The Drill

The exercise is simple to administer: Before going into their groups for the day, students and the instructor write (anonymously) a page about what they expect to happen without using any names. In their descriptions, they include how they understand the day’s tasks and how they think the group will accomplish them. When the group work is over, on another sheet of paper they write their perceptions of what actually happened in the group (again, not using names). They then compare and contrast their expectations with their experiences. The instructor can debrief with the class what was learned from the exercise or collect the descriptions and present them at the next class.

Pluses & Pluses

This exercise has considerable advantages for instructors, who, in studying their own and the students’ before and after accounts, can identify attitudes about group work and actual practices in the groups. It also has advantages for students, who have a chance to externalize assumptions about their group experiences. For both instructor and student, the exercise provides an opportunity to discuss how small group work is connected to learning.

She Said – She Said

Writing now in different voices, we show how the results of this activity in a graduate course on qualitative research changed our practices as teacher (Diane) and student (Sally).

Diane

Diane:  I designed and used this exercise because I find that it’s easy for me to romanticize what goes on in groups. I sit in on only a small fraction of the group interactions, usually answering specific questions. I believe with Kenneth Bruffee (1999) that students need opportunities to practice using and applying new concepts. In this particular class on qualitative research, I wanted my students to apply new terms they were learning by discussing how their research purpose and its context led them to choose a particular sampling technique. In my “before-group” description, I wrote, “Students will listen intently so that they can discuss why various sampling techniques best fit each project. I anticipate that they will justify their choice of a sampling technique given their research purpose and setting.” Since the projects were different, I predicted that they would see how others

The very set of power dynamics that I had been researching in small groups were present in my own experience of this group.

matched their sampling technique to the demands of their projects. But I also had social goals: I wanted students to experience the mutual give and take afforded by collaboration. As Bruffee puts it, “Students learn by joining transition communities in which people construct knowledge as they talk together and reach consensus” (p 84). I wanted them to see how collaboration could produce more thoughtful research. Those were my expectations.

Sally

Sally:  I thought the reason for the exercise was to reinforce the importance of the specific tasks that student groups had been given. Small group work was my research topic, so I recognized the value of being given explicit tasks. I believed that Diane had given us the tasks to help us practice thinking and talking like qualitative researchers. As I wrote out my expectations for what would happen in my group, I hesitated. I had not been able to share much in my group meetings and began to articulate, as I wrote, why I was troubled by the way we used our time: “I expect my group members will talk about their graduate program issues.” As one of the three undergraduates in the course, I believed that the two graduate students in my group were indifferent to my contributions.

When I wrote out my expectations, I realized that I felt that I would be shut out. I feared that they might have some reason to do so. The language they used to talk about the readings seemed more sophisticated. They had exposure to information and concepts that I had not experienced yet. “I know that they are not intentionally excluding me,” I scribbled hurriedly. “Yet I don’t feel confident enough to try to change the pattern of my group.”

As I wrote, it became clear to me that the very set of power dynamics that I had been researching in small groups were present in my own experience of this group. I felt conflicted about expressing my new recognition, so I quickly jotted down the task for that day: “The group will take turns listening to each other’s sampling plans and give feedback.”

When we actually met, the other two students immediately asked me to go first. One said, “I think that we have not heard from you enough.” I thought to myself, “How did they know what I had just written?” I found myself repeating the task: “We should listen to each other’s sampling methods and think about their fit for the research purpose and context.” I could tell that my voice and position had shifted. Instead of trying to purchase membership by listening to their off-topic conversations without interrupting, I had turned directly to the task. The exercise reminded me that I had the right to ask for mutual and reciprocal relations. Perhaps the exercise had reminded them of the group’s purposes.

Together Again

We both learned from this exercise. Reading students’ descriptions, Diane reinvigorated her emphasis on group tasks and student accountability. Writing her description, Sally became aware of unconscious feelings that affected her level of participation. The journaling exercise gave her a safe place to re-examine and voice her feelings of isolation. Feeling different from the others, she perceived herself as without power and status in her group. Her journaling contributed to a transformation in her behavior. This transformation is evident in her “after-group” description. Instead of using “they,” as she had in the first, she used “we.” Even if the journaling exercise does not produce such an immediate shift among group members, the descriptions can alert instructors to social struggles so that they can act to forestall negative outcomes. 

References:
Bruffee, K. A. 1999. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.