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.