Discussion of Midterm or Failure at Teamwork

When we were coming up with the midterm project, we had some issues when it came to the discussion and hopefully with this blog post I can address some of the problems we had. (...If my memory holds out ... sorry Beth!)  

1. First of all, the class dissolved into what was essentially chaos and I believe that this was due to the fact that there were too many different ideas of what people wanted to do for the midterm.  Take for instance Mark who was extremely focused on video.  Personally, I blame our professor a little bit for this (I think it may have actually been planned as a test ... she's clever like that.) because she gave us three options up front and then essentially told us that we could "Morph the project what we saw fit."  That was a mistake because everyone wanted something different and wasn't as worried about what was the best option for the group and what the client wanted.

2. I could have tried to prevent this if I had actually spoken up and realized what was going on before I did. (When I did, we had only about 20 minutes late and that's when I spoke up and said we needed to get into groups before the end of class.)  I also sided with Mark at the beginning which I probably shouldn't have done, but alas, what's done is done.

I kind of feel stupid now looking back, but at the time, I honestly didn't know what to do or really what was happening until it was almost too late to fix anything.

3. As for applying ideas ... if you can't apply them it's kind of worthless isn't it.  It's like training a soldier but when he's put on the battlefield and his life and the lives of his squad mates are in danger, he can't pull the trigger.  Perhaps a bit more extreme on the analogy side than on the actual side of things, but you get the idea.

4. I think that in the future I can be more mindful through two things: first, this experience will definitely help me notice it if a similar situation pops up again, and secondly I need to disengage my personal opinions and replace them with opinions of the group.  It's just hard to think of the good of the group when I am sitting there and thinking about things that I want to do that are far more engaging for me.  

It would also help to think about the client and account for their needs and wants and suggestions, which we really did not do until Zach made his speech about "The client asked for e-cards so they're getting the damn e-cards." (Great line by the way and it kind of slapped us back on track.)  I know that really helped me focus on what was important and that's when I said we were wasting time and needed to get into groups, which I'm glad we did, otherwise we would have had even less time on the project than we did so a lot of the fine tuning couldn't have happened, at least in my group.

5. As for sticking with people you already know, I chose the people I did for a variety of reasons.  I had worked with Cabana before and I knew I would work well with him again.  We have similar tastes and work ethics and to be frank, I really like the guy.  As for the other four, the reason I chose them was because they played the board game Pandemic with me and I saw how they worked together with that game and it went damn well, especially for their first playthrough. (Which is near impossible to win, and although we had to cut it short, they were well on their way.) 

It may seem stupid and arbitrary, but that's the reason I picked them and in hindsight I'm glad I did.  The other reason I picked them was because I knew Meredith was great at art, I had seen her work before.  I knew Cabana was a born leader: smart, charismatic, etc. and I figured he would be the team leader. (I was wrong unfortunately but he still made an excellent researcher and I took the job as a decent, but not great, team leader.)  I knew Chewy knew his way around coding and programming so I figured he could tackle the HTML and even if he couldn't, I could help with it.  I also knew Alec did solid art and design and since he hadn't been grabbed by anyone, I grabbed him too.

And yes, they had all played Pandemic with me too...

6. I learned that I am not the best at working with a large and diverse group, I'm better with a group of maybe a half dozen or one on one.  Large groups intimidate me, I'll be honest.  I feel like I'll say something stupid and embarrassing and so a lot of times I don't say anything at all.  I don't like it, but it's true.

As for what I learned about team building: the more people you have in a group, the harder it is to make them form a cohesive team.  I feel like smaller groups have a much much better chance at creating a great team, but when you get about twenty people with different opinions and ideas, well you can't please everyone and that leads to conflict a lot quicker than with a smaller group.  At least that's what I've gotten from experience in this class and others.

