by Chris Bedwell
Context and problem
The main motivation for reading DeCaro’s Small Group Communication Synergy (2011) was to gain better insights into the hows and whys of group communication with a view to facilitating the learning experience in one’s own Critical Thinking and Writing classes. Every semester, sectional groups of eighteen engineering students are subdivided into six groups of three, and charged with producing a 1,800-2,000-word project-based problem-solution paper over a period of five weeks or so.
Over the previous several semesters, three specific areas for improvement had been identified in my own classes. These were: first, how to identify efficiently a satisfactory goal for the group project at the outset. Second, how to ensure a fair separation of responsibilities for group members, and guard against what DeCaro refers to as social loafing. Third, how to furnish advice to better facilitate the work of the virtual group, since students would quite often be collaborating remotely after class.
Reflection # 1 Improving the goal-setting process
One common initial difficulty was the identification of a clearly-stated problem on which to focus. Typically, students had excellent engineering-based solutions which tended, however, to be disconnected from any demonstrated problem. Good examples of ‘orphaned’ solutions were Bio-engineered glow-in-the-dark trees or The recommended introduction of drones for urban environments. Promising ideas, but what specific problem did they address? To overcome this issue, DeCaro proposes that goals selected should be clear, highly specific and attainable. To this end, I advised groups to select quantifiable problems that would lend themselves to a SMART analysis (specific, measurable, achievable, results-focused, and time-bound characteristics). This had the effect of helping to narrow the students’ focus and identify appropriate issues. Once a SMART-compliant problem had been found, solutions tended to proceed quite comfortably and naturally.
Reflection # 2 Roles and responsibilities
There were several instances where it became clear that group members were late or absent for their after-hours meetings, or failed to do their research by the agreed deadline. DeCaro devotes several chapters to member roles and leadership, and its effective functioning. He sees social loafing as resulting from poor motivation and a lack of substantive penalties. Sanctions were therefore discussed at the outset of the project. For motivation, I encouraged each group to subdivide the project into components and for each member to take responsibility for a certain number of these. DeCaro notes that roles should be determined through negotiation and that under these circumstances, individuals are more likely to commit themselves to the group and its outcomes, since they feel their views have been respected and taken into account. Therefore, I required each group member to agree on and specify their tasks, and upload their ongoing contributions to the Google documents platform, so that these could be tracked before tutorials. This would then enable me to follow up with suitable questions. Only once or twice thereafter was I asked to intervene in the case of non-performing colleagues.
Reflection # 3 Provision of guidelines for virtual group work
Since students were often from different major degrees and had scattered schedules, virtual group work became a necessity. Although members were comfortable using apps on their smartphones, self and peer feedback from previous semesters indicated that sometimes messages went unanswered. DeCaro provides six essential ground rules for the remote group, which I shared with the students as the project commenced. These were: (1) don’t procrastinate in your assigned task; (2) communicate frequently with your fellow group members; (3) perform substantive work in parallel with any other agreed organisational tasks; (4) overtly acknowledge others’ messages; (5) be explicit with other group members about what you are thinking and doing and, finally, (6) set deadlines and adhere to them. I was to be informed of any serious non-compliance! In practice, almost all students co-operated with the suggested guidelines, and the number of instances of further action was very limited.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my reflections on the project work conducted in my Critical Thinking and Writing classes were well-served by this thoroughly-researched and informative text. Furthermore, its sensible focus on all aspects of group interaction made for an interesting and invaluable read.
Reference
DeCaro, P. A. (2011). Small Group Communication Synergy. KendallHunt: Dubuque, Iowa