Sherry Sullivan

         Group work counts for students when it is graded and when this grade comprises a significant percentage of their final grade. This is the premise I started with in planning an American Pluralism course at South Puget Sound Community College in the fall of 1993. Just how to grade group work, however, was the thorny problem I confronted. The solution emerged out of discussions with Jean MacGregor and materials she provided from the Washington Center: I would grade students on regular, written self-assessments of what they were experiencing and learning in group work. These self-assessments together would count for 30% of the final grade for the course.

         What follows is a brief discussion of the reasons for choosing this approach and then a more detailed description of how I used it: what I asked of students and how I graded their efforts; ways I tried to prepare students and guide them through the process; and selected samples of their responses. Finally, I note what I would do differently next time I teach the course.

Rationale

         I incorporated extensive group work into my American Pluralism class for two reasons. First, group work would enable students to help each other through a complicated and difficult course text and related course assignments. Second, group work would provide repeated opportunities for students to extend and enrich their exposure to multicultural perspectives by listening, sharing, working and learning together across various cultural boundaries represented in the class. I planned to use a range of working groups in order to maximize students' group experiences and their exposure to different perspectives (see syllabus, Appendix I).

         These groups included a seminar-style discussion circle of all 35 class members; small focus groups (reconstituted each day) of six or seven students whose function was to answer questions on that day's reading assignment and report to the class; "cultural report" groups (consistent throughout the term) of four to six students whose function was to research and eventually report together on a non-dominant cultural group of their choice; and, finally, support groups (also consistent throughout the term) of three students whose function was to listen, read, critique and otherwise encourage each other through several drafts of their eight- to twelve-page ethnic-autobiography essays.

         Although I had used group work in previous courses and was confident of its teaching and learning value, I had never resolved to my own satisfaction how to fairly and effectively grade this work. Assigning a collective grade to a group task failed to take account of group dynamics and the internal struggles students experienced in order to complete the task. Collective grades failed to distinguish between individual group members' efforts and contributions. Yet assigning grades individually on the basis of what I observed of students' activities in groups was also problematic: it was difficult to do in a large class with many groups, tended to privilege the more dominant and vocal group members' contributions, and it still left me as evaluator outside the process and unaware of group interaction most of the time. On the other hand, asking students to grade themselves or each other-even with careful guidelines-typically yielded inflated and uncritical results.

         I knew that I had to grade collaborative work if I valued it and wanted my students to value it. The crucial question, then, was how to devise a grading strategy which recognized the time and energy students invested in group work. The answer was to require students, at regular intervals, to write structured but open-ended self-assessments of their progress within the various group configurations-and grade these. This approach forced me as well (through prompts to the students) to articulate what my goals for group work were-overall and for each different group-and what exactly I expected to measure.

         I also anticipated that recognizing and rewarding group work through self-assessment would validate individual effort, self-reflection, and growth, and would encourage students to engage more fully in the often difficult and frustrating process of group work. I hoped that in time many students would see the value (the goals) of collaborative work: as a more active, participatory way of understanding course content and acquiring knowledge skills; as a way to gain perspective on themselves as learners responsible for their own learning; and as a way to develop through practice communication skills across cultural boundaries-skills which will help them to be more effective participants in collaborative environments far beyond the classroom.

Designing Self-Assessments

         I asked students to submit-three times during the quarter-a two- to three-page Summary/Response/Assessment (SRA) paper. A question on the take-home final exam served as a last, retrospective self-assessment. The SRA was to include, in more or less equal parts, the following:

·       concise and accurate summary of the text material just covered;

·       personal response to that material (what stood out, what was difficult or confusing, what corresponded to-or differed from-personal experience or their understanding of contemporary American society);

·       self-assessment of where the student stood currently with the various kinds of collaborative work taking place in class.

In this last, self-assessment section of the paper, I asked students to reflect on their experiences in various group settings-whole class discussion circles, smaller text-review-and-report groups, cultural report groups, and ethnic-autobiography support groups-guided by the following prompts:

·       What was happening in terms of their roles (assumed or assigned by other group members); expectations (their own and others'); skills (in use, being developed, or lacking); individual accomplishments or group successes; and frustrations or perceived barriers?

