Because an outside observer is essential for a group, small groups are able to receive criticism and improve on low areas. To provide effective feedback, observers follow guidelines to avoid giving general or broad comments like, “it went well”.
One common set of guidelines that observers’ use is the Likert scale. The Likert scale allows the observer to ask numerous questions similar to “How fully did all members participate?” to “How well did the group analyze the topic?” The answers to these questions usually range on a scale from one to five. A scale allows observers and members to provide criticism that can be translated into some definable measure. For example, if a group did a presentation, one of the students in the audience would observe their group work. If the observer rates their presentation with a one, that would mean the group would need to improve on their presenting skills. Not only does the observer rate the group according to a scale, but he or she also suggests areas that can be enhanced. With this method, the group is able to know the things that need to be worked on and strive for more on the next project.
Hello Jasssbo, I like your response to this question. My response had similar points as yours. You stated that small groups are able to receive criticism and improve on low areas. I think that when you have an observer come in who has a goal of trying to create improvement then the members of that group wouldn’t feel so defensive. I think it would be easier to take in criticism from an observer than from a co-worker, or group member. I agree that once the group knows the things that they can work on, they can begin working on those areas.
ReplyDelete