Confidence Interval and Reflective Writing Tips

Reflective Writing Tips Reflective writing is where you revisit experiences and write down your thoughts about them, asking questions such as: †¢Ã¢â‚¬ What did I notice? † †¢Ã¢â‚¬ Why did it happen this way? † †¢ â€Å"How was I changed by this? † †¢ â€Å"What might I have done differently? † †¢Ã¢â‚¬ How could I have handled the situation differently in hindsight? † †¢Ã¢â‚¬  What have I learnt about myself? † †¢ † How do I interact in a team? † †¢ â€Å"How did I feel? † †¢Ã¢â‚¬ Why did I react the way I did? † †¢Ã¢â‚¬ How can I improve for next time? † You will need to do a lot of research, There is a reading list provided as a starting point. Do you follow any of the theories? Have you got experiences now that show the theories are true? You do not need to be analyzing other team members actions. This is not a forum to blame everyone else! You should be looking inwards at yourself for answers and looking at your own reactions to the situations and how you could improve and grow. This is not a report so you don't need to follow report format. You can lay it out however you want to. It should mainly be about what you have learnt in PASBD but you could add in some personal experience if you wish. You will need proper SHU Harvard referencing and a bibliography. Leaflet attached. Don't be too descriptive about the detail of what happened, it is more about your analysis of why the things happened that did. Finally I have two examples from people who have done this assignment previously, one bad and one very good. Bad Example – approx 40% â€Å"As a final year student, the reflection on team building or team working is difficult when you don't know the people you are working with. The first test is to communicate in various forms of communications which are needed to arrange times to meet and possibly exchange contact details at this stage so you know who, where and what a person looks like when it's time to meet. Personally when the first group was formed, the initial test was to email group members to arrange possible times to meet, however I was lucky enough to have two members within my group to which I have worked with before throughout my course, therefore there was a built relationship already which made work carried out easier. This meant I know the capability, thrive and enthusiasm of those individuals to carry out given task, although one of them can be a bit bossy, on the other hand it was more difficult to predict what the other members would be like, as for not knowing who they are and what kind of a person they are this bought my confidence levels down. When faced with a situation such as meeting people for the first time, it is always good to start off on the right foot. In my own personal experience the best thing to do was to meet the group and get to know the members and see what they are like. In terms of confidence, it was certain that they all had similar thoughts going through their minds to what an individual like myself or others would bring to the team. † When we started the first case which was Atkinsons the two stronger members led the way and the rest of us were quite happy to let them take control. We decided that we shouldn't move to Meadowhall which turned out to be the right choice. The national trust exercise didn't turn out as well as we didn’t think about who we were presenting to. I wasn't happy about the mark for this. † Good Example – approx 90% When considering what part I might play, I considered what team role I would suit from Belbins (1981) psychological profiles of how people â€Å"behave, contribute and interrelate with others†. Due to my confident and influential personality my perception would have originally been that of the alpha female. To initiate thoughts, make executive decisions and organise the group towa rds the end goal. Looking at the team roles outlined, I would have classed myself as a â€Å"co-ordinator†; â€Å"Mature, confident, a good chairperson; clarifies goals, promotes decision-making, delegates well. This summary reflects how I would try to control the group work to what I want to achieve. Being a naturally confident person I felt that I would be able to exert influence on people to achieve what I wanted by allowing my â€Å"behavior [to be] controlled by my internal personality (Bateman and Crate, 1993). As tasks began, I found it difficult to â€Å"let go† when tasks were divided and I tried to micro-manage. This lack of trust in other peoples work meant that I put additional pressure and workload on myself. In order to improve my actions (and stress levels) I have to better understand my ‘locus of control' (Rotter 1966); whether the event is within(internal) or beyond(external) my personal control. I have come to learn that winning is not everything and too great a focus on it can block learning. Problems came to head when my considered personal strength was mixed with another strong character, I felt like I had to fight to get my point across. I felt beaten by constant, critical comment as she would often counteract my ideas or discard them. However, we found that our debates achieved an effective balance and we produced a high quality presentation by using constructive criticism. I realise now that she was not aiming to target or discredit my ideas or work but she was just trying to achieve a better result by challenging my suggestions. I have learnt that in future I should value all criticisms as they can enhance my performance. † Finally It's all about the journey and not the destination. Focus on the process and learning with an internal emphasis. It's not about whether you got the tasks right or wrong but about what you learned about yourself and life whilst doing them.