·       What were they learning about themselves as a member of a group, and what had (or may be) changed or was changing?

·       Finally (a question rarely addressed), what connections did they see between assigned course readings, their personal response to this material, and their experience in various groups? (see Guidelines for SRA Papers, Appendix II.)

Grading Self-Assessments

         I read these papers quickly and responded quite briefly in most cases. In the summary section I looked for a clear overview and solid understanding of the reading assignment-a focus on the material, in other words. In the personal response and self-assessment of group work sections I looked for a focus on self as learner: as reader in dialogue with the material, and as active and involved group participant. What determined students' SRA grades, as I explained to them, was the specific evidence that they provided of their commitment to these two foci. For the self-as?learner focus, I looked at both voice and content for signs of self-reflection, a willingness to admit confusion and examine barriers to understanding, and an effort to construct meaning and forge connections between ideas, personal experiences, and course or text content. I noted that these papers were not meant to be formal reports for me as instructor, but informal self-reflections and explorations for them (not every question posed had to be answered).

         At the same time, I was obviously still evaluator of the work done, and I could not give credit for what was not put down on paper. The grades, then, were as follows: minimal evidence earned a check; good evidence earned a check plus; and excellent evidence earned a plus (or C, B, and A respectively). While pluses were fairly rare, it was almost impossible to do the assignment and earn less than a check. The three SRA papers comprised 30% of the final grade, compared to 20% for a collective cultural group report (in which all group members receive the same grade), 25% for an ethnic-autobiography, and 25% for a final exam. Clearly, being fully engaged in group work-and willing to write about it-increased the likelihood of a good grade.

Strategies for Stimulating Self-Assessments

         Because many students have a hard time with self-assessment writing, I knew I had to devise strategies to help them perform collaboratively and then assess their own performance. Some students enter college with virtually no experience of collaborative work in the classroom, and most have had no experience writing about themselves in the learning process. They need to develop the confidence, practical skills, and vocabulary that will enable them to effectively participate in group work and write about it afterwards.

         The first step is together to create a safe classroom environment where such development can take place. Towards this end, I devoted time early in the quarter to having the entire class generate a "class norms" statement to which we would all commit (noting that changes could be made at any point by class consensus). This statement was a list of rules that in the class's judgement would best promote an environment-within the class as a whole and within smaller groups-where people felt comfortable sharing their ideas, perspectives, experiences, and feelings. Our discussion also gave me the opportunity, if others hadn't already raised these points, to note some strategies for communicating positively in the face of differences and conflicts: respectful listening, responses that begin with affirmation or a sympathetic statement, using "I" statements to introduce and to "own" one's views, and so on (see Class Norms, Appendix III).

         In their SRA's later, several students expressed appreciation for these norms. One student, referring to an emotional and painful discussion which followed a cultural group report on gays in the military, wrote, "The end of the quarter really showed me the importance of having class norms." Chagrined at having violated the norms on that occasion, he noted ironically, "I think I was the one who added 'think before you speak.'" Commented another student in her final exam self-assessment, "I wish society would make guidelines for people to feel safe and comfortable to share their values like we did in class."

         The second step is to help students orient themselves to group work early in the course. During our second class meeting, I asked students to write for 15 or 20 minutes in response to the following questions about their previous collaborative work:

·       What kinds of groups had they worked in before and for what group ends?

·       What roles did they play?

·       What skills did they use (What were they good or not so good at)?

·       How did they feel about the prospect of group work in this class (apprehensive, excited, confused, annoyed, optimistic) and why?

         I collected, read, and commented briefly (and encouragingly) on these statements. This activity helped students become more conscious of their own strengths and weaknesses in group work skills, their particular styles and preferences in communication, and how attitude, past experiences, and individual choices would shape their experience of group work. They began to see themselves-some for the first time-as active agents who could affect both their own experience of the group and the success of the group as a whole. This activity provided students with a baseline for subsequent self-assessment thinking and writing about their development within the various groups planned for the class.

