You are on page 1of 4

Jonathan L. Ventigan – Psych220 Group Process Proposal I.

Introduction This is a proposal for a group processing session with medical students of the UP College of Medicine who are also members of different fraternities and sororities of the college. Research shows that people have different perceptions of groups based on how much groups are conceived as a coherent whole.2 These perceptions can be correlated with certain characteristics of groups. As such, groups called “intimacy groups” are characterized by “high levels of interaction among group members”, “long duration and low permeability”. Examples of these would be family and “barkada”. Others are “taskoriented groups” (or “task groups”) which have medium duration and permeability (the degree to which members come and go) but high interaction among members. These are exemplified by workgroups and committees. Lastly as an example, “social identity groups” (or “social groups”) have extremely long duration and very low permeability. Furthermore, it has been shown that people choose certain types of groups to satisfy certain fundamental human needs.1 Intimacy groups fulfill the need for affiliation; task-oriented groups for achievement; and social groups for identity and self-esteem. It should be noted the classifications used in these studies are based on the participants’ own responses and not on an outside theoretical conception of group. Of course, this classification is not mutually exclusive and different kinds of groups may function in different ways and fulfill multiple needs. The author’s experience with members of fraternities and sororities in the UP College of Medicine and impressions gathered during the course of his stay there suggests that students join these organizations for diverse reasons and to fulfill various needs. Some join from a need for affiliation while others hope to secure advantages that may help them with their student life. Still, being a member of these organizations involves having a sense of pride in them, implying fulfillment of the need for self-esteem and identity. It would be interesting to find out the reasons of these members for joining and staying, their views on the functions of these organizations in their lives and any other thoughts they might have about the topic. II. Objectives 1. Allow the participants to explore their reasons for joining a Greek letter organization or what attracted them in the first place? 2. Allow the participants to reflect on the positive and negative things about being in a Greek letter organization. 3. Allow the participants to express themselves as to whether joining a Greek letter organization helped them in their student life. III. Method A. Participants

Processing – The processing shall consist of question and answer portions where the participants will write down their responses on index cards. Overview of Session 1.L. foster a sharing environment. D. . (2000). Rutchick. 2. Varieties of group and perceptions of group entitativity. S. 707-719.. G. S.. M. Expectations of participants and objectives – The facilitator will then ask the participants about their expectations for the session. 4.The group will be comprised of 4-6 medical students from the UP College of Medicine who are members of the various fraternities and sororities of the college. D. B. more importantly. 3. A.B. C. IV. 5.) 4.. Final remarks/Conclusion – A summary of the interesting and relevant points that the participants have said during the processing. Hamilton. Participants should give respect to their fellows and avoid comments that are inflammatory. 22. 5. B. N.. Group processing will be conducted in Rm.J.M. Uhles. Lickel.L. Time for any final remarks from the participants will also be given. References 1. Introduction of facilitator. Certain topics (e. Sherman. Ferreira. Participants are free to refuse to answer any question that may compromise the confidentiality rules of their organization. All information gathered from the session shall be kept strictly confidential by all those present during the session.L. Lewis. J. participants – The facilitator and group members will introduce themselves by giving their names and some information about themselves..g. Sherman.. No unnecessary distractions is allowed in order to maintain focus and. 2.. M. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Hamilton. Johnson. 101. The answers will then be processed for discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. A. All discussion should be about the participants own experiences from his own perspective and not about the particular organization he is a member of. (2006).J. Sharing of thoughts and feelings is encouraged. Guidelines/Ground rules – Guidelines will be laid down. Petrocelli. Ward 7.V. A. Guidelines 1. PGH on Jan. 2. Wieczorkowska. Participants shall be invited by the facilitator a few days before the group processing session. initiation rites) are understood to be strictly restricted to members only and will be avoided during the session. (See below.. 223-246. 78. 3. Crawford.T. 42. 2010. all this without prejudice to the amicable exchange of feelings and ideas.. A functional perspective on group memberships: Differential need fulfillment in a group typology.A.. All participants are encouraged to speak.

Courtesy 3. Did the facilitator introduce the participants and himself properly? 2. 4. Were the other participants introduced properly? 3. I was able to learn more about my own experiences and thought through self-exploration and an encounter with similar people. I felt at ease with the facilitator. 7. I felt at ease with my fellow participants as there was an atmosphere of mutual respect. Evaluation Tool for Session A. Clarity of voice 2. In case there were conflicts. Please encircle Y or N for “yes” or “no” answers to the following questions about the way the facilitator handled the session 1. 1. was the facilitator able to defuse the situation? 7.V. Choose NA if you feel the statement is not applicable to the session. 3. Willingness to listen . Please rate the facilitator 1-5 on the following aspects with 5 as highest and 1 as lowest. Please rate your agreement with the following statements with 5 as highest and 1 as lowest. 5. I felt at ease and confident in sharing my thoughts and feelings with the group. Were the objectives clearly stated at the beginning of the session? 6. We were able to achieve the objectives of the session. Did the session start promptly and on time? 4. My time here was well-spent. C. Choose NA if you feel the statement is not applicable. Did the session finish on time? 5. I was able to participate in the discussion to my satisfaction. 8. I was able to listen to my fellow participants to my satisfaction. 1. Was I well-informed of the date and time of the session? B. 2. The facilitator was impartial 6. 9.

Preparedness 6. Willingness to engage participants 5. Confidence 7. Focus . Poise 8.4. Equanimity 9.