This the true story of four strangers, picked to work in a group, write together and have their work evaluated. Find out what happens when students stop being polite and start getting real.
In her book Breaking (into) the Circle, Hephzibah Roskelly paints a picture of classroom groups that is not unlike the social situations from the MTV reality series, The Real World. People from all walks of life are brought together in a common setting to be challenged by their differences and to accomplish something together. Okay, so the scenarios aren’t exactly the same (we try to avoid fighting, sex, and alcohol among students), but in both group situations people are learning about themselves (and their writing) through interaction with others.
Breaking (into) the Circle explores group work from both theoretical and practical angles. In Chapter 2 Hepsie describes Vygotsky’s theory about the social nature of learning and explains how it serves as a foundation for building group work in the classroom. Based on this theory, she presents three specific practices that can foster productive group work. For me, the two most meaningful of these practices were the use of mixed groups and the importance of play. Let me explain.
I’ve wondered in my own class what the most effective way to group students is. Should they be grouped with peers of a similar ability level? Or should they be mixed? Hepsi avoids homogenizing groups and advocates us to do the same. According to her, genders, races, and writing ability levels should all mix in class groups because it increases students’ zone of proximal development; that is, the difference between their actual performance and their potential performance through working with peers (39). Hepsie points out that with the proper training, students’ writing and confidence will grow from working with both higher and lower performing peers. She also makes a strong case in Chapter 3 for mixing students of varying races and genders in groups as a way to encourage students’ exposure to and use of language that is different from the “normal discourse” of the traditional academic environment (72).
The other practice she notes in Chapter 2 that caught my attention is that of play. By assigning roles, acting out situations, and using other methods of “play,” students can be more creative in the classroom and have a sense of ownership (which scares many teachers who fear chaos from group activities). Hepsie describes how this spirit engendered by play can shape group dynamics and thought: “The group makes talk and knowledge flow in new directions, in a circular path rather than a straight line from teacher to student” (55). This “circular path” is similar to that of the dialectical diagram Ballenger promotes in writing⎯ our process should flow in a circle from creative to critical and back again, just as our students’ ideas and writing should flow from them⎯to peers⎯to the teacher (who Hepsie believes should be a part of group conversation)⎯and back again.
A final nugget of knowledge that I took away from this book is the importance of permanence in groups. Hepsie keeps her students in the same groups all semester (named after birds, a bit odd) and they have a group envelope in which peer comments and group work goes. Her reason for insisting on such permanence is simple⎯ trust. She writes, “For people to voice opinions, to share writing, to react to a topic, or to explain a quotation, they have to feel that others are listening and believing in them” (138). I experimented with my class during the Op-Ed unit and kept students in the same groups. At the end of the unit I asked them to freewrite about the effectiveness of their groups. The overwhelming response was that they preferred working with the same group members because they felt they could be more honest with each other in feedback.
What will you do to foster meaningful group work? Do you believe in tracking or mixed groups? Have you used “play” effectively in the classroom? Is it feasible to have permanent groups all semester? Next semester I would like to try keeping students in the same groups. And just maybe they’ll become the subject of a new reality show…
Nancy, here are my answers to three of your questions.
ReplyDeleteBefore I answer, I must say that required courses seem to pose issues similar to Rosekelly’s slacker problem. Accountability seems crucial. In an elective or graduate course, the problem of disinterest and laziness would likely be less of an issue.
What will I do to foster meaningful group work? I need to do a better job of incorporating groups. I’m game to try more. Next semester, I plan to implement Roskelly’s Blueprint for Action, assigning the revolving roles of president, recorder, and reflector. And I really like the idea of a group folder. I want to make sure that students will be engaged in their groups.
Have I used “play” effectively in the classroom? Yes and no. I’ve tried all kinds of crazy activities, including the “hula hoop race” and “ball toss.” These games I’ve used as ice breakers and debriefing exercises. The idea is for the students to learn on their own—through play--without realizing it. After the game, through discussion, they come to understand what they’ve learned. But my students have mixed reactions to these games. Some like them, and some don’t. If I continue with more games, I’d like to use games that involve actual writing practice (as opposed to talking about writing).
Is it feasible to have permanent groups all semester? It is feasible, but I somewhat disagree with Roskelly’s maxim of group permanence (Roskelly even admits to some ambivalence). I agree with the book’s reasoning, but also believe that permanence can lead to stagnation and laziness. For example, when my students stay in the same workshopping groups, they tend to enjoy the familiarity that leads to finishing sooner. If I keep students in the same groups, I force them to receive the same kind of feedback. If I change the groups from time to time, each student receives a different type of feedback based on another perspective and skill set. My students prefer staying in the same group, but I’ve found that I need to periodically pull the comfy rug out from under them.
I do find Roskelly's ideas about group permanence to be inviting, and potentially really beneficial to my classroom, for the reasons I stated in my response to Michelle's blog. However, Jayme's reasoning really rings true to me as well. For example, there is one group of students in my class that prefer to work with one another for the exact reasons that Jayme states-- they know their expectations for one another are low, and that their ability to b.s. a discussion is, I must admit, adept.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like it would be hard to pick permanent groups at the beginning of the semester, before one really gets a chance to know the good and bad habits of one's students. Maybe it would be effective to switch once during the semester, or even once a month. Do you think this idea would undermine the point of group permanence, or could it circumvent the pitfalls of permanent groups that Jayme describes above?
