Analysis of Group Composition and Collaborative Learning - Assignment Example

Table of Contents Table of Contents Part Introduction 2 1 Group Composition 3 2 Group Task 3 3 Collaboration Format 3 4 Report Structure4 Part 2: Collaborative Learning 4 2.1 Study Groups 5 2.2 The Structure of Study Groups. 6 Part 3: Conclusion 9 Part 4: References 10 Part 1: Introduction The first assignment, whose primary foci were group membership, leadership and learning within the context of groups, was a learning experience in itself. Comprised of four members whose collaborations were confined to online interactions and communications, the completion of the assignment, let alone its quality, were ultimately dependant upon group members’ arriving at a workable format for collaboration and on defining the role and functions of each of the four members. Needless to say this was not an easy undertaking, largely because, as several researchers have pointed out, the student’s/learner’s role tends to be an isolationary one (Hargreaves & Dawe. 1990; Little, 1990; Ponticell, 1995; Guskey, 1994: Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Guskey, 2000). The second assignment, necessitating the observation of a study group, confirmed the experiential findings of the first. Although the observed group assumed a traditional, rather than an online format, and held physical meetings, communication was constrained by a number of factors. Among the most important of these factors was lack of organisation and lack of experience in teamwork. These two factors conspired against the study group’s ability to jointly realise its objectives, with the consequence being reversion to the isolationist model of studying and learning. The isolationist learning model, implying that students have to work on their own and not in collaboration with their peers, is imposed upon learners by teachers and educational institutions from the inception of their educational journey to its conclusion. Predicated on the assumption that collaboration could lead to collusion, the unfair distribution of work responsibilities and, learner dependence on others, culminating in his/her resignation of learning/studying responsibilities, the isolationist learning model tends to discourage cooperative learning (Hargreaves & Dawe. 1990; Little, 1990; Ponticell, 1995; Guskey, 1994: Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Guskey, 2000). To the extent that both of the previous assignments focused on participation in and observation of study groups, they were significant learning experiences. 1.1 Group Composition Murphy and Lick (2001) maintain that group size is an important predictor of the capacity of a group to satisfy its objectives, insofar as size directly impinges upon manageability. As such, they advise that group sizes range between two to six members. As noted in the introductory paragraph, our group was comprised of four members, implying adherence to the aforementioned advice and, supposedly, an enhanced capacity for the quality completion of the set assignment. The observed group was comprised of six students. 1.2 Group Task The assigned task was simple enough in itself. Group members were required to watch a film, following from which they were expected to collaborate on the composition of a report on that which the film had to say about group dynamics and on the completion of a number of other learning tasks. The film in question was Alive. As regards the task before the observed group, it was collaborative preparation for an upcoming exam. Group members had copies of the study questions and each member was expected to write up a model answer to 1.5 questions and explain the material to the rest of the members. 1.3 Collaboration Format The first group assumed an online form, whereby collaboration was limited to group discussions via WebCT. While this was, in some ways, easier than having to meet in person, insofar as it saved having to decide on a place of meeting and on having to physically go to that place of meeting, in other ways it was somewhat frustrating. Responses to discussion threads were often delayed both by the nature of the medium and by the fact that group members were not obliged to respond immediately, as would have been the case in face-to-face interaction. Further to that, group members were not as diligent as they could have and should have been with respect to online meetings. Lastly, the online format was somewhat frustrating as it imposed strict limitations on the range of communications forms available, disallowing, for example, the reading of non-verbal cues. The second group assumed a traditional format wherein physical meetings were scheduled at a place and time convenient to all members. A total of nine meetings were scheduled but the punctuality and diligence which group members displayed at the outset, eventually broke down. Only 6 meetings were held and only four had full attendance. 1.4 Report Structure This report will be reflective in nature, referring to and discussing group learning theory for the purpose of examining the referred to group learning experience, focusing on what I learnt about myself as both a group member and leader. The report will be divided into three sections. The introduction will contextualise the report’s focus; the main body will examine group structure and group learning theory for subsequent reflective purposes; and the conclusion will summarise the learning outcomes. Part 2: Collaborative Learning Learning communities are created and organised around interdependent and collaborative relationships. Sergiovanni’s (1994) learning communities are a slight modification of Senges (1990) learning organizations, which are characterised by collaboration, connections to a shared vision and engagement in shared decision making and problem solving. The concept of the learning community implies that each member of the group is equally important to both the success of the group and the achievement of the desired shared outcomes (Collay, Dunlap, Enloe, & Gagnon, 1998). A true sense of collaborative learning exists when group members respect the contributions of other members and appreciate opportunities to plan and to interact with each other (Bennett. 