Teaching Context
In my teaching, I frequently run brainstorming sessions. Examples include students identifying unexpected links between blog posts on guest lectures (2nd Year BSc Computer Science), and brainstorming usability issues with Moodle pages (MSc Computer Science). These sessions use the following process, based on Lucero (2015):
Challenges
There are issues of inclusion in this process, particularly in the group work context. In a previous blog post (link), I showed that when using online tools such as Miro, students did not contribute equally – many stayed quiet whilst one individual dominated. Since then, I use paper post-it notes and using different colours per person, so their contribution is visible. My teaching observation (link) also showed that mostly male students presented ideas; other group members didn’t speak.
Research has shown methods to increase participation of quiet students in these types of settings. For example, storytelling and inviting personal viewpoints in group tasks (Unin and Bearing, 2016; Medaille and Usinger, 2019) is shown as effective in increasing participation – people were more connected offering their own, diverse, lived-experiences.
Holden (1993) advocated for groups of mostly boys or mostly girls, showing that girl-majority groups tended to increase the amount of “abstract talk” (where students reason, hypothesise and find conclusions around an issue). My view would be that forcing gendered groups could be alienating; I read the work more to suggest not forcing a gender balanced for groups, but to allow students to mix as comfortable.
The addition of writing-based tasks can also engage quieter students (Medaille and Usinger, 2019) – giving space to articulate their thinking. This also neatly documents their ideas for feedback which could be outside of the classroom. This reminds me of the think-pair-share method (Kaddoura, 2013), to give time to reason around tasks before sharing to the class.
Intervention
Below I propose a more inclusive brainstorming framework, based on the literature above.
References
Holden, C. (1993) ‘Giving Girls a Chance: patterns of talk in co‐operative group work’, Gender and Education, 5(2), pp. 179–189. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0954025930050205.
Kaddoura, M. (2013) ‘Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical thinking.’, Educational research quarterly, 36(4), pp. 3–24.
Lucero, A. (2015) ‘Using Affinity Diagrams to Evaluate Interactive Prototypes’, in J. Abascal et al. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015. Springer, Cham (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), pp. 231–248. Available at: https:/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22668-2_19.
Medaille, A. and Usinger, J. (2019) ‘Engaging Quiet Students in the College Classroom’, College Teaching, 67(2), pp. 130–137. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2019.1579701.
Unin, N. and Bearing, P. (2016) ‘Brainstorming as a Way to Approach Student-centered Learning in the ESL Classroom’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, pp. 605–612. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.450.
Dear Corey,
I hope that you are well and appreciate your engagement with formative submission and feedback. The format for this formative feedback is a 300-word maximum summary with 3 questions and or provocations supported by a resource for each item.
Please find below my feedback, which I hope that you find useful:
LO1: Critically evaluate institutional, national and global perspectives of equality and diversity in relation to your academic practice context. [Enquiry] –
Your intervention is central to inclusive practices and consider that the institutional context of shared participation is shaping knowledge. In particular, you provide a clear understanding of how you currently run your brainstorming session and how you intend to adopt inclusive strategies to ensure more positional participation.
LO2: Manifest your understanding of practices of inequity, their impact, and the implications for your professional context. [Knowledge] –
In your intervention rationale and design consideration you have shown a good understanding of how to facilitate inclusion in your practice. I would encourage you to use this intervention in the Action Research unit so that you are able to obtain data, which can then be evaluated.
LO3: Articulate the development of your positionality and identity through the lens of inclusive practices. [Communication] –
Your positionality in this intervention is that you are the tutor of this class, and you seek to interrogate what comprehensive engagement in brainstorming looks like. An interesting aspect of your intervention is that intergroup nuances that might be present.
LO4: Enact a sustainable transformation that applies intersectional social justice within your practice. [Realisation] –
Potential transformation in your intervention is about your encouragement of positionality related thinking from your students. The problem of comprehensive student participation in class if an ongoing issue for most educators and I think you have come up with something special.
Finally, please find some further questions as provocations to support the development of your intervention:
Are some students just not cut out for oral presentation? – Grieve, R., Woodley, J., Hunt, S.E. and McKay, A. (2021). Student Fears of Oral Presentations and Public Speaking in Higher education: a Qualitative Survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education, [online] 45(9), pp.1–13.
How much is inside-outside group concepts at play in your intervention outcome? – Bayeck, R.Y. (2022). Positionality: The Interplay of Space, Context and Identity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, [online] 21(1), p.160940692211147.
Regards and take care,
Kwame Baah