Thanks for your post Nancy, I was especially intrigued by your conversation of the circular flow of group work and the connection to the dialectical diagram. There are so many good reasons to believe in group work, I am especially inspired by the section on abnormal discourse in chapter three. It is indeed frightening and exhilarating to “foster abnormal discourse” that challenges both the students’ and teacher’s pre-conceived ideas (73). Roskelly points out that many educators have “come to new understandings” through abnormal discourse in small groups (74). If done right, small groups can offer a space for dialogue and a voice to those who have felt disempowered. In reference to a study by Sadker, Roskelly write “…the small group can be a way for female students to begin to let themselves hear their own oral and written voices” (76).
ReplyDeleteNancy, Jayme, and Adrianna,
ReplyDeleteI was also concerned by Roskelly's (reluctant) maxim to make group membership permanent. As she acknowledges, many people's first reactions to ideas about group work are based on past personal group work experiences--and the permanency call reminds me of a particularly traumatic permanent group that I had in a theology class as an undergraduate (in our group of four, we had one domineering person and one person who never, ever spoke). In that experience, our poor group work with a static pattern of unproductive interactions most definitely led to stagnation and laziness (Jayme) and I hoped every day that our professor would announce that groups would change before the end of the semester (Adrianna).
But I think those risks of permanence are most dangerous when instructors don't regard the other maxims that Roskelly offers--especially Maxim #2: Teach Group Dynamics (134). Roskelly cites a Jeffrey Golub work in which he identifies the skills and practices of effective group members (Roskelly 135). The list of skills made me think back to the readings we did about evaluation, specifically the essay in which Elizabeth Chiseri-Strater suggests that we use class invention to allow students to co-develop evaluation criteria with their instructors (185).
Given that we all have had some traumatic group experiences, our students probably have, too. And even if they don't know what ideal group work would look like--Roskelly points out that "the truth is that students who've had little chance for the kind of cooperative, collaborative endeavor that good group work requires often have few skills to bring to the circle" (134)--they do know what bad group work looks like.
So why not kick off group work with a class invention activity in which students are asked to reflect on past group activities and think about what behaviors among group members were helpful and which were not not helpful? The instructor could then help students understand the "not helpful" behaviors as a way to illuminate what skills actually help a group work. Using Roskelly's maxims as a guide, instructors could then help students develop a list of skills, behaviors, and strategies that students would expect of each other and that instructors would expect of students in group work. With that list established early as a class community, the instructor would have a document--a compact identifying and celebrating good group dynamics. The instructor could then refer back to that compact to help identify and call students' attention to the kinds of "dark side" group behaviors that so often lead to frustration in permanent groups and, potentially, point to class-identified positive group dynamic skills that could help outweigh the problematic ones.
So, in answer to your question, Nancy, even as someone who despised a permanent group experience I had once, I think they are feasible in WRIT 101--but that their successful operation depends wholly on how the instructor prepares students and him- or herself according to Roskelly's maxims, especially #2.
I absolutely agree with Jayme in that because this course is a required Gen-ed, student investment in writing and in classroom community is an ongoing struggle. I think that one way that I, as instructor, can address the “slacker problem” is to make group work count for more. One way of handling this is by evaluating and responding to the work each group does in more tangible ways than simply requiring each small group to report back to the larger class. I also very much liked the idea of shared folders that each group turns in, as a way of creating accountability and evaluating group work. And the group identity which can follow choosing a name for the group (birds or no birds) was interesting (10).
ReplyDeleteI am considering creating permanent groups for my class next semester as well, though I am uncertain as to how to assign groups at the beginning when I don't know students: perhaps a random grouping may create the best results anyhow, hopefully mixing them up in terms of ability and personality. My class this semester has formed semi-permanent groups organically, based on the majority of the students gravitating to the same seats every class, and thereby ending up in the same small groups. I think some have formed what could be lasting friendships, based on their random seat selection at the beginning of the semester, though the quality of group work certainly varies depending on the pairings.
I was also intrigued by the way that Brooke's idea of the underlife seemed to align with Roskelly's descriptions of what group work taught her, as instructor: “They need to go off task as they work so that the social aim – deeply a part of group interaction both in and out of the classroom – has a chance to work” (21).
I think, Nancy, your line of questioning, and the rest of our fine classmates responses are a very instructive way of bringing Roskelly’s ideas into focus. You obviously hit the nail on the head, because there is clear interest and excitement in sorting apart how we as TAs use groups in light of Roskelly’s insights.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to touch on the idea of permanent groups, as Jayme and Beth also have. I have found that sticking primarily with the same group, for my class, has established the trust that allows for growth that Roskelly seems to agree is needed. Roskelly suggests, “The permanent small group in their English class becomes a place where students can get to know other people, share worries as well as ideas, and hear themselves articulate opinions in a relatively small, and safe, environment” (138) – something particularly useful for first year students navigating the strange new world of college. I am careful, however, to occasionally incorporate new student voices or completely mix groups depending on the content of the group work for the day, and both my students and I have been very pleased with the results. And to your other question about fostering meaningful work, I think trust is applicable again. Trust that peer feedback will be genuine, constructive, and ultimately useful. This does require very clear guideline and expectations, as well as follow up. I would like to admit that I have not carefully arranged my groups, though, to mix gender, race, skill level, age, class, and so on. Student kind of moved into their groups through where they often sat and we stuck with it. So what is the best way to go about maintaining diversity and a good cross-section of skill in our writing 101 groups?