Coping with Hitchhikers and Couch Potatoes in Collabrative or Team Learning

-----Original Message-----
From: Greenberg, James
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 1:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Coping with Hitchhikers and Couch Potatoes in Collabrative or Team Learning

Our first TB is Feb. 12 at 8 AM in Morris Hall. At it I would like to discuss "team learning" and a problem I have always had when using it. That is, how do I deal with the Hitchhikers or Couch Potatoes when I put my students into groups or teams. A recent pro/con set of articles was sent to a list I am on on this issue.. so I provided them as a starting point for discussion.

        Do you put students into groups or teams?
        How? (Self select, etc)
        Does it work?
        Do the assess each others work? What are issues with this?
        Pros/Cons on this from your perspective.
        How do you deal with those that go along for the ride or don't carry their share?

"To expound on a point: it is inappropriate to suggest that students should
take responsibility for the conduct of their team-mates and assert control
-- as the article suggests. When students are in a classroom they are
equal, and thus as teammates see themselves as equals. If Jack and Henry
aren't doing their fare share why is it up to Mary and [the reader of the
article] to do something about it?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR(SM) LISTSERV
               "desk-top faculty development, one hundred times a year"
             THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
                                 http://ctl.stanford.edu

Note: All past TP Listserv postings can be found via the above URL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 18, 2002 Posting #441 COPING WITH HITCHHIKERS AND COUCH
POTATOES ON TEAMS, generated some interesting responses. Below is
one such response, from Sean D. Hurley, Research Assistant Professor
in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of
Rochester. It is followed by a rebuttal by the posting author,
Barbara Oakley, Assistant Professor of Engineering, Oakland
University, Rochester MI, Both articles are reprinted with
permission of the authors.

Rick Reis
[log in to unmask]
UP NEXT: Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment

--------------------------------------- 1,922 words
----------------------------------

A nicely written article which points out both why students generally
dislike "team learning" (at least the brightest ones tend to) and why team
learning, at least as it is commonly implemented, is a fundamentally flawed
idea.

Team learning is flawed because it foists on students all of the
responsibility without any control. In a classroom environment, learning is
ultimately a solitary activity, yet with a team paradigm individual
assessment is made in aggregate -- thus those students who wish to be
rewarded for the learning that they have accomplished invariably end up
doing more than their fare share.

Yet the article suggests that it is up to the students to protect
themselves from freeloaders, hitchhikers, and couch potatoes. However,
while students may be responsible for the actions, or lack of action, of
their comperes, they are almost never assigned the power, by the professor,
to insure that their teammates contribute.

Ultimately, many professors defend the practice of "teams" by pointing to
the "real world", ie the business world, where teams are routinely
implemented. However, what many fail to appreciate is that teams in the
business world often have a team leader who has the power to punish those
who are not performing and reward those who do. I do not believe it is
appropriate for students to have that type of power over each other --
often classrooms are competitive and students are often too aware that
their grades can make the difference in where they might end up in
professional school.

Thus, teams often work best, in a classroom setting, when students have
clear zones of control. If Jack, Henry, and Mary are responsible for their
own part of the final report, then it will be quite clear to the professor
who is doing the work and who isn't and those students who work the hardest
will be fairly rewarded.

To expound on a point: it is inappropriate to suggest that students should
take responsibility for the conduct of their team-mates and assert control
-- as the article suggests. When students are in a classroom they are
equal, and thus as teammates see themselves as equals. If Jack and Henry
aren't doing their fare share why is it up to Mary and [the reader of the
article] to do something about it? They are supposed to be equals, and most
students don't think it is their place to criticize their peers. If
anything this is standard social behavior and I do not believe professors
should expect anything different.

Of course, many people in life are assigned jobs with great
responsibilities and little power. But in the "real world" they are paid
for it. Whereas in college, it is students (and their parents) who are
handing out the dole.

Sean D. Hurley, PhD
Research Assistant Professor
Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy
University of Rochester Medical Center
[log in to unmask]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE BY BARBARA OAKLEY 01/13/03

I appreciate the opportunity Rick Reis has given me to respond to
Sean Hurley's letter. And I thank Dr. Hurley himself for providing
me with a range of issues that allow me to tell both why I wrote the
Hitchhiker essay, and why I believe the ability to use the techniques
described in the essay is so important.

