
table, in the staff room and in the cafés. So it won’t be too hard. Just
go with the process and all will be well.
2. the assessment pieces
 a reflective paper on team processes
HOW it works: The processes
 Students are initially randomly allocated into teams of 5-6 students.

 A knowledge problem is presented to the team. (We have four knowledge problems in
this unit which come directly from the first four learning outcomes).
 The team discusses the problem question until there is agreement that the problem has
been framed adequately.
 While they are doing this, the team is thinking about its process: How are we working
together? Who’s providing leadership? Who is contributing? Why are some people not
contributing? How is conflict being managed? Consensus decision making is used to
develop a team charter.
 Resources in the team are evaluated, ie. someone may already know a lot about the
question/problem and so they can explain it to the others.
 The team determines what needs to happen next to be able to answer the question ie.
students identify what is known & what information is needed.
 Once gaps in the knowledge are identified, research tasks are divided among team
members for further research.
 Individuals research different issues & share information about resources (articles,
videos, web links) for the whole team to use.
 Solutions/answers to the problem are generated AND there is a chat about additional
learning which needs to happen to complete the assessment.
 Students submit individual or team products for assessment (and provide feedback to
others in the team about how they think the team is working).
Facilitators and PBL
 Teams need to be facilitated by team members (it’s recommended this role rotates)
whose job it is to make sure the job gets done, everyone in the team is valued and cared
for and the team can keep going with good manners and good grace until the end of
semester. If there is conflict, it is named and an effort is made to resolve it.
 Facilitators model higher-order process skills and probe for student understanding
 Facilitators don’t identify the issues or state their opinion while others are working on
the problems; they leave space for the others in the team to think through the problem.
 For example, they might ask the others in the team to consider, “what is it that we don’t
know?” or “where can we find that information?” or “what do we think should be done
next?” The facilitator does not provide answers but rather, prompts students to
consider “next steps” and processes along the way.
 If your team is having trouble, revisit the team charter and use the recommended
conflict resolution tool (CUDSAIR) to try and resolve the issue. If this fails, approach the
lecturer who will convene a session (face to face or online) and facilitate until your team
is back on track.

List of suggested policy topics
This list is not exhaustive. Your group can propose another topic to the lecturer.
 Homelessness and affordable housing  Deregulation of public universities
 Removing essential services from
remote Aboriginal communities
 Guaranteed minimum income (as
income security)
 Perpetrator accountability where there
is violence towards a female intimate
partner
 Compulsory income management
 Aged care accommodation  Marriage equality
 Detention of people seeking asylum  The decriminalization of all drugs
Reference:
Kelly, A., & Sewell, S. (1988). With head, heart and hand. Brisbane, Qld: Boolarong Press.

Our knowledge problems & reflection:
PBL knowledge problem Assessment task Marks Due date
1. What is the structure &
role of the Australian
parliamentary, judicial
& other law creation &
decision-making
processes in the
governance of
Australia?
This assessment is the 1st part of Assign 1 (In-class
activities); an in-class test where you will be
required to identify the 20 people (by name,
position and political party) who represent you
(based on your address on the ECU system) in the
state and federal parliaments, and demonstrate an
understanding of the relationship between key
governance structures in Australia.
10 On-campus:
Week 3 (9
Aug)
Off-campus:
Week 6
(Residential)
2. Democracy, the state,
civil society,
parliament, political
parties, federalism,
elections, pressure
groups, neoliberalism
& political satire. What
do these terms mean?
How are they relevant
to your policy topic?
This assessment is the 2nd part of Assign 1 (In-
class activities); an in-class test where you will be
required to match terms with definitions and give
examples of how the terms relate to your policy
topic. Your team will need to divide the list of 10
terms between team members who will write a
definition of their term/s to share with the rest of
their group on Bb. You will need a level of
collaboration to make this assessment doable.
15 On-campus:
Week 6 (30
Aug)
Off-campus:
Week 6
(Residential)
3. Social policy: What is
it and what is its
relevance to social
work practice in
relation to your team’s
specific policy topic?
This assessment is the 3rd part of Assign 1 (In-class
activities); a team presentation where you
address Knowledge Problem #3 in a 20-30 minute
team presentation, defining social policy and
explaining the social policies relevant to your
team’s policy topic.
20
This is a
team
mark.
On-campus:
Week 9 (20
Sept)
Off-campus:
Week 6
(Residential)
4. What is the impact of
social, political &
economic factors on
policy development
(local, state or federal)
This assessment is Assign 2 (short paper); an
individual paper which:
1. defines and summarises social, economic
and ecological sustainability, and
25 Midnight
Friday Oct 14th
(Week 11)

