Introduction

I confess. I am addicted. To group work. I like my tutorial groups small. And even within my fairly small tutorial groups, I like to structure opportunities for breakout sessions and buzz group discussions because they facilitate active discussion, give shyer students the opportunity to 'rehearse' their ideas in a less intimidating forum and generally jack up the energy of the class.

One issue that arises from the use of smaller group-within-group sessions is how to optimise the 'reporting back' structure. I usually use the reporting session to ensure that major insights from the breakout discussions are fed back to the larger group and also to provide the teacher the opportunity to critique and comment. Additionally, the breakout sessions are sometimes intended to be building blocks for further discussion in the larger group. For example, I might assign students in their breakout teams to take opposing positions with the intention of generating a debate between teams upon re-convening as a larger group.

The typical reporting method is oral. A representative from each team reports what his or her team has discussed. Although this method is quick and easy, there are some disadvantages. Principally, because much depends on the representative, some students might dominate the reporting process. Other students, knowing that they do not need to present the report, might refrain from discussion. While some of these disadvantages could certainly be structured around, I was curious to investigate whether group work reporting structures that require some written product are more effective than group work reporting structures that do not (i.e., are purely oral).

As an experiment to investigate the possible differences, I chose two classes early in the semester, when students were less familiar with each other and the personal dynamics of specific tutorial groups would thus be less of a factor.

Test class 1

For the first class, students were tasked to read several different cases and formulate a rule that would satisfactorily explain the results of such cases. The same cases were assigned to two tutorial groups. For both tutorials, I further divided the students into smaller teams of three to four members. These teams were given time in breakout sessions to discuss what rule they thought the cases stood for.

However, I gave both tutorial groups slightly different reporting instructions. Each team in the first tutorial group was told to send a 'representative draughtsperson' to write their answers on the whiteboard while teams in the second tutorial group were told to report their answers orally.

I observed two differences. First, the discussion in the second tutorial group was not as rigorous as that in the first tutorial group. More team members remained passive and did not contest one another's points. Second, although the reporting students in the second tutorial group took notes of the discussion in their breakout sessions and referred to them when reporting back to the class, the points they made were less precise.

Test class 2

For the second class, students were tasked to read a case decided by a panel of several judges. Judges sitting on the same panel and considering the same case nevertheless often arrive at decisions only by a majority or arrive at a unanimous result but give different reasons. To decide what the case as a whole stands for, Law students must be able to analyse the different opinions and discern the common threads within them. This skill is a slight variation of the one that was taught in the previous class.

For this second class, I told the teams to write their analyses of the multi-opinion judgment on sheets of mahjong paper. The mahjong papers had to be displayed upon "time's up". The teams also had to be prepared to explain their written position orally and field questions during a 'show-and-tell' session. This format resulted in a good discussion for both tutorial groups.

Some tentative conclusions

1. Rigour and contest. Anecdotally, it appears that requiring a written report or summary (whether on mahjong paper or just on the whiteboard) materially affects the rigour with which students discuss an issue because they must actually agree on what to put on that paper. Somehow, students appear to feel more ownership of their position. Furthermore, when students just sit around and talk (even if they know they will be required to present as a group later), they are less precise and exacting. Often, teams will elect their strongest member to give the oral report and, perhaps, will rely on that member to make the best of the reporting rather than take greater responsibility for the precise points to be reported.
   
   These effects are not so important if the breakout groups are intended to be brainstorming 'list the ideas' sessions. However, if the objective is to challenge students to raise and critically evaluate ideas and possibly to arrive at some team consensus after debate, the rigour and precision engendered by a written component to the reporting process can be significant.
   
   
2. Interaction and inclusion. I also observed that writing on mahjong paper physically required students to move from their seats and gather in a circle around the sheet of paper. The circular configuration seemed to encourage discussion. In classes where only oral reporting was required, students tended to just turn around in their seats and talk during the breakout session. Sometimes they would not even turn their chairs around.
   
   Perhaps counter-intuitively, writing on mahjong paper sometimes also allowed a less-assertive student to partially control the process of formulating the team answer. This would happen when a team had one or more talkative students who dominated the oral discusion and one who was quieter but who took it upon himself or herself to write down the points. By making small refinements or asking questions to clarify what he or she should write, the less-assertive 'scribe' was, perhaps unintentionally, able to insert his or her input into the final product more than he or she might otherwise have been able to.
   
   
3. Time management. Interestingly, requiring written mahjong paper reports did not make the breakout sessions longer. On the contrary, having a blank sheet of paper in front of a team seemed to galvanise them to quickly come up with ideas to put on the paper. Even more so if the group could spy a nearby 'competing' team's sheet of mahjong paper steadily filling up.
   
   
4. Drawbacks and caveats. I observed two disadvantages of requiring written reporting structures. First, in some teams, the writing requirement led to a 'low energy' end to the exercise. For these teams, the writing process appeared to be less energetic and interactive than the rigorous discussion preceding it. These teams seemed happy to entrust the final delivery of their product to one writer. This effect is similar to the 'dominant representative' effect that I had observed in oral reporting structures. Thankfully, the effect was by no means universal. For most teams, the writing process continued to be interactive with team members gathered around the writer, still proffering suggestions.
   
   Second, requiring written reporting could sometimes crystallise thoughts too early. This might happen where an overly-anxious team might start to commit thoughts to paper very early in the discussion. Those early thoughts would then naturally condition the discussion. I found that one effective way to counter this was to walk around the class and, if I saw any written idea that was questionable, to quietly pen a question mark next to it and then walk on. This would spark further anxious discussion from the team as they reconsidered their early ideas.

Summary

Group work is an effective tool to encourage active learning. However, to discipline group discussions, a reporting structure of some kind can be useful. A reporting structure that requires simultaneous written reporting by different teams can increase the rigour and precision of the discussion, compel more team members to invest in the report product and does not require much more time or effort.

In short, 'gambling' on mahjong paper can be quite rewarding!