 |
| Me guiding Cheyenne during the mouse trap game |
After a lunch break, Myles Alexander from the Maryland LEAD program had activities where we applied what we had learned in the morning. After each activity, we discussed what we felt went well, what could be improved, and how it all tied into leadership. The first activity was to get everyone across a checkered pattern in an unknown (to us) predetermined path. The catch was that we couldn't talk when someone was walking in the pattern, and if someone miss-stepped, we all had to start over. We managed to guess and check our way through the puzzle, but it emphasized the importance of communication in general. The second activity was a pair-based game that emphasized communication skills. One member had to guide the other, blindfolded partner, to collect “cheese” while avoiding mouse traps. The second activity also revealed the importance of active listening to ensure the reception of correct instructions.
The third activity involved a hypothetical scenario involving a sinking ship on a 12-minute timer. The goal of the exercise was to reach a “consensus” regarding which of 12 people should be allowed on the 6-person lifeboat. During the activity, we were each given a card to identify our secret role in the game. I ended up with the role of a non-verbal participant, so I wasn’t allowed to speak or write for the duration of the activity. Being unable to communicate my ideas through words was frustrating because it hindered my ability to back up my claims. Nearing the end of the time limit, the manager stepped in and chose their 6 characters to save, and the group complied with the manager's decision under the pretense that he was making the final decision. Of the three activities, the third one had the most interesting follow-up discussion about leadership. We talked about how it would be near impossible to reach a true consensus given the 12-minute time limit, and we discussed how some of the different roles affected the decision-making process. Simala was assigned the role of a silent observer with no opinion or say in the decision-making process. He pointed out that the less spoken individuals got overlooked in the decision-making process and that the lack of communication (or ability to communicate in my case) hindered the "consensus" creation process. We also talked about the power dynamic with the manager role because of people's sudden compliance/acceptance in the end.
After the leadership training, we went to an early dinner with some of the people who were going to be at the lunch mixer on Thursday. After dinner, we (the interns) had free time, so we ended up going to Target to get snacks and a party game for all of us to play. We also found the answer to the age-old question “How many interns does it take to change a pair of windshield wipers?”
The third activity involved a hypothetical scenario involving a sinking ship on a 12-minute timer. The goal of the exercise was to reach a “consensus” regarding which of 12 people should be allowed on the 6-person lifeboat. During the activity, we were each given a card to identify our secret role in the game. I ended up with the role of a non-verbal participant, so I wasn’t allowed to speak or write for the duration of the activity. Being unable to communicate my ideas through words was frustrating because it hindered my ability to back up my claims. Nearing the end of the time limit, the manager stepped in and chose their 6 characters to save, and the group complied with the manager's decision under the pretense that he was making the final decision. Of the three activities, the third one had the most interesting follow-up discussion about leadership. We talked about how it would be near impossible to reach a true consensus given the 12-minute time limit, and we discussed how some of the different roles affected the decision-making process. Simala was assigned the role of a silent observer with no opinion or say in the decision-making process. He pointed out that the less spoken individuals got overlooked in the decision-making process and that the lack of communication (or ability to communicate in my case) hindered the "consensus" creation process. We also talked about the power dynamic with the manager role because of people's sudden compliance/acceptance in the end.
After the leadership training, we went to an early dinner with some of the people who were going to be at the lunch mixer on Thursday. After dinner, we (the interns) had free time, so we ended up going to Target to get snacks and a party game for all of us to play. We also found the answer to the age-old question “How many interns does it take to change a pair of windshield wipers?”
Dr. Izursa’s mobile aquaponics system which is used for educational purposes.
Thursday was a bit more about the research side of things. We visited Dr. Izursa’s aquaponics lab and learned about the research opportunities he provides for undergrad and graduate students. We then talked about stormwater management on campus and visited the research greenhouse. Then we went to lunch which also served as a mixer with researchers and the rest of the extension. Through the mixer, I was able to find research opportunities for me to look into for the upcoming fall semester and learn a bit more about what extension does in other parts of the state. After the mixer, we visited Dr. Rane’s plant diagnostic lab and then talked to Paul Goeringer about AG law. We ended the day by touring the campus farm.
Overall the campus tour experience was an enjoyable way to learn more about the other interns, myself, and research opportunities for the future.
.jpg) |
Cacti and other plants being grown in the research greenhouse on campus |
Comments
Post a Comment