But before I respond to Dr. Hurley's points, I'd like to establish my
background and experience in working with teams, because it's
relevant to the credibility of the conclusions I drew. I happened
into a professorship much later than the usual academician, having
spent over twenty years working at a variety of industry-related
positions. My early years (after waitressing and working as a
cleaning woman in high school) were spent in the U.S. Army, where I
spent several years as enlisted before entering the officer ranks and
subsequently attaining the rank of Regular Army Captain. From the
perspective of observing how teams work, this was a fascinating time,
because I learned many of the tricks that enlisted men and women used
to fool the more gullible officers, of which the university system
turned out many. Later, I worked as a radio operator at the South
Pole Station in Antarctica and also spent several seasons on Russian
trawlers working for the Soviets with American fishermen. Ships and
isolated Antarctic stations are wonderful 'controlled experiment'
situations for anyone wishing to study the mechanics of how teams do
and don't work optimally. In the business world, I spent a number of
years working in research and development as an engineer in the
optics industry, and in design/manufacturing in the automotive
industry.
In his letter, Dr. Hurley points out "Ultimately, many professors
defend the practice of "teams" by pointing to the "real world", ie
the business world, where teams are routinely implemented. However,
what many fail to appreciate is that teams in the business world
often have a team leader who has the power to punish those who are
not performing and reward those who do."
Unfortunately, the reality in the business world is that a team
leader or supervisor is too busy with their own work to be concerned
with petty interpersonal issues-even if those issues don't seem so
petty to the person(s) concerned. If you have to go complain to the
boss every time someone takes advantage of you in the workplace,
you've got a problem. And, as the Hitchhiker paper suggests, it is
easy to fool a gullible team leader into believing that a problematic
team member is actually the one least at fault. Team leaders are
generally far from omniscient father figures who come to the rescue
when a problem arises-in fact, they are sometimes part of the problem.
As explained in the full version of the Hitchhiker paper ("It Takes
Two to Tango," Journal of Student Centered Learning, Volume 1, Issues
1, 2003, pg 19-28), I have found that students working in industry
are often the most appreciative of the tools the Hitchhiker paper
provides. It is in industry, after all, that the easy life of being
able to switch classmates and professors at the end of the semester
is not an option. Quoting again from Dr. Hurley "SÝwhile students may
be responsible for the actions, or lack of action, of their comperes,
they are almost never assigned the power, by the professor, to insure
(sic) that their teammates contribute." I might append: ditto for
workers out in industry. That's why it's important to learn to take
active control of one's interactions with one's colleagues, whether
in the academic or the professional world.

Dr. Hurley states: "I do not believe it is appropriate for students
to have that type of power over each other-often classrooms are
competitive and students are often too aware that their grades can
make the difference in where they might end up in professional
school." The implication here is that the academic environment is
more competitive and somehow more important than the environment out
in the "real world." The reality is exactly the opposite. Speaking
from experience, I can assure you that the corporate world, the
entrepreneurial world, and even the military world is at least as
competitive, and often far more so, than the typical academic
environment. And ultimately, making the final cut to executive rank
is far more important-and competitive-for a corporate worker than the
triviality of whether he or she earned a 3.8 instead of a 3.2 grade
in Calculus I.
In his letter, Dr. Hurley asserts: "When students are in the
classroom, they are equal, and thus as teammates see themselves as
equals." I've had enough experience with humanity to know that
everyone is not equal, inside or outside the classroom (outside of
the legal realm, equality rarely exists). I have also seen precisely
how such notions of equality can be used for manipulative purposes by
individuals with malign intent, as described in the Hitchhiker essay.
Dr. Hurley also states "In the classroom environment, learning is
ultimately a solitary activitySÝ." Not in my classroom, and not in
any of the many classrooms that use cooperative learning techniques
throughout the country. There are many different learning styles.
(See Rich Felder and Barbara Soloman's excellent paper, "Learning
Styles and Strategies," at
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/styles.htm)
Those individuals who ultimately receive doctorates are often
reflective learners who like to learn on a solitary basis, as opposed
to active learners, who enjoy bouncing ideas off each other. As the
old bromide goes-the A students end up becoming professors, while the
B students end up working for the C students. There are many
different pathways to learning-and to success.

About five years ago I heard a surprising comment during an interview
with the president of an optics company. He revealed that he never
liked to hire graduating engineering students to work on electronics
design in his company-instead, he retrained physics graduates. His
reason? Engineers at that time were used to learning, and working,
as a solitary activity. They had too many difficulties adjusting
their work habits upon leaving school to be able to function
effectively in teams. The patterns set in the classroom followed the
students out into the workplace.

In his letter, Dr. Hurley goes on to say: "[Students] are supposed
to be equals, and most students don't think it is their place to
criticize their peers." In reality, it is indeed uncomfortable for
many students to be assertive enough to stop others from taking
advantage of them. But that does not obviate the need for students
to learn this important life skill. As the Hitchhiker essay
suggests, without constructive criticism, hitchhikers and couch
potatoes will never be able to learn that their actions are
detrimental to others.

Dr. Hurley states that: "It is inappropriate to suggest that
students should take responsibility for the conduct of their
team-mates and assert controlSÝ. If Jack and Henry aren't doing their
fare [sic] share, why is it up to Mary and [the reader of the
article] to do something about it?"
Of course it's up to Mary and the reader of the article to do
something about it! Who else is going to? The professor? He or she
wouldn't know there's a problem unless Mary and the reader brought it
to the professor's attention, which already means that Mary and the
reader are doing something about it. And as the article pointed out,
when Mary, Henry, and the reader brought the problem to the
professor's attention, it worsened the situation. This is a
realistic scenario, and one I have seen time after time in my own
team-related experiences.
To expand on an important final point, if it is inappropriate to
suggest that students take responsibility for the conduct of their
team-mates, then in real-life human terms, that means their
team-mates can do anything and get away with it. Setting an early
pattern in university years of telling a student it is inappropriate
to take responsibility for their colleagues' conduct means that
later, out in industry, a former student would be more prone to
turning a blind eye to unproductive and even unethical practices.
After all, it would not be their responsibility. Is that really what
we want?