         A few weeks into the term, students' first SRA papers came in. As Jean MacGregor and others in the field have observed, students demonstrate different levels of skills in self-assessment. Early efforts are often generic and superficial. "The group work is going along fine for me," wrote one student. "I enjoy the large group discussions and have found the small groups to be productive." Such generalities describe comfort level without examining specific causes and dynamics. Efforts at analysis, on the other hand, tend to focus on course or instructor or others as agents rather than self: "The large class as a whole has been frustrating for me," another student confessed; "so many people never get a chance to speak until the subject has been changed, at this point the person has not spoken or has thoughts that seem out of place."

         To address such problems I put together overhead transparencies of anonymous samples from these first SRA papers. Eliciting students' observations and comments in class, we discussed how statements like those in the previous paragraph might be expanded with specific examples and be made more self-reflective. I also included excerpts from assessments which showed greater strengths, such as the analysis by one student that began, "The three group experiences we've had in class so far have each been very different," and went on to reveal her experience and behavior within each group in some detail: "The first group in which we described chapter two of Takaki was awkward. I took the lead in getting people to talk. However, once we were all vocalizing our thoughts, we couldn't come to any consensus on anything. I didn't want to 'lead' this group because I didn't have any connection to them. It wasn't uncomfortable, but there wasn't any kind of group community."

         In another example, the student started with a general statement about appreciating hearing other people's opinions in the large seminar group: "I like the diversity"; but then illustrated an exception which disturbed her: "But in classroom discussion one night, I was very frustrated by..." As I showed models on the overhead, I especially wanted to include such examples of students' frustrations and difficulties in the group process-as well as their pleasures and successes-in order to "give permission" for genuine responses and honest self-reflections.

         About mid-quarter, after the second SRA, it was clear that some students were still struggling with self-assessment. They weren't distinguishing among their experiences within the various groups, and their comments still tended to be brief, general and descriptive of how comfortable they felt. So I took time out for an all-class brainstorming session at the board on the ways class seminar, small discussion, cultural report, and ethnic-autobiography groups all differed in terms of focus, goals, and skills required. The results of our analysis helped me, as well as the students, re-focus on what we were doing with groups. I copied and distributed these for the next class meeting (see SRA Guidelines II, Appendix IV). In the subsequent SRA's I detected significant improvement. Students wrote more concretely about their different experiences in different groups; they were also becoming more conscious of their own roles as agents experimenting with what might help a group meet its task.

         One student, for example, wrote of her mixed reactions to seminar: "The large group discussion continues to be a learning experience...because I am able to hear what others have taken from the chapters that I may not have seen. I wish that some of the students that don't normally speak would state their views. I often wonder what we are missing from not hearing their thoughts. I am finding myself keeping quiet to allow room for these people to speak. However, this does not seem to work. All in all, I find this portion of group work to be the most productive for me in the exploring of culture." Another experienced growing satisfaction with the work of her ethnic-autobiography group because "one especially down-to-earth member made it easy to open up and share intimate details of our lives. This group accomplished the objective of being a support group. I felt I had something to offer to the two other women in my group when I reassured them that getting that first paragraph on paper is one of the toughest parts of writing, and they could always rework it."

         By the third self-assessment, most students had become both comfortable and competent writing about themselves as participants in various groups. It seemed appropriate, therefore, to ask for a summary self-assessment on the take-home Final Exam. I wanted them to examine the changes and developments that had taken place for them in group work through the quarter-and also to think and write about the ways in which the different components of the course came together (or failed to come together) for them as a result of the group work. I listed a number of prompts within a single exam question to guide their responses:

·       Where do you stand now with group work? If your attitudes, roles, or skills in groups changed during the term, explain how.

·       What can you take with you from experiences in this class to group work in other environments?

·       If the various group activities and experiences in this class helped you connect to course content, discuss in what ways.

