Reference no: EM132360848

Erik new that there were different techniques to use when conducting learning activities for groups rather than individuals. Occasionally he had to assist on a course, but conducted learning activities during meetings or in other informal settings. Erick was aware of the strengths and weakness of project work group. Apart from Brook (inquisitive), Chris (experiences but secretive) and Charley (after advancement) there were two other people in the group who had vast experience but said little, unless requested. Then there was Jack who was good at summing up what had been discussed, and there were a couple in the group who always had something to contribute although it was not always relevant in the topic. It had been agreed that on Friday, after lunch, work on the project would cease while they conducted an after action review. This would take two hours. It was important enough to make the time available because there had been a very nasty environmental near miss: the holding pond had been badly contaminated on a job site when an open drum of highly volatile and inflammable chemicals had been tipped into it by mistake. In addition the standpipe had broken on a cement truck when it was being flushed out. It was stopped just before the holding pond overflowed into the offsite storm water drains. Erik wanted to ensure that there was a constructive learning session about the contaminated pond. Before the learning session Erik said to Brook: 'From time to time I'll ask you if you have any questions. You must mote something that we missed. He invited Chris to find out all he could and to
present a report to the meeting.

Answer the below given questions

1. Review Erik's approach to the after action review. What disadvantages are gained by involving the whole group?

2. List what other things Erik might do before and during the meeting to encourage productive involvement by as many of project work group as possible.

3. Identify the potential positive and negative impacts group dynamics will have on the group learning process.

4. References