Project Management VI Research Paper

GroupProjectsasConflictManagementPedagogy.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Marketing homework help >Project Management VI Research Paper

Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 30:45–52 Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online DOI: 10.1080/10402659.2017.1419662

Group Projects as Conflict Management Pedagogy Amanda Ellsworth Donahoe

Conflict Resolution as a field has wrestled with the tensions between prac- tice and theory. My course, introducing the field to undergraduates, shares this struggle—or it did until I reconfigured an assignment called the Con- flict Map for teaching conflict management by using small groups. Based on Paul Wehr’s 1979 book, Conflict Regulation, the Conflict Map is a research paper that requires students to analyze a current case of conflict by research- ing its component parts and then assessing conflict regulation potential. When assigned individually to students, this assignment does not bridge the gap between theory and practice. As a group project, however, the assignment requires students to navigate personal conflict within their groups while applying theory and practical skills from the course to their shared case. Groups are a natural and appropriate source of conflict from which students can learn because their participation is driven by personal goals for success that may potentially be hindered by their reliance on the participation of group mates.

Students refer to this assignment as “meta” because of the way that boththe content of the assignment and the interaction of the groups reflect on the goals of the course and require the application of its content. This personal engagement combined with interdependence forces students to consistently reflect on the ways in which the conflict management skills they are learning in the course are practical both in their daily lives and in their collaborative research. Further, learning these skills as a group works to empower mem- bers to hold each other accountable to lessons learned about managing group tensions constructively. Students learn conflict resolution by resolving group conflict. Recognizing that these skills are effective creates a positive feedback loop that reinforces the value of these skills in their lives.

The benefits of collaborative learning, such as group projects, are numerous. Carol Colbeck, Susan Campbell, and Stefani Bjorklund argued in 2000 that collaborative learning leads to improved communication, prob- lem solving, and—valuable for our purposes—conflict management. David

https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2017.1419662

https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10402659.2017.1419662&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-01-24

46 Amanda Ellsworth Donahoe

Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Karl Smith previously pointed out that conflict management skills must be taught as part of the group process in order for collaborative learning to be most effective. Their larger argument is that col- laborative learning must be deliberate and purposeful, and that simply group- ing students together for an assignment is not enough to foster collaborative learning. At the same time, Larry Michaelsen, L. Dee Fink, and Arletta Knight suggested that collaborative tasks should compel high levels of individual accountability, group interaction and discussion, and meaningful feedback for group members, in addition to explicit rewards or payoffs for successful group accomplishment. In what follows, I describe the Conflict Map Group Project, the way that it meets these requirements, and discuss the ways in which this assignment is a successful pedagogy for teaching conflict management.

Undergraduate students rarely cheer when presented with a group project, particularly when their grade is tied to group success. They have likely had bad experiences on previous group assignments because they lacked the skills to manage the conflicts that arise in an academically high-stakes sit- uation. This conflict situation is comparable to the various kinds of conflicts addressed in the course in which conflict resolution skills are so valuable. This means that the stakes for group projects have to be high enough to matter. The conflict map is a large (40 percent of final grade) research project. Students cannot succeed in the class without a viable group project. The class dis- cusses the challenges of collaborative projects openly before being assigned to groups. This gives students space to express their concerns broadly without reflecting on classmates.

The actual grouping process is an important one. For this assignment, stu-dents rank their interests on a list of relevant real-world cases of con- flict. Using student responses in concert with a “getting to know you” sur- vey such as the one Barbara Oakley et al. provide, I assemble students into groups of no more than three or four. Small groups encourage greater individ- ual accountability. Good groups require diverse levels of ability and should strive for diversity of voices and experience, but should avoid isolating at-risk students. Diversity will mean different things on different campuses/courses but one consideration may be grouping first or second year students with more advanced students. More experienced students benefit from teaching lessons learned in research, writing, and citations; and less experienced students pro- vide energy and enthusiasm. Instructors should be aware that this dynamic can create problematic hierarchies. Achieving diversity is difficult early in the class, but a “Getting to Know You” survey will help. A final considera- tion when putting groups together should be student schedules and availability outside of class so that groups can meet together.

