Can we teach writing based on the myth of collaborative learning? John Trimbur presents us with two perspectives:
1. Consensus stifles learning by oppressing individual thought, and
2. Knowledge is socially constructed, so consensus is a natural tool.
Collaboration, teamwork, consensus building, and similar terms are euphemisms for the pejorative “group think” that Trimbur warns about[1]. However, like Trimbur I think there is a place for collaborative learning, but I believe that collaborative learning should remain a conceptual rather than functional framework.
In the corporate world, collaboration and teamwork are commonly held precepts of success. From the first interview, job candidates are assessed on their team experience and capability. On the job, collaboration within teams, departmental or cross-functional, is strongly encouraged--and evaluated. However, where does innovation come from if the corporate organism only supports the average? And if we believe this rhetoric of “average”, how would maverick leaders such as Steve Jobs be able to contribute their special brand of innovation?
Organizational behavior theory would tell us that we’re smarter as a group. Years ago, I attended a corporate “retreat” that had us engage in a table top game to prove that group decisions are better. We were divided into small groups of participants and given the following scenario:
Your plane has just crashed in the Amazon. Your team has survived and has to trek through the jungle to a settlement to be rescued. There are 20 items available for you to help you on this journey, but you are only able to take 10 of them.
We were first asked to develop the list of 10 items we’d take individually. Then, we did the same exercise as a team. At the end, most of the groups decided that the 10 items they chose together were more valuable than the 10 items chosen individually.
I thought about this example for many years trying to find a hole in the logic, as it goes against my independent nature, and I think I’ve found the rationale for why the group’s consensus was thought to be more successful. It is this: individually, I make all of the decisions and I am able to take more risks, being accountable only to myself for my success or failure. In a group situation, I must consider the needs of others in addition to myself. In the former, it is easy to be innovative, imaginative, creative, etc. because there is no one to stop me. In the former, I’m not so lucky.
In the education world, teamwork has been accepted practice for decades. I remember working in groups from my earliest years. But while this was a great learning experience on how to get along with others (a good thing!), the output was the average not the innovative. When I worked alone, however, I was able to take risks and come up with truly creative solutions. Not all of these solutions were successful, but the effort provided a richer learning experience than that received from teamwork.
Another function of successful teamwork not mentioned in our readings but which I believe is fundamental is that team members must have mutual respect for each other, and this only comes through shared experience obtained over time. For a current example of a successful cross-disciplinary team, consider the fictional forensics team on the popular television show Bones. The team members are multi-degreed scientists, an artist and computer aficionado, an administrator, and a police officer. The t4eam works to solve crimes because everyone respects each other. In the case of a classroom team, the participants are not known to each other yet are required to function cohesively. This forced teamwork doesn’t always work.
My preference is evident: if I work independently, then I have control over the output and I can be as conservative or outlandish with my solutions. Within a team, not so much.
[1] John Trimbur. Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning. College English. Vol. 51, No. 6 (Oct., 1989), pp. 602-616. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/377955
Debbie, I can empathize. I am also an independent learner, and many of my students are, too. The reasons are probably familiar to you: unreliable, unmotivated, or domineering group members are a deterrent. But I see three primary values of collaborative learning in my classes:
ReplyDelete1. In a well formed group where everyone is willing to take risks (they do happen with enough coaching--I promise!), the participants often come up with inventive ideas. Even Steve Jobs has a “think tank” to help him with innovations. The key to innovative ideas is a lack of pressure: usually, the best ideas come up in my class group work when they aren't being graded on their ideas.
2. Being in a group helps some of the shyer students participate. This is a reason to make small groups instead of large ones. It helps those quiet students find confidence in their voice.
3. If nothing else, it acclimates them to working with people they dislike. I know this sounds harsh, but we professionals know that sometimes group members just don’t agree; students need to learn to be okay with that. I think part of Trimbur’s point is that we should teach students to become comfortable with that conflict.
And as something fun on group dynamics: have you heard the “This American Life” episode about working in groups? I’m going to post that on my blog for everyone to listen to. I usually play the first few minutes for my students when they start forming teams for their group projects.
Debbie,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you and I are united! I can't stop thinking about the Amazon jungle scenario. I would rather pick my 10 items and be off, then wait around for someone to argue item A versus B and so forth. What if a storm comes while we're debating, or maybe a jaguar eats Suzy while she considers her options. The answer is to cowboy-up and double time those 20 miles. I'd probably be at the hut with a hot meal before some of the group left the broken plane!
The same rings true for professional projects and learning of all types. Group dynamics may offer a great sounding board for composition feedback or medical group learning, but at some point a moderator (i.e. decision-maker) must reign the situation in to a manageable framework. I guess the overall answer is to promote a biphasic group activity, whereby the learning is collaborative at first, but decision-making is streamlined in the end? Just a thought, hey!
Like you, I prefer to work individually. In some cases people come up with better ideas in a group setting, but it always seems to take a lot of time and energy that working individually does not (however, with a proven team, it might actually make things easier and more efficient). Although team work can produce good outputs, I find myself thinking of a Demotivator (www.despair.com, if you haven't seen them - hilarious) for Meetings that says "None of us is as dumb as all of us." That about sums up my general feeling about group work and group think!
ReplyDelete