Question.805 - 7. Case Study: Creating a Team. Carranza, C., & White, W. G., Jr. (1998). Issues for discussion in developmental education: Part II. Case Study 3: Creating a team. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 14(2), 59-73. (Due; 100 points)Download 7. Case Study: Creating a Team. Carranza, C., & White, W. G., Jr. (1998). Issues for discussion in developmental education: Part II. Case Study 3: Creating a team. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 14(2), 59-73. (Due; 100 points) Please read the case study above and respond to the questions in the case study. After you have submitted your assignment to the link associated with the assignment, the instructor will post student responses in the Week 4 section of Canvas.
Answer Below:
Denrick Lewis Professor Daphne Williams 21315 - DEED 622 (Administration of Postsecondary Developmental Programs and Services) 6th February 2023 Week 4 Case Study Response: Creating a Team 1. Discuss the concept of academic freedom versus respect for and adherence to program objectives. What are the pros and cons of individual versus group decision-making? Academic freedom is a critical component and basic principle to?discovering?development, and communication of knowledge, so laying the groundwork for a fairer academic environment while considering the case presented, the same freedom tends to cast a burden on the institutional objective delaying decision-making. The struggle to define academic freedom is one of the issues that academic freedom faces since the underlying issue is when the limitations have to be mitigated and authority over monitoring the use of it tends to be unknown; in the scenario, Ms.Young is reluctant and concerned about the use of academic freedom (Carranza et al). Furthermore, there is little deliberate effort to develop an ethics or code of behavior for academic freedom or to minimize its misuse. Achieve objectives quicker working cooperatively alongside individuals could enable them to achieve objectives faster than if they worked alone while working alone could decide faster; however, the credibility or effectiveness of the decision. The group tends to improve?the overall skills of the entire group; this is particularly important when working with individuals who are more knowledgeable; in the case study presented, both the ideas about the text tend to be well thought about; if worked together, they could develop a comprehensive approach. Prospective disagreement, which is the conflict in the case study, although there are great personalities in the group, the higher the?possibility of conflict since they may engage with persons that could have diverse takes on a particular decision while working individually could evade this issue but the decision made could be in a narrow perspective. 2. What advice would you give the counseling coordinator regarding the conflict over the textbook and other component topics? How might he resolve the conflicts? What if he is still not successful in gaining the necessary cooperation? According to Mr.Argenti, the underlying notion for the team to work as a team is to provide affordable text that is in accordance with the syllabus, and that helps students get the bang for the buck that helps them address three advisement courses (Carranza et al). While Faye and Ned tend to have a different approach to providing a photocopy to the students, Argenti believes it would push them to purchase a text later (Carranza et al). There underlying issue is that there is no clear communication among the stakeholder; although they are a part of a group, they tend to compromise the common objective that they're supposed to work for the betterment of the student; in this scenario, establishing an open forum discussion in terms of sharing the reason behind their suggestion could cast a better light on the misunderstanding from both the parties in accordance to set a democratic model where all stakeholders can be given equal importance to voice their opinion another suggestion is that by including a head of the student council and few students could give an insight on what would be more beneficial for them. 3. Should the director intervene? If so, when and how? In this scenario, the director should not intervene just yet, since there is a lot of possibilities for the team member to solve the issue themselves; unlike a corporate setting, here, the primary notion is the student's education, without any competing conflict amongst the internal stakeholder. The underlying problem in this situation is a mishap in the communication and the environment of the assumption that there could be several reasons behind one particular act. The possible solution is to establish a more inclusive environment, such as four stakeholders can be given equal space in order to convey the reason behind why they insist on a particular approach to provide a solution in a fixed time frame to eliminate prolonged discussion and confusion. The inclusive environment also can include certain students having a more on-field experience to know how either of the intervention could be perceived and what's more beneficial for them; such voting could also be helpful. The director can, however, intervene if the same situation persists by taking authority over the frequent meetings and establishing equal space for Mr.Argentia, Ned, and Faye to voice the reason and logically enable an open-minded discussion by re-stating the common objective for which the group is operating under stringent supervision (Carranza et al). 4. What would you do if you were Ms. Young? How would you create a team? Ms. Young can act as a mediator and talk to both parties to make them understand how their choices could impact decision-making, setting a common goal as the priority in order to have a balanced approach to giving equal scope to all educators (Carranza et al). The task for Ms. Young is to get small compromises from Ned and Faye for a bigger cause; if they could be made to know about how their restriction is holding back the entire organization, this message needs to be articulated in a friendly manner without worsening the conflict (Carranza et al). 5. Is there a way to make it "easy" for the errant faculty members to agree with the majority? What role can these "minority" members assume? How can their attitudes and behaviors be covertly shifted? What role can the director play in this conversion? What about the rest of the faculty? Since academic upholds democratic values, majority authority is a method of structuring administration and deliberating on major problems; it is not a new path to despotism. Similar to how no self-appointed party possesses the authority to persecute others, no majority, especially in a democracy as mentioned in the case study, should deprive a minority?individual of essential rights and freedoms, which is one of the reasons Ms. Young tends to be holding back from any action; however, the primary objective is being compromised because of two stakeholders (Carranza et al). While minorities represent academic freedom, in this scenario, the importance is to consider ethical values that enable one to make the decision for the good well of major stakeholders than compromise the overall reality for the wrong behavioral cues of two. Their attitudes could be given importance in terms of listening to them on an open forum to understand why the aggression is showcased and to articulate that their attitude is hampering the overall growth and smooth educational operations; such an intervention could give more scope to operate an effective team under a common objective. 6. What actions would you take as the director if none of these measures prove fruitful? What do you think of her decision regarding Dr. Drummond's class schedule? What about her thoughts about what to do with the textbook issue? In your opinion, has she moved too quickly? According to my understanding, the actions were too quick since, in the case study, the other side of the team members was never heard, only with some of the team members said and past experiences of Ms. Young the decision was made with prejudiced values (Carranza et al). In terms of asking about Dr. Drummond's class schedule, the intervention was right since the claims are from the students that labs post theoretical sessions could mean nothing more than just a completion of the curriculum rather than instilling knowledge, however, it is important to note that the schedule was not implemented rather asked to work on it, the implementation could come after the open forum discussion with Ned and Faye (Carranza et al). While considering the textbook, it was too quick to draw a conclusion since Ned and Faye's side of ideas or concept of having a photocopy done was not heard, although it would appear as though the discrimination is being practiced by the majority of the team members. Works Cited Carranza, Carmy, and William G. White. "Issues for discussion in developmental education: Part II." Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 14.1 (1997): 57-70.More Articles From Research
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
