ݺߣ

ݺߣShare a Scribd company logo

Joenard Camarista – StartingBloc Essay 3

•Download as PPT, PDF•
•
Joenard Camarista
Joenard Camarista

1) A peer leader provided favoritism to a shy student in an effort to engage them, but this resulted in the other students feeling marginalized and the shy student becoming too adamant in their incorrect answers. 2) Feedback from other students confirmed the peer leader's favoritism, so the peer leader took steps to distribute attention more evenly and restrain the shy student. 3) The peer leader reflected that their unconscious bias towards the shy student, due to relating to their own past shyness, had caused them to engage in single-loop thinking and overlook the shy student's monopolizing behavior.

1 of 1
How Can Favoritism By the Peer Leader Help a Shy Student Engage in Workshop? Joenard Camarista, Peer Leader, City College of New York - Spring 2010 Introduction Throughout my education and especially in workshop last semester when I was the student, I have always been at the receiving end of favoritism and was not aware of the effects that it not only had on me but on the fellow students around me. I only started realized these dynamics when I became a workshop leader myself and I started gathering feedback and found out I too was engaging in favoritism to a certain degree. Literature Review Argyris & Schön (2004 & 1978) Groups that ultimately flounder “define goals and try to achieve them (unilaterally)” (Schön, 1978). Groups that cooperate successfully “jointly control tasks” (Schön, 1978). “ Single-loop learning asks a one-dimensional question to elicit a one-dimensional answer” (Argyris, 2004). “ This double-looping thinking is reflective thinking…It turns the question back on the questioner” (Argyris, 2004). Barnsley (1985) Opportunity to succeed is often disproportionately distributed because of an arbitrary bias. Nisbett (1977) The Halo Effect: the perception of one trait influences the perception of a larger set of traits. Observation Student was very shy and introverted in the initial workshops. Peer Leader wanted to integrate student with the other students. volunteered him to go to the board frequently directed the attention to him during our discussions. Student more willingly participated.., he gained the confidence to work with other people voluntarily and contribute to discussions without my assistance. Problem: it got to the point where peer leader was having the discussions with only him since Student was so ready to reply. Other students were so marginalized by this that Student became so adamant that there was only one way to do problems that S tudent would refuse to admit that he was wrong. Feedback : Other Student’s accusations of favoritism on Peer Leader’s surveymonkey .com feedback mechanism affirmed favoritism on Peer Leader’s behalf. Example: Such was the case when All were doing gas law problems and Student would refuse that doubling the volume and the temperature of a contained gas would result in no change from the original pressure. Peer Leader: Changed behavior: Peer Leader set forth to distribute the attention and field opinions to Other Students . This kept Student in check and enabled healthy discussion to flourish once again. Other Students: now have equal chance to participate and Student is participating but restrained. Peer Leader views Student as a unique but equal entity in group. Discussion When Student decided to make goals unilaterally, (Argyris, 2004) it marginalized everyone in my workshop and made it harder for Other Students to go through the problem sets. Since Student expected a one-dimensional response to his answers he only engaged in single-loop thinking (Schön, 1978). Peer Leader also engaged in single-loop thinking when he expected only the right answers from Student . Peer Leader felt a connection with Student because he was as shy as he was when he was a student before and this created an arbitrary bias (Barnsley, 1985) in favor of his responses. O ther Students were marginalized as a result and all of the Peer Leader’s attention unconsciously was directed to Student . Student’s behavior was unchecked by Peer Leader because his bias was masking Student’s monopolizing, the Halo Effect (Nisbett, 1977). Peer Leader was able to reflect and make the connections after deploying a feedback mechanism and making the appropriate changes. References (APA) Argyris, Chris (2004). Teaching smart people how to learn. In Harvard business review on developing leaders : 83-110. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Barnsley, R.H., Thompson, A.H., & Bamsley, RE. (1985) . Hockey success and birthdate: The relative age effect . Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation , 51, 23-28. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250-6. Roth. V., Goldstein, E., Marcus, G. (2001). Peer-Led Team Learning: Handbook for team leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Acknowledgements Thank you Prof. AE Dreyfuss for your unyielding support and dedication to enlighten us on our behaviors and the behaviors of our peers! Thank you Jorge Swett for being the best coordinator in the world! Thank you Prof. Gosser for starting the PLTL program at CCNY and making this all happen. Thank you PLTL for giving me the resources and opportunity to make this happen. Thank you Mr. Kilduff, my high school AP Chemistry teacher, for helping me be engaged in the sciences and showing me the joys of teaching by your tireless dedication and enthusiasm for teaching. Conclusion No matter the intent, favoritism ultimately marginalizes everyone in the workshop except the person receiving attention. It creates a bias within the schema of thinking of the peer leader that makes he or she unaware of the progress of that specific student. However, directing attention is a good way to help facilitate a shy student to make the student feel like his say matters. But, to prevent favoritism, feedback mechanisms must be crafted carefully for this intent. Peer leaders should definitely try to put the shy student on the spot to see if that makes them engage. But, they must always keep checking that favoritism isn’t blinding them from their ultimate goal of instilling double-loop thinking.

