Over the weekend, I participated in group work for another class. Our task was to write a paper about topics we had read about and discussed in class – a very standard college assignment. To complete this assignment, we divided our paper up into several sections and worked asynchronously on our own to complete the work. Doing it this way allowed us to maximize our time: we could read on our own when it was convenient and write our section without being forced to consume time collaborating with others.
When we were all done with our sections, we met together to discuss the paper and combine them. Because we all had to be familiar with the material, we felt it best to collocate and put the paper together as a group. We used a single laptop hooked up to a projector, so we could all look at the contents of the document and provide input. We found this process to be more time consuming that we had anticipated. We constantly had people jumping in, both verbally and on the computer, making edits without any cohesive system for picking whose were better. Essentially, as a group we organically came to a decision based more on luck and who spoke louder, rather than a more efficient system.
In addition, I observed a distinct in-group and out-group. Specifically, those who were physically located near the computer (specifically, those within reach of the keyboard) spent much more time not only modifying the document but also communicating their ideas in a more authoritative way than those in the out group. This finding is corroborated, but not entirely, by the Bos reading. I believe that the in-group was more effectively simply because they had more control over the laptop, and were able to use it as a sort of external memory, rather than keeping all ideas and potential edits in ones working memory. The Bos reading, however, verifies that just because one is part of an in-group does not necessarily make them a better worker.
Overall, these three problems – work efficiency, decision making, and the formation of an in-group and an out-group, all could be solved by a better collaboration technology or system for using the existing technology. What is interesting is that these issues came up in a collocated setting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I wrote about a similar situation with a group writing assignment and one lap-top and projector display system. In my experience, we moved the laptop around based on who was communicating ideas and wanted to modify the document. It's interesting that you discuss a different issue since the laptop was stationary, creating an in-group around the input device. Even with the same technology, our groups had different issues based on how we used the system.
ReplyDeleteInteresting points about the in-group and out-group. I hadn't thought about how people wrest control of a system by forming an in-group. It seems circular that an in-group would also form because they are near the keyboard, but perhaps the in-group took that position in the first place. I think that having a computer openly available does creating editing issues, and that come leader should rise and take control.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the in-group and out-group had anything to do with the personality types and not just the location of the group member? I feel like certain people would strategically sit by the computer in order to be in control
ReplyDelete