Group Work in a Youth and Community Setting

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 290
  • Published : December 22, 2009
Open Document
Text Preview
This essay will analyse the group process of group 1.This group was set up as a task group, to design a poster to advertise the set up of a new group. The group were given 15 minutes to design the poster. When the group first entered the room and read the task, the group started to focus on what needed to be done, the group progressed well however when the task started to get more involved, it was clear that some voices were being heard, and some being ignored. It would have been necessary at this point to introduce ground rules. However on reflection and given the direction that the group took it would have been a more productive step to introduce some basic ground rules as ‘’ groups run better when there is enough order and structure to protect and enhance the process’’ (Cloud H, Townsend S,J, 2003:137) it also provides a starting point for conversation to be developed, and the facilitator may be able to gage the needs of the group through developing discussion. (K Sapin 2008) When devising ground rules, the group should be involved. Ground rules can set the basis of how the group should act, and they also provide a core central value base to be observed (Shuman S 2005) it provides a platform of what is acceptable and what is not. So to involve the group gives a sense of ownership, and we know that this is vital for a group to engage and develop. Some basic ground rules can consist of

Only one person at time talking
Encourage full participation
Keep discussion on topic, and focused
Full attention required, at all times.
Have fun
Through introducing ground rules at this point, it would have set a standard of behaviour which is necessary for the group to progress and achieve the task. The goal would have been to get the group to commit to using them, and to get the members to set new expectations of how to interact with each other, this enables the group to share responsibility for improving its process.’’ (Shuman S 2005:26) Through introducing ground rules at this stage I would have liked to have seen more consideration for others, certain members of the group were being ignored, there were also several conversations going on at the same time, the ground rules could have addressed both these issues, and could have been referred back to right the way through the duration of the group. 1)’’ Observe behaviour

2) Infer meaning- why is it happening.
3) Decide whether, how and why to intervene
4) Describe behaviour, and test for different views
5) Share your inference (conclusion) and test for different views 6) Help the group decide whether to change its behaviour’’ (Shuman 2005:28) Deciding how and when to intervene I would have looked at the six bullet points above set out by Shuman , and from that developed a strategy involving the group, however acting with a low level inference. The way in which the facilitator thinks during the group process affects the group and through staying neutral it allows the facilitator to stay impartial, it is labelled as a low level risk because the facilitator is careful when inferring, as opposed to the high level risk where the facilitator jumps to conclusion without a thorough diagnosis of the situation. How the facilitator sees the group, and the dymamics inside the group effects how they act, the aim of facilitation is to operate within the low level inference. (Schuman 2005) To conclude, within this situation where members of the group are not listening to each other, where several conversations are going on at a time, it would be important to locate why the group is acting like this, finding the root problem could be beneficial as it may help prevent further disruption. Through observing the behaviour and inferring meaning, it is clear that because no plan of action was developed, the group are unsure of what the task is, and how they are going to achieve it. As a facilitator this...
tracking img