More Related Content

Joenard Camarista – StartingBloc Essay 3

  • 1. How Can Favoritism By the Peer Leader Help a Shy Student Engage in Workshop? Joenard Camarista, Peer Leader, City College of New York - Spring 2010 Introduction Throughout my education and especially in workshop last semester when I was the student, I have always been at the receiving end of favoritism and was not aware of the effects that it not only had on me but on the fellow students around me. I only started realized these dynamics when I became a workshop leader myself and I started gathering feedback and found out I too was engaging in favoritism to a certain degree. Literature Review Argyris & Schön (2004 & 1978) Groups that ultimately flounder “define goals and try to achieve them (unilaterally)” (Schön, 1978). Groups that cooperate successfully “jointly control tasks” (Schön, 1978). “ Single-loop learning asks a one-dimensional question to elicit a one-dimensional answer” (Argyris, 2004). “ This double-looping thinking is reflective thinking…It turns the question back on the questioner” (Argyris, 2004). Barnsley (1985) Opportunity to succeed is often disproportionately distributed because of an arbitrary bias. Nisbett (1977) The Halo Effect: the perception of one trait influences the perception of a larger set of traits. Observation Student was very shy and introverted in the initial workshops. Peer Leader wanted to integrate student with the other students. volunteered him to go to the board frequently directed the attention to him during our discussions. Student more willingly participated.., he gained the confidence to work with other people voluntarily and contribute to discussions without my assistance. Problem: it got to the point where peer leader was having the discussions with only him since Student was so ready to reply. Other students were so marginalized by this that Student became so adamant that there was only one way to do problems that S tudent would refuse to admit that he was wrong. Feedback : Other Student’s accusations of favoritism on Peer Leader’s surveymonkey .com feedback mechanism affirmed favoritism on Peer Leader’s behalf. Example: Such was the case when All were doing gas law problems and Student would refuse that doubling the volume and the temperature of a contained gas would result in no change from the original pressure. Peer Leader: Changed behavior: Peer Leader set forth to distribute the attention and field opinions to Other Students . This kept Student in check and enabled healthy discussion to flourish once again. Other Students: now have equal chance to participate and Student is participating but restrained. Peer Leader views Student as a unique but equal entity in group. Discussion When Student decided to make goals unilaterally, (Argyris, 2004) it marginalized everyone in my workshop and made it harder for Other Students to go through the problem sets. Since Student expected a one-dimensional response to his answers he only engaged in single-loop thinking (Schön, 1978). Peer Leader also engaged in single-loop thinking when he expected only the right answers from Student . Peer Leader felt a connection with Student because he was as shy as he was when he was a student before and this created an arbitrary bias (Barnsley, 1985) in favor of his responses. O ther Students were marginalized as a result and all of the Peer Leader’s attention unconsciously was directed to Student . Student’s behavior was unchecked by Peer Leader because his bias was masking Student’s monopolizing, the Halo Effect (Nisbett, 1977). Peer Leader was able to reflect and make the connections after deploying a feedback mechanism and making the appropriate changes. References (APA) Argyris, Chris (2004). Teaching smart people how to learn. In Harvard business review on developing leaders : 83-110. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Barnsley, R.H., Thompson, A.H., & Bamsley, RE. (1985) . Hockey success and birthdate: The relative age effect . Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation , 51, 23-28. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250-6. Roth. V., Goldstein, E., Marcus, G. (2001). Peer-Led Team Learning: Handbook for team leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Acknowledgements Thank you Prof. AE Dreyfuss for your unyielding support and dedication to enlighten us on our behaviors and the behaviors of our peers! Thank you Jorge Swett for being the best coordinator in the world! Thank you Prof. Gosser for starting the PLTL program at CCNY and making this all happen. Thank you PLTL for giving me the resources and opportunity to make this happen. Thank you Mr. Kilduff, my high school AP Chemistry teacher, for helping me be engaged in the sciences and showing me the joys of teaching by your tireless dedication and enthusiasm for teaching. Conclusion No matter the intent, favoritism ultimately marginalizes everyone in the workshop except the person receiving attention. It creates a bias within the schema of thinking of the peer leader that makes he or she unaware of the progress of that specific student. However, directing attention is a good way to help facilitate a shy student to make the student feel like his say matters. But, to prevent favoritism, feedback mechanisms must be crafted carefully for this intent. Peer leaders should definitely try to put the shy student on the spot to see if that makes them engage. But, they must always keep checking that favoritism isn’t blinding them from their ultimate goal of instilling double-loop thinking.