Igy
AT
a

(ads
x

Ks
(ALA
A

PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

WITH SUPPORT FROM THE W. K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION AND THE SID W. RICHARDSON FOUNDATION

 

VOLUME XII, NUMBER 25

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS

 

Building Community Through Research Projects

Our new interdisciplinary honors course, “Quest for
World Community,” was approved as a world litera-
ture class and scheduled for launch in the fall of 1989.
As the instructional team we were enthusiastic, experi-
enced instructors, but none of us were experts in the
vast field of global literature. That summer, after only a
few brainstorming sessions to create a syllabus for the
course, we recognized the scope of the research we
faced. Through our preliminary search to develop a
syllabus for the class, we realized that the process of
research would afford an invaluable experience for the
students and result in one of the liveliest, most stimulat-
ing courses any of us had ever taught.

We discovered that, when given the challenge of
working in small research groups in order to develop a
reading list for the last two-thirds of the course, stu-
dents accomplished a complex research assignment
with genuine outcomes, gained first-hand experience in
community building (the theme of the class), and
invested intellectually and emotionally in the course of
their own creation. Motivation and performance
soared. What follows is an account of what strategy we
used, along with observations of how this approach
might be adapted to any course.

SUES

In order to build the foundation for a successful
small group research project, we decided to set aside
the first week of the semester for getting to know one
another through name games and introductions.
Students were asked to share their first thoughts,
prejudices, and preconceptions about world commu-
nity. We also administered the Kolb learning style
assessment, a simple instrument around which we
based some small group activities and which helped us
to recognize and celebrate the diversity within our own
class. These familiarity exercises paved the way for the
second weck, during which we introduced the research
assignment. Assuming that our enrollment would be
around 20 students, we divided the globe into six rather
arbitrary geographical areas. This would ensure geo-
graphical diversity, even if some areas would include
several major cultures. We settled on six areas so that
research groups would be no larger than four, and more

likely three, students, fearing that larger groups would
present difficulties in coordination. Also, larger groups
might encourage some students to slither from the
limelight of accountability. (This might be overcome by
more specific accountability procedures established by
the instructor.)

At the beginning of week two, we laid out six
placards on the floor around the room. On each placard
was the name of a continent or geographical region:
Central and South America there, Africa here, Asia over
in the corner, Eastern Europe there, and so on. We
issued simple instructions: “Divide yourselves into
groups of at least three and sign your names to the
placards of your choice.” Then we left the room. In five
minutes the groups were born. Two students were
unable to get their first choices, so this procedure
launched the process of compromise and conflict
resolution—two important community-building skills.
[We recognize that group division could have been
accomplished with more deliberate control by instruc-
tors. We might have used the Kolb instrument or the
Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory. Instead, we opted
for student choice.]

Once the research groups were formed, we distrib-
uted a handout that stated the objectives, criteria,
strategies, and expected outcomes of the assignment.
We explained that the reading for the first four weeks of
the course was developed by the faculty team, using the
same guidelines spelled out for them on the handout.
[We might mention that the faculty team was offered as
a model for research groups.] Our selections were
diverse, including a novel, a play, a short story, a
speech, and two films—all addressed or related to the
theme of the course. Each was a work that offered
insight into a particular culture by a native of that
culture. They were readily available, were of readable
length (we intentionally left this vague), and were
deemed significant works of literature by knowledge-
able commentators on the art of that culture. We
expected their choices to reflect the same six criteria.

Each research group was responsible for offering
three selections of literature and/or film from its chosen
region for consideration by the class. These three

 

    

  

«sis

oS)

¢
MCh
WY

 
 

EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD)
Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin

—9~