7. I think potential conflict could have been stopped had the floor not been opened to all suggestions, if our professor had just stuck with the original three ideas and said, "You cannot deviate from these, pick one." the whole thing would have been a hell of a lot easier and less explosive than it was.  Also, if everyone in the class had actually spoken up, that would have probably helped, as it was, only maybe a quarter of the class really said anything. (I was apart of the silent majority so I'm partially to blame as well)

But I think most of the conflict stemmed from not giving us any sort of regulations and so we had too much freedom. (Yes I believe that is a thing.  Anarchy is never smart.)  There needed to be more limits and there weren't and had there been such, the problems we experienced would not have happened.  Maybe that's a cop-out answer, but that's how I feel about the situation, so take that as you will.

8. Backing down is never a good option, no one should ever feel pressured into backing down from anything, there's nothing wrong with discussion but when someone feels like they don't have a say, that's wrong.  Ways that this could have been prevented was if the room had been a little less hostile, if everyone was open and talking instead of just a few people, and also if we were to have utilized some sort of voting system.  Voting would have given everyone a voice, and it would have shown which ideas most people liked, etc.  As it was, the open discussion was good but it wasn't utilized correctly at all unfortunately.

Those are my suggestions, for whatever they're worth.

Flying High

It's been a while since we flew kites in class, but I'm going to talk about it now. (Better late than never.  Right.  Right..?)  Anyway, we got into pairs and two and created a kite together that was supposed to illustrate our personality and also be able to fly.  The pairs were selected by our professor and I ended up with Mark, a guy I had worked with successfully in one of my previous video classes, so that wasn't so bad.

We ended up discussing several different ways to make a kite but we finally settled on a super easy and cheap to make kite that was "guaranteed to fly" (quote from the website).  We chose this particular kite mainly because it was cheap and we were both pretty much on a Ramen diet at the time.  It took about ten minutes to make and test out, and we ended up using an X-Men comic book page to illustrate our personality as we are both big comic book and superhero fans, and our favorite was X-Men.

When we tested it out, it flew without too much trouble, so that was quite nice.  All of the kites in the class flew, which was nice so we didn't have to vote over it.  Overall, I really enjoyed the activity and the going outside to fly the kites was a nice change of pace.

Honestly, this has become my favorite class this semester.

...Don't tell the other professors.

Group Dynamics (And Bad Cooking)

So in class a few weeks ago, our professor (who I am beginning to think enjoys coming up with new and exciting ways to torture us) decided that it would be fun to take us on a field trip into the faculty cooking area, and have us do a team building/group dynamics project that involved blindfolds and making eggs.  It was perhaps the most interesting class I have ever been to to say the least.

One person was picked at random to be the cook, they were blindfolded, and then a group of three people were assigned to tell them what to do, however this group of three was not allowed to touch him, or help in any way except telling the blind victim what to do verbally.  As you can probably guess, this wasn't the easiest way to handle things.  To make things worse, the rest of the class was not allowed to help and at random intervals our professor would switch out the people in the group of three.  Things got pretty chaotic pretty quickly.

Group dynamics were constantly changing as you can probably guess, with people being switched in and out the group never became a cohesive team as the person who took charge was always changing, the vision of what the eggs should be like was constantly changing (For instance, the original group thought that two eggs required half a f***ing stick of butter.  But I'm not bitter.) but what was interesting about this is that it paralleled how things can work at a job with people quitting and being fired all the time.  So that was quite interesting.  It was also interesting to see how well the group started working towards the latter part of the exercise when everyone figured out what exactly they were doing.  Unfortunately at this point, it was too late to save the eggs, which were disgustingly underdone. 

And we had to eat them.

Like I said, I think my professor has signed death warrants for all of us, but that's just my guess.  Fortunately there was no food poisoning or salmonella to be had by me ... yet, there's still time I think.  Despite this though, it really did help illustrate how roles in a group change constantly as the group changes, everything is constantly in flux, until after long enough and after people have enough experience, people start understanding their roles better and almost become teamlike.

Sadly, the project ended before a full team could be created, as is expected from a class that lasts just over an hour.  But it was still a unique and quite educational (and somewhat sadistic) experience.


