The Group That Stopped Speaking
A Year 11 Community and Family Studies class of 24 students is completing a group research task worth 30% of the course mark. The class has been divided into six groups of four by the teacher. In one group, Priya does most of the work, Tom has attended two of five meetings, Aisha contributes only when directly asked, and Ben has strong ideas but talks over others. Two weeks before submission, Priya emails the teacher saying she is 'doing everything' and wants to work alone. The teacher has observed that the group has no written record of who is doing what, and meetings are scheduled at lunchtime when Tom has soccer training.
1. Analyse the group's stage of development and the roles being played, using group dynamics concepts.
Read the worked answer
The group is stuck in storming, not because of personality clashes but because structure was never established. Norms around contribution were never agreed, so Priya defaulted to doing the work and Tom's absence became acceptable by default. Roles have crystallised: Priya is the task leader (initiating, information-giving), Ben is a blocker who dominates airtime, Aisha is a withdrawn member whose silence is reinforced because she is only addressed directly, and Tom is a non-participant partly by circumstance - lunchtime meetings collide with soccer.
The judgement the exam rewards is separating process problems from people problems. Priya's complaint is real but her proposed solution (working alone) would remove the group's most capable member and leave the others without leadership. The absence of a written record of responsibilities is the structural cause; the interpersonal friction is the symptom. Recognising that Tom's non-attendance is a scheduling artefact rather than disengagement changes the appropriate response from sanction to renegotiation.
2. Propose a plan to improve group functioning, and explain how you would evaluate whether it worked.
Read the worked answer
The plan should rebuild structure before addressing feelings. Step 1: hold a short facilitated meeting where the group writes a task agreement - each member's deliverable, deadline, and a contact protocol. Step 2: move meetings to a time Tom can attend (or create an online shared document so his contribution does not depend on presence). Step 3: assign Ben a defined presenter/chair role so his dominance is channelled, and give Aisha a specific subsection with a deadline so her participation is structured rather than optional. Step 4: Priya hands over one section to another member to reduce her load and test whether the group can carry it.
Evaluation should use observable indicators, not impressions: attendance at meetings, whether each member's named deliverable is submitted by its deadline, the balance of speaking turns in the next meeting, and a short anonymous check-in on whether members feel their contribution is recognised. Priya's workload should be tracked specifically, since her complaint is the trigger. If deliverables still cluster on one person after two weeks, the agreement needs revising, not the people blaming.