|
|
|
|
Kathy
Brocker
Citation:
Paulus, P.B. & Paulus, L.E.(1997). Implications of research on group
brainstorming for gifted education. Roeper Review, 19 (4), 225-29. Critique of Journal
Article on Group Brainstorming for Gifted
Group brainstorming has become the technique de jour. The
question this article looks at is “Does group brainstorming deserve the
admiration and laurels many educators are bestowing on it?”
First, what are the ground rules for effectively using group
brainstorming? To start, it is imperative that four basic rules be strictly
adhered to: 1) come up with as many
ideas as possible, 2) all ideas are accepted without initial judgment, 3) the
crazier the idea, the better, 4) build on each other’s ideas. “Osborn (1957)
claimed that group brainstorming using these procedures, doubles the number of
ideas generated compared to individual brainstorming.”
The many advantages of group brainstorming are obvious. The many
experiences individuals bring to the group, add more resources to draw from.
Sheer excitement of total involvement adds to the motivation of group
members. The social exchange and positive feedback stimulates members to
maximize their performance and in some cases to compete with other members to
surpass each other for the most creative idea.
With all this positive flow of ideas, most would assume that group
brainstorming is the most effective means to obtain fresh ideas. According to
controlled studies comparing group brainstorming to individual brainstormers, it
is surprising to note that there were “50% fewer ideas than solitary
brainstormers and fewer high quality ideas (Stroebe & Diehl, 1994;Mullen,
Johnson, & Salas, 1991)” Studies by Torrance (1970; 1971; 1974) have shown
that groups of two are more effective than solo brainstormers.
The reader is cautioned that these findings were tentative as he only
compared pairs to individuals and not to groups. As the number of participants
in the group is increased, the effectiveness of brainstorming decreases.
The question now is ” Why did the group fail?”.
While these findings were initially surprising and disappointing, a
closer look finds the answers fairly simple and obvious.
As a member of a group, the individual is not personally held accountable
for results. The “Slacker Syndrome” invades the process. What is the
motivation to be the best that you can be, when you have a number of others to
carry the burden and the blame? In a group setting, it is necessary to “wait
your turn to talk” which may result in forgetting what you were waiting to
say. The last variable is personalities. In the most favorable situation, all
members would work amicable together, with no bullies or floor hogs. No member
would be too shy or insecure to venture forward an idea.
This utopia group is rare if it exists
at all.
Looking at the research presented so far, we might conclude that group
brainstorming is not as effective as pair brainstorming. Pair brainstorming is
more effective than individual brainstorming. Individual brainstorming is more
effective than group brainstorming. It would seem the area that is most fertile
to explore for improvement would be group brainstorming. The most apparent area
of change is individual accountability. The question seems to be how does one
monitor participation without causing individuals to feel their responses are
being evaluated? This would surely lead to apprehension in some and be
counterproductive to the flow of creativity. Also it would be very difficult for
one teacher to effectively monitor a number of groups fairly. One solution would
be to have one member of each group act as a monitor or have the group evaluate
the contributions of each other within the group. This may resolve the question
of accountability within the group, but what of the question of being in a group
at all. When dealing with gifted
students, who tend to be more self-aware, giving the student the choice of
working in a group, in pairs or alone may be an answer to more effective
brainstorming.
In this age of technology, computers were also mentioned as a means for
more effective brainstorming. It was noted that large numbers of student would
be able to type in ideas without having to wait their turns as in traditional
groups. They would also be able to view large number of other ideas along with
their own. There would be less of a social burden with verbal judgments or even
subtle criticism found in body language. While this prospect presented nothing
but positive outcomes, in many cases it would be totally unrealistic. The cost
and availability of equipment would make it an unobtainable solution for many
schools.
With all the evidence on the effectiveness of group brainstorming being
less than glowing, why do so many educators support it’s use and continue to
extol it’s virtues? It may be the many positive effects that this activity
provides. The excitement and social interaction in many cases is contagious. The
high level of activity often stimulates high level of response activity between
the members. Those participating often report positive feelings about what was
gain and their own personal involvement. One of the primary reasons cited by
participants for less than satisfactory results is the lack of sufficient time.
“When long brainstorming sessions are used in order to provide more adequate
time for group members, groups can attain levels of performance similar to that
of nominal groups (Kanakar & Rosenbaum, 1972)” It was suggested that after
an extended brainstorming session, the participant have the opportunity to be
involved in an individual brainstorming session. This allows the participant to
explore ideas that may have been stimulated in the group session. Research found
that a mixture of group and individual brainstorming was most effective. Also it
was more beneficial if the individual session follows the group session rather
than precede it.
This article does admit that there is no empirical evidence that group or
individual brainstorming is particularly suited to the gifted student. However
certain assumptions might be made because of the typical characteristics of
gifted students. Due to the short amount of time available to deal will large
amounts of information and formulate various solutions to a problem, the student
must have the ability to listen to other ideas while formulating ideas of his
own. The gifted student is more adapt at handling high volumes of information
while listening and formulating ideas. For these reasons it is suggested that a
mixing of gifted student with general population students does not work well. As
the gifted student tends to function comfortably at a higher rate, he squeezes
out the regular student in a brainstorming session. Group brainstorming
presently seems to be a less effective means to generate high quality ideas,
however it does serve a purpose in creating group cohesion while being an
enjoyable and stimulating learning activity.
|
Send mail to mkdove@cc.ysu.edu with questions or comments about this web site.Copyright © 2000
Marianne K. Dove
|