·       Has group work affected your knowledge and understanding and awareness of American pluralism?

         In response to the first question, most students described significant development in collaborative work skills and self-awareness. "In the beginning I couldn't help but feel the need to constantly put in my two cents," wrote one very verbal student. "I have taken more of an active listening part towards the second half of this course [and] found it easier to focus on what I was hearing, not what I would say next." A second student who initially had been reticent commented, "I know now that my participation includes what I have to say as well as my listening abilities...My ability to participate in group work has been enhanced as a direct result of this class."

         A number of students in this final assessment regarded the group experiences in class as good preparation for the work world-particularly the experiences of conflict and diversity. One student put it succinctly: "Recognizing that conflict is inevitable and developing ways to deal with it can be very useful in the work place[;] then it doesn't have to be a negative experience."

         In response to the final question on the connection between group work, course content, and knowledge of American pluralism, most students felt they had gained new insights. Wrote one student, "The group work has showed me that people with different backgrounds and different opinions can work together and achieve objectives. It has showed me the importance of understanding where someone is coming from before making a judgment." Declared another, "One could look at our class as a small sample of America, all coming from different social, economic and cultural backgrounds. How we relate to each other in this class and in our groups is probably very similar to the way we relate to others in the real world."

Ideas for Future Refinements

         Next time I teach this course I would make some changes to improve the quality of both group work and student assessments. First, I would implement a strict attendance policy: repeated absence from class would severely affect a "participation" component of a student's grade. It seems obvious in hindsight how very critical regular and reliable attendance is-not only to the success of individual students, their engagement in the course and the development of their collaborative work and writing skills. Reliable attendance also is essential to the successful functioning of a small group as a whole and often to the work of other individuals within that group. Even in a large class seminar group, irregular attendance undercuts the sense of community and commitment that are part of establishing "a safe environment." Perhaps this policy could be introduced as part of the "class norms" and acquire full student support at the outset.

         Second, I would allow more class time for students to record their responses to group experiences. Five or ten minutes would be adequate. This could take the form of a journal entry that I would not see but could serve as a repository of fresh impressions and specific details students would draw upon and balance with later reflections for their self-assessments. The first few times such pre-writing assessment activity took place I would encourage students with a brainstorming strategy called "cubing", adapted from Ruth Spack's Guidelines: A Cross-Cultural Reading/Writing Text (New York, 1990). In short rapid bursts, students record a response to each of six requirements-describing, comparing, associating, analyzing, applying, and arguing for and against the topic (in this case, the immediate group work experience). Cubing helps students to probe more deeply their experiences in groups and to develop for themselves a more specific language in which to convey their thoughts and feelings.

         I also would include "inkshedding" opportunities from time to time for students to respond anonymously to what they were experiencing in class and in groups. Inkshedding allows students to voice concerns they may not be willing to express and publicly "own," but wish to be known. Written comments are shared with the class (typically at the next meeting) and are a particularly valuable means of addressing unspoken conflicts, tensions or confusion in class. The writings often lead to discussions critical to the well-being of students (and instructor) or even to the success of the course. (see Susan-Wyche Smith's article on inkshedding elsewhere in this Handbook).

         Finally, I would more frequently introduce for class examination and discussion self-assessment writing models (which, having taught the course once, I now have on file). Because self-assessment is so new to most students, I found that some students needed more guidance than I gave them. ("I have been working hard throughout the quarter to understand what you mean by the phrase 'connected with,'" wrote one student. With a good model I could now show her.) In addition, scheduling individual conferences with students around mid-term might help address the resistance and stress some students felt with the class format.

Conclusion

         Did student self-assessment succeed in making group work count in the course? Yes, definitely-from both my perspective and, as their comments revealed, from the students' perspective. Because assessments counted so heavily in the grading scheme, students were encouraged to take group work very seriously indeed. In class they were obliged to focus on the group task at hand and then afterwards to carefully reflect upon it in order to write in some depth about their experience and its relation to text or course content. Self-assessments also helped students stay on top of a rather complicated course outline centered on the various groups-extensive reading, a cultural group report, and the ethnic-autobiography term project. And self-assessments helped me, as instructor, stay closely in touch with students' responses to group work and the various assignments in order to make minor adjustments as the course proceeded.