which supports social,
economic and/or
ecological
sustainability in
relation to your team’s
policy topic?
2. discusses how current state or federal
policies relevant to your topic area support
or act against sustainability with reference
to social, political and/or economic factors.
5. How are you using
reflective tools to
demonstrate your
teamwork practice
skills?
This assessment is Assign 3 (reflective paper).
You need to use recognised reflective tools (eg.
Gibbs Reflective Cycle) to describe, reflect and
analyse two incidents from your team work
practice in the class and/or online.
See the Unit Outline & Plan for more information
30 Midnight
Friday Oct 28th
(Week 13) but
preferably
earlier!
THIS WHAT I SENT FOR RVIEW AND NEED HELP WITH
This reflective paper will share content that focused on politics and power and how we
worked in a team where we gathered and discussed our responsibilities. Content
comprised an understanding about the Australian political system and what practices
form policy, which influences people that social workers work with. The discussion
looked at learning about the politics and power of groups by forming a team of our
choice. Guidance was provided by the lecturer and knowledge about teams assisted
with functioning successfully.
Essential for our group was to establish an understanding of the assembly and function
of the Australian parliamentary, judicial and other law creation and decision-making
processes. Theoretical ideas such as ideology, democracy, parliament and pressure
groups created the understanding of politics and policy.
The open communication process formed criteria to understand social policy, political
and economic factors on the policy development process. Finally we looked at how this
impacts sustainability and as a team concluded and shared our understanding of
Australian politics.
The learning process required enrolment into small teams to work on four knowledge
problems. One each for the first four learning outcomes using the principles of problem-
based learning. The assessment required knowledge to demonstrate what has been
learnt. Thereafter reflect and write the outcome on teamwork. The Unit Outline &
Problem based learning provided with insight of assessment requirements.
The lecturer assigned a team and policy topic. The learning materials were made
available on Blackboard and then I began a journal entry for the reflective paper.
The initiative required our group’s collaborative talks about PBL#1 which was carried
out in part face-to-face and also via conversation on black board. I met with a group

member and we shared our awareness and own understanding of the Australian
political system. Singleton ,atkins jinks
Vromen, Al, Gelber, K. & Gauja, A. (2009). REF 2
Initially on line Group work participation started with little or no discussion. Primarily we
were a group of three participants, I asked for the team charter to be signed only three
proceeded to achieve the initial requirement for group work.
Fortunately we had an additional three members join and group discussions continued.
The three new students stated they had not received ECU emails hence the lack of
correspondence. I enquired for the team charter to be signed by the new comers on
several occasions.
I refer to the above where Boyd 1983 states awkwardness in the reflective experience
that somehow it does not come together. The awareness of anxiety within itself involves
an experience. Boyd further refers to a sense of “stuckness”, of having a continual and
disappointing line of thought within oneself. This sense of discomfort is discussed as not
willed by the state of mind.
Finally the team charter was signed, simultaneously as this took place we proceeded to
continue with power point discussions and contributions. The confusion remained in
understanding assignment requirements. Liaison via blackboard worked to a slow start
as not all checked their emails regularly. It was decided we would exchange mobile
numbers and then there was an issue of a suitable time to call. Students did not
respond promptly to text messages and calls due to work and other commitments.
Progress was made in our discussions via email, messages and blackboard as well as
power point share .The group concluded this was almost ready for the residential week.
We proceeded to complete with final group numbers and presentation complete. At last
we settled, or so I thought (Gibbs 1998 stage 2). As a group we met to discuss and
query changes however distance and time did not permit as only two of us met.
Then came further changes with a new member added in the last week before
residentials this added an unforeseeable twist to our group. With change, an attempt to
bring the group to focus seemed a challenge and caused concern on my part. The
newest team member recognised a problem in the content of our presentation. There
came difference with the new member.
Our new group member recognised the inconsistencies in our work and provided
correct assessment requirements as the previous work would have caused a fail in
assessment outcomes.(Gibbs stage 4 ).
Stage 5 in Gibbs reflective cycle looks at conclusion. At this stage I felt best outcomes
would be to let process take place and discuss more at residentals. The concern I had
was whether or not we had adequate time to prepare and create new work as we were