1994; Ponticell, 1995; Hord, 1997; Guskey, 2000; Murphy & Lick, 2001). Within the context of the above stated, the accrual of the benefits of the study group experience was largely dependant upon the realisation of a number of factors. Among these are organisation, mutual respect and effective communication as which would allow group members to explore the group’s objectives and outline the strategy for the satisfaction of the said objectives. From a personal perspective, and not withstanding the fact that the group did complete and submit the required assignment, organisation fall far short of the optimal and group members tended to work in isolation, rather than build up upon each other’s work. The implication here is that the group members did not benefit as much as they could have from the experience. This same finding holds true for the observed group. 2.1 Study Groups Researchers typically define study groups as small groups of educators who come together to discuss issues relating to teaching and learning, which increase their capacities through new learning for the benefit of students (Murphy & Lick, 2001). Murphy (1992: 71) states, “Study groups help us implement curricular and instructional innovations, collaboratively plan school improvement, and study research on teaching and learning.” Cramer, Hurst, and Wilson (1996: 7) define study groups as “a collaborative group organized and sustained by teachers to help them strengthen their professional development in areas of common interest.” Study groups are often formed because teachers recognize the need to collaborate with others to gain support when implementing new ideas. Matlin and Short (1991) find that through the implementation of study groups as a model of professional development teachers gain the opportunity to think through their beliefs, challenge current instructional strategies, blend theory and practice, share ideas and concerns, and identify personal and professional needs. Proceeding from the above stated, it is evident that participation in the study group, aimed towards collaborative learning, had objectives which extended beyond the completion and submission of the assigned task. These were the joint exploration and investigation of our own strengths and weaknesses as learners and tutors, on the one hand, and the design of a learner plan, on the other. From the perspective of a group member, these objectives were not satisfied. Personally find it quite difficult to break away from the isolationist model, as a group member, I preferred to have my part of the group task clearly delineated, following which I took sole responsibility for its completion. The point here is that there was no group exploration and investigation of the topic per se; certainly, the general outline and direction were agreed upon on a group level but, other than that, the isolationist, as opposed to the collaborative model, superseded. There are two possible explanations. The first is that collaborative work is dependant upon mutual trust and as group members, we do not know one another well enough to invest that level of trust in the others, especially when grades were at stake. The second is that we were not accustomed to collaboration and, therefore, were still in the process of exploring this learning model from the experiential perspective. As regards the observed group, they displayed a similar reluctance to enter into a collaborative study arrangement. Despite the enthusiasm which group members displayed at the outset, they gradually began to revert to the isolationist model, perceiving of participation as a waste of precious time which could otherwise be spent preparing for the exam. The aforementioned, which is indicative of the absence of mutual trust, was partially a consequence of the fact that group members did not know each other and that time was too limited for them to develop a constructive, trust-based, working relationship. 2.2 The Structure of Study Groups. Murphy and Lick (2001) categorise study groups into two types, whole faculty study groups and independent or stand alone study groups. Whole-faculty study groups result when all the members of a faculty decide through a consensus approach, that each member will participate in a study group that meets regularly. These groups have a common organisational focus but each group individually determines their area of specific study. “The goal of whole-faculty study groups is to focus the entire school faculty on creating, implementing and integrating effective teaching and learning practices into school programs that will result in an increase in student learning...as reflected in related relevant data sources” (Murphy and Lick, 2001: 11). Individual or stand-alone study groups do not depend on the support or focus of the organisation. Individuals form these as a result of a common interest or focus. The group meets on a regular basis until its desired outcome is achieved. This format can be less structured; however, it serves as a viable alternative to whole-faculty study groups to support on-going professional development. Ours was a stand-alone group. Murphy and Lick (2001) believe that groups need to develop a guiding question. guiding principles, and procedural guidelines to provide the process structure that they feel is required for study groups to achieve the desired results. The guiding question sets whole faculty study groups apart from other forms of collegial arrangements. The critical question is "What are students learning as a result of what teachers are learning and doing in study groups?" (Murphy and Lick, 2001: 12). The five guiding principles which serve as the basis for creating student based whole faculty study groups are: students are placed first, everyone is participating, leadership is shared, responsibility is equal, and the work is public (Murphy & Lick, 2001). The procedural or process guidelines that Martin (2000) and Murphy and Lick (2001) find to be most effective in facilitating the work of study groups are as follows: Keep the study group size between three and six members The topic of study determines the membership Establish and keep a regular schedule Establish group norms Rotate leadership among the group members Develop a study group action plan Complete a study group log after each group meeting Establish a curriculum and instruction focus that requires members to routinely look at student work and observe