ONE-TO-ONE

Before we launched our project to the public, it was vital to do background research and collect information from other libraries in the U.S. that have successfully started groups similar to ours. Some of which were: Arlington Heights Public Library, Boston Public Library, Edgewater Library, and Nokomis Library. We asked them questions about meeting times, how to advertise, and what strategies they used in their own conversation groups. The advice of these other organizations led us to deciding when we would hold our group and for how long.

Additionally, for our project, advertising was a key aspect that would greatly contribute to our success. Our team worked hard to create promotional tools such as: business cards, flyers, and an original logo. These materials were used to advertise the “who, what, where, when, and why” components of our conversation group. We distributed our flyers to various organizations around Rochester that work with our desired populations, and this quickly spread the word about “One-to-One” around the community. Organizations like the Diversity Council, IMAA (Intercultural Mutual Assistance Association), the Rochester Public Library, and the YMCA allowed us to hang flyers and leave business cards throughout their facilities. Additionally, we contacted multiple churches and ethnic grocery stories around Rochester that are popular attractions for diverse populations in Rochester. Without these resources, the community would not have been informed about “One-to-One” as quickly as it was.

Behind the scenes, our team collaborated on a tri-weekly basis in order to create a rough “lesson” plan, which consisted of gathering information from various websites and textbooks about conducting English conversations with non-native speakers. We worked together closely to design our graphics and sync our schedules in a way that benefitted everyone. Each week, one meeting was held to assess the pros and cons of our group and necessary changes were made. This collaboration was essential to not only the satisfaction of our team members, but to the community that we worked with. Valuing the opinions of each team member kept everyone happy, and this was reflected into the hard work we projected into our work with the community in our conversation groups. Our group was successful in collaboration because we established rules and policies at the beginning of the semester that decided how often we would meet, the best communication methods to reach each other, and how to approach conflict ("Teamwork Policies Agreement Guide", 2016). The strengths of each individual on our team blended well to allow our group members to balance each other in all areas.