The ability to work effectively in groups is a valuable skill in both college and career. Sometimes we may be placed into a group where all of the members are unwilling or unable to participate fully or effectively. Sometimes to get the grade, or get the job done, we must think outside the box and figure out a way to make things work.

First, I want you to read the story below. There are 3 characters in the story. After you have finished reading answer the following:

1. Rank them in the order of their responsibility for the groups grade of D from 1 (most responsible) to 3 (most responsible). Give a different score to each character.
2. Then Imagine that you have been assigned to a group project in one of your college courses and that the student whom you scored as most responsible for the groups grade of D (either Anthony, Sylvia, or Donald) is in your group. What positive actions could you take to help your group be a success despite this person?
3. Then reply to 3 classmates. Below this story (in this blueish color) will be the directions on how to reply to your classmate's responses.

The Speech-101 Group Project

Professor Rogers thought her Speech-101 students would enjoy role playing a real court trial as their last speech for the semester. She also hoped the experience would teach them to work well in teams, a skill much sought after by employers. So, she divided her students into groups of six - a team of three defense attorneys, and a team of three prosecuting attorneys - providing each group with a court transcript of a real murder case. Using evidence from the trial, each team would present closing arguments for the case, after which a jury of classmates would render a verdict. Each team was allowed a maximum of 24 minutes to present its case, and all three team members would receive the same grade.

After class, Anthony told his teammates, Sylvia and Donald, Well meet tomorrow at 4:00pm in the library and plan a defense for this guy. Sylvia felt angry about Anthony's bossy tone, but she just nodded. Donald said, Whatever, put headphones on, and strolled away singing louder than he probably realized.

Look, Anthony said to Sylvia at 4:15pm the next day, We're not waiting for Donald anymore. Here's what we'll do. You go first and take about 10 minutes to prove that our defendant had no motive. I'll take the rest of the time to show how it could have been the victim's brother who shot him. I want an A out of this.

Sylvia was furious. You can't just decide to leave Donald out. Plus, what about the defendants fingerprints on the murder weapon? We have to dispute the Evidence or we will never win. I'll do that. And I'll go last so I can wrap up all the loose ends. I want to win this trial.

The defense team met twice more before the trial. Donald came to only one of the meetings and spent the entire time reading the case. He said he wasn't sure what he was going to say, but he'd have it figured out by the day of the trial. Anthony and Sylvia argued about which evidence was most important and who would speak last. At one point the college librarian shushed them when Sylvia lost her temper and started shouting at Anthony that no one had elected him the leader.

The day before the trial, Anthony went to Professor Rogers. It's not fair that my grade depends on my teammates. Donald couldn't care less what happens, and Sylvia is always looking for a fight. I'll present alone, but not with them.

If you were an actual lawyer, Professor Rogers replied, Do you think you could go to the judge and complain that you aren't getting along with your partners? You'll have to figure out how to work as a team. The trial goes on as scheduled and all three of you will get the same grade.

On the day of the trial, the three student prosecutors presented one seamless and persuasive closing argument. Then Anthony leaped up saying, I'll go first for my team. He spoke for 21 minutes talking as fast as he could to present the entire case, including an explanation of how the defendants fingerprints had gotten on the murder weapon. Sylvia, greatly flustered, followed with a seven minute presentation in which she also explained how the defendants fingerprints had gotten on the murder weapon. At that point, Professor Rogers announced the defense was already four minutes over their time limit. Donald promise to be brief. He assured the jury that the defendant was innocent. And then read three unconnected passages from the transcripts, as proof. His presentation took 75 seconds. The jury deliberated for five minutes and unanimously found the defendant guilty. Professor Rogers gave all members of the defense team, a D for their speeches.