How do we work together effectively?

Mercy College
Spring 2020
Distinguishing two
kinds of group
work:
IN-CLASS GROUP WORK/DISCUSSION
VS.
“THE DREADED GROUP PROJECT”
Part 1: Thinking
Better, Together
Problem #1:

How many African nations can

you name?

Team reasoning benefit: Information

Aggregation
Problem #2:

If a baseball and a bat cost $1.10

together, and the bat costs $1.00 more
than the ball, how much does the ball
cost?

Team Reasoning advantage: Cognitive

Diversity
 Problem #3:
The “Wason Task ”

http://www.DevPsy.org/
What Sequences Make Me Happy?

DevPsy.org
What Sequences Make Me Happy?

1. Write a 3 number sequence.

2. Wait for me to tell you if it fits my rule , or not .

3. Take your best guess for what my rule is.

4. Estimate your confidence from 0% to 100%

Repeat the steps.

DevPsy.org
What Sequences Make Me Happy?

2,4,6 
__,__,__

DevPsy.org
What Sequences Make Me Happy?
Poll of Our Class:

Guess What Rule Makes Me Happy N

count up by 2’s

Only even numbers

a formula like (a,b,c)  a+b=c

Any increasing Why did so many of you

sequence of numbers! become so confident
about a wrong answer?

DevPsy.org
Typical Response

2,4,6  count up by 2’s 50%

8,10,12  count up by 2’s 60%

10,12,14  count up by 2’s 70%

20,22,24  count up by 2’s 80%

42,44,46  count up by 2’s 90%

96,98,100  count up by 2’s 100%

DevPsy.org
Confirmation Bias
We actively try to support what we already
believe rather than trying to find out where we
might be wrong. We seek out information that
confirms our view. We interpret ambiguous or
mixed information to confirm our existing
theories (e.g., Darley & Gross, 1983).

This confirmation bias is one of the many

natural inclinations we have in our thinking and
decision-making.

DevPsy.org
 What makes a productive,
high-quality group
discussion?
CRITICAL INQUIRY VS. SUMMATIVE TALK
CONSENSUS-
SEEKING

DISPUTATIONAL TALK
Why do groups make better decisions in
some circumstances but worse ones in
others?
• Two Key Factors
• Information signaling: are group members sharing good
or bad information?
• Reputational pressures: are there pressures to think or
act in a certain way to avoid social disapproval?
• Asks the following questions:
1. What is our task? 1. Meta-Talk
2. What is the best way to
accomplish it?
3. How do we determine
success?
4. What are our roles in the
group?
• Continually monitors team’s
progress and performance
 • Includes & welcomes voices
2. Openness of all members
• Shows equal respect for all
(does not attack or devalue
others)
• Practices active listening
through verbal and non-
verbal cues
• Builds on others’
contributions and attributes 3. Constructiveness
them by name
• Explains any shifts in topic
• Seeks agreement based on
shared reasons, not simply to
avoid effort or conflict
• Always attempts to
clarify what one says
4. Clarity
(i.e. define, distinguish,
illustrate, compare,
qualify, etc.)
• Also asks others to
clarify what they said
• Paraphrases others’
contributions to
confirm understanding
 • Supports one’s claims with
5. Reasoning arguments (i.e. reasons, evidence,
values, etc.)
• Asks others to support their
claims with arguments
• Recognizes implications,
assumptions, inconsistencies of
one’s positions
 6. Critique

• Asks critical questions about arguments provided by others

(and oneself)
• Gives voice to counterarguments (even against arguments
accepted by all members)
• Asks about how the team’s commitments could be
mistaken, misguided, or incomplete
Summary of Team Reasoning Skills
1. Meta-talk: is the group monitoring its performance?
2. Openness: is everyone being included & respected?
3. Constructiveness: are we building off one another's ideas?
4. Clarity: are we clarifying our claims (and asking others to do the
same)?
5. Reasoning: are we supporting our claims with reasons and
evidence (and asking others to do the same)?
6. Critique: are we considering counterarguments?