• Consider behavioural characteristics which were exhibited in the group during completion

of the simulation decisions and the dossier

• Support analysis using literature and appropriate academic models including theory relating
to reflection

• Reference fully using Harvard referencing

• Figures/tables/diagrams and Appendices may be included providing they are explained,

justified and correctly referred to in the text

• Reflect on your team behaviour and development, using (as a minimum):

• Belbin

• Tuckman

• Were you a group or a team

• Remember to Analyse rather than describe, and give examples to support your points

• Reflect using Gibbs cycle

• Summarise your personal strengths and weaknesses as a team member

• Create a Personal Development Plan for your future development

Overall as a team, we performed poorly. This reflected on our ability to be able to submit our
simulation every week and we only managed to submit 3 out of the 6 weeks. This in part was
due to members of the team not attending seminar sessions, not communicating well enough
and members not self-motivating themselves to take part in the seminar activities at home.

Using the Belbin analyses to look at the roles in the group I was ‘The Implementer’ Throughout
the whole process, I was having to implement and put plans into place especially coming up to
the end when the assignment was due in. It was very hard to analyse the group due to only
meeting some members once. An issue with not getting to know group members is is not being
able to understand their working style and personality. Making it hard to assign group roles.

Tuckman’s Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing theory.

Dr. Bruce W. Tuckman (1938– ) is an educational psychologist and researcher. His career has
been spent as a professor of education, dean, and director of educational research centres. He
hypothesized a fourstage model in which each stage needed to be successfully navigated in
order to reach effective group functioning. Not until the article’s summary did he coin the labels
‘forming, storming, norming, and performing’, which, as he later observed, ‘would come to be
used to describe developing groups for the next 20 years and which probably account for the
paper’s popularity’ (Tuckman 1984, 14).

. Using this theory about the group, it is evident that the group ‘formed’ skipped the ‘storming’
phase and went straight to ‘norming’ This is evident by the lack of communication that
happened in the early stages of the simulation, with most weeks there was no communication
between the group. This meant it was very hard
The group formed, however unlike Tuckman’s theory the group did not get to know each other,
as the meeting of each other was very brief and only 2/3 members re met before the assignment
was due to be written. The norming phase for the group involved team members having to trust
each other that their parts of the assignment would be written, however it is not trust that was
earnt as with some norming phases – it was forced trust as there was no other option within the
group. As a ‘leader’ of the group, I was able to split the jobs evenly, do my part and then take a
step back and trust the members of the group that they were going to also do their part.