For years, I have struggled with ‘group work’ in lessons. And, I’d admit that that was born out of a sense of control and desire to manage the behaviour in the classroom effectively. You can monitor and control behaviour easily if only one person is speaking at any one time. You can address rule breakers and reinforce the rules quickly and simply. Tom, remember the rule: only one person speaks at a time. Controlling group work is like controlling a box of frogs. No sooner have you returned one frog back to the box then another three have jumped out and moved in three different directions. The energy involved and chaotic nature of group work has made group work the last thing teachers want to do.
Added to all that, there is a cost to curriculum content coverage. If you are pressed for time in your curriculum, it is easier to tell students rather than have them explore it at a more leisurely pace. Instead of getting students to unpick sources behind population change in an area, we tell them and skip that whole finding out for themselves. We could ask the question: has curriculum content increased to cause this? To answer this, I would say that our relationship with content has changed rather than there being an increase. Instead of an exploratory attitude towards knowledge and ideas, we have honed in on an attitude of knowing everything in great detail - without mercy. Instead of studying a text for English they are learning the technical manual which is devoid of any meaning, thought, insight. For English teachers, we seem to be going down a very Gradgrind path:
‘Bitzer,’ said Thomas Gradgrind. ‘Your definition of a horse.’
‘Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs, too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in mouth.’ Thus (and much more) Bitzer.
‘Now girl number twenty,’ said Mr. Gradgrind. ‘You know what a horse is.’
The problem is that we have been subtly edged to this point. It wasn’t a big push, but a gradual creep. When we, and schools, place so much emphasis on the exams and content, we miss out on the ability to form ideas and opinions of our own. And, that was what Dickens was alluding to in the section of Hard Times. Facts and knowledge are only a part of the process of learning and they are not the only part of learning. The student’s interaction with the knowledge. The use of knowledge to create new thoughts and ideas and connections. Yes, they might know what a horse is technically, but do they have any opinions or thoughts of their own. If we don’t provide the space for thought, then how will thoughts be created? Only a few years ago people were mad for the word and concept ‘schema’ and they were talking about how important it was, yet we never really thought about how group work and group discussion is a part of that.
So, why have I made a significant u-turn on group work? I think it is a drastic change in how students do speaking and listening assessments for GCSE English. We have seen a dramatic increase in avoidance and pure panic when asking students to talk for an assessed piece. And, I think we have to hold our hands up with this one. We have produced an experience where talk is the last thing students experience in schools. Silent corridors. Silent work. Reading in silence. Writing in silence. Revising in silence. When silence is the dominant mode of work, then is there any wonder students have a meltdown when thinking that they’ll have to talk on a topic of their choice for a few minutes.
I like the fact that oracy has come to the forefront of discussion, but I fear that it is going to be lost in a sea of mediocrity by people focusing on paired talk, cold calling and presentations. I think schools need to position group work at the front of this oracy drive and how it is used in lessons. Why? Because group work is talk without thirty eyes on you. It is without social pressure. It isn’t performative. It isn’t judged. But, it allows students to articulate thoughts. It allows them to test things out. It allows them to listen to others. It allows them to interact with different audiences. It allows them to find, test, practice their voice without judgement.
I would say as a head of department talking in a group is one of the most important aspects of my job. In fact, I’d be bold to say that if there aren't regular group discussions within departments, within curriculum leader meetings, with SLT meetings then you have a problem within your school. Talk solves problems. Talk probes issues. Talk challenges the status quo. Talk does so much, yet we don’t apply it to lessons. Yet, it doesn’t stop there. How many family issues have been resolved by talking?
What are the problems that we need to address when dealing with group work in the classroom? What do we need to address these problems?
[1] There needs to be a clear sense of purpose and a concrete outcome.
All too often, there is a case of doing stuff rather than an overall outcome and a measure to check that things have been done. It might be a table, sheet or a presentation, but there needs to be a clear outcome and a way for the students and teacher to measure or see completion.
[2] The task needs planning.
Planning is usually a major pitfall. For most group tasks, there is a need to segment the overall task or separate the different processes.
[3] Roles in a group change.
This is a big one. How many times have you watched The Apprentice to see them arguing for ages about who should be the leader? If you watch group discussions, you see that the leader changes many times. Assign roles like that, and you end up with very little productivity because people are too focused on the role and not focused on the processes that lead to the end result.
[4] Rules that ensure collective responsibility.
Rules often focus on how people speak and yet they don’t always focus on collective responsibility. That is more important for me. All students participate and engage in the discussion and task. The rules need to reflect that.
[5] Talk needs acceptance regardless of the type of talk.
This is a tricky one. It is one of the biggest problems for teachers. It is acceptable for people to go off topic or have two conversations going at once. How many teachers have had a conversation about something unrelated during an INSET task? Everyone. That’s because we naturally go off topic. We can and we do dual function in conversations. Social talk is an important part of the process. Humans need to talk otherwise things become functional.
[6] Monitoring needs to happen from the teacher.
Group work is never a task for the teacher to sit back and catch up with emails. A teacher should be a helicopter. Going from one group to another. Listening. Stepping in if support is needed. But, they are not there to be the talk police. They should be facilitating what is going on, but allowing students to solve things by themselves with the minimum input.
I hope that some of what I have said has given some food for thought. We need to overcome this dread and fear of group work. It isn’t the elixir of a teacher, but also it isn’t the poison of teaching. It is a method and a process to explore and learn. We’ve got so used to it being a swear word in teaching. Like many things, it can be done badly if done half-heartedly. My fear is that this drive on oracy is about the performance of speech rather than the use of speech and the social aspects of talk. Talk is so powerful and if we are not careful we make it quite simplistic and reductive.
Thanks for reading,
Xris
