GLAID (Group Learning Activities Instructional Design): The GLAID framework aims to capture and synthesize best practices from various approaches to designing group learning activities. de Hei et. al. lay out eight components to the framework, with some explanation:
- interaction,
Student interaction may be about information sharing, supporting each other with feedback, or working out the collaborative process. One common issue is that students often rush these interactions and don’t go into sufficient depth. - learning objectives and outcomes,
It’s noted that generally these are provided to the teacher, though the teacher may identify additional outcomes. Students do not set learning outcomes. - assessment,
Assessment should be of knowledge and skills, including assessment of the collaboration process. Individual assessment should be used, in combination with group assessment. Use assessment for and of learning, and consider assessment as learning. - task characteristics,
Assignments and learning activities should be relevant and challenging, should encourage learners to interact, and should be appropriate to group work. Broad instructions work well, as this allows for freedom within the groups to interpret and make it their own. - structuring,
Various types of structuring can support the collaborative process, including assigning roles to students, providing instruction on how you want them to work together, desiging activities that require collaboration, and reflective activities. Sufficient time both within the course, and in the timetable in general, should be provided. - guidance,
Guidance may be pedagogical, social, or organizational. Guidance may include modeling, providing feedback, being an expert, coaching, confronting, provoking and intervening. - group constellation, and
Small groups are better for the safety and intimacy required if students need to share personal experiences. Large groups can be broken into sub-groups to tackle different aspects of the project. Generally it’s preferable to create groups so that members don’t know each other too well. - facilities.
This includes technology and other tools to support collaboration and communication.
Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development: The idea is that groups naturally progress through the stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning, in this order, though they can skip stages (ie not all groups Perform) and have setbacks. Stages and characteristics are explained in good detail here, including emotional aspects to each stage and practical information on what the team needs.
- Forming
As the team comes together, conflict is avoided in seeking group security. Group members seek leadership. To move to the next stage, group members must move away from conflict-adverse zones. - Storming
This stage is all about tension and conflict, power struggles, and group organization. To move to the next stage, members must move into problem-solving mode. - Norming
The group builds trust and establishes processes. Leadership transitions to a shared model. This is a creative phase. - Performing
Group members are flexible and interdependent. The group is very productive. - Adjourning
The group comes to a close; usually the end of the project or course. Big feelings! Celebration, acknowledgement, and personal goodbyes are important here.
I’m thinking about the Storming phase. Most groups I’ve been part of, conflict is more subdued – people don’t come right out and argue, but group members disagree in a passive agressive way, or decline to voice their perspective at all. It makes sense, when belonging hasn’t yet been established, that the conflict-aversion from the Forming stage hasn’t worn off yet.
Building Trust in the Classroom: What a blind spot. Of course I know that trust is required to build relationships and to feel a sense of belonging. I intuitively work to cultivate an environment where trust can flourish. But trust also supports learning resilience (ie when the teacher encourages the struggling student, promising the learning curve will get easier), feedback integration (ie trusting the observations, intentions and expertise of the instructor when receiving feedback), and risk-taking. Like much of the literature, apparently, I have never looked at trust directly in my teaching and curriculum design practice.
Building on previously developed work, and through interviewing instructors on the ways they establish trust with students, Felten et. al. developed this framework to show the different types of ‘trust moves’ teachers make.
Another factor to consider may be predictability or consistency – as noted by McKnight and Chervany.
Toile & Trouble 