Looking Back: Presentations

Introduction and Context

    For this first project, our communications class was divided into three groups via alphabetical order. Then, three days later, those who missed the first few class were added to each group arbitrarily. The three groups comprising of something over 10 people. Which was relatively large.

    As one of my classes leaders, I had the absolute privilege of helping my peers work on these presentations from behind the scenes. Though, not personally, really, as they didn’t ask very much of me. I still did my best to aid them, however possible, and facilitate the process to the best of my abilities. There was a marginal amount of drama among the groups and a sometimes frustrating lack of communication for a communications class. Though some groups really excelled in this aspect, others struggled considerably. Which makes me wonder how they might of made it through high school without talking to anyone or responding to their professor. Regardless, it was interesting all the same.

    On to the actual presentations. The first group performed the best and was the most organized. The other groups did fine but were much less coordinated. Some members ignored the project, a few missing class entirely. This correlates with the amount of communication I observed among each group within their respective chats.

    The first group presented a chapter of the textbook called Intercultural Communication. I found this topic incredibly interesting. America as a nation is encompassed entirely by migrants from beyond its borders except for those belonging to native tribes who, even so, likely migrated to this land thousands of years before Columbus brought news of its existence to the European consciousness. The foundation of this country was fueled by the exploitation and obliteration of culture. We cannot abide by the lingering effects of such evil on American culture as it stands. To live in a modern society full of migrants from around the world, one must have a basic understanding of intercultural communication. 

    This presentation was enlightening in many ways and in certain regards reaffirmed much of the manner in which I interact with individuals of other cultures. What it did best, however, was put a word to and in most cases, properly define several ideas I’ve encountered before, which I greatly appreciated, since the vast majority of people seem to misunderstand the concept of gender or sexuality. At first, I found it somewhat strange that they chose to include such topics in this chapter, however, as I think about it further, it does make sense. Culture is formed by more than race or ethnicity, Culture develops as groups of like-minded individuals intermingle and make connections beyond the familial and is influenced by anything and everything. especially gender, sexuality, political affiliation, and even socioeconomic status, which I would argue is the most influential aspect over the framework of a culture.  

    The second group presented communication in groups which was quite ironic as this group was the most disjointed behind the scenes. The presentation proceeded rather well but not without technical difficulties. Group two couldn’t decide who was going to lead them or who was going to actually share the presentation on zoom. The presentation itself was very well done and visually cohesive. Thanks to Diana who went out of her way to tweak every slide. she was sort of the group's impromptu guerilla leader, even if no one really wanted to admit it. 

    Their presentation elaborated on the concept of a group, listing types of groups and the contexts in which they are born, bringing to attention certain groups we don't normally think about or formally consider groups like family units and service groups. They defined groups as "a gathering between 3 and 20 people" which I found somewhat arbitrarily defined. Throughout this presentation, what quantifies a group is rather loosely defined, for there to be a maximum limit of 20 people is incohesive when considering the validity of a service or work group, which could consist of literally hundreds of people. I would define a group as: "The gathering of individuals, under a shared goal or intention" instead. 

    Then, they go on to elaborate on what constitutes a healthy group and how that dynamic tends to develop over time via Bruce Tuckman's four-step model: "Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing". I'd argue that this is yet another oversimplification but I can understand the necessity of its inclusion under the limitations of producing a presentation summarizing a rather large chapter. They end their presentation on a sour note with conflict in groups, constituting the "Storming" stage of Tuckman's model. There isn't much more to say on the matter. Not without throwing some shade toward a certain entitled group member. 

   The third and final presentation was sort of a blur to me. The group itself did a wonderful job working through their issues (of which there were few) and had no problems collaborating. Their presentation was on group leadership and problem-solving which plays into the concepts discussed in the previous group's work. There's a lot to talk about, seeing as I am a leader of sorts (well, more of a co-leader) and some of my peers rely on me for certain things from time to time. They define a leader as someone who "takes charge" and serves as a great influence in helping their group achieve a unified goal. Then they go over the individual roles of a functional group and their responsibilities, of which I consider equivalent to that of a leader in many regards. However, I believe that a proper group leader should encompass every one of the roles listed. Some examples are the giver (who shares knowledge, material, and experience),  The interpreter (who bridges gaps between members using their knowledge of culture and religion to build bridges and fortify them), and the Harmonizer (who resolves and helps their team work through problems). There are more, however, this blog post would be too long if I mentioned them all, I hope you get the idea. 

    Then they go over other responsibilities a leader might have like coordinating their group and organizing meetings. afterward, and I find this to be the most interesting point in the presentation, they discuss systematic problem-solving. This method illustrates a manner in which to solve issues through a series of steps. Identify, define the problem, analyze the problem, determine criteria for judging solutions, generate a number of solutions, evaluate your solutions, and implement them. It's quite simple when you think about it, it isn't anything revolutionary or extraordinary, in fact, I'd call it common sense. The average person should be able to solve a problem effectively and intuitively in most cases, especially when tasked with leading a group. problem-solving doesn't have to require extensive review and evaluation. It should be fast and effective before whatever problems the group might be experiencing become greater issues that could potentially harm the group in the long run.