Dear writer read the instructions below carefully.

thanks

Please using Gibbs model to reflect on the week 5 .

Instructions
Task 1a – Reflection on a one-week event – 1,500 words – Addressing LO1 and LO3 Instructions:
This reflection is based on a ONE-WEEK event which is chosen by me (this is also called critical
incident or significant incident). The knowledge and experience gained in the PPDI module should be
used as a part of this reflection. In this reflection, you will apply and critically evaluate one (or more)
reflective models.
This reflection of 1,500 words should be submitted addressing LO1 and LO3. The following questions
could be used as a guide for your reflection on week5 :
 What is the event/incident that you are reflecting on? (indicating the relevant week)  Why is this
event/incident significant for you?

 What technique/model* did you use?

 Why did it happen and what was your initial reaction to the event/incident?

 Applying the relevant model*, reflect on the event/incident  Would these reflections change if
using a different model/technique?  How useful/effective has learning through reflection been and
why (was there a change in action or attitude)? *During sessions you will be familiar with different
reflective models around learning, learning through reflection and reflective practice. You must apply
at least one of these reflective models to inform your reflections. Structure: Ensure that this entry is
well-structured providing:  an introduction and conclusion. 
In-text citations should be accurate and presented according to the Harvard Referencing convention.

Pleas follow the instruction of this model to reflect on the EVRE

Weekly Reflective Journal Template (week 5)
See attached below.

This Gibb’s Six Stage Model

Task 1
Provide a short definition here of reflection and its benefit in the workplace. How useful/effective has
learning through reflection been and why (was there a change in action or attitude)?

Task 1a: Weekly Reflection (1,500 words)

Introduction
Clearly state here what week you have chosen to reflect upon, why this week was significant, which
reflective model you will use in your reflection and why this model. Would these reflections change if
using a different model?

Gibb’s Six Stage Model

Description
Provide details here of the experience/event/incident you anticipate. Ensure to provide as much detail
as possible such as where this will happen, who will be present, where and why you will be there,
significant actions or words anticipated, and the context to the experience i.e. PPDI related. Why will
it happen and what will your initial reaction to the event/incident be?

Feelings
Describe here how you felt by using sentences such as, “I felt….”. Try and identify as many of the
emotions you felt during this event/experience.

Evaluation
Interrogate what you have written about by asking critical questions such as what why you were
feeling those emotions and not others, why this experience happened in this way, what role you
played in this experience etc.? Look for adjectives you have used to describe the experience, and
other patterns. Who or what are key or significant factors in this experience and why? “What’s going
on”? What was good and bad about the experience?

Please involve`` Understanding Your Score on the Dutch Test for Conflict Handling`` with this part see
below the test conflict

Analysis
Identify what new insight or information is required to help you understand the actual experience.
Use this NEW information and/or insight to critically respond to your experience. These may include
EVRE test results or a book or a YouTube video or a conversation you had about the experience with a
trusted friend. The key is to find NEW insight that will lead to new action or attitude. It is this section
that may have sources. “What could I do?”

Conclusion
What alternative actions were available and why did you not take these?

Action Plan
Clearly articulate here what has changed, an action and/or attitude? How will this change be ‘acted
out’ and what alternative outcome do you hope for? Try out a solution. Another way to think about
this is if the experience/event/incident were to happen again, how you would you prepare and
behave differently based on the steps of this reflection. Now what?

EVRE Weekly Reflective Journal Template (week 5)

 Date:12/03/2019 Experience
Week 5
In this week’s group meeting, all group members were present, although
there were disagreements during the discussion. The conflict started due
to late attendance of some members, which was agreeably resolved
before the group activity began. Later, as the group discussion
progressed, there was a disagreement where members were arguing that
some of the contributions were vague. However, the conflict was solved
politely, and everybody participated positively. I contributed by
completing some part of the group task of creating maps using the GIS
system. The whole group was involved, and the incident took place at
the university hall - the venue for the meeting that week.

Reflection

During the incident, I was thinking about effective ways of managing

group conflicts. I also felt that it could be difficult to participate
positively in a group, particularly when members have a conflict. The
positive part of the experience was that the group discussion was lively
and educative despite the disagreements. The negative side of the
incident was when the differences seemed to become somehow
unmanageable. However, all the group members were able to control
their anger and kept the arguments academic and objective. The scenario
involved the whole group, and it took place at the venue of the group
discussion meeting.

Learning

The experience was significant since it enabled me to understand that

discussions in learning environments should remain neutral and
objective. In addition, academic ideas should be challenged with clear
explanations. However, the situation could have been improved if all the
members managed their time effectively and listened carefully to each
other’s contributions instead of overlooking some of them. The group
could have made use of simple opening statements to draw attention to
one another when speaking. I plan in the future to encourage the group
members to avoid situations that cause disagreements and effectively
handle group conflicts before they became uncontrollable.

Please note that . see the conflict test which by myself and
integrate (refer to it ) with this model on part Evaluation ( based on
the scenario of the week 5 ). See below
Understanding Your Score on the Dutch Test for Conflict Handling
This self-assessment estimates the extent to which you prefer to use each of the five conflict
handling styles identified in the conflict management literature: yielding, compromising, forcing,
problem solving, and avoiding. Scores on each of the five subscale range from 4 to 20. A higher
score indicates that you have a higher preference for that style of conflict handling. The following
graphs compare your results to the range of scores in a sample of undergraduate psychology
students in The Netherlands. The range of scores can vary from one culture or occupational group
to the next.

Low preference Moderate preference Strong preference

4 to 8 9 to 13 14 to 20

4 20

Your score was 16. The range of possible scores is from 4 to 20.

Yielding
Yielding involves giving in completely to the other side's wishes, or at least cooperating with little
or no attention to your own interests. This style involves making unilateral concessions,
unconditional promises, and offering help with no expectation of reciprocal help.

Low preference Moderate preference Strong preference

4 to 10 11 to 16 17 to 20

4 20

Your score was 16. The range of possible scores is from 4 to 20.

Compromising
Compromising involves looking for a position in which your losses are offset by equally valued
gains. It involves matching the other party's concessions, making conditional promises or threats,
and actively searching for a middle ground between the interests of the two parties.

Low preference Moderate preference Strong preference

4 to 8 9 to 14 15 to 20

4 20

Your score was 18. The range of possible scores is from 4 to 20.

Forcing
Forcing tries to win the conflict at the other's expense. It includes "hard" influence tactics,
particularly assertiveness, to get one's own way.

Low preference Moderate preference Strong preference

4 to 10 11 to 16 17 to 20

4 20
 Your score was 15. The range of possible scores is from 4 to 20.

Problem Solving
Problem solving tries to find a mutually beneficial solution for both parties. Information sharing is
an important feature of this style because both parties need to identify common ground and
potential solutions that satisfy both (or all) of them.

Low preference Moderate preference Strong preference

4 to 7 8 to 12 13 to 20

4 20

Your score was 17. The range of possible scores is from 4 to 20.

Avoiding
Avoiding tries to smooth over or avoid conflict situations altogether. It represents a low concern
for both self and the other party. In other words, avoiders try to suppress thinking about the
conflict.

 Print Screen