Group Work AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Post Reply New Topic

I totally feel the same way about group assignments. However, the ones I had in High School and college were fine no matter who I was with. The only problem was finding a group to join. That's why I preferred it when the teacher/instructor assigned the groups.

It's strange, but when I signed up for some of my courses, I thought that I was going to be studying X, Y and Z.

For instance, I thought that Biology was the practical study of living organisms.
It certainly used to be from what I've heard. Independent experiments with your own equipment, study and so on.

Actually, now it's the study of discussing living organisms with other people.
Now you have to work with other people to share equipment and demonstrate your 'key' people skills.


Big difference.

I can understand why some people would find team work beneficial, particularly those who like to work in the police force, veterinary medicine or the emergency services. Good communication skills are essential for these activities.

I also don't have a problem with other people discussing topics in great depth with others; being friendly and broadening their knowledge base. In fact, this method of learning works fantastically well for folks who are people orientated and see their world in terms of their relations with other people.

I see the world in terms of a vast complex system to be studied, with people in the background.

However, what I do have a issue with is these kinds of group work activities being dished out at the expense of independent study and projects. Also, many of these group work people skills are not explicitly taught and I feel they should be if they are to be included in a course. I think it's irresponsible just to assume that everyone will cooperate and 'pull their weight' *idiom* immediately. Many so called 'normal people struggle with this too and would benefit from such instruction.

In my experience, courses that have offered a group-work component have not taught the people skills needed adequately, which is a great shame.

I think it's irresponsible to have courses that claim to teach a teamwork component that do not actually teach that social component. Or, to have instructors that just 'teach' that component because that's what the government demands that they should do, not because they have any real experience in teaching social interactions.

This is why, when I've attended these courses with the intention improving how I interact socially with others, I've been bitterly disappointed.

It seems that the good intention is there, but sometimes, I find the best way to cooperate is to work alongside others rather than with them per se.

That is, you do a detailed independent project/task and report back to a group to discuss what you've found out/done.
Or independently mentoring or helping others on a one to one basis.
Presenting ideas to a group (lecturing/giving a talk) and asking for feedback.

It's a shame that this 'working alongside others' component is ignored by many courses, as some of us are clearly better suited to this kind of work than outright team collaboration of 'working with others'.

I struggle at working with others.

However, I seem to excel at working alongside others.

Last edited by AmberEyes on 24 Nov 2009, 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

An interesting perspective about "dumbing down".

At open evenings and course taster sessions, I've noticed that course instructors take great pleasure in regaling stories about the eccentric gentlemen mathematicians of yore who went out into the wilderness alone (or with one other companion/valet max) with a only whisky flask, a mouldy sandwich and a waxed jacket and notebook to discover and record the natural world.

They will talk of vast expanses of wilderness with not a soul to be seen for miles and the awe at how the passage of time and scientific processes had formed the beauty of the landscape.

The instructors will tell you tales of how the great male naturalist pioneers had obsessions of egg-collecting, mushroom hunting in the woods, insect dissection and shooting animals in boyhood. How these founders of the department had spent hours cataloguing each organism and studying each in detail.

That might have been true a hundred years ago.
But now, that's false advertising and pretty misleading.

When you actually enroll in the course, the instructor says:
"Get into groups and discuss and prepare a collective report on the life and work of naturalist A. I want to see everyone in a group."

No one can explore the natural wilderness alone any more for health and safety reasons.
You have to write long risk assessments before you go out in case of an accident/people getting attacked.

I've also noticed that the wilderness ceases to be tranquil and vast when a coach-load of people (who'd rather talk about what they're all doing at the weekend than observe the scenery) pour out onto it.

The irony and hypocrisy of all of this is not lost on me.


Edit:

Some might think that group-work is "politically correct" because they say that it "promotes inclusion".

I wonder if, ironically, this egalitarian approach actually excludes those people who would be more comfortable working alone, mentoring or working alongside others.

Perhaps, the group-work ethos is promoted by people who have little trouble interacting socially and discussing things, so perhaps, aren't able to understand the perspective of someone who would prefer to work alone or alongside others, rather than with them in a team situation.

The problem with promoting tolerance and inclusion is that however hard you try, inevitably someone is going to get "discriminated against" because not everyone is the same or works in the same way. That's the "problem" with being human. Your needs are going to be different from someone else's and sometimes your personality temperament/learning style/way of working/style of socialising is not currently in vogue.

If the method of "inclusion" is fine with the majority of people and they enjoy it, then it's called successful "inclusion". If the minority, who aren't happy with the system is 1%, then it still counts as"successful inclusion" because the majority are included in the activity, even if the 1% is you.

The only way to successfully and happily include everyone would be if we were all identical clones of each other. But even then, genetically identical twins would have disagreements and different needs.

So, ironically, by promoting/enforcing "inclusion", cooperation and team work, people may be alienating the very people that they wish to "help".

I've had this "cooperation" ethos drummed into me since I was little. From an early age I was forced to join in noisy "cooperative" activities in PE/holiday clubs etc. When I didn't want to, wanted to examine how the equipment worked or the noise and crowding was too much, I was considered "broken" and "deviant".

I couldn't keep up with the fast pace of social interactions. I would've been much happier fixing/ being responsible for the equipment, keeping the score, doing exercises in a less crowded room or managing the sound/lighting system. I would've been cooperating if I'd done those more technical things because I'd be helping other people participate in the activities.

If I had been introduced to the idea of cooperation more gradually and was allowed to learn it at my own pace, without being ridiculed, I think that I would have been much happier and more successful at getting along with others.

I've found that I've got along with others best when I wasn't forced to get along with them and took the situation one step at a time. Also, when people have given me specialist jobs to do, that I can get on with by myself, that help the entire group. Those kind of jobs give me satisfaction because I feel like I'm making a difference and using my talents to the best advantage. Also, people are grateful if you know how to do a complex task that they'd rather not do.