Comments on Wilson

In his research paper, Wilson describes his experiment with guided design and serial decision making and the outcomes he noticed. To basically sum up his experiment, he presented a large class with a ship-wreck scenario in which they must rate the usefulness of several items recovered from the shipwreck. Each individual creates and list and then small groups are formed, where each group comes up with a list. Then, the "accuracy" of each list is checked against a list created by an expert.

What struck my interest from this article is that this is the same basic method that Green Hope's (the school where I teach) administration uses at faculty meetings for including the faculty in problem solving. Anytime there is an issue they wish to tackle, we break into smaller groups. Each group then presents its solution and we discuss the results as one large group again.

I can echo many of Wilson's observations pertaining to the experiment. Wilson (2004) mentions "Six of the sixty-two teams experienced the “monster” of team learning. One three-
person team failed to reach a solution in the time provided, experiencing complete
collaborative breakdown in their deliberations (p. 8). I have seen this in our faculty meetings. Teachers can be particularly ornery, especially when presented with a task that they do not want to participate in. I have seen groups not come up with any result at all, or only have a couple of answers thrown together for the sake of having something.

However, as Wilson also observed, most often the outcome is positive. Individuals have opinions on topics that are often a little extreme, or based on incorrect assumptions. The group atmosphere is good at pulling in common sense without ignoring innovative ideas. Also, the logistics of sharing information is much more efficient using this method. It is very difficult for good ideas to be heard when dealing with a larger group. Many people are afraid to speak their mind and others are all too willing.

One variable that Wilson takes into account is the existence of an "expert" within groups. He was able to recognize these individuals by their score being higher than that of the group (with regards to accuracy). This also exists in the faculty meetings that we have. Often times we deal with issues that I know nothing about. Many times there is a large number of people in the group who are ignorant to the issue at hand. As Wilson noted, the experts typically understand that they are the expert of the group and help guide the decision-making process in the right direction.

References: Wilson, P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design classroom exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resource Economics (No. 2004-07). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.