Team Production & Gift Exchange

My initial reaction to the articles was about class participation and attendance. As I am sure most individuals have had both mandatory and non-mandatory attendance classes, I wanted to examine the incentive behind both options. The structure of the class plays an important role in the reasoning behind making class attendance mandatory or not. For example, an English class of 30 students has greater incentive to encourage attendance than a 500 person Econ 303 lecture would. Being a discussion-based class, the most important aspect is having students there to bring different opinions and perspectives on the literature being debated on. In terms of gift exchange, the teacher accomplishes their lesson plan much easier with students actually in class and the students enhance their learning experience by bouncing ideas/concepts off one another. In a class with no attendance requirement, the incentive to learn and obtain a decent grade rests entirely on the student rather than the process of give and take between the student and teacher.

            However, this process does not necessarily press the “shared spoils button” that Jonathan Haidt discusses in his piece. In fact, there can be very little reason for the class to act cooperatively unless the teacher threatens to drop the entire group’s grade. Certainly, the class is much more enjoyable if students put in effort and actually apply themselves to the material, but in my past experience, students prefer to focus on their own G.P.A. than the educational experience. I feel as though the tougher the class material gets, the higher frequency students are willing to share information and course materials with one another. For example, many of my friends that are in difficult engineering courses often talk about the collaboration between students. If a student struggles with a homework assignment and asks for help from a friend, they most likely will reciprocate later on in the class. With this strategy, the grade the student receives partially depends on what their friend did as well as their own work. This falls in line with the already present marble example in Haidt’s piece; the student with the answers to the homework will not be willing to share as often if the recipient has nothing to offer.

            A final example that comes to mind is taking a group road trip, especially around spring break. Many of my friends drove from Champaign to ft. Lauderdale for spring break last year and they discussed how each member in the car drove their fair share. Their strategy was that each person (4 in total) would drive a full tank of gas and then pass the duty off to someone else. By splitting up the driving in this manner, the frustration of driving for an extended period of time is shared by all four members while getting closer to the destination at the same pace. Similarly, the cost of filling up one tank for one individual will be equal or similar to that of every other person.

            Communication plays a vital role in ensuring that a group performs well. In particular, informing a teammate of unfair treatment is difficult but necessary in creating greater group cohesion. Understanding that a teammate is upset forces the other group members to change their current strategy to better suit the rest of the group. For example, while it is difficult to call out a group member for subpar or nonexistent work, the entire group collaboration is improved if done correctly. By making the group member realize mutual grade reduction, they (more than likely) will change the manner with which they act.