I've decided to post another student message to my blog because my readers are offering helpful ways for me to understand my students.
In a night American Lit course at a local "urban" university, one student has me puzzled. S/he and I have already had conversations about the class, specifically about the student's lack of participation, and these conversations (both in person and via email) have gone fairly well, or so I thought.
But yesterday I read something on the course discussion board (under "Q&A about Course Policies, Procedures, Features"). Here's the complete post:
"Why the focus on group work? It doesn't illuminate anything. Closed, selective groups do not provide for open debate. It is a miserable experience to come to class every night and have to suffer. Nothing was said in a group that an individual couldn't do as well.
"It's a waste of time. What happened to good old-fashioned writing in response to literature. I get nothing out of the group experience except a headache. I resent that my grade is based on group participation. No one in this course helped my pay my tuition and book fees, so why is my grade based on group participation?
"I get the feeling that the lessons are not planned but made up on the spot."
Many other students responded to this post before I saw it. Those students all said that "group work" was valuable. Only one student acknowledged that such work was hard for her/him, too, and encouraged the unhappy student, "Don't give up on it!"
I, too, wrote a long response, which I may post in a separate blog entry. But I'd be curious to know what my colleagues would do in this situation.
Evacuation roots
5 hours ago
4 comments:
In my more cynical days, I might write a really hard quiz and then give them an option -- take it with the group or do it on your own.
I might pull the complainer aside and say that group work is valuable only for those who contribute to the group.. or, more likely, I'd ignore it...
Another day, another interaction with JKD's blog.
You know my answer better than I do: almost nothing gets done in the real world without group work, from the interpersonal dynamics of the committee to the megaconcepts of "Actor-Network Theory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-Network_Theory)
There are better ways to do group work, of course. "What did you think of the story" (the method of so many grad seminars) is terrible.
I like questions with no definitive answer (eg "Why does a character do this?"). I'm a huge fan of these rules for small group work in lit courses (though not the idea of a canon of books that come with it, necessarily):
http://www.greatbooks.org/tutorial/action/suba/rules.html
1. Only those who have read the selection may take part in the discussion.
2. Discussion is restricted to the selection everyone has read.
3. All opinions should be supported with evidence from the selection.
4. Leaders may only ask questions, not answer them. (This is the rule that keeps me from overdirecting small groups as I walk around the room.)
When we switch to large group, we can roam more widely.
Did you see what Carl is presenting on at MCTC next week? Group work!
Patty, I'd never thought about the "hard quiz" idea, but I certainly have done "group quizzes" before: some folks really like 'em.
David, I'm not sure I can get as restricted as the "rules" you posted, but I certainly have structure to group work.
I've talked about a TON of methods/structures in an anonymous blog I started on Wordpress. Ask me about it sometime if you're interested.
Kris, Yeah I did notice Carl's name on the RSP presentation list, but I didn't pay attention to what he was presenting. Now I will! Thx.
Post a Comment