down one and an additional new member.
I could have looked at the assessment requirements and gained better understanding
instead of relying on the primary member to advance to creating a power point. On my
part not enough consultation and drawing out in understanding the assessment took
place. I had met with the student for coffee with intention to discuss PBL requirements.
This failed to take place as we were the only two members that could make the
meeting. Furthermore an agenda had not been created. This would have been helpful
due to pressure of test requirements. Here we collaborated an understanding for the
test instead of gaining insight to course content. This left no time for an essential part of
the meeting Stage 5 Conclusion Gibbs reflective cycle.
Stage six of Gibbs reflective cycle queries if this occurred again what would I do? I
would need to clarify any misunderstanding concerning course requirements. Take
initiative and ensure ownership and responsibility for contributions to course work.
Clarify with the lecturer whether or not content and ideas are in line with assessment
requirements. Finally ensure an agenda is created and feedback to students the
meeting outcomes.
The residentals took place on the South West Campus where we met group
participants. Initial introductions helped to place name to a face moreover
apprehension that comes with the general confusion with on line study and group work.
In order to remove barriers during our initial contact I suggested an analysis of changes
to our work due to a group member’s last minute absence. There was apprehension
within the group. I had to approach the amendment with care as decisions had already
been made by our absent group member who initiated the initial power point. Personally
I felt there was no consultative exchange for new work in accordance with the group
charter.
During the first group meeting I proposed a need for reflection on our problem based
learning plan and to clarify the problem we faced. The problem being an absent group
member and would the member return within the residential week. Moreover what
approach to use as assessment had been changed by our newest member. I suggested
a group facilitator be put to vote however this was not consif=dered and disregarded.
Like the team charter the facilitator and no outcomes within their role as part of course
requirement. I therefore felt the two essential requirements mentioned were disregarded
and not taken in due to this reason. I also felt this should have been communicated to
the lecturer to query if our absent team member would return. None affirmed the
request or engaged to propose an alternative therefore I took on the seemingly simple
task to gain clarity. In summary the team agreed and it was concluded our team
member would join at a later stage. I discussed valuable contributions to be made by
the absent team member and contact via phone, sms or email to ensure fair
contributions were made. One from the team took the onus.
Argyris and Schon discusses problem setting cannot be undertaken by the methods
derived from knowledge. It is complete through the non-technical practice of outlining

the challenging setting so that it may be organized as an end and means clarified. This
is because practical theory deals in wide-ranging concepts and always entails request
to the parameters of an individual case Reflective practice : a critique of the work
Argyris ans Schon pg 1186. REF 4
The PowerPoint became a focal point and allocated tasks were discussed. I again
suggested incorporating the PBL plan and rubric to be used as I found this to be an
excellent and necessary part of the learning. I also questioned the continuing facilitator
role for the experience to be felt by all. (Gibbs stage 4).
I initiated the team charter and liaised via black board. The charter was also shared on
ECU email and progressed with all members finally signed on. The group now had a
self appointed leader who looked upon the charter as incorrect. The time required to
contribute to teamwork as stated on the by the self-designated leader was felt to be
unreasonable. I felt recognition should have been given for this query. None from the
group addressed the issue. At this late stage, I requested moving on to save time as the
charter was suggested in several on line discussions and this being a mere adjustable
working document. I felt due to lack of collaboration most of the group felt disregard for
the charter as there were more pressing issues.(GIBBS STAGE 4). There was no
discussion to reflect on the problem based learning plan to help with the process.
Reflective practice is a resource by which professionals improve a better level of
mindfulness about the act and effect of their performance (Osterman & Kottkamp,
1993,p.19) and as a tactic in which their acts are carefully calculated in relation to the
concept known to the skilled worker and knowingly examined, so that effects of the act
will be useful to the patient (Jarvis, 1992, p.177) Elizabeth Anne Kinsella. I recognised
lack on my part to voice the feeling of self-appointed facilitator role, and felt this was an
issue only I had and therefore made no mention. Furthermore our leader was making
progress somewhat.
In undertaking inconsistencies the emphasis for reflective practice is always the
disagreements amongst the practioners aim to understand practice and essentially how
to practice FITZGERALD PG 25 .
The group meets were uneventful due to the two younger team participant's lack of
verbal contribution. This assumption of age being the reason for lack of contribution
came about as a group debrief. I felt this was hard work and no effort was made as a
team to help engage two of our youngest members who contributed, though felt it a
waste of time to stay on any further due to their power point contributions completed
additionally mention was made other units required their attention. I felt powerless and a
great inability to engage two students from the group no matter what approach I took
(The critical incident, My feelings at the time Dr Marilyn Palmer, 2005). REF 5
Schon (1991) forward-thinking of reflective practice encompasses the ideas entrenched
in the act of knowledge that it includes empathy of the professional practice. This
includes use of theory to practice as well as a process involving professionals’

managing of situational strains, perception, capabilities and understanding (Critical
reflective inquiry for knowledge development in nursing practice pg. 1206). REF 6
Gibbs stage one. Conflict and misunderstanding arose around requirements for the
presentation instantly this became an issue. Gibbs stage two. The last member of our
team linked in on the third day of residentials. Gibbs stage three, I realised it was
necessary for co-operative one on one talks (Gibbs stage four) as the incident was now
critical and conflict would arise due to change in the power point. I requested talks with
the late comer to provide an update, moving forward the adjustment was agreed upon
to deliver and complete assessment requirements.
Borton 1970 looks at levels of difficulties and how to empower on self with choices of
action and choose what to do following the analysis. I could further develop the
assertive component lacking in my personality. This I know was not lacking throughout
the residentals as I brought group to focus and discussed courses for action. The
consequences for this act will bring about in me a more confident and outspoken
personality and also remove the inhibition to share my thoughts as they arise.
Tuckmans’ model of group development.