Self and Other

The situated nature of teaching calls for an awareness of both the self and the other, and of how these two dimensions continuously interact to shape the learning environment. In the language classroom, success—as Stevick (1998) reminds us—“depends […] more on what goes on inside and between the people in the classroom” (p. 4). This insight captures a profound shift in my understanding of teaching and learning, a shift largely fostered through my experiences in Group Dynamics (GD) and Training & Design for Experiential Learning (TDEL). Exploring the complex web of relationships within and among individuals helped me recognize the impact of my own emotions, attitudes, and opinions on the interpersonal and group levels of classroom life, and ultimately, on the quality of the learning experience.

Both GD and TDEL offered me a wealth of skills that strengthened my teaching and group facilitation. Skills such as active listening, mindful observation, and the ability to give and receive feedback became indispensable tools—not only for effective communication, but also for cultivating empathy and trust. These experiences deepened my understanding of how self-awareness and social sensitivity intertwine to shape group energy, cohesion, and collective growth.

My learning from these courses can be encapsulated in two metaphors that have come to define my evolving practice: TWIGSIP-ing and The Coat of Thought. The acronym TWIGSIP, which I coined from the maxim “The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts,” reflects an emergent and process-oriented view of how group functioning should be understood. It emphasizes that the synergy of a group arises not from individual excellence, but from the intentional integration of each member’s contribution into a shared whole. To “TWIGSIP” a group, then, is to nurture participation, co-responsibility, and mutual presence—qualities that make learning communal rather than solitary.

Likewise, The Coat of Thought symbolizes the willingness to try on the perspectives of others—to momentarily inhabit their viewpoints and emotions as a means of understanding. This metaphor reminds me that learning and collaboration require humility, curiosity, and the suspension of judgment. When applied to the classroom, it helps create a climate where both teacher and students are invited to think with and through each other.

Sub-competency A.1: Teachers Need to Be Knowledgeable About Theories and Practices of Group Dynamics

Supporting Documents

The study of group dynamics profoundly shaped my understanding of what occurs between individuals and within groups, and by extension, how these interactions influence teaching and learning. Since so many visible and invisible forces are at play, it becomes essential for teachers to attend carefully to the different dimensions shaping the classroom experience. Through my coursework and practice, I identified three particularly crucial aspects to examine: the group itself, the teacher’s role, and the students’ role. A successful group experience depends on the teacher’s ability to understand how these dimensions interact, evolve, and influence one another.

In my Group Dynamics (GD) course, I experienced firsthand what it means to be part of a group—to navigate relationships, manage conflict, and negotiate shared purpose. Groups are typically formed to complete a task, yet conflict often arises because of individual differences in goals, communication styles, and expectations. A key learning moment came when I explored the distinction between content and process in group work. Recognizing this distinction allowed me to see that conflict is not necessarily a sign of dysfunction but an inevitable—and often productive—part of group life. In my GD Reflection Paper, I noted that attending to both task (content) and process provides “a guideline and a future reference for group members to reflect on their own efforts, as well as for other groups and individuals to consider while preparing themselves for a task.”

This awareness led me to value relationship building as an integral step before focusing on the task itself. My group’s approach echoed aspects of Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory, which posits that effective leadership depends on the maturity and development of the group. As cited in Dörnyei and Murphey (2003), Hersey and Blanchard describe three stages of group evolution: During the initial formation stage, members work best with a high-task/low-relationship leader. As the group matures, the leader should increase relationship-oriented behavior for a high-task/high-relationship orientation. With full maturity, a low-task/low-relationship approach becomes most effective (p. 98).

When reflecting on my own experience, I realized that my group’s emphasis on building relationships aligned with the developmental stage we were in. The theory helped me understand that focusing on process is not separate from productivity—it actually strengthens it. Attention to process fosters trust, openness, and cohesion, making creative collaboration and learning possible. In Training & Design for Experiential Learning (TDEL), I deepened this understanding through direct application. In my Individual Analysis of Learning paper, I reflected on the essential conditions for effective teamwork: “setting group norms for team effectiveness, relationship building, giving and receiving feedback based on impact, and developing trust.” These insights highlighted that, for both teaching and training, process awareness—how people work and learn together—is just as vital as the task itself.