Now, to relate that to group dynamics:


FOCUS: Well it seems like we sort of weren't allowed to do this all that well honestly.  It says that decisions should be decided by the group and so forth, but unfortunately that wasn't exactly the case.  Our professor decided many things for us.  The group of three who was instructing the blind man did decide things as a group usually, but the rest of us were forced to remain silent and we didn't really have a choice as to who was selected to what or when.  


CLARIFICATION: One of the things that was interesting about this particular experiment is the fact that several of us didn't know what to do or what we were supposed to do.  At first, the task at hand was hidden, we were just told snippets of it.  Eventually we got the whole story, but only after we had bumbled a bit first.  Then at the end, when the task was clean up and so forth, we couldn't find all the members of the pre-selected cleanup crew, so that was fun.  Clarification of the task and our own roles would have been nice, but part of the experiment was to make sure we never got too comfortable in our chosen role, so clarification as a whole wasn't happening.


THE MOUSE: In this case, the mouse was everyone not in the group of three telling the blindfolded person what to do.  We were told that we had to be quiet and not interact at all with the group cooking, so we kind of did what the mouse does, we stood in the corner quietly and hoped for the best.  


THE LOUD-MOUTH: This would probably end up being our professor because she controlled all the decisions that were made essentially, so overall it would be her.  But in the group of three that was telling the blindfolded member what to do, there was usually one person that would take over telling the person what to do more so than the others.  I know that Sean and Cabana were definitely this, I probably did it a bit too.


THE WRITTEN RECORD: Ha!  What written record?


FEEDBACK (NEGATIVE): Well I know that I gave some negative feedback that wasn't exactly the most constructive, as did several others when the original group of three decided that a half stick of butter was needed for two eggs... (I'm sorry but have these people never cooked before?  That's f***ing ridiculous.)  Anyway, we commented on it negatively, but we weren't allowed to really talk or give feedback to them directly, while they were telling the blindfolded member what to do, so we could only tell them after it didn't really matter anymore.


FEEDBACK (POSTIVE): There was definitely this, especially towards the blindfolded member, any time he did something right people would compliment him (or her) because they couldn't see what they were doing, and it was great when they did something right.  I don't think one piece of feedback was negative towards the blindfolded person, so that's good.


HANDLING DEADLOCK: Essentially this just turned into one side going ahead and doing something without the other's permission, before the other side had a chance to react.  At least, that's what I saw.  Not a bad way to handle deadlock, but it certainly wasn't the best. (Which is compromise.)  


SIGN POSTING: Yeah, this would have been helpful.  Sometimes it seemed like we lost track of things, like how much time we had to take care of the problem, etc. (Also, the washing of hands thing every single time got annoying.  The food is going to get cooked, it's not like you're touching raw meat and then vegetables, it will be okay if their dirty hands touch the spatula and the frying pan. /rant)  If a person would have constantly been reminding us about time and so forth I think it would have gotten annoying but it would have helped out overall.


ACTIVE COMMUNICATION: This seemed to work really well, the people  in the group of three were the main communicators but a lot of times I heard the blindfolded person ask questions like, "Am I doing this right?" and "How much farther until I hit the sink?" things like that.  I know it made my job in the group easier when they asked questions that I could answer, or if they expressed their concerns.

Blind Cooking

So in class, our professor (who I am beginning to think enjoys coming up with new and exciting ways to torture us) decided that it would be fun to take us on a field trip into the faculty cooking area, and have us do a team building/group dynamics project that involved blindfolds and making eggs.  It was perhaps the most interesting class I have ever been to to say the least.

One person was picked at random to be the cook, they were blindfolded, and then a group of three people were assigned to tell them what to do, however this group of three was not allowed to touch him, or help in any way except telling the blind victim what to do verbally.  As you can probably guess, this wasn't the easiest way to handle things.  To make things worse, the rest of the class was not allowed to help and at random intervals our professor would switch out the people in the group of three.  Things got pretty chaotic pretty quickly.

