IPEC Domain/Competency 

Teams and Teamwork

Sub-Competency

TT5 Use shared communication strategies to promote effective team functioning

Goals and objectives

• Practice clear, descriptive communication
• Demonstrate active listening and interpretation
• Reflect on how meaning is constructed and misunderstood

Materials

• Paper; drawing tools; simple images or object 

Activity description

Participants work in pairs to explore the challenges of developing shared understanding through communication. One participant receives an image or object and describes it verbally without naming or showing it. The second participant creates a drawing based solely on the verbal description provided and without asking clarifying questions. After completing the exercise, pairs compare the drawing with the original image and discuss similarities, differences, and sources of misunderstanding.

The activity highlights how communication is shaped by language choices, assumptions, disciplinary/professional perspectives, and individual interpretation. Participants examine how differences in understanding can occur even when information is communicated with positive intentions.

Facilitators observe communication approaches, assumptions about shared knowledge, and the extent to which participants use organized, descriptive, and intentional communication strategies. Reflection focuses on developing communication norms, reducing assumptions, and improving mutual understanding, and recognizing the importance of establishing shared meaning within collaborative teams.

The activity emphasizes that effective teamwork depends not only on transmitting information but also on creating shared understanding among team members. Participants are encouraged to identify communication behaviors and team norms that support successful collaboration in interprofessional and interdisciplinary environments.

• What communication strategies helped create the clearest shared understanding between partners?
• What assumptions did you make as either the speaker or the listener, and how did those assumptions affect communication?
• Where did misunderstandings occur, and what contributed to those differences in interpretation?
• What did this activity reveal about the importance of establishing shared language, terminology, or expectations within a team?
• If clarification had been permitted, what questions would have helped improve understanding? What does this suggest about communication in team-based settings?
• What communication norms or practices could help prevent misunderstandings when team members have different backgrounds, expertise, or perspectives?
• How can teams create an environment where individuals feel comfortable seeking clarification and checking understanding?
• How does this activity reflect communication challenges that occur in interprofessional or interdisciplinary teams?

Optional Closing Reflection:

What is one communication practice your team could adopt to strengthen shared understanding and reduce misunderstandings during future collaborative work?

Use

Early teamwork and communication development (i.e., during the transition from Storming to Norming stage of team development). Participants experience firsthand how easily intended messages can be interpreted differently, creating a powerful opportunity to discuss how teams move from communication difficulties (Storming) toward shared understanding and effective communication practices (Norming).

• Setup & instructions: 3–5 minutes
• Round 1 (describe/draw): 5 minutes
• Compare & switch roles: 2–3 minutes
• Round 2 (describe/draw): 5 minutes
• Debrief/reflection: 10 minutes
• Total: 25–28 minutes

• IPE: Pair participants from different professions; reflection emphasizes differences in professional language, terminology, and assumptions
• IDE: Rotate roles; reflection highlights communication across organizational or functional roles, and in collaborative teamwork

Additional resources

• Icebreaker Spot. Back‑to‑Back Drawing Communication Exercise.
• Therapist Aid. Back‑to‑Back Drawing Activity Worksheet.

References

• Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
• Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (2010). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group Facilitation, 10, 43–48.
• Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134
• Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145–170. Link

Adapted by: CHBS IPE and IDE Council, James Madison University
Suggested Citation: CHBS IPE and IDE Council. (2026). Descriptive Drawing. CHBS IPE & IDE Instructional Toolkit. James Madison University.