SELS Dialogues Journal Volume 3 Issue 1

More documents

Info

Pedagogy and Critical Thinking Group Work: A Barrier to Learning? by Yangming Hu and Dr. Richard Williamson As one of the most common cooperation methods, group work is applied to almost every field including education and workplaces. Although group work has such popularity and frequent connection to everyone’s life, the problems with this mode of collaboration draw people’s attention. It is true that group work may be good for learning in certain situations such as general idea exploration, but it may be inefficient and hard to facilitate in many other circumstances. It is difficult to track individual progress during group work, which often causes problems like inconsistency and delay in completing work. At the same time, the working ability of group members is rarely at the same level. The difference between the skills within the group may cause the high-performing members to take more responsibilities and work in the group project while the low-performing members make few contributions. Moreover, it is very difficult for instructors to grade group work fairly as individual contribution differs, and these contributions usually cannot be evaluated through a standard system. Finally, group work can sometimes create situations where the group gravitates to the ideas of a dominant member and the equally relevant ideas of others stay unshared. While group work may be an appealing instructional strategy to use, there are enough cautions about it for educators to think very carefully about its pedagogical value. When people talk about the nature of group work, one of the most common ideas they come up with might be interpersonal cooperation. This aspect of group work requires consistency in communication and progress, and it challenges the individual personalities and work styles. Research indicates that “managing group dynamics for successful implementation of group work is time intensive for instructors” (Chang and Brickman, 2018, p.3). It is time consuming for instructors to implement organized group work effectively. The instructor might find it difficult to present a wellorganized plan that passively addresses the differences among students. The lack of appropriate guidance might cause confusion in students while doing the work, such as, cooperating with other group members, and dealing with various issues and conflicts that occur during the work process. Despite the difficulties in organizing the group and gauging individual progress, the instructors also face problems in designing a fair group work grading system. According to research, current grading systems might not be able to reflect every member’s personal performance accurately (Chang and Brickman, 2018). When some members work extremely hard while others just work for a passing mark, it is reasonably inappropriate to give the whole group a single grade. The hardworking students are not recognized for their individual contributions while free-riders are tacitly allowed. Unfortunately, to solve this, “researchers have recommended administering both holistic rubrics in which students are given points that they must divide between the group members to gauge contributions and analytical rubrics with multiple indicators such as attendance, cooperativeness, and academic contributions”, work that few educators are likely to engage in due to its complexity (Lejk and Wyvill, 2001; Johnston and Miles, 2004, as cited in Chang and Brickman, 2018, p.2). Another concerning issue about group work is the disparity of working ability of members within the group. The unavoidable gap between the most productive members and the low-performance members might place too much responsibility on certain members or lead to the exclusion of some less skillful participants. Unequal contribution is the main problem identified by most students involved in group work. Research indicates that, “students in both high- and lowperformance groups still complained of unequal contributions” (Chang and Brickman, 2018, p.1). The high-performance members are usually the major contributors in a group. Their skills and personalities push them to take leading positions, while in other SELS DIALOGUES | 12
Pedagogy and Critical Thinking cases, they must complete the work of others that is left unfinished due to their low-performance or a negative working attitude to other members in the group. On the other hand, the low-performance members might be unsatisfied with the dominance of the highly skilled members and feel ignored. Although many people argue that this issue can be eased if the students are asked to provide evaluations of their peers on their contributions, researchers have still found that “students may be unlikely to provide honest evaluations of their peers and are unlikely to directly confront free riders” (Strong and Anderson, 1990, as cited in Chang and Brickman, 2018, p.2). Lastly, a possible and unexpected flaw of group work is that it can sometimes create situations where the group gravitates to the ideas of a dominant member while the ideas of the others are ignored. Yielding to peer pressure in group decisions is a significant contributing factor. A term known as “intellectual costs” nicely illustrates another equally significant issue with group work. The term literally means that group work behaviors can limit creativity and productivity. This includes the tendency of groups to conform to a perceived majority view. Expressing an idea that is different from the majority needs enormous courage, which makes it almost impossible for most people to do so. As a result, ideas of the minority are frequently excluded, even though they might be reasonable and effective. In conclusion, there are numerous issues that exist in group work. The problem of accurately tracking working progress of group members, the disparity in problem solving abilities among members, the absence of an all-inclusive marking system, and the effect of peer pressure need acknowledgement and solutions from all educators. As one of the most common pedagogical activities used in contemporary education, a better form of group work needs to be carefully considered. References Chang, Y., and Brickman, P. (2018). When Group Work Doesn’t Work: Insights from Students. CBE life sciences education, 17(3), ar42. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-09-0199 Lejk, M., and Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. As-sessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 61–72 Johnston, L., and Miles, L. (2004). Assessing contributions to group assign-ments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 751–768 Strong, J. T., and Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free-Riding in Group Projects: Control Mechanisms and Preliminary Data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 61-67. https://doi. org/10.1177/027347539001200208 Author’s Bio Richard earned his B.A., B.Ed, M.Ed, and PhD. and has focused his entire career on teaching, learning, and research. He currently facilitates Centennial’s Leadership and Inclusion program. Co-Author’s Bio Yangming Hu is currently a high school student in Ontario. He is interested in drawing and computer programming, and social issues. As a student, he is passionate about generating ideas to improve educational obstacles. SELS DIALOGUES | 13
Page 1 and 2: SELS Dialogues School of English an
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Acknowledgements.
Page 5 and 6: Managing Editor’s Note by Sherry
Page 7 and 8: Educational Technology Games are sh
Page 9 and 10: Educational Technology Machine lear
Page 11 and 12: Educational Technology • Use Imag
Page 13: Educational Technology three, build
Page 17 and 18: Pedagogy and Critical Thinking With
Page 19 and 20: Pedagogy and Critical Thinking coul
Page 21 and 22: Research Initiatives Research quest
Page 23 and 24: Research Initiatives In a nutshell,
Page 25 and 26: Creative Pursuits Welcome to the Cr
Page 27 and 28: Creative Pursuits It was never a bu
Page 29 and 30: Creative Pursuits Stratford’s New
Page 31 and 32: Creative Pursuits Sleeping Bag Tran
Page 33 and 34: Creative Pursuits Toronto by Prabha
Page 35 and 36: SELS Dialogues Editors Sherry Hejaz
Page 37 and 38: Jill McDonald For the past 30 years
Page 39: A1-01-NOV23

SELS Dialogues Journal Volume 3 Issue 1

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?