When topics and groups are announced, students move to sit in their new groups and the class revisits the discussion on their concerns regarding

Group Projects as Conflict Management Pedagogy 47

group projects. Groups are encouraged as their first collaborative act to co-author an agreement regarding their expectations for themselves and each other. Groups might agree to “work diligently to be prepared for meetings,” or “communicate openly when they cannot meet deadlines.” Expectation Agreements should be as realistic as possible, so students are encouraged to avoid commitments to “never miss a meeting,” for example. This first activity works to assuage student concerns regarding working as a team. That they will be researching a case that is unique to their group will also contribute to a sense of group identity, which may contribute to cohesiveness as they move forward.

The first assigned task for the Conflict Map Group is to thoroughly read theassignment and write a proposal for dividing tasks among group mem- bers. Oakley et al. advise against the divide and conquer method of students parceling out pieces of the assignment as it fosters autonomy over interdepen- dence. The Conflict Map, however, requires students to research components of a conflict that are purposefully deeply interconnected, such that even when researched separately, a successful final draft requires collaboration and syn- thesis of the components in the final analysis.

So, even when groups pursue the divide and conquer method, they are still engaging in a great deal of group interaction. Class time is used to com- pare and discuss these proposals across groups so that the instructor can engage and offer guidance to the process. Students then submit a proposal for their group’s Plan of Action for approval allowing the instructor the oppor- tunity to ensure fair allocation of responsibilities as well as adding a level of supervision in holding group members accountable during the project. Stu- dents usually agree to each take sections and work together on the final anal- ysis sections with added responsibilities for writing the summary, editing, citations, and formatting/organizing a presentation.

The Conflict Map assignment is a very structured assignment with a strict fifteen-page limit (not including cover sheet or works cited), and the following required sections with detailed descriptions of required content: 1. Summary (one page); 2. Conflict History; 3. Conflict Context; 4. Conflict Par- ties; 5. Issues; 6. Dynamics; 7. Alternative Routes to Solution; and 8. Conflict Regulation Potential.

To ensure that all group members start with a comparable understanding of the case, all group members are required to write the Conflict History. A writing workshop is useful here in which group members exchange drafts and discuss content priorities. In this way, students are introduced to each other’s writing as they establish a collective history draft. As group dynamics present themselves, instructors can draw parallels to examples from class.

Groups work to limit the remaining sections to two pages and struggle to decide what fits most appropriately in each section. For example, a group writ-

48 Amanda Ellsworth Donahoe

ing on South Sudan wrestled with whether Sudan was fully covered in History and Context or should be included as a secondary or interested third party. Groups critically assess and analyze the conflict in sections 7 and 8. These sections have a tendency to expand in later stages of writing as group mem- bers’ understanding of the conflict develops. Groups respond to this by trying to reduce the length of previous sections. This deliberative process achieves high levels of interaction but it may also result in territoriality as space on the page becomes a valuable resource. The student who included Sudan as an interested third party resisted the group’s decision to cut this section as a space-saving mechanism, but ultimately yielded to the claim that more room was needed for the final two sections of the paper. It would be evident later that this was not the right choice and that accommodating the group would not lead to success, but it is an example of students not yet having the skills to competently resolve conflict.

Skills such as listening, assertive communication, and recognition of conflict styles are taught using in-class activities provided by resources such as The Conflict and Communication Activity Book. For example, in “Right Listening,” students rotate three roles: speaking, listening, and observing the listener. In this way, students think critically about how they listen from each perspective. They are encouraged and encourage each other to avoid interrupting, listen for both content and speaker’s feelings, and remove distractions, including cell phones. In a paper on Afghanistan, students disagreed over terminology for the group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Following this exercise, students who had argued for using the commonly used acronym ISIS, listened more openly to the suggestion of peers that using Daesh, the group’s Arabic acronym, better reflected the role that the group played in their case study. Practicing these skills in a structured and formal way with group mates prepared them for informal unstructured interactions in project work.