Group dynamics were constantly changing as you can probably guess, with people being switched in and out the group never became a cohesive team as the person who took charge was always changing, the vision of what the eggs should be like was constantly changing (For instance, the original group thought that two eggs required half a f***ing stick of butter.  But I'm not bitter.) but what was interesting about this is that it paralleled how things can work at a job with people quitting and being fired all the time.  So that was quite interesting.  It was also interesting to see how well the group started working towards the latter part of the exercise when everyone figured out what exactly they were doing.  Unfortunately at this point, it was too late to save the eggs, which were disgustingly underdone.

And we had to eat them.

Like I said, I think my professor has signed death warrants for all of us, but that's just my guess.  Fortunately there was no food poisoning or salmonella to be had by me ... yet, there's still time I think.  Despite this though, it really did help illustrate how roles in a group change constantly as the group changes, everything is constantly in flux, until after long enough and after people have enough experience, people start understanding their roles better and almost become teamlike.

Sadly, the project ended before a full team could be created, as is expected from a class that lasts just over an hour.  But it was still a unique and quite educational (and somewhat sadistic) experience.

Competition

Okay I'm going to try and explain competition of what I think about it, as well as using the sources that were provided to us. (This last part might be a little bit difficult because I've always had a problem with research assignments, but I'll give it my best.)

Personally I think that competition is a good thing, it is something that is inescapable to us humans, and to the animals as a whole.  Evolution is all about competition, survival is all about competition, and even when you work as a team you are competing against one another. (I'll explain this later in the post.)  It seems a lot of people, especially in the sources, think that cooperation is a much better thing than competition, which although I don't disagree with it, is somewhat frustrating because our society as a whole has been based on competition.

Take a look at the Capitalist system, our entire economy is based on competition.  If someone can make a better product and make it cheaper than you, it looks like you're SOL.  If someone has a better marketing plan than you and corners the market, you're SOL.  Even at things like auctions, whoever is willing to pay more money than you wins.  Do you want a job?  You're competing against everyone else that wants that job.  Almost everything that we do each day is competitive.

We're taught as kids that it doesn't matter whether we win or lose, it's how we play the game and I know this is going to make me sound like a callous jackass, but that simply isn't true.  As the book Battle Royale says (one of the best sources I've ever seen for why competition is important, and also one of the most frightening things you'll ever read) "We as humans have gotten too soft.  When you play sports, there is no consequence for losing.  You all pat yourselves on the back and say, 'We did our best.'  Well what if your best isn't good enough?  Out there, you lose.  Here if you lose, it's over."  I do think we as humans have gotten too lax with competition and making sure everything is fair for everyone.  Life isn't fair, it never has been, and I don't see why we should attempt to make it so now.  Thousands of years ago, if someone couldn't keep up and wasn't a good huntsman, he starved to death.  Today if someone isn't a good huntsman, well he has unemployment to fall back on.

Sorry if that makes me sound cynical.

As for cooperation being better, I do agree but I also think that there is competition inherent in the cooperation.  Even in your group, you want to be the best, to have the most accolades, etc.  Take for instance basketball, would you rather be Michael Jordan making all the shots, getting the sweet shoe deals, and advertising money out the ass; or would you rather be Joe Blow, that guy on the sidelines every game who maybe makes one or two shots per game? (I'm pretty sure everyone would rather be Michael Jordan)

Another example is a video game I have sunk many many hours into called Left 4 Dead 2. (And Left 4 Dead 1 too ... but I like the second one better so that's which one I'm going to talk about.)  The game is cooperative and it requires you work together with your three teammates to survive the zombie apocalypse. As people find out very quickly, even if you are terrific at the game, if you try to go lone wolf, your character will be torn apart (even on the lowest difficulty, don't get me started on the higher difficulty) so you have to work together if you want any chance of survival.  This is probably the most cooperative game I know of on the market right now and yet, there's still competitive elements.  At the end of each chapter (A single campaign is anywhere from 3 to 7 chapters) it shows the "scores" of people in your group, like who killed the most zombies, and who did the most damage to the Tank (boss zombie), etc.  You always are shooting to be at the top of the list, even though you're working with other people.  So even though you are cooperating, you are also silently competing.