         In addition to the traditional academic benefits of self-assessment in promoting intellectual focus, knowledge acquisition, and a more equitable balance among the various components of the course, what I value most about this approach is that it helps to place students at the center of the course. As faculty we tend to measure our success in a course in terms of our own voice, performance, research and preparedness. If students don't learn, it's their fault. The challenge for me in using group work and student self-assessment is to withdraw my voice and let students speak for themselves. I am still in control of the class, but so are the students. Thus we share both the pleasures and frustrations of that control. Responsibility for the well-being of the class as a whole, and the learning that takes place there, resides on both sides of the podium.

         The secret that faculty usually keep to themselves, moreover, is that they never learned as much when they were students as when they became teachers and took control of a class. In entrusting some of this control to students-a trust embodied by the prominent role of self-assessment in the grading process-we are also sharing the secret of what makes learning happen and what makes it fun.

         Sharing control and responsibility is particularly crucial in a multicultural class. Group work gives students practice in developing cross-cultural communication skills (in my students' words): learning to withhold "[our] two cents" in order to take "more of an active listening part"; learning that participating includes "what [we] have to say" as well as listening to others; "understanding the importance of seeing where someone is coming from before making a judgment"; "recognizing conflict is inevitable and developing ways to deal with it"; having faith that "we can work together to achieve common goals."

         Grading group work, moreover, offers students immediate, tangible rewards for taking the opportunity to practice such skills. When grades are involved, students are far less likely to dismiss group work or, worse, become hostile and obstructive to group-based activities. And finally, grading group work through self-assessments enables students to become more conscious of the process of recognizing, practicing, and acquiring these skills. As they become more conscious, they also assume more control and more responsibility for the successes and failures of their experiences. Self-assessment, in encouraging students to articulate where they are "coming from," as well as where others are, helps them de-mystify the supremely intricate and difficult dynamics of cross-cultural communication. It is not a matter of simply getting a better grade for the course; but rather-by learning how to connect, sympathize, and work with others-a matter of acquiring a valuable resource in the multicultural world beyond the class.

APPENDIX I: SYLLABUS
HUMANITIES 121: AMERICAN PLURALISM

South Puget Sound Community College
Instructor Sherry Sullivan

DESCRIPTION: This course focuses on various cultures that help to make the United States a distinctively multicultural society. We look closely at the history and experiences, perspectives, values and contribution of six cultural groups (some in more detail than others): Native Americans, African Americans, Irish and Jewish immigrants, Chicanos, and Asian Americans.

GOALS: My goals for the course are the following: to enable students to become more familiar with American cultures different from their own; to become more familiar as well with their own cultural heritage; to recognize and respect both differences and commonalties between their own and other, diverse cultures in America; and to realize that this is an on-going, irregular, sometimes-disturbing-sometimes-exhilarating process of learning which extends well beyond this particular class.

COURSE FORMAT: The subject matter of the course, the goals stated above, the requirements listed below, and my philosophy of learning as "process not product"-all mean that this is not a traditional lecture/examination course. Rather, this course is a combination of lecture, seminar (entire class discussion circle), and small group (4-5 students) collaborative work sessions. Regular attendance and active participation are thus necessary. Your willingness to fully commit to and actively engage in the class will affect your success in the course. (We will spend some class time developing NORMS as guidelines for class discussion and small group work.)

TEXTS: Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A Multicultural History of the United States (1993); Linda Hogan, Mean Spirit; Ernesto Galarza, Barrio Boy.

REQUIREMENTS:

30% Summary/Personal Response/Self-Assessment (SRA) Papers (Three papers, 2-3 pages each, due at regular intervals throughout the course). Each paper consists of three more-or-less equal parts: a summary statement of what you read in the text and what you learned in class; a personal response to this material, drawing on your own experience and insights; and a self-assessment of where you stand with each type of group work at this point in the term.