To learn assertive communication, groups identify a series of statementsas either aggressive or nonassertive, and discuss what each style com- municates. Groups then revise statements to be assertive. Recognizing each of these styles and collectively identifying why assertive statements are more effective provides individual members with the vocabulary to address these issues in communication with group members. For one group, a sophomore identified early that her own nonassertive communication style contributed to a dynamic in which her two group mates, both seniors, wrestled for leader- ship. This dynamic was more evident to her when students took a personal conflict style inventory.

The conflict style inventory, like the one available from the U.S. Institute of Peace, presents students with various conflict scenarios and asks students to choose behaviors that best exemplify how they would respond. Students

Group Projects as Conflict Management Pedagogy 49

who feel their results are accurate (this is generally the case) gain insight into patterns in their behaviors. As a class, students identify whether or not they think their results might change depending on the kinds of relationships they imagined as they took the survey. For example, students may be more likely to answer questions as a Competer if they are thinking about conflict with a sibling, as an Accommodator or Avoider if they are thinking about conflict with a boss, or as a Compromiser when interacting with a close friend. Although students may have strong tendencies toward a particular conflict style, each of these styles may be valuable in different settings and different relationship dynamics.

When students discussed which conflict styles they prefer to use as a group, the sophomore used assertive communication, to draw the seniors’ attention to the fact that they were both acting like Competers and that per- haps more “compromising” behaviors were appropriate. Having this vocab- ulary available empowered her to address the problem, and her groupmates were responsive to her communication style. Throughout these activities, and others on bargaining, negotiation, and mediation, the overarching theme is that conflict is natural and has the potential to be constructive. There is going to be conflict within student groups. Understanding that this is the case and equipping students to deal with it in ways that are productive to the group gives them both conflict management tools and practice.

Students have bad experiences in group projects because they lack the skills to effectively resolve conflict. This is true, but it also fails to address the issue of poorly applied group assignments. While creating a high-stakes assignment is imperative to driving the group dynamic, creating a support- ive learning environment is important for individual student success. Two processes created support scaffolding for this learning process: group assess- ment/peer evaluations, and drafts. Group assessment forms such as the ones provided by Oakley et al. are distributed early in the project to help mem- bers assess overall group health and to think critically about the way they are functioning collectively. Groups are asked: do meetings start on time, are all members prepared, does everyone listen and feel listened to? The first distri- bution of this form is useful in identifying potential patterns that may inhibit group success. For example, one group acknowledged collectively that they were not allocating enough time at meetings to achieve their tasks when none of the individual members had wanted to suggest that they meet either longer or more often. A follow-up assessment can be done later in the term when the instructor finds it most useful to refocus attention on constructive group dynamics.

Peer evaluation forms require students to evaluate each of their groupmates. The evaluation categories include: attendance to meetings, par- ticipation, responsibilities, and contribution. Discussing these categories as

50 Amanda Ellsworth Donahoe

a class familiarizes students with the process, but also reinforces the norms of individual accountability. These forms are also distributed two times over the course of the project, and again, the first evaluation is not handed in. Instead, group members discuss them together openly. This allows the group to address issues with each other directly. This interaction is relatively low pressure for two reasons. First, the forms are distributed early enough in the project that students are unlikely to be very frustrated with each other yet. Second, the instructor is not directly involved. This discussion serves to con- firm group expectations and may allow groups to curb potential problems such as students not contributing or attending meetings. It also allows stu- dents the opportunity to reflect on their own behaviors and the way that they are perceived by group members.

The second distribution of peer evaluations are collected. Ideally, this is done before rough drafts are due in order for the instructor to intervene if necessary. Interventions can be done collectively or individually with partic- ular students. This scaffolding of assessment and evaluation acts as a secu- rity measure for student success and it can provide opportunities for cre- ative interventions that directly utilize the skills of the class. For example, it might be useful to organize a mediation with the group with either a neu- tral group member, or perhaps a student from another group as mediator. This again serves to reinforce the value of conflict resolution skills on a personal level.

