Case #7: Marie Louise Moreau

Download PDF version of this case

Marie Louise Moreau wondered whether she was the only student in her chemistry group who had read the assignment before coming to class. As her partners debated how they would do a titration, Marie sat on a stool and flipped a tiny braid over her shoulder impatiently. She had expected more when she had taken a plane from Haiti to study at a prestigious college in the United States. This modern chemistry lab with its new equipment, white walls and ceiling, and modern lighting system was fancy enough, but the students expected everything to be spoon-fed to them. It was ridiculous.

Joe Tickham, the unspoken leader of her lab group, was concerned. He was not sure how they would be able to carry out the titration successfully. "I just don't know how we're going to do this," he said. Joe didn't like to admit that he didn't have the answer - but, this time, he was stumped.

Marie looked around the room and saw that they were lagging behind the other groups, who were already mixing their solutions. She spoke up. "Well, when I was doing the reading," she said, "there was a note in the sidebar that said that when you're doing a titration, you should add titrant slowly near the endpoint. That way, when the solution changes color, it is easier to tell how much titrant was added."

Joe looked at her with doubt. Could she be right? He didn't want to rely on Marie's word alone. She had many ideas, but they weren't always good ones. "Adam!" he called to their TA.

Adam finished talking with another group and walked across the white-tiled floor towards Joe. "Do you have a question?"

"Well," said Joe, "We read in the book that we should add titrant slowly near the endpoint, so that when the solution changes color, we can accurately determine how much titrant was added. Is that true?"

"Good memory, Joe," said Adam, clapping Joe on the shoulder. "That's right. You're an asset to your group." He turned towards the other members of the group. "It's always important to pay attention when you're reading. Now, you need to get started with the titration in order to finish before the end of class. Let me know if you have any other questions."

The two other students in the group, Anna Lee and Brandon Peck, looked at each other uncomfortably as the TA left. Joe had just stolen credit for Marie's answer. It wasn't the first time he had done this.

Marie was furious. This was just another example of the old boys' network she thought. She stood up and began to gather their titration equipment together. "So," she said, turning towards the rest of the group, "let's get started. We'll do the titration slowly, like I said." She looked pointedly at Joe.
"Yeah, let's get started," Joe said brusquely, ignoring her gaze. He didn't know what she was glaring at him for. If he didn't take charge, nothing would get done. Anna was too passive, Brandon wasn't interested in school work, and Marie just didn't know enough about chemistry to make good decisions on her own.

 

Worksheet

Link to PDF version of this worksheet

Before you read the sample analysis for this case, you may want to consider the following questions.

1. What issues does this case study raise?

2. What questions for group discussion come to mind as you read the case?

3. What could the instructor do in this situation? Generate several possible responses.

4. What might be the consequences of these responses?

 

An Example Case Analysis

Some Issues Raised By the Case:

Group work can be challenging. In this case, Joe assumes that Marie is not competent, perhaps because of her race and/or gender, while Marie considers Joe to be a member of the "old boys' club." Marie and Joe have a stronger work ethic than their teammates do. Marie's academic preparation and understanding of the material are superior to that of the rest of the group, but her skills are not acknowledged by the TA or by Joe. The TA also makes assumptions about Joe's competence relative to that of the rest of the group.

Possible Discussion Questions:

  • What is the best way to handle personality differences in group work without losing the educational benefits of group projects?
  • Why did the TA automatically give Joe individual credit for observations that he suggested came from the group?
  • Why did Joe assume that "Marie just didn't know enough about chemistry to make good decisions on her own?"
  • What was the basis for Marie's view that "students expected everything to be spoon-fed to them?"
  • Are the above assumptions due to Haitian vs. American cultural differences, are they race-based, are they gender-based, or are they a reflection of personality differences?
  • Would the TA clap Marie or other female students on the shoulder? If not, why not? If so, how would Marie view such an action? Did that action contribute to Marie's thought that the exchange between Joe and the TA was "just another example of the old boys' network?"
  • Would it be helpful for Marie to approach Joe in private about her concerns?
  • What is the professor's role in dealing with all these issues?

A Possible Set of Responses and Their Consequences:

1. Response : Train or instruct TA's on how to interact with students who are working in groups.

Consequences : With better training or instruction, perhaps the TA would have been more careful about singling out individuals for credit during group assignments. Likewise, the TA might have become more proactive in getting feedback from all group members, so as to make more accurate judgments as to who are the "assets" to the group. Also, the TA did not come over to the group that was lagging behind until called over by Joe. Perhaps, with better instruction, he would have checked on each group sooner.

2. Response : Provide clearer instruction to the students on how to work as a team.

Consequences : By providing students with an explanation of how they should work as a group and giving them clear mechanisms for feedback, perhaps the TA could make it easier for Marie or the group to stop Joe's credit appropriation from becoming a recurring event.

3. Response : Eliminate group projects.

Consequences : Eliminating group projects minimizes the potential for the type of conflict between students like Joe and Marie, while also making it more difficult for students like Anna Lee and Brandon Peck to be passive. On the other hand, the benefits of group work include the experience of working with various personality types. Moreover, the resources available in the lab may necessitate that students work in groups.

4. Response : Give more consideration to the composition of the groups. For example, (a) consider regular rotation of the group members or, if there are particular problems, selective rotation of group members, (b) appoint the leader of each group and rotate that leadership position, (c) segregate the groups by gender, or (d) use