A few questions to warm up and check the basics. They are reshuffled each time, so you can keep retrying.
Working in a group is a skill, and like all skills it is built through practice. This module is the first of three years in your degree in which your group work will be scaffolded; by the final year we will expect you to manage your own group dynamics with confidence. This page describes the basic, prescriptive practices we ask you to use right now, while you are learning.
The single most important point is this: disagreement in a group is normal, and often useful. A group that never disagrees is either a group in which one person is dominating, or a group that is not engaging deeply with the work. The aim is not to eliminate disagreement, but to handle it productively.
In academic group work, most disagreements fall into one of a few categories.
Disagreements of fact. Two members believe different things about how a piece of mathematics works, what a function does, or what a deadline requires. These are the easiest to resolve: check the source.
Disagreements of approach. The group agrees on the goal but disagrees on how to reach it. For example, two members prefer different ways of structuring the code.
Disagreements of priority. Members disagree about how much time and effort to spend on a particular part of the work, or about which task to tackle next.
Disagreements of effort. One member feels that another is not contributing fairly.
Each kind of disagreement is handled slightly differently, but the underlying process is the same.
We ask you to follow this four-step framework whenever a disagreement surfaces. It is deliberately prescriptive: you should be able to recite it to yourself in the middle of a meeting.
Listen. Let each person describe their position in their own words, without interruption. The chair ensures that no one talks over anyone else.
Restate. Each person restates the other's position to that person's satisfaction. This step exists because most disagreements turn out to be smaller than they first appear once both sides understand what the other is actually saying.
Identify. Decide which of the four categories above the disagreement belongs to. This usually makes the next step obvious.
Choose. Pick a resolution and move on. For factual disagreements, look up the answer. For approach disagreements, agree to try one and revisit if it does not work. For priority disagreements, ask the chair to decide. For effort disagreements, see the section below.
The minutes for each meeting include a disagreements and decisions section. If a disagreement was resolved during the meeting, record the resolution there. If it remains open, record what was decided about how to move forward (for example, "we will revisit at the next meeting after trying both approaches").
Some specific techniques the group can use when discussion stalls.
Take a short break. A five-minute pause can defuse a stalled argument and let everyone return with fresh perspective.
Try both for a week. When two reasonable approaches are on the table and the cost of trying one is low, agree to try each for a short time and review at the next meeting. Record the trial in the minutes.
Defer to the chair. The chair for the week is not a leader; they are a facilitator. But when a decision is needed and the group is split, the chair makes the call. The decision is recorded in the minutes.
Write it down. When a discussion is going in circles, ask the secretary to write the disagreement on a single sheet of paper in one sentence each for each side. Often the disagreement looks smaller in writing than in speech.
Disagreements about effort are the most delicate. They are also the most common source of group dysfunction. We ask groups to handle them as follows.
If you feel that a group member is not contributing fairly, raise it in a meeting, not outside of one. Use the structured agenda. State the concern in terms of observable facts (for example, "the function that was due last Tuesday is not yet written") rather than character judgements.
The minutes record what was said, what was agreed, and what each person will do before the next meeting. If the situation does not improve, the group raises the issue with the instructor during the contact hour.
The geometric mean marking scheme is designed to make this fair. A member who does not contribute will not benefit from the rest of the group's strong work, and a member who carries the group will not be marked down by the weakest contributor.
A group of four or five people will always include people who speak readily and people who speak less readily. A well-functioning group makes space for both without putting any single member on the spot.
We ask the chair to do two things at each meeting:
Take open discussion points round-robin. When the meeting reaches a discussion item, the chair invites each member in turn to comment. Vary the starting member from week to week so the same person is not always first or last. State at the outset that any member may pass without comment, and treat a pass as unremarkable. The aim is to make contribution the default and silence a free choice, rather than to single out who is quiet.
Check decisions explicitly. Before moving on from a decision, the chair asks each member in turn whether they agree. A nod is not enough; each member says yes, or no with a reason.
These practices look artificial when you first use them. By the third or fourth meeting they feel ordinary.