Who?
Ric Crossman is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Durham.
What?
Groupwork is an integral part of Introduction to Statistics for Data Science, a core module for the Master of Data Science programme. A one-hour workshop on effective communication within groups (particularly groups containing individuals from different cultural backgrounds) is run at the midpoint of the module, to encourage and inform good communication practices. This is done one week ahead of each group receiving the statistical project which they will have to complete together, with that project being worth 35% of their overall module mark.
When?
The session takes place in Week 5 of Term 1. This week is designated as a reading week for the module, meaning no new statistical material is presented in that time. During this week, the students attend a two-hour workshop devoted to considerations of teamwork, with one of those hours focussing upon communication. This approach was introduced in the 2023/24 academic year, but the session described in this write-up was introduced for the 2024/25 module. One of these sessions was observed by Dr Helen Cramman, in her role in Education Researcher Development in the Durham Centre for Academic Development (DCAD). Some of the discussion below makes use of her comments following the observation.
Why?
Working within a team is the default when analysing data. Even in circumstances when writing an analysis is a single person’s responsibility, one must work with those who produced the data, those who will make use of one’s analysis, those overseeing one’s work in this specific case and in general, and the overall stakeholders. Globalisation makes it ever more likely that the teams that students will work in will be comprised of people from very different cultural contexts.
It is therefore important that, in the process of training students to become data scientists, time is set aside for those students to encounter and reflect upon effective communication within a team, with a particular focus on understanding the potential complexities of effective communication across cultural lines (to this end we also attempt to maximise the cultural diversity of each team wherever possible). As an additional justification, we raise with students the fact that these are very much transferrable professional skills, of value in an extremely wide range of careers.
How?
The session is formed of two primary activities. The first is an approximately twenty-five minute presentation, primarily delivered by the module leader, though with an embedded video on perceptual issues from the Business Professor website. The overall theme of the presentation is the multiple ways in which our assumptions and perceptions (particularly those which are unrecognised and unexamined) can reduce the effectiveness of groupwork. Particular attention is given to the ways in which our assumptions can be culturally determined (and often intersect with other aspects of our identity), and how they therefore cannot be assumed to match those of group members from different cultural context.
The presentation also considers the act of communication itself: the difference between a message’s intent, its contents, and its reception; how to choose the right form of communication for a given purpose; and how that purpose can best be achieved within that communication form. These considerations are woven through the presentation but are particularly prevalent at the conclusion, as a springboard into the second workshop activity.
In the second workshop activity, students work within their groups, which are assigned in Week 2 of Term 1 (though for various reasons the groups may not be finalised until Week 4). The class is given three examples of communication – a voicemail, an email, and a short Powerpoint presentation, each created by the module leader. Each group is asked to select one of the three examples, and to discuss a) the ways in which it succeeds in its goals, b) the ways in which it does not succeed in those goals, and c) whether an alternative form of communication might have made those goals easier to achieve. These questions are given out at the start of the activity. This is partly to help guide the discussion, but also because the module cohort is strongly international, with varied levels of comfort with spoken English. Ensuring students are aware of the specific questions they will be asked allows time for those less confident in their English to prepare their answers, encouraging greater participation.
Finally, the groups are asked to rewrite the chosen communication to increase its effectiveness (potentially in a different medium, if this is judged appropriate), based on the ideas raised in the presentation and their own prior experience, and to submit this rewrite anonymously to a central portal.
Once this is done, the whole class is brought together to discuss each communication in turn, allowing the class to exchange and debate each group’s conclusions, and to discuss a sample of anonymously submitted alternative approaches to the communications given, which can then be compared and contrasted with the originals. Ensuring the link between the two tasks was clear is a prime focus of the session leader’s explanations, along with reminders of the broader context of teamwork within both the module and professional life.
The overall goal of the session is to give students the chance to learn about, reflect upon, and discuss within their group the importance of, and ways to maximise the effectiveness of, communication while producing shared work. This includes, via the second task, application of what has been learned through the first task, and the higher-order skills of analysis, evaluation, and creation.
How did it go and what’s next?
The class engaged very well with classroom-wide reflection at the end of the second task, making many strong comments about the limitations of the communication examples (including some that the session leader had not considered themselves), and suggesting effective approaches to counter these issues. The examples submitted to show alternative approaches were also strong.
One issue related to timing – the discussion regarding the first two communication methods (phone message and email) was so fruitful there was not time to discuss the Powerpoint presentation. It was also noted by the observer that the room size made it hard to hear students’ responses during the discussion. Use of the handheld mics available in the room could solve this issue, though would also increase the time needed for a full discussion.
Another issue related to participation during the group discussion phase. Many students were clearly not on task, working on other tasks on their electronic devices and not engaging with the rest of the group. Partially this is an issue of classroom set-up – the classroom is set up in rows, which makes group engagement more difficult from the beginning. Since this exercise, the module leader has begun seating each group across two table rows, to allow easier conversation between groups. The session leader engaging with individual groups was useful in this regard, but with 18 groups in the room, this could only be so successful. Additional demonstrators will be secured for next year’s sessions.
This session also had the additional benefit of giving the module leader an experience (with associated materials) to reference later in the term, when students reported issues with communication within their groups. The mere fact of the session itself also proved valuable, making clear as it did the importance the module leader placed upon respectful and thoughtful communication in a professional, multicultural environment.