My New Site is up: joewlarson.com

Note: Please change your bookmarks and RSS feeds to point at joewlarson.com. Thanks!

Now that I've finished school, I have a few web-based projects I want to work on, and I also want to continue blogging.  I didn't want to continue blogging at brokedbeta.blogspot.com, because I've decided the whole concept of "Broked" was a bit too negative, and besides I'd never intended blogspot to be my permanent home.  After trying to come up with a new, equally creative and meaningful name, I eventually decided that using the name my parents gave me would be simplest and allow the most flexibility moving forward.

As I start, I've got a blog running using WordPress with a very basic theme based on Toolbox by Automattic, though I might eventually just create my own from scratch.  I also imported some of my old blog posts from a couple of blogs I've had through the years.  I  have a lot more work left to do to get this site to a basic level beyond just running the blog, so please drop by for fresh looks at what I'm up to.  Enjoy!

The Trouble with College Group Work

Throughout my college career at the University of Washington Bothell, there was no end of bellyaching about group work. Personally, I found group work in most classes to be very painful and low in educational value. I completely understand the motivation for Universities to include group work as a core teaching tool for every class. It teaches many skills required to work in the professional world. As one of my Professors, Steve Schroeder, said a few years back, "In the working world, group work is the norm."

However, in the working world certain practices and conventions aid the group work process:
  1. Defined roles and responsibilities. There is usually some stated understanding about what work is to be done by whom, though of course there are always gray areas.

  2. Hierarchy, reporting and oversight. Somebody (on the team or outside it) is clearly able to spot slackers and has the authority to call them out.

  3. Common workspace and schedule. Either group members are in the same office for N hours a day, or the employer has taken pains to bring them together in other ways (regular video conferencing, monthly meetings in person, whatever).

  4. Rational group design. The group has been put together by some intelligent process to create a workable team with some balance of complimentary skills.

  5. Longevity of teams. People tend to work with the same handful of people for 6 to 12 months or more, and develop certain efficiencies.

In school work, most of these aspects of group work are usually missing. This creates a frustrating and unrealistic group experience. It doesn't usually lead to much learning about about the subject of the course or about working in groups.

Without defined roles and responsibilities, students are left to sort this out themselves. In some ways this is a good exercise, but there are definitely some serious drawbacks. In a degree program there is usually somewhat less diversity in personality and skill types than in a working organization, so some teams are way off balance. Conversely, there is often a very large difference in skill level and experience. Some groups will have nobody who can do much of anything. These groups are in real trouble because not only do they not have designated roles but they don't even know what the roles would be. Other groups might have one person who can do it all -- and usually does end up doing all the work, to the detriment of their own schedule and other student's learning.

Without hierarchy, reporting and oversight, there are always going to be slackers who do the minimum possible. Instructors generally put the burden on the students to report these people or fire them. But I have almost never seen that happen. In short lived teams, it is usually not worth the tension. In longer lived teams, pseudo-friendships evolve sooner than work patterns become evident, and then it's just awkward.

Without a common workplace and schedule, it is extremely difficult to actually get the work done. Especially at a campus for working adults, finding a time window during the week where more than two people can get together is nearly impossible. Most group projects therefore move online and are done asynchronously. This is actually a good representation of modern work, with teams spread across branches or working from home. But it does destroy the chance for certain types of group learning, and it limits how much work can actually be done by such a team.

Without rational group design, instructors usually go with the randomly selected group, or the self-selected group. Both methods have their pluses and minuses, though neither is very realistic to the workforce. Randomly selected groups are most often associated with short projects, which is the worst fit because then there isn't enough time for group forming. Self-selected groups are usually more effective, but can leave a few groups of "leftover" people that are way worse off than the other groups.

Without a long lived team, there is little time for forming and norming (thanks Mr. Dimeo). Groups don't have enough time to gain any understanding of each other's skills, personality, and perspective, let alone develop optimal ways of divvying up and managing the work.

So what is a poor college Professor to do about group work? I believe the quarter-long group-project model is the best way to address these problems, and I have seen it used fairly successfully.

Instructors can fine tune teams in the early weeks to create more balance. They can effectively play the role of oversight by having frequent checkpoints and audits for progress. Time is allowed for team reshuffling (at the Instructor's direction) to correct issues of balance and compatibility. In practice I haven't seen as much of this as I'd like, but the opportunity is there for the Professor who takes it.

Students can "waste" those first weeks just getting to know each other and working out a common schedule. Natural roles and responsibilities can evolve. Real group learning experiences arise, as well as learning about how to work effectively in a team. Often, some pretty amazing work products come out of such projects. Best of all, real friendships can develop.

In closing, I'd like to say thanks (once again) to Professor David Socha for the email that prompted this blog entry.