students engaged in instructional tasks Make a list of resources Use a variety of professional development strategies to accomplish the groups intended results Practice reflection by keeping a reflective journal Recognize all members of the group as equals Expect and plan for transitions Assess the progress of the group according to the action plan Establish a variety of communication strategies Researchers have further suggested that leadership should be rotated among all members of the study group for optimum group effectiveness. They prefer this rotational model to offset the possibility that one appointed facilitator might become ineffective which could be a detriment to the overall group (Francis et al., 1994; Dufour .and Eaker, 1998; Martin, 2000; Murphy and Lick, 2001). Our group followed the guidelines outlined in the preceding, inclusive among which was that which advised rotational group leadership. Therefore, each group member experienced group work from both a member and leader perspective. The assignment was divided into stages, or parts and leadership rotated as we moved from part to part. Prior to this experienced, I believed that I had the qualities of a good participatory leader, as in a hands-on active leader. While this experience has not been sufficient to change my mind, it has made me reconsider precisely that which the group leader has to do. Group leaders are not simply expected to lead, as in distribute work tasks, but function as mediator, facilitator, primary communicator and group role model (as regards work quality, willingness to cooperate and timeliness of submissions). Initially, I was willing to cooperate and act as communicator, facilitator and model but after a while I discovered that the first three were adversely impacting my ability to satisfy the last. Communication, facilitation and cooperation were simply taking up too much time, as was checking up on other members’ submissions. Whether because of work-related responsibilities or my desire to get my part of the assignment right, I found myself gradually resigning my role as leader and reverting to that of member, even during that time frame when I was supposed to act as leader. Upon reflection, the above stated does not mean to imply that I was a better and more effective group member than I was a group leader but only that, within the parameters of the role of member, it was easier to revert to the isolationist, as opposed to the collaborative model. The fact that, within the context of this group, I preferred the one as opposed to the other was because the online format did not contribute to the realisation of this collection of individuals as a unified group, on the one hand and because group members did not really know each other, on the other. It was, accordingly, easier to simply forgo much of the collaborative structure in favour of the more traditional isolationist one, wherein participation and collaboration where confined to each member’s submitting her tasks at the due time. As pertains to the observed group, there was no rotation of leadership and all six members functioned solely as group member. While my primary role was that of observer, I also acted as facilitator entailing the assumption of some leadership roles, including conflict resolution and diffusion of tensions. Whether or not this particular experience established any leadership qualities on my part is difficult to determine for two reasons. In the first place, my position effectively gave me a degree of authority over the students in question. In the second place, the group did not persist to the end, in which instance the observation was largely incomplete. Part 3: Conclusion Even while conceding to the fact that both of the referred to assignments represented wonderful opportunities for experiential group learning, it is necessary to acknowledge that one did not benefit from them as one could, and should have. Several factors account for the stated, amongst which one may mention the novelty of the experience, its online format and the fact that group members did not really know one another. As a consequence of the mentioned, the group learning, collaborative experience was not actually realised and, instead, group members reverted to the traditional isolationist model. It is, thus, that I cannot really claim to have truly explored my potential as either group member or leader. Part 4: References Bennett, C. (1994). Promoting teacher reflection through action research: What do teachers think? Journal of Staff Development, 15(1), 34-38. Collay, M., Dunlap, D., Enloe, W., & Gagnon, G. (1998). Learning circles: Creating conditions for professional development. Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press. Cramer, G., Hurst, B., & Wilson C. (1996). Teacher study groups for professional development. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation. Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1 998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service. Francis, S., et al. (1994). Improving school culture through study groups. Journal of Staff Development, 11(2), 12- 15. Guskey, T. (1 994). Results oriented professional development: In search of optimal mix of effective practices. Journal of Staff Development, 15(4), 42-49. Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teacher and Teacher Education, 6(3), 227-241. Hord, S. (1986). A manual for using innovation configurations to assess teacher development programs. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Research and Development Centre for Teacher Education. Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers professional relations. Teachers College Record. 91(4), 509-536. Matlin, M., & Shoa K. (1991). How our teacher study group sparks change. Educational Leadership. 49(3), 68. Murphy, C. (1992). Study groups foster schoolwide learning. Educational Leadership, 50(3), 71-74. Murphy, C., & Lick, D. (200 1). Whole faculty study groups: A powerful way to change schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ponticell, J. (1 995). Promoting teacher professionalism through collegiality. Journal of Staff Development, 16(3), 13 – 18. Senge, P. (1 990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency. Sergiovanni, T. (1 994). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Read More