Coming to terms with mikes bikes this week had me puzzled. At first glance, I thought solo mike would have been a walk in the park having read the manual alongside the tutorial video. However, after few roll overs my shareholder value didn’t meet the benchmark requirement for the C.V. Given, Peter’s posting on the course wiki where he outlined “if most people can get to $25. If you cannot do that, you really need to be questioning if this is the right course for you. At first, I found this discouraging having handed my CV with an average shareholder value of 16. I doubted myself If I would be placed into a team. However, it wasn’t until I saw my student I.D in the group formation lecture that I realised I had been given a second chance.
After reading ‘turning Student Groups into effective teams’ by Katzenbach and Smith (1992) I soon came to terms on how important yet effective groups can be if done correctly. ‘ small-group learning achieve higher grades, learn at a deeper level, retain information longer, acquire greater communication and teamwork skills, and gain a better understanding of the environment in which they will be working as professionals. Following this notion, the Katzenbach and Smith (1992) had briefly outlined team formations. Ironically, “Instructor-formed teams vs self-selection ‘was implemented in MGMT 300 group selection process. Personally, I found that this module is working. From the get go, it was clear who the strong linkages in our team were as our CEO managed to reach over 25 surplus value averaging at 30 – 40. ‘Students get the benefit of seeing how good students approach assignments and they may also get some individual tutoring’. This is exactly what I learnt from our team members, to which I was given pointers/strategies on how to approach mikes bikes where I finally managed to reach the desired number ‘25’
Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of student centered learning, 2(1), 9--34