It's so much fun waiting hours on end for your group members to approve of every little change you make and spending ridiculous amounts of energy trying to convince them of what you think is absolutely straightforward.
I do my best not to insult anyone, but inside I'm frustrated, and my initial response is never a pleasant one.
Yes, group projects are a challenging excercise in self restraint.
What do you do when your team member is set on taking your group down a path you know will lead to failure? How hard are you willing to fight for what you know is right? Wouldn't it just be easier to let him take the lead for one phase, then pick up the reigns after they crash and burn?
Perhaps, but you'll be in that crash right along with them.
Besides, what's to guarantee the rebel has the insight to recognize his error and take responsibility for it when the time comes? If he can't see something as straightforward now, why would he see it later?
These questions always come up whenever I find myself leading a group project. Knowing the right direction isn't enough, you have to find the right way to steer your group into it. Perhaps I need to adopt the Yago approach and let people think the right direction was their idea all along.
I understand that people have an ego, i just don't understand why they let it make their decisions for them. Maybe they actually believe their way is better? But it's so straightforward... Can they really not see it?
The human mind is exceptionally effective at creating alternate realities that justify a false notion. Never doubt people's capacity to fail to see the obvious.
Here's what I consider to be a straightforward example of bad sentence structure (and this is from our project plan, mind you) :
Players navigate through multiple styles of games all following basic elementary level curriculum. With games such as ABC's, Counting and Spelling where players shoot asteroids in order and Math and Trivia where players shoot the correct asteroid answer, players will be captivated not only by the immersive dynamic graphics and fast-paced action but by the diverse and challenging content as well.
I even italicized the especially bad part.
here's my suggested revision that didn't get approved:
Players can progress through varying levels of difficulty, testing and strengthening their knowledge of math, trivia and spelling, mixing the learning process with interactive competitive gameplay, while capturing their attention with immersive dynamic animation and fast-paced action.
If any of my 6 readers thinks the first one is better, please explain why so I may gain insight into the strange machinations of group dynamics once and for all.
It's true that the part you italicized in the first paragraph was pretty bad, if only for the fact that the game titles were not italicized to begin with. However, the second paragraph is technically worse. Players can certainly progress through varying levels of difficulty, thereby [self-] testing and strengthening their [own] knowledge in doing so. However, "mixing the learning process" is not accomplished by the player, nor is "capturing their attention".
ReplyDeleteAnother nit-picky point is that "can" is unnecessary in "Players can progress".
I do find the first paragraph funny. It mentions different styles of games, but uses shooting asteroids as an example (twice) and nothing else.
Players can progress through varying levels of difficulty, testing and strengthening their knowledge of math, trivia and spelling, mixing the learning process with interactive competitive gameplay, while being captivated by the immersive dynamic animation and fast-paced action.
ReplyDeleteI'd ask : "How's that?" but blogspot never lets you know when comments get answered. The perfect contrast for that... other wordsoemthing blogthing that lets you know 3 times every time you make an edit.