Everyone says
time moves quickly. Not always. Grouplove agrees with their song Slow (click the link and give it a listen...it's Sunday afternoon, what else do you have to do?). The more I listen to this song, the more I enjoy it. I
highly recommend the whole album, Never Trust a Happy Song. I would humbly suggest that the radio
releases from Grouplove are not their best efforts from their first, and now one-year-old album.
My recent re-introduction
to the academic community has been fantastic.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the content and the experience, despite
(perhaps even because of) the hard and extensive work that it has
entailed. My colleagues and professors
thus far have all been top-notch, and I’ve learned much from both.
That said, if
there was on chief “question mark” in my mind around my education, it has been
the relentless assault of “group discussion” and “group projects.”
And I know this
is not unique to my university. It is an
epidemic if you will.
Disclaimer: I do
not disapprove of group work or group projects.
I don’t want this
to be a rant. I will admit “ranting
capability” is fermenting inside me.
What has caused
me some……we’ll call it “consternation”……is that in the majority of my classes,
we cannot go more than about fifteen minutes without “breaking into groups” of
some kind.
The mentality
seems to be that no lesson or mini-lesson is complete until it is discussed for
“five-minutes” in a group setting. These
“small groups” often include the production of some kind of written summary document. Often the
groups are all assigned the same task, such that when we go around the room and
“share” after the project is complete, we all just repeat the same information. Rarely is the standard “five minutes” enough to
fully extrapolate the ideas found in graduate level classes. A round of applause is given for each group,
and we’re done.
With the
extensive group work, I sometimes also perceive what I will call a “lack of the
expert” happening. That is, an instructor can be so focused on getting students to work together, that he/she forgets that they are the experts and we are the students.
The reason we are in the class is for their expertise, not just the
opinions of our fellow learners (i.e. current non-experts).
This is
admittedly a complex topic. Most things
are, as it turns out (…or maybe I just make them that way).
In a short period
of writing, I won’t go into every different group situation that I have been a part
of. Instead, I will throw out some generic
observations that I have made and some theoretical ideas I have around them (because
you know I love that).
(Hint: Points #1 and
#4 are my biggest concerns if you don’t have time to read the whole thing.)
1.)
Hat Trick
3 = Good
4 = Marginal
5 or more = Bad
For
in-class small group discussions of readings or content, my observation has
been that when four or more students are grouped to discuss a topic, someone
always bails out on the conversation.
How
do I know? Because usually it is
me. My personality is such that I am not
a big fan of larger group discussions. If
you give me the chance, in a group of four or more, I’ll probably keep my mouth
shut. Especially in settings with people
I don’t know well (which is common in classrooms). I’ll still listen and think, but I’m less
likely to contribute. I imagine (hope) I
am not the only one like this.
Character
flaw? Sure…I’m fine with that.
For
me, four or more often harkens back to that old adage of, “too many cooks in
the kitchen”…especially when smart people are involved, which is often the case
at my university.
2.)
Bigger group discussions need a talking ball
Not
literally a talking ball.
Bigger
groups without a clear facilitator seem to run better if there is an object,
like a ball, that must be held in order to talk. If you don’t have the ball, you listen.
This
social experiment is amazing to watch.
Like my yellow Lab, Molly, we all perform better when there is a ball
involved.
(I had a treat sitting in front of her, which is why she looks so intense!)
3.)
Bigger groups need a leader
Yes,
a literal leader.
Going
back to my days in the corporate world, I had several unfortunate experiences
involving meetings where no leader was present.
That
is not to say a “boss” of some kind was not in the room, just that he/she chose
not to lead. The boss would call it
“getting everyone’s opinion.” I have no
problem with that…unless “getting everyone’s opinion” is a cover for being
afraid to upset some members of the group by making a firm decision, then
carrying it out.
Getting
philosophical, it’s about striking the balance (as always). No one wants a leader who doesn’t
listen. At the same time, no one wants a
“leader” who doesn’t lead (i.e. is afraid to speak up and act decisively).
The
classroom version of this is the teacher throwing out the classic “what do you
think?” question and thirty minutes later we are no further along in understanding
the content. Everyone simply gives their
first thoughts, and no time is devoted to actually breaking down some of those
thoughts and digesting the content with respect to them.
The
goal of the classroom is to learn the content, not for everyone to get to talk
(myself included). To that end, the
teacher needs to facilitate the breaking down of A FEW of the valid points from
the students, and direct that toward understanding the material.
4.)
I’m here to learn from the expert
Us
introverts want to hear from the expert.
We like forty-minute lectures. We
like taking notes. We don’t want to
discuss it with our neighbors (yet).
We
want to hear what an expert has to say, chew on it, form some opinions, bounce
some ideas off the instructor or maybe a friend…THEN we might want to discuss it in a group setting. Better yet, let us write about it first, and
then we might be receptive to talking about it with a group.
Instructors,
if you are the expert, please be the expert.
As I said before,
I am not opposed to group discussion.
Ron Ritchhart is an author that I have come to enjoy reading through
some of my course assignments. In his
book called Intellectual Character he states:
“Social dialogues
expose students to the language of thinking.”
I agree with this
statement. Through social dialogue we
get to watch other people think. I find it truly fascinating to watch how other people’s minds work.
It helps me think. It makes my
mind work better (most of the time).
Talking and
writing are also methods by which we congeal our own abstract thoughts and test
them for validity. As such, group
discussions are a necessary and important part of educating ourselves.
However, “group
discussions” are often used like a saltshaker in the classroom. The instructor designs a lesson, then
sprinkles a bunch of group discussions without any regard to how they will
enhance the learning…because the assumption is group discussion always helps
the learning…which I contend is a faulty assumption.
What I am asking
for is more strategic approach to the use of these social dialogues when the
setting is an organized place like a boardroom or classroom.
So did you read the
whole thing blog? Okay, now find three
or four people who’ve also read it and discuss amongst yourselves…