In sum, my exploration of group dynamics transformed my perception of classroom and group life from a simple coordination of individuals to a living system of interdependent relationships. As a teacher, this means fostering spaces where process and task, cognition and emotion, individual growth and collective purpose, all coexist and enrich each other.

Sub-competency B.8: Teachers Need to Be Skilled at Creating an Environment Where Divergent Views Can Be Expressed and Heard

Supporting Documents

In my Group Dynamics Written Self-Portrait, I was asked to reflect on the past, present, and future of my group experience. I wrote that one of my main goals was to “shift my position from being someone who would wait for the group decision to the one who takes the initiative and stirs the discussion.” While this seemed a valid aspiration at the time, I now recognize that my perspective was somewhat narrow. It reflected a limited view of group participation—one centered on the self rather than the collective. Through a year of collaborative experiences across different contexts—classroom projects, soccer team training, and training design—I learned that being an effective group member is not about asserting influence or convincing others, but about fostering a space where all voices can be genuinely heard and respected (see GD: Final Reflection Paper, para. 3).

Earlier, I emphasized the idea that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” Applying this to real group settings requires two key interpersonal skills: active listening and the ability to give and receive feedback. Listening is central to meaningful communication, yet genuine listening demands more than just hearing—it involves a conscious effort to understand, empathize, and respond with openness. In my Self-Portrait and Final Reflection Paper, I acknowledged that I was still in the process of internalizing these skills. I was learning to bridge the gap between awareness and practice—between understanding what good group interaction looks like and embodying it in action.

The Training & Design for Experiential Learning (TDEL) course offered a turning point. Team planning sessions and feedback activities gave me the chance to apply these insights in real time. I became more aware of how easily good intentions could have unintended effects. As I reflected later, “sometimes a spontaneous act of showing more passion is as manipulative (and non-inclusive) as a direct act of dominating a discussion.” I began to understand that inclusivity in groups depends not only on what we say but on the impact our words and actions have on others. A meaningful moment came during the pre-planning stage of my TDEL group project. Because I had prior experience presenting on The Power of Language at the Sandanona Conference, I was conscious of the influence my background knowledge could exert on group decisions. To avoid unintentionally steering the group, I encouraged members to draw from their own stories and perspectives:

“I suggested to the group to come up with their own stories and narratives of what they think are essential dimensions of the power of language. I did this because I believed that no matter how much literature or theory I knew, it could never replace the authenticity of personal experience.”

This moment taught me that creating an environment where divergent views can emerge is not a passive stance—it requires deliberate restraint, humility, and the courage to let others lead. Because of my conviction that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” I consciously practiced contributing less and listening more. This shift allowed new voices, ideas, and insights to surface, enriching both the group’s work and my understanding of what it means to teach—and learn—reflectively.

Sub-competency C.8: Teachers Need to Hold Attitudes of Openness to and Valuing of Differences in People

Supporting Documents

Differences in attitudes, opinions, and experiences are an inevitable part of any group deliberation. Yet, through my experiences in both Training & Design for Experiential Learning (TDEL) and Group Dynamics (GD), I have come to view these differences not as obstacles, but as powerful sources of enrichment. My early tendency as an analytical learner—with a strong inclination toward theoretical reasoning and conceptualization—often led me to believe that my perspective was the most rational or valid way of understanding experience. Like many people, I initially entered group settings assuming that my “way” of thinking or doing was the most effective. However, over time, my attitude toward difference transformed. I learned to see diversity in thinking, style, and approach as the foundation of creativity and collective intelligence rather than conflict or inefficiency.

The theoretical foundation for this shift came from the Experiential Learning Cycle (ELC), which posits that learning occurs through the interaction of four stages: Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation. This model highlights not only the existence of different learning styles but also the varied “comfort zones” that individuals may gravitate toward. In group contexts, members’ judgments and behaviors often emerge from their dominant learning preferences—some act immediately, others reflect, some analyze, and others experiment. Recognizing this diversity has made me more open to understanding where a colleague’s ideas or reactions may come from. It also taught me that effective collaboration requires engaging with people through their preferred modes of learning, not against them.