I think this is true with all teams, whether its said aloud or kept quiet.

Now I do think that competition is a great motivator, especially with teams.  Like the one article said about the basketball camp kids, they liked playing on a team against a team more than anything else.  I think everyone likes this, that's why many online games involve one team facing another. (Team Deathmatch is one of the most popular modes in any multiplayer shooter game.)  It's also why sports have been doing this for years, like soccer, basketball, etc.   Even some card games and board games follow this example (Pictionary, Euchre).  It's because it is fun and popular to see whose team does better.  I think this is also because when everyone is against everyone else, there can only be one winner, but in teams, there can be multiple winners.

And everyone wants to be a winner.

So yeah, that's my roundabout talk on competition ... I hope it makes sense to more people than just me.

The Prisoner's Dilemma

Yesterday in class, we talked about the prisoner's dilemma and how it affects the group/team dynamic, and we did an exercise that imitated it, where Beth told us that only one person in the class was going to get an A for this semester and we as a class had to determine which person it would be.  The method we chose was interesting to say the least.

We started out by brainstorming ideas to select and they ran the gambit: from Rock, Paper, Scissors, to drawing names from a hat, to an obstacle course (the one we finally chose), to a battle royale similar to Highlander. (There can be only one!  This was the one I was hoping for.)

Then someone, I believe it was Sean said that he didn't mind if he didn't get an A, so Cabana (who became our unofficial spokesperson for this exercise) asked the class if anyone else wanted to back out from the exercise.  I volunteered myself because I know that because I don't have a scholarship and I'm not in Academic Probation, it wouldn't affect me terribly badly if I didn't get an A in the class.  There were about three or four others who also volunteered to take the fall.

After that, the ideas we brainstormed were written on the board and we voted on them, everyone was allowed to vote as many times as they wanted the first time through and the Highlander method and obstacle course method tied.  When we did the tie-breaker, we were only allowed to vote for one of them and obstacle course edged out the Highlander method, much to my disappointment. (Watching massive sword fights would have been a great way to start off the week.)

We all worked out how the obstacle course would be set up and we discussed the different win conditions.  Then the people who wanted to compete for it ran it, it turned out Cabana was the winner.  I think the exercise worked out quite well, demonstrating the different kind of people that would appear in the Prisoner's Dilemma: the people who wouldn't tell the authorities anything aka the people who volunteered to take the fall at the beginning, and the people who wanted to get the best outcome no matter what aka the competitive people who ran the course.

However I think it was somewhat flawed because we all knew it was just an exercise.  If we hadn't, I think things might have turned slightly more competitive and possible more violent. (The exercise reminded me of the movies Battle Royale and Exam, both of which end rather terribly if you haven't seen them.  I'll probably talk about them in class on Thursday when we cover competition so look forward to that.)  But overall, I think it was a fun little exercise.

Although I do think it's a terrible idea for a professor to leave their students, their New Media students, alone in a room together.  That just smells like disaster to me...  But it was entertaining nonetheless.

Reading Each Others Blogs (aka Stereotyping)

I want to preface this by saying that even if I don't think I can work with you right now, I probably can work with you quite easily ... I was just assigned to talk about both types, so if you're in the bad list, I'm sorry.  It's nothing personal.  Honest.

Three people I can work with:
Chris Carraway - He sounded like a pretty easy going, likable guy, which is easy for almost anyone to get along with.  His work ethic looked similar to mine and I also really liked the way he answered the last question with "If I grow up..."  which reminded me of my answer of being a dinosaur when I grow up.

Cabana - I've had classes with him before and worked with him quite a lot during group projects in Digital Storytelling and he is quite likable and quite easy to work with.  He seems to have a good grasp of New Media concepts in general and is quite good at brainstorming.  He also always seems to have something really good to contribute to the group which is helpful since I'm introverted and am not always the best at contributing.

Mark D. Hicks - This guy has the exact same interests as I do, including Technical Theater and watching movies.  He also is good at video which is my forte.  He just seems like a doppleganger of me and I think I could work with a doppleganger quite easily.

