Those who follow the prevailing pedagogical trends have for some time observed that, as Susan Cain writes, “solitude is out” and “collaboration is in.” Cain, the author of the forthcoming book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, cites research indicating that solitude is in fact an indispensable impetus to creativity and learning and that people are more innovative when they work privately and autonomously.
The mindless, detrimental extremes to which a dogmatic acceptance of teamwork can lead is illustrated by what Cain witnessed in one classroom — a group-work project in which students were not permitted to ask a question unless every member of the group posed the exact same question.
The thrust here, however, is by no means to eliminate collaboration but rather to restore a more balanced approach to creativity, one that incorporates the altogether natural and invaluable habit of learning to work on one’s own for uninterrupted periods. Within this context, Cain points to studies suggesting that important academic work is more and more carried on by teams but that, interestingly, the most influential of these achievements involve members consulting remotely, from separate universities.
"What distinguished programmers at the top-performing companies wasn’t greater experience or better pay. It was how much privacy, personal workspace and freedom from interruption they enjoyed. Sixty-two percent of the best performers said their workspace was sufficiently private compared with only 19 percent of the worst performers. Seventy-six percent of the worst programmers but only 38 percent of the best said that they were often interrupted needlessly. "
Similar results were noted in the 1971 book, "The Psychology of Computer Programming". From what I recall, the author noted a concept called "flow", a state of heightened productivity when free of distraction. While in flow, a person can work for hours without realizing the passage of time and be far more productive than normal. It often takes as long as 30-45 minutes without interruption to achieve flow and it can be disrupted by a single distraction like a phone call. As a former programmer, I often achieved the state of flow but almost never at work. The workplace is all too often a counter-productive environment for work that requires great attention to detail. When I brought my work home and worked late into the night, I often got more done in 2-3 hours than all day at work. Sometimes, it was better to go to work very early or on a weekend so I could get the work done. During my peak years, I was producing as much as 8 times as much code as the industry standard but most of that was at home, not at work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou perfectly describe my first journal article experience - I came into my office at the health department I was working at, sat down, and started writing at 7am. I finsihed the manuscript in one setting, interrupted only by trips to the restroom, and the clock still said 7! (now PM). It appeared in a major journal and has been cited (according to Google Scholar) over thirty times and republished in a textbook on public management. Of course, I had an undiagnosed case of ADD and benefit from a timely state of hyperfocus which meant that even minor potential distractions did not invade. ;-p
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI studied technical theater (design) and the design team approach to a production is a good paradigm for "group projects." Designers work privately and autonomously, but also have to be a part of a design "team." Unfortunately, in other disciplines in which I have taken classes, the group projects never wind up being conducted that way. Every darned little bit has to be decided by consensus. Which is not the way "real life" works, even in marketing or project management, or construction, or.... I understand one of the purposes behind "group projects" in schools is because few people work in total solitude and "team work" really is an important skill to learn, but "teamwork" is not about moving towards the goal in lockstep conformity. Achieving true medicority, at best.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey've been trying to shove the "collaborative learning model" (AKA, "Chaos in the classroom") down our throats for years. As a buzzword, it's right up there with "incorporating technology in the learning experience" and "hands-on learning".
And then they wonder why standardized test scores continue to stink. Why, it almost seems like kids who can figure stuff out are smarter (but that would be being judgmental).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe absolute best experience I had in one of the grad seminars I taught was one where the students approached me to ask if they could do a group rather than individual project. I let them negotiate and changed the individual papers to a mixed project - they had to do a book-type project with each responsible for an individual chapter, and then collaboration on the introduction and conclusion. They ran with it. The two PhD students assigned chapters based on they background of the other students (the one undergraduate, for example, was assigned a historical overview in order to bring her up to speed with the others) and took a leadership/mentoring role. Before the end of the semester, they had already had the project accepted for presentation at the Midwest Political Science Association meeting, and were actually finding the readings for the last six weeks by themselves. About all I had to do after mid-semester was ensure that the two quiet ones got an opportunity to talk in the seminar! Not only did they present it last April at MPSA, but the group is continuing to work with me on a journal article basedon their work.