From a pedagogical standpoint, this awareness holds profound implications. For teachers and trainers, identifying one’s own learning style—and ensuring it does not unconsciously dominate lesson design—is essential to cultivating inclusivity. Planning with multiple learning preferences in mind fosters an environment where all participants can engage meaningfully. Active listening and constructive feedback become vital tools in sustaining this openness, allowing differences to be acknowledged, understood, and integrated into the collective process.

The two documents I selected illustrate this evolution in my professional practice. In my TDEL Individual Analysis of Learnings, I described an activity that exemplified this openness in action. During a group planning session on The Power of Language, I invited my team to “come up with their stories or narratives of what they think are essential dimensions of the Power of Language.” Each member then designed an activity inspired by their personal narrative and explained the rationale behind it. Together, we discussed and refined each activity, making sure it resonated with all members before adapting it to fit the participants’ perspectives (see TDEL: Individual Analysis of Learnings, para. 4).

This process taught me that genuine openness requires deliberate effort—it involves listening to understand rather than to respond, suspending assumptions, and allowing others’ viewpoints to expand one’s own. Today, I value difference as an essential ingredient of collaboration and learning. Diversity, I have learned, is not merely something to tolerate; it is something to invite—because it is through our differences that we find the fullest expression of what it means to teach, learn, and grow together.

Sub-competency D.14: Teachers Need to Be Aware of Their Feelings, Interaction Styles, and the Way They Affect Others

Supporting Documents

Every individual brings to a group a unique constellation of ideas, emotions, and interaction patterns. These internal and external dynamics shape how the group functions—often in ways that are not immediately visible. While most members are aware of what they contribute to a group, they may not always be conscious of how their communication style or emotional presence affects others. Through my experiences in Training & Design for Experiential Learning (TDEL) and Group Dynamics (GD), I became increasingly aware of how my own interaction style—rooted in an analytical and conceptual mode of thinking—can both enrich and, at times, unintentionally complicate group collaboration.

In my TDEL Individual Analysis of Learnings paper, I described a stage in my group’s development where I realized that my abstract way of expressing ideas was confusing for others. During one meeting, our group was deciding on a theme for a workshop presentation. Every member showed interest in topics related to language and power. When we agreed on “The Power of Language”—which happened to be the title of a workshop I had presented previously at the Sandanona Conference—I noticed that my enthusiasm and prior experience began shaping the discussion in subtle but significant ways. As I reflected in action, I saw how my analytical style—often leaning toward theoretical explanations—was not always accessible to my peers. This created an unintended power dynamic in which my voice carried more weight than I intended.

Reflecting on action later, I recognized that my passion for the subject and my tendency to communicate abstractly contributed to an imbalance in group participation. Expertise or prior knowledge, I learned, can easily translate into dominance if not carefully managed. I began to understand that genuine collaboration depends not only on sharing ideas but also on modulating one’s presence—ensuring that passion invites rather than overshadows others’ contributions. A similar dynamic had surfaced earlier in my Group Dynamics course, though at the time I lacked the awareness to name it. Looking back, I realized that even when I believed I was giving my group members—Rachelle and Annye—freedom to decide, my communication style may have signaled subtle authority or insistence. What I perceived as openness might have been interpreted as direction. Yet the GD experience felt smoother overall, perhaps because of the trust and rapport we built over time. I now recognize that time—the simple act of being together long enough to listen, misunderstand, and repair—plays a decisive role in creating a psychologically safe space for collaboration.

Another insight that emerged from both experiences was the role of resistance in group life. Resistance—whether to ideas, authority, or process—often signals not dysfunction but discomfort with power dynamics or lack of clarity. Becoming aware of my feelings and responses to resistance helped me view it as valuable feedback rather than opposition. These realizations have had a lasting impact on how I engage with groups, students, and colleagues. I now approach group work with greater mindfulness of my interaction style and emotional presence. I strive to communicate with more clarity, humility, and curiosity—to speak with rather than to others. Most importantly, I have learned that awareness of self is not the endpoint of growth but the doorway to understanding the other, and that the quality of any learning environment depends as much on emotional intelligence as on intellectual expertise.

Agenda for Future Learning:

• Read more about Group Dynamics and Classroom Management. 

• Explore myself as a learner and a teacher through journaling on my learning and teaching inside and outside the classroom. 

• Read ‘Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom’. 

• Finish reading ‘Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity’ by Etienne Wenger

Supporting Documents