Dennis Byrnes wrote:
>One of the objectives of our new general education plan is
to help students learn how to work collaboratively in teams.
Here the objective is small group work and we're looking for
the right context to teach it. It seems to be the complement
of your question. This competency is, in part, suggested by
surveys by our College of Management that suggest employers
are looking for employees who are skilled in working in
groups.<
If I understand your situtation correctly, you are trying to enhance students'
abiities to collaborate but not within a specific department (i.e., developing
a course dedicated to small group dynamics in the Communications/Theater Arts
Dept.). My gut reaction is to say that teaching a course on small group
dynamics outside of an authentic setting would decrease the likelihood of
transfer to settings that employers would be interested in anyway. One
strategy may be to identify several courses within the General Education
Program that provide good opportunities for group work (I cannot begin to
offer any valid suggestions since I am not familiar with your programs). Then
get the instructors on board and have them develop ways in which they can
proactively facilitate the development of collaboration skills. It seems to
me that the instructors must first "buy in" to the idea, then work
collaboratively to develop a strategy to enhance small group skills. I think
it is crucial that the instructors of the courses collaborate with one another
to develop the strategy/framework (a step we often fail to take in my
experience). If these skills/habits of mind are placed as priorities in
several classes, I think it would be much more likely to see real change in
students' skills and attitudes.
<Given that my problem turns this around, what are strategies
for teaching students to work collaboratively, i.e., more
than simply practice with group problems? Assuming that
skills for working in groups are teachable/learnable, what
sort of context is appropriate for such learning? What sorts
of behavior are monitored to guage success? How does one
assess skills of collaboration?>
These are interesting core questions that I would love to hear others'
perspectives on. One thing that comes to mind is that my students have
difficulty just with understanding the differences between cooperation and
collaboration. I think of cooperation as something quite different from
collaboration. In collaboration, all individuals have a stake in the final
product and everyone succeeds or everyone fails. In cooperation, while
individuals may exchange ideas, help each other out, etc. there is still quite
a bit of autonomy in terms of outcomes. I find that my students get into
groups for projects, delegate duties, and then only occadsionally reconvene to
update each other or get some more ideas. This is not collaboration. I had
to alter the project structure, requirements, and grading criteria to foster
COLLABORATION. For example, I grade group projects in such a way that
everyone is responsible for the overall group product BUT their individual
performance is taken into account. If a group earns a 50% on thier project
but an individual within that group earns a 100% on the portion for which they
had primary responsibility, the student earns a project grade of 75% (average
of the two scores). This really helps set the "tone" of the strategies that
students employ in creating a product. I look to see how they have delegated
tasks and what strategies they have put in place to ensure that all members
are involved in all parts of the project. I can provide scaffolding when I
see that the strategy is more cooperative rather than collaborative.
Additionally, I have found that it is very important for each group to have a
"facilitator" to serve as the liason with me and to keep the discussions and
strategies headed in the right direction. I find that I have to work with
these students quite intensely at the beginning of the project.
In terms of some behaviors, I have observed my less effective groups spitting
out ideas and either approving or rejecting them. My more effective groups,
however, take a suggested idea talk about strengths and weaknesses and then
explore how the weaknesses could be overcome. What they end up with a an idea
that was not produced by any one individual but by the dialogue and flow of
ideas within the group. I look for how suggestions/ideas are handled by the
group (exploration/judgement/modification/etc.). I also look at the more
holistic flow of ideas in the the group dialogue. Is the discussion
focused/narrow and deep or is it broad and superficial? What is happening in
the group to make that happen? Who is responsible for this happening? One
person or the most people in the group?
I think that there must be a multitude of other behaviors/skills that can be
focused on...other ideas?
Jennifer Post
Doctoral Student and Teaching Fellow
Department of Psychology in Education
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
(412)916-1690
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
