While doing some virtual spring-cleaning on my computer hard drive, I came across an open letter written in January of 2008 to the head of the INTEX (Integrated Experience) program at BYU's Information Systems Undergraduate Department. This proposal was to give voice to concerns about the education we were receiving, and while those days are past and gone, the need for education reform still persists today. My continued experience in the workforce only continues to emphasize more and more the need  to change the way we educate the future of America's (and the world's) workforce. So in honor of that proposal, I have provided a summary of the article with a (hopefully) broader perspective.

Many fields of study in today's world require a complex and unique structure that differs greatly from the traditional approaches for other pursuits.

I would like to discuss one of the expected learning outcomes as denoted in our program’s (this is in reference to the Information Systems Undergraduate program) official outline:

“Graduates will effectively communicate client-focused analysis in a professional environment.

Specifically, they will be able to:
…Work effectively with and lead others, both from technical and non-technical areas of business.”

The world of business demands teamwork. Many project management life cycle models depend upon teams to function properly. To add my own personal experience, my specific line of work at Omniture, Inc. (now Adobe Systems, Inc.) relies heavily on teamwork. According to one researcher, “The old structures are being reformed. As organizations seek to become more flexible in the face of rapid environmental change and more responsive to the needs of customers, they are experimenting with new, team-based structures” (Jackson & Ruderman, 1996). Furthermore, in 2003, a national representative survey, HOW-FAIR (see source #1), revealed that Americans think that 'being a team player' was the most important factor in getting ahead in the workplace. This was ranked higher than several factors, including 'merit and performance', 'leadership skills', 'intelligence', 'making money for the organization' and 'long hours'.

Considering the importance of teamwork emphasized by those university officials who defined the program’s objective as well as the rest of the business world, I believe it is very important to learn how to work in a group now, not after we enter the workforce. Utilizing a teaching model that requires group work is difficult to implement as it goes against the grain of what so many teachers have done before, but it needs to be done.

In order to support my argument for group learning, first allow to me recognize some of the arguments against group learning in an educational environment:

1. Oftentimes one or two people tend slack off while the others do all the work.

2. Giving grades to individuals based on group performance isn’t fair.

3. Work can be unequal, and it is hard to tell who is doing the real work and who isn’t.

4. Some groups don’t work well together.

…and perhaps most importantly…

5. We cannot allow students to slide through the program, reach the real world, and have the employers lower their opinion and evaluation of the educational institute as whole. That would be truly disastrous for us all.

These arguments are very real and valid points for not using a group learning approach, especially the fifth argument. Unfortunately, those who cheat or are too lazy to do the work don’t seem to recognize what they are doing to the school with their poor examples and bad habits. On the other hand, if students don’t learn how to work in groups now, then when will they? In the workforce, hopefully? By then, it may be too late, and our image will be tarnished once again. It seems to be a paradox; however, with every method of teaching, there underlies a certain amount of risk. It is safe and comfortable for educators to assume the “standard” model of teaching where the teacher lectures, gives assignments to be completed individually, and administers exams to test students’ knowledge. Is this the only way to teach? Is it even the best way?

I present some solutions to this problem in education that will address and resolve all of the aforementioned arguments (answered in direct correlation to the argument number):

1. Allow group members to convene and vote (most likely privately with the teacher’s permission) to disband another member who isn’t contributing to the environment or the work the team is performing.

a. This will motivate all students to do their share of the work. They will not want to get “fired” and end up doing all of the work on their own.

b. If the student(s) in question wishes to argue their case, they can present evidence and work they have done to contribute to the group. Refer to point #2 to see how this would work.

2. Create a method of work delegation. In every team, work needs to be broken down into component tasks. This could be aided by a teacher-generated spreadsheet that allows for students to sign-up for an appropriate amount of tasks. The students could also come up with their own division of labor spreadsheet, signed by each member of the group. That would be their assertion that the labor division is fair. The teacher and/or TAs could approve
that sheet, as well.

a. This teaches another fundamental aspect of teamwork (see source #3).

b. This allows for teachers to give accurate individual grades for individual work and group participation. Peer feedback does not need to be graded, but can be considered in helping the individual learn how to improve.

c. If student(s) fail in their individual assignments, the rest of the group will not be affected as the teacher can provide example solutions to work from.

3. Points #1 and #2 both address and resolve this argument. As I previously mentioned, assignment of individual tasks can ensure workload is balanced and clearly define grading procedures.

4. If one of the expected learning outcomes is to work well with a group and lead effectively, then this isn’t an excuse. The learning outcomes are how BYU intended us to become Information Systems professionals, and we are—or at least should be—aware of that.

a. Being aware that group work is a fundamental part of the I SYS Jr. Core will strengthen the resolve of people to do their part in the learning process.

b. Forcing individual work on a project that was intended for a group effort would suggest to a student’s mind that teamwork isn’t a priority topic. Should we hurt everyone because of the few who don’t comply? That would be similar to the example of enforcing a curfew because .1% of the population commits crimes at night.

5. A failing grade or providing some form of academic discipline can help students who are consistently experiencing difficulty in complying with the learning objectives established by BYU. This can help them appreciate the serious nature of this program.

a. “People learn by confronting intriguing, beautiful, or important problems, authentic tasks that will challenge them to grapple with ideas, rethink assumptions, examine mental models of reality” (see source #4)

b. People also learn better in groups. Group members teaching other group members increase overall understanding and memory retention (about a 90% retention rate). Cory Schulthies, an I SYS Jr. Core student, stated that “groups have the potential to strengthen each other. Everyone brings different strengths, and different people understand different topics better than others.” At least that is the case for the both of us.

We strive for excellence at BYU. We want to be the best we can be, but we are limiting ourselves by conforming to a comfort zone methodology. The blame rests with students and teachers alike. We are all too used to living in that comfort zone—students like their assignments clear-cut and orderly, and
teachers like the safety and ease of multiple choice tests to objectively  evaluate students’ learning. The majority of people once taught that the world is flat, but that never made the assertion true. When we stand out in the crowd, some may persecute us, but people will come to know us for the Galileos that we are.

Joe Martin, an award-winning national speaker, author, and professor hit upon many key issues in a recent article that I feel need to be stated:

“One of the cardinal rules of teaching is that students will not believe in you until you first believe in them and what you’re teaching them…. You’re not only teaching them basic skills, you’re teaching them life skills – skills that will impact them well beyond the classroom. Unfortunately, if you don’t believe this is true, neither will your students…. If you don’t care about a thing, that ‘thing’ can and will become a burden on you. Likewise, if you teach that ‘thing’ for the wrong reasons, you will become a burden on your students. And quite frankly, if a teacher doesn’t care [for that ‘thing’], then that teacher shouldn’t teach.”

In conclusion I ask, “What is this ‘thing’ Joe is referring to?” It could be a subject matter, but it could also be a methodology or style of teaching. What if that ‘thing’ was teamwork? How do you think a student feels when teamwork is suddenly (from their point of view) thrown out the window? How does teamwork work in one semester and not the next? I believe the answer is in caring. If a couple truly cares about a marriage and each other, then they can work through any problems that might arise. If I truly care about the work I perform at my job, then I will put in the necessary effort to overcome challenges in whatever form they might be in. If we truly care about developing a practical educational methodology, then we can make learning work the way it was meant to work.