 Allison Schwein - She seems to have a good personality and enjoys many of the things that I also enjoy. (Some of which I didn't mention on my blog ... Whoops.)  She also seems to really like to make movies which is the main reason I got into New Media in the first place, so I think that because of our shared interests we could work together well.

Three people I don't think I can work well with (...Sorry folks...):
CTYSKLIND - This is probably a stupid reason but I inherently don't trust people who don't use their real names via the internet.  Especially when there's no "About Me" post that tells you what their name actually is.  So sorry person without a real name.

SHARSAND - ...Same deal as the person above them.  I'm sorry but it really is a bother to me.  It just seems somewhat unprofessional.  Sorry.

Meredith Caudle - Her blog just seems rather unprofessional and it's a little bothersome.  The grammar and spelling is downright wrong in some areas and it just felt off compared to many of the other blogs.  I don't think we would work well together.  Sorry.

And that one guy who doesn't really fall into a category:
Zach Stone - He seems like a really great worker and quite professional but I then read his comment about the people he wouldn't work with and it seemed rather harsh, not that that's always a bad thing, but it made me hesitant to put him in the "People I can work with" category.  So he's on here instead as a "maybe".

Group vs. Team Exercise Reflection

This past Thursday in class, we did an activity that required us to rearrange the furniture in the room, the chairs on one side, the desks on the other.  Then after we finished rearranging the furniture, we were told to put it back into its original spot, except this time a certain person was elected as the "leader" of the project. (Unfortunately I can't remember her name ... it will probably take me a few weeks to figure out everyone's name unless they are in several of my classes.)  Here is what I thought about the exercise:

Was it a group experience or a team experience?  Honestly, I think it was kind of both, we were a group with it at the beginning because we didn't know how we meshed as a group and no one really tried to take complete charge.  We had a couple people try, like the guy with the baseball cap (Can't remember his name either...) and Cabana (I remember him because I have had him in quite a few of my classes.  But overall people we kind of just going with the flow, we figured out we wanted to put the chairs in the front and the desks in the back and people kind of just gravitated to one job or the other depending on where they were standing at the time. (The people in front moved the chairs, people in back the desks.)  After that it just kind of turned into a bureaucracy, people would suggest a certain way to organize and then the others would either agree or disagree until everyone agreed. (Or didn't care either way as the case normally was.)

However when we were told to put the furniture back, I think it was a team.  We already had the dynamics down, we each knew what job we had, and we were given a distinct person to be a leader.  Although I'm not entirely sure if the leader really helped or not, I know that taking things down went a lot faster and worked out a lot better.

What was my contribution to the group?  My contribution was dealing with the chairs, I dragged a good deal of them up front and began stacking them.  I was also the one who counted out how many chairs we had and tried to figure out a way to make the stacks of them even. (Which was difficult due to the fact that 34 doesn't have very many ways that it can be divided.)  I also held the chairs to make sure they didn't fall over when they got stacked too high.  At the end of class I took the stacks down and dragged the chairs back to their original spots.

How effective was the exercise?  I think it was relatively effective showing us how a group could morph into a team if they were together long enough and if everyone knew their respective jobs.  So overall I think it was a good exercise, it was also quite fun.

What would I have changed in the exercise?  Honestly I really don't know, I thought that it was an effective exercise and a welcome break from the traditional stuff we have to do in classes (Note taking and lectures).  Overall I really enjoyed it.

Skill Set Inventory

What is your favorite thing to do outside of school?  Playing various board and card games like Pandemic and Fluxx with my friends and also trying to design my own board game. (Which can also be quite frustrating at times.)  I also enjoy writing stories.

What is your favorite class and explain why it is your favorite?  My favorite class so far has been Digital Storytelling because I loved the group discussion aspect and I also enjoy coming up with and telling stories, and sharing them with others.

What are you good at doing in New Media?  I consider myself good at video and audio editing in the realm of New Media.  