I credit a couple of things for the success:
1) I was willing to give, and they took, ownership of the project. As Creech said, no one ever washed a rental car.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2) The individually identifiable responsibility in the group framework made each more conscious of the quality of their work.
3) The leadership of the two doctoral students. One of the best things about the assignment, in my opinion, ws that it gave them the opportunity to learn and practice how to mentor research, which is an essential skill for future academics but is almost totally neglected in graduate education.
Not clear that the anecdote is pertinent. There's a big difference between managed division of labor, which seems to be what the anecdote describes, and the simultaneous peer approach described as collaborative learning.
As for other responses about programmers being sequestered, that's programming; once again, it is not clear that such anecdotes are pertinent to the majority of work or learning tasks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis sounds like:
A) one variation on the "design team" model I discussed above.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseB) what I a.ways felt small grad seminars in the humanities should do, not unlike what lab publish. When a student comes out with a PhD in a science, there are a nice list of "publications" on their CV. Pretty much every lab member is listed as an "author" on a publication. (Where they fall in the list is indicative of their input on the project.) The humanities, a student will come out with a meager list of publications on their CV. Despite the fact that they probably experienced... See C below.
C) what happened to me, sort of, in a few of my grad courses. Great fun, and very interesting, until, in my situation(s), the professor then used our work for his publication, giving us no credit. (Except maybe a brief acknowledgment in the "special thanks": "Special thanks to my T703 class.") Thank you for not doing the same!!!!!
As an introvert, I'm especially attuned to the need for solitude to get good work done. I do assign a certain amount of work in groups to my students because there are ways it can be helpful -- but none of it involves the need for absolute consensus and rarely is it graded (maybe a daily grade for participation). This covers me on the "collaborative learning" front without creating forced situations which are counter-productive to learning.
For example, in class I sometimes have students discuss an assigned question in small groups, which encourages the quieter students to speak up more, and then they offer their responses to the class so that others can respond and I can offer any needed expansion and corrections. If they aren't agreed, they are invited to explain the reasons for their differing opinions. In a lit class, I'll sometimes have them work on, say, a short poetry explication in small groups, and again present their responses to the class for discussion and correction -- this is a practice run for writing their graded explications and lets me see how they are approaching the task before it counts for a grade. I get quite a lot of positive response to these opportunities; I'm careful not to overdo them, though, and give very specific questions.
The only formal group assignments I give are presentations, and these I assign to groups for two reasons -- to give them the opportunity to practice working together on a common task, and because I want them to make connections within a fairly broad topic area. For example, when we complete a unit on Romantic lit in a survey class, I might assign a group presentation on other strands of the culture -- visual and fine arts, music, philosophy, science, politics. We touch on many of these in discussion of the lit, but I want them to explore it a little more broadly so that the class gets a clearer sense, in one class session, of the overall context of the authors' times, and thus how those authors are responding to the times. I don't give the groups any specific *process* they must follow for these but here's what always happens: they get together and decide on the basic ideas they need to cover, the format of the presentation, and good sources for research, then choose individual tasks to complete; they send each other information they run across that would be helpful, plan their individual portions of the presentation, and then get together again one or two times to make sure everyone's on the same page with timing and format, that any handouts or required written work will be taken care of, and that no one has gone off on some weird tangent or gotten into the totally wrong time period somehow. (Choosing the wrong Mary Shelley can cause some problems!)
Most of them actually love these presentations. I assign them exclusively in majors classes, so most of the students are intrinsically interested in the subject matter, and they enjoy finding effective, interesting ways to offer their classmates what they have learned. It has been my experience that this is the way groups in the real world work best, too -- know your overall goal, assign individuals to take care of the parts, then smooth the final product out. I have worked in groups that had to come up with consensus on things -- what is the precise new core curriculum we will present to faculty, for example -- but even there we did a lot of individual work leading up to those last decisions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse