Group Communication

This analysis will discuss the small group communication and dynamics among myself and the other three members of my administration class group. The group was composed of three guys and one girl. I have never met any of the group participants in person. We met on the Internet twice a week for a period of 90 minutes each time. The meeting were supposed to occur regularly on Thursday evenings at 7:00 p.m. and Sunday evenings at 7:00 p.m., as these were the two times mutually agreeable to all members of the group. This analysis will now analyze the development and dynamics of group members during the eight weeks we met.

There were many things we did as a group and individually that made us experience a fair degree of success. The exchange of ideas and criticism enabled individual members to improve their performance, especially when it came to writing a higher level of quality papers. The use of the Internet enabled other members to receive papers via email attachment, and then download, print, edit, and return the changes at their own leisure. While some of the criticisms were more difficult to accept than others, I noticed that the group members became more comfortable over time with accepting criticism from other members in an open and constructive manner. So, too, initial criticisms that were perceived as too harsh by other group members resulted in the evolution of a more

. . .
ions. Some of the limitations of appreciating tone or mood are removed by the use of symbols, such as the smiley face “(” or a frown “(”. In addition, because of the nature of having to type all forms of communication, brevity and succinctness are more engendered by On-line group dynamics than in-person interactions. So, too, a form of shorthand emerges such as OIC (for “Oh, I see”), BRB (for “Be right back”), and ROTFL (for “Rolling on the floor laughing”). In general, I think the impact of working On-line as a group made all members more succinct over time, more able to be patient in talking, listening, and responding, and improved our ability for tolerance with others as we all struggled to succeed in a unique small group environment. When I look at some of the classic textbook concept relating to small group process, I can see how the On-line small group process and the in-person small group process at work are similar on this basic level. For example, Sampson and Marthas argue that the following elements are characteristic of group process: A person’s life and professional practice involves other people People’s group characters emerge as they interact with others Rarely if ever does a person practice without takin
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Cathcart Samovar, Dynamics INTRODUCTION, DeGooyer Valde, ROTFL Rolling, Sampson Marthas, CITED Bonito, Valde Using, on-line process, body language, Membership UK, Brown Publishers, on-line process off-line, Hirokawa DeGooyer, research 315 oct, sharing criticism, minutes meeting, evenings 700, 315 oct, degooyer valde, research 315, 315 oct 2000, hirokawa degooyer valde, in-person process, process off-line process, hirokawa degooyer,
Approximate Word count = 1767
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)