What are you good at doing outside of New Media?  I am great at swimming competitively, specifically Freestyle and Backstroke, I was sectional champion at Freestyle twice in high school if that means anything.  I am also pretty good at writing and proofreading in general, as I do it a lot in my free time.

What is your favorite area of New Media (you don't have to be good at it, but you have to like whatever you talk about for this one?)  Video.

Do you prefer to work independently or in a group? Please explain why.  I prefer to work independently because it allows me to be in control of every facet of the project.  That being said, when I work in a group, I find that I generally get things done faster when a group is depending on me, when I'm alone, I find that I have a tendency to procrastinate.

What New Media classes have you had?   Introduction to New Media, Digital Storytelling, Intro to Video, Intro to Audio, Multimedia Authoring Tools, and I think that's all.  There might be one or two more thrown in there that I'm forgetting.

In a group project explain what you usually end up doing.  I usually end up presenting the project because I'm pretty good at talking in front of groups and giving speeches off the cuff, so I usually get put in that role.  I'm also end up doing a lot of the actual "grunt" work for a project, as in the actual construction of a project.  Usually I'm not too terribly good at the conceptualization of a project.

In a perfect group what would you like to end up working on? (i.e. hands-on work, research, presentation, web development, planning, etc.)  In a perfect group, hands-on work is what I enjoy the most.  I really like getting into the meat of something and starting with a blank page and finishing with something concrete.  

What is your opinion of group work? Please explain why.  It's a necessary evil.  It's evil in the fact that there are multiple viewpoints on how the project should be so you have to compromise the vision you have. (Something I hate doing.)  But it's necessary for time constraints and to make the best possible project.  Without multiple viewpoints, you'd never see some of the changes that end up making a project great rather than just good.  

How do you think other people would describe you?  Quiet for the most part but argumentative when they get to know me.

How would you describe yourself?  Stubborn and argumentative, but ultimately helpful.

What do you do when a group project goes bad?  Run in circles screaming bloody murder until a solution is found...  Not really.  Usually I try to find the most efficient way to fix the project and start communicating with the group more frequently.  I also usually start pouring more time into the project in order to fix it.

What is civic engagement in your opinion?  Civic engagement is doing something to benefit the community, like volunteering at a soup kitchen or the humane society.  It could even be something as small as planting a tree on Arbor Day.

What experience have you had working with community partners, either on your own, through school, church, or in any other capacity?  I've got a little bit of experience, I work for the Parks and Recreation Department in my hometown so I deal with the community every day in that job.  I was also a Boy Scout and am an Eagle Scout so I had to do quite a bit with the community through that.  And last year, in my class we were required to help promote a low-cost spay/neuter clinic in Fountain Square for the Indianapolis Humane Society, so I would also count that.

What do you know about Keep Indianapolis Beautiful (KIB?)  Not much honestly, I know it's an organization here in Indy and I've seen some advertisements for it, but I've never actually researched it very thoroughly.  I'll probably end up Googling it after finishing this assignment.

How do you think New Media (the program and all its resources) could help the community in general, and KIB in particular?  Quite easily, I saw that last year when we helped the Indianapolis Humane Society.  There's a lot of talent in New Media that could be used to raise awareness for certain problems, by creating posters or fliers or bumper stickers or a plethora of other things that could notify people of the problem.  Also we could come up with solutions that use the newer technologies.  Really, I think that New Media can help a huge deal.

How could YOU help the community, and KIB, particularly in terms of New Media?  By advertising certain causes or notifying people to specific issues.  I could also use it to design certain things to be constructed to make certain parts of Indianapolis look nicer, through art/media.

What are your goals for this semester?  My goals for this semester are to make it better than last semester (I think that's always my goal...) through better attendance (something I've been bad about in the past) better study habits, and better planning.

What do you want to be when you grow up?  A dinosaur.  Actually, I really don't know what I want to be, I have a few ideas but nothing really concrete.  I'm kind of open for anything, particularly I want it to be related to video or film, or possibly theater, but honestly I'm not sure.