25% Ethnic-autobiography (8 to 15 pages). You will work on this project throughout the term, with help from a small group of your peers. In the paper you explore your own cultural background - in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, class, or whatever features are important to you in your sense of cultural identity and your experience of relating to others of cultural background different from your own. This is not a diary or psychological self-analysis; it is an exploration of who you are and why, in ways you are comfortable writing about to me and sharing with members of your small support group.

20% Cultural Group Report (15 minute class presentation-all members participate). Groups of 4-5 students form early in the term to select a cultural group and explore an issue or event important to that cultural group. This group may be one of the six we study or another group (Haitian refugees, for example, or Thurston County Vietnamese). The issue may be contemporary (Reservation gambling casinos, for example), or historical (Internment of Japanese-Americans during W.W.II, for example). Research for the report must include at least one interview, ideally of an individual from that group who is (or was) a participant. In-class time for group meetings will be provided.

25% Comprehensive Final Exam (may be take-home).

APPENDIX II: GUIDELINES FOR SRA PAPERS

I.   SUMMARY SECTION: Write a brief, general overview, what you might tell someone else that you learned about a particular cultural group's history through course readings. Present the main features, supported by a few examples, to give a sense of completeness. This summary should help you to make sense of the reading and construct your own meaning, while remaining true to the text (not distorting what's there).

·       A summary requires you to separate the general from specific details (though you can refer to specifics that stand out).

·       Ask yourself, what does the author want me to know about the history of this group?

II.   PERSONAL RESPONSE SECTION: Record the ways in which the material you've read about this group affects or interests you personally. Some strategies for exploring this include the following:

·       Examples of information or impressions about this group which are particularly memorable, or details that stand out, and why (consider all five senses as well as your intellectual understanding).

·       Key passages, ideas, personages, or events that, in your mind, embody this group's experience or some important aspect of it.

·       Details you can relate to present-day America or to your own experience.

·       Confusing parts of the reading, group history or experiences.

·       Questions that remain.

III.   SELF-ASSESSMENT OF GROUP EXPERIENCES IN CLASS: Where do you stand at this point in the term with group work? Consider the various group experiences you've had: in the large seminar circle; in the one-time small group discussion groups; in Cultural Report groups; and in your Ethnic-autobiography group.

·       How have your roles, expectations, sense of accomplishment or frustration evolved since the first class meeting; how do they differ from group to group?

·       What are you learning about yourself as a member of these various groups? What can you take with you to the remainder of this class-or to other collaborative work environments?

·       What connections do you see between your experiences in groups, your understanding of course readings, and your personal response to the subject matter of the course?

APPENDIX III: CLASS NORMS

1.      Do your fair share-in both discussion and project work.

2.      Agree on group roles and responsibilities.

3.      Practice courtesy and respect in hearing different views (note language too!)

4.      Practice openness and acceptance.

5.      Encourage diverse opinions; address complexities of issues.

6.      It's okay to agree to disagree; no one view is correct.

7.      Allow time for people to have their say.

8.      Allow emotions a place in the discussion.

9.      Think before you speak (hold the question).

10.      It's okay to ask for time out.

11.      Incorporate humor!

APPENDIX IV: GUIDELINES FOR SRA PAPERS II
SELF-ASSESSMENT SECTION

Equal balance between the three sections of the Summary/Personal Response/Self-Assessment paper means equal attention and space devoted to each section. How to fully develop a Self-Assessment of group work? Suggestions follow.

II. How to Write about Group Work if You're Stymied

Be specific; generalization are often brief, thin, and vague. Analyze group dynamics and yourself as a participant in each group. How and why is/was a group productive or not? Why do you enjoy one group over another? (Think in terms of metaphor: "My experience in this group feels like...") Discuss how you function in each group, how you engage intellectually, emotionally, actively in group activities or conversations. Try to describe where you are coming from, where others are, and how you might help change group dynamics.

back to the Table of Contents