I will be addressing 'Gibbs ' reflective model; in order to have a comprehensive perspective upon my

self-awareness during the interview at the 'The University of Nottingham ', for the position of an
Adult Nurse. Commencing the interview, we all gathered around a table, which roughly consisted of
twelve students and two assessors, the atmosphere was relaxed and the interview initiated with a
general introduction from the assessors, followed by each candidate saying their name.

I felt collected and enthused to start. However, it did take me some time to display my confidence
within the group and encourage discussion. This can be explained by 'Bruce Tuckman 's ' model
(1965) , which consists of five components: forming, storming, norming, performing and ending. My
initial silence within the group is an example of the 'forming ' stage; none of us knew each other and
we were trying to figure out our places within the group (storming). One could infer using 'Johari 's
Window ' (hidden self) that I was concealing my true self within the beginning of the interview, by
creating a social mask, but as the group dynamic deepened the more I opened up. Therefore using
Johari 's model, arises the concept of 'The Nature of Self ' highlighting that my self-awareness alters
within different situations. However, 'hidden self ' is also an area which '... applies to your good
qualities that you don’t want to advertise to the world due to modesty... ' at the start of the
interview I knew that I was someone who felt very comfortable within group discussions; therefore I
believe hiding this within the first stages of the interview was because I knew that I may intimidate
others. But once the group dynamics were established (norming), I felt it was acceptable to be
confident within the group (known-self).

Overall, I was really happy with how the interview went. Never the less, there were some positive
and negative aspects which occurred as the interview progressed. Upon reflection I found myself,
fighting for the chance to speak. This approach from myself and other candidates made it difficult for
the group to have an easy flowing discussion. Applying Freud 's personality theory here, one could
argue that my 'id ', one of three components of the human personality, (responsible for instinctual
drives and power), is heightened therefore causing a conflict between the 'id ' and 'superego ' thus
resulting in assertive and domineering behavior. However, since learning about ‘Rogers’ theory
(1975) I believe I demonstrated the aspect of ‘empathy ' as I elaborated on all discussion points in
attempt to generate group debates and discussions, this was because I was able to imagine the
position of other candidates who felt less confident. Furthermore, during the interview I knew that
communication wasn’t just verbal but also non-verbal which can consist of: prosodic, paralinguistic,
kinetics and standing features. The process of communication is outlined by the ‘communication
sender receiver theory’ as: sender, message, receiver, understanding and feedback . Therefore, my
‘standing features’ were essential to generate a comfortable conversation within the group, which is
further explored by Egan (1974) and the acronym SOLER and how Sitting squarely in relation to the
individual speaking, maintaining an Open position, Leaning slightly towards the individual talking,
maintaining reasonable Eye contact, and Relaxing can help dynamics within a group. I left the
interview feeling optimistic, knowing that I prepared fully and contributed well within the group.

To continue, Self-awareness is described as 'our ability to take note of ourselves’ which is what Luft
and Ingram identified in their model, titled Johari 's Window. How we perceive ourselves and how
others perceive us. Throughout the interview I knew that the way I interacted within the group
would determine whether or not I would be able to study as a student nurse. Subsequently, I wanted
to appear socially desirable. Therefore, I believe there was a distortion of self-image because the
interview was very important to me. Using Goffman 's theory of self (1959), the 'social mask ' I put
on during the interview, could be seen as 'performance ', '...the term ‘performance’ refers to all
activity of an individual in front of a particular set of observers, or audience... ' , I wasn 't my: bubbly,
hyper self, I felt I had to keep this hidden as I was in a professional environment. Therefore, Johari 's
window demonstrates mundane realism, because my self-image did change. My bubbly, hyper
personality which is usually 'open/public ' was now 'Hidden/private '. However, Johari 's window see
's self-awareness constructed by the individual alone, which makes the theory over –simplified and
not interactionist as it only considers 'nurture ' factors impacting on an individual’s self-awareness,
when in reality it’s a combination of biological/genetic and social factors (nature nurture). Therefore
the theory is reductionist as it over simplifies human behaviour. Although Johari 's window doesn 't
give a holistic reflection for my own self-awareness and communication, the fact I can identify this as
a result of using Gibb’s model means that I have a rounded analysis of my interviewing experience.

Furthermore, looking at the situation and understanding some of the theoretical aspects of self-
awareness and core communication theory. It has helped me identify that I am a confident
individual, although sometimes I can dominate a conversation which is a weakness I can now start to
improve on. Therefore, being able to identify my strengths and weaknesses will enable me to
maximize future: understanding and communication as well as intrapersonal and interpersonal skills.

Finally, if the situation was ever to arise again, I would make sure that I understood silence isn’t
always a bad thing. Thinking and gaining your composure is a better approach, opposed to feeling
the need to fill a silence with irrelevant information.