Reflection Journal #7

When I applied to be in the LEAD with Honors cohort, I expected to have guidelines, structure, and design already planned out for us for our four year journey. While we do have some of that, such as our course structure, the way we govern ourselves was just messy and sloppy. Because of this course, however, we were able to answer questions that were all on our minds at our monthly meeting this past week. With that being said, had there been structure before we joined the cohort, we would have been able to have better group performance instead of wasting away all last semester on what our structure was going to be. Because of our sloppiness and indecisiveness last semester; this is most likely the direct reason we saw a decrease in membership by nearly 20%. As of now, we lost almost 30% of our original members, and the numbers are just going to keep dropping. It might be inevitable, or it might be something else that we need to discuss to make sure it doesn’t happen again for the future cohorts.

To maximize group performance, we will need to have someone just draw the line and take a vote on something, rather than bouncing around an idea for 45 minutes at each meeting. I know we want to have all our ideas on the table, but when we just keep brainstorming without deciding on what we want to do, it can drive a lot of attention away from our main focus during our meetings. We already have a leader during the meetings, but we need a monitor to make sure that we decide and come to a consensus instead of just leaving ideas in the wind and moving on to the next segment of the meeting. Also, there just seems to be a lack of interest among about half of the cohort, as some never contribute to the overall discussion and just choose to stay silent. That may be their personality, but personally, I would like it if we heard everyone’s ideas, instead of just staying silent and going with what the majority decides. This may be me playing devil’s advocate, but I feel as if it is necessary for our group discussion at our monthly meetings. Also, we seem to still be fuzzy on our group roles and assignments, and clear rules should be laid out accordingly to each position, so we know what to do to facilitate a better structure. Ineffective team meetings, role confusion, lack of interest and participation, and unresolved issues are all problems that we face in which we need to overcome to become an effective cohort.

For the next cohort, I’m glad that their structure will be a little different than ours, as their HON 1000 class will be a minimester. That would have been the best thing for us last semester, but there is no reason to dwell on past issues. The course structure for the next cohort is already better, and I feel as if they will probably have a better structure overall for both curricular and extracurricular purposes. We just need clear roles and effective team meetings in which I believe will enhance our group performance.

Reflection Journal #6

I have really enjoyed this class this semester, and it is a larger improvement than the previous class, HON 1000. The previous class was a waste of time and credit hours, and honestly, it should have been just something that was extracurricular instead of me wasting my HOPE coverage on it. Besides that harsh realization, this class has proven great change for the LEAD with Honors cohort, and gets us to think critically about our group dynamics as a functional cohort. With that being said, I believe that the lecture material that is being covered in this unique classroom style is intriguing and interesting, while also serving as a function of real world application to the direction of what we want the cohort to move towards. Tying lecture material and information covered in the book is to our cohort is something that is indeed working. The biggest issue I have with the setup of the course are three things.

The first is the classroom setup. Last semester, in the College of Law, we had a Socratic setup in the room, where we were in a big square, with the front being the center of attention. With that being said, I hope we could have the same setup for our classroom in Classroom South. Instead of the long, horizontal setup we have now, might I suggest we center the room in a different direction than normal. The other main concern I have is the way we setup the quizzes. The quizzes overall are not too difficult, its just that the questions on them are such nit picky that, when reading the book, I tend to forget the certain information. A lot of the questions on this past previous quiz were all subjective to interpretation, which is something I noticed in regards to the previous quizzes being more objective. I do agree that we need some form of grading scale to test our knowledge of the course material, but if the quizzes were less subjective to interpretation, that would be great. Questions such as “what would be the general outcome of the jury vote if it was 9-3 in favor of guilty” with one of the answer choices being “cannot be determined” is too subjective. This is because after reading many pages in the book in regards to how if few stay consistent, they can swing the jury vote, my opinion would be that the answer should have been it cannot be determined. I would say, quizzes such as true/false and questions that come straight from fact are the best way to word the quizzes. Finally, I do not like how ambiguous this group project is. Personally, I would like to know what this group project entails so our group can start working on what needs to be done, instead of waiting for these assignments that serve as ambiguity to the entire presentation of an info-graphic.

Besides those caveats, I do like how the lecture material makes us think as a group. I feel as if this is the best part of the course, and will definitely serve as a reminder on what our cohort wants to do in regards to the promotion, advocacy, and direction in which we govern ourselves.

10424344_684023808358745_5071860036491458632_n