The second layer of scaffolding is a rough draft deadline. Formal rough drafts (complete, fully edited) are due two weeks before the final draft. It is important that rough drafts be returned with thorough suggestions for improvement and in time for revision. The benefits of this process are many. Students are better able to meet expectations on the assignment when they are clear about what those expectations are and how to achieve them. Further, the instructor can hold students accountable to the group’s Plan of Action. The drafting process acts as a safeguard so that no one member or even sys- temic group misunderstanding about the assignment can endanger the collec- tive grade as long as group members are responsive to draft feedback.

For example, on the South Sudan paper, despite the need for space, Sudanclearly ought to be described as an interested party to the conflict and I noted this in draft feedback. The group was able to reassess their strategy and revise the paper to include necessary information before their choices had a negative impact on their shared final grade. This was also a valuable reminder that group thinking can result in detrimental strategies. In feedback, I asked group members to reflect on their earlier debate about Sudan, then we discussed alternative ways that the group could have addressed the issue to arrive at a different result. The absence/poor application of conflict resolution skills also served as a learning opportunity.

Group Projects as Conflict Management Pedagogy 51

After final drafts have been submitted, groups present their projects to the class. Groups then meet a final time to reflect on their experience together using a debrief form that students fill out individually following the discussion. The form asks groups to think about their process, including: meetings, communication, decision making, deadlines, inclusion, and power dynamics. Groups are asked about the division of responsibilities, whether or not they were met, whether or not they were fair, and how they might have been allocated differently. Many students report that seeing the list of each members’ responsibilities reminded them of how much their colleagues contributed and accomplished during the project.

Groups are also asked how disagreements were handled within the group and how students responded to tension. As groups talk through these issues, students are confronted with their own performance. Individual submissions give them the space to communicate elements of their group dynamic that they may not have been willing to communicate directly to members of their group, or that the instructor may not have already been aware of. It also gives them time to consider their experiences autonomously. Their final debriefs exhibit a great deal of self-awareness as a result. One student acknowledged that, “Truthfully, many of the problems that were brought up were most likely caused by me.”

The final set of questions help students identify what went well, whetheror not students are pleased with the group’s performance overall, and finally, how their experiences were affected by membership in the class. A small sample of their responses evidence the degree to which they practiced and internalized the lessons and tools of the class: “[W]hen conflict does pop up, I learned that it’s best to address it directly and politely, even when it feels awkward to do so. I think we all had class material in the back of our minds. As a result, we definitely displayed more restraint than I have seen in other group projects when tensions rise. I do not think that the group would have devel- oped the same collaborative framework that it did if we had not had the con- flict resolution, mediation, and listening training that we had received. This is made evident by the fact that as our semester moved forward, our conflict resolution toolkit grew, and we became more comfortable with one another, the quality of our group work drastically increased. I think the small group approach is a very effective way of developing conflict resolution strategies, since it allows for a lot of direct dialogue, collaboration, and trust building between the members of said group. I was glad to work in a group and I really liked learning about this topic. I think this was the kind of ideal group project where I was truly able to learn more about the topic by being in a group than I would have if I did this entire thing independently.”

Group work is a natural fit for conflict resolution courses. Students learn personal skills for dealing with conflict, and because they are learning these

52 Amanda Ellsworth Donahoe

skills collaboratively, they are able to hold each other accountable for behav- ior that stereotypically corrupts group projects. Students also develop a deeper respect for the nature of relationships and interdependence in conflict. This process is a success because the lessons of managing personal conflict are at the core of the assignment and group process itself. Students read theory from experts in the field throughout the course, but in personally applying the the- ory and conflict resolution skills to their group project, they resolve not only the tension in their groups, but also the tension between theory and practice in the class as a whole. The final presentations show the real work in the class as bonded group members share a collective sigh of a job well done.