From: "White Mike" 
To: 
Subject: Group Dynamic Report For Kraus' Group
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:01:48 -0600
X-Priority: 3


Kraus' Group

Members
                    
Justin Dyer    752794                
Lauren Kraus    744793                
Michael Meyers        774258
Elizabeth Collins   743798         
Yen Fong Chan      808425                
Mike Formolo            ?
 
 

Group Dynamic Report
    Our group, Kraus' Group, contained six very intelligent people with
very busy schedules.  When any of us were able to get together, we worked
very well together, but this rarely happened.  We had trouble meeting as a
large group because of constant conflicts in time.  The few times in which
we did meet we worked mostly on questions in our notes.  Everyone was
given a little time to ask certain questions that had been bothering them
to the rest of the group.  The questions were most often about gray areas
in the notes in which they were unsure about.  We also worked on certain
multiple choice questions and practice test questions that were giving us
problems. When we did meet, we met at Memorial Union.  This was a neutral
distance from everyone and our group likes to drink coffee.  When we met
here the entire group met. 
    Other times only certain subgroups of usually two of us would meet.
These subgroups met in designated places set up between two members.  We
found that people living closer to each other worked together more often.
In these subgroups we accomplished much more.  In these we broke down the
notes, analyzed the questions, and studied for the test.  I think with
only two people there is less stimulation to fool around and make jokes
the whole time.  Two things that we never did discuss in our groups were
the news items and online materials, making us unable to make the
connection between organic chemistry and real life. 
    Collaboration works well in a non-competitive grading system, BUT we
all oppose the non-competitive grading system.  Even if the system is
competitive, a curve usually is formed, which in turn helps everyone. 
    Overall, we enjoyed working in the groups because of the social
interaction, but this interaction was also our downfall because we never
got anything done.  We came up with a few suggestions on improving the
system.  First, we thought if the groups were smaller, say three people,
then more would be accomplished due to less joking. Second, we feel that
groups would be more likely to meet if they were set up by regions where
people live.  Our college lives are just too busy not to save every bit of
time.  Third, scheduled meeting times would improve the amount of time
spent in the groups.  In the future, I would stick with the groups because
I'm sure some people work great in these groups, but maybe change the
group structure.