This viewpoint involves the belief that (social) interaction is a prerequisite for how knowledge is constructed and used. This interaction, situated in a historical, physical, cultural context, commonly takes place on a regular basis at a micro-social level …
– The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration
on the contrary: on the other hand: NOTWITHSTANDING —used to connect coordinate elements
– One definition of ‘But’: Merriam-Webster
Why are some teams more successful than others? Is it always better to work in a team? Do all kinds of tasks require teamwork? Apart from being a staple feature of interviews and a perennial continuous writing thematic prompt (PSLE, 2018), teamwork has also been the preoccupation of academic researchers from various disciplines. How can teams work?
In classrooms, groupwork is typically constructed in the following way. There is a task. Students are placed in groups and the grouping is usually purposeful in some way – each person is there for a considered reason. There are ground rules relating to noise generation and cooperation – “12-inch voice” (Varnes, 2022). Each member assumes some role. There has to be some end product. Though every group is given the same instructions, outcomes do differ in terms of process and/or product.
It is accepted wisdom that learning how to work effectively in teams is important for being a happy member of a community at the micro, meso and macro levels or entry into the job market. There is an even more fundamental reason why working together is important.
According to education philosophers and theorists, teamwork is how knowledge itself is created – we know because we have worked through this together. This is known as the “co-construction of knowledge” (Damsa, 2014), which suggests that to know something for sure, we have to interact with others. How members of a community interact with each other to form knowledge about something previously unknown is dependent on their culture (how things are usually done in their groups).
Therefore, this view of knowledge creation which leads to the education of seekers to answers is known as the “socio-cultural approach to learning” (Damsa, 2014). A famous believer and proponent of this approach was the psychologist Lev Vygotsky who came up with the Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive Development.
Over the years, there has been a large body of accumulated science on how groups work best. This is how terms like “constructive criticism” became mainstream.
Insights arising from this sustained research include for example, that students need “epistemic agency” for successful outcomes which can only ensue from interactivity. The term “epistemic agency” refers to the “ability to shape and evaluate knowledge and knowledge building practices in the classroom” (Damsa et al., 2010, Scardamalia, 2002; Stroupe, 2014, as cited in Miller et al., 2017).
Another insight is that there needs to be some form of regulation to facilitate teamwork. Regulation comprises “a momentary unequal situation” (Volet et al., 2008) as a result of somebody within or without a group taking charge, through “a more instructive role” or through engaging in “monitoring” adherence to objectives and responsibilities (Volet et al, 2008).
In 2014, Crina Damsa, an Associate Professor in the Department of Education at the University of Oslo, published her findings on how successful teams interacted over time through fellowship around a shared artifact or what she terms as “knowledge object” (Damsa, 2014). Success in this context was quantified through the evaluation of an end product.
Her project is interesting and insightful because it breaks down clearly different types of group talk and processes and provides a front-row seat to the inner workings of group dynamics. She worked with 14 undergraduate students in a Dutch University, who were organised in 5 groups. These groups had to undertake research for commercial application and present their solutions verbally and in writing (final proposal – knowledge object) to their corporate clients at the end of 19 weeks. The conversations members had within their groups while working were transcribed and analysed at a granular level and classified as comprising different types of group talk. Email exchanges were analysed. Participants were interviewed. The researcher also relied on her own notes of her observations.
Of the 5 participating groups, 2 obtained high scores, 2 did relatively well and 1 was not as successful as others.
Before discussing what was done well and what could have been done better, it may be useful to have common terms of reference for the different types of group talk.
Words can be spoken in group meetings among others, for the following purposes: (1) to create awareness of a problem or a topic, (2) to share knowledge, (3) to create a shared understanding of what the problem is or of relevant information, (4) to generate collective and collaborative actions such as generating or negotiating new ideas, and (5) to regulate members (Damsa, 2014).
It may or may not be interesting to note that Group B, which did not do as well as the rest spent most of their time on regulating who should do what when. This group spent the least time, creating awareness, sharing knowledge and creating shared understanding.
The two groups which did relatively well spent most of their time, conversing to create awareness, share knowledge and to create a shared understanding but there were too many buts in their conversation to facilitate forward momentum. For example, in one excerpt of their conversation, three members of the team began their sentences one after the other, with ‘but’ for the purposes of halting momentum. Even when they did make some kind of breakthrough at a difficult stage, they preferred to refer the situation to their mentor than to try problem-solving on their shared understanding. So, while there was much good that could have come out as a result of their hard-earned shared understanding, little did, by way of “joint construction” (Damsa, 2014) of the final report to be presented to the client. This group had very much fewer drafts which they worked on together.
It may or may not be a coincidence that both groups which had the best outcomes spent the least time regulating. Experts are in agreement that without regulation, coordination and collaboration may not be possible. The best performing groups did engage in who should do what when, but did so less. The key difference which set these groups apart was the type of group talk they did most.
These groups spent more time than others in generating collaborative actions and a lot of their group talk was for the purposes of taking actions to move forward. According to Damsa (2014) such actions could be, to “bring in ideas that can contribute to the solving of the problem” or to build up “on own other members’ argument in order to provide examples”. They began many of their sentences with “Yes”, one after the other, signalling, agreement with and affirmation of the contribution of others. This appeared to increase forward momentum.
They “explicitly” acknowledged their progress and “achievement” at different stages. When they had a disagreement and one of three members in a group said “but” in response to the idea of another member, the third member mediated by suggesting a way to keep the proposed suggestion on the table. The member who had disagreed responded with, “Yes, smart!”. They agreed on what they had to do next. While they did consult their mentor, they did so only to seek validation of their joint efforts at problem solving. Every draft they worked on individually was looked at for comment by everyone else. This resulted in many more “documents created jointly” across every stage of their project.
Moving forward is but one step after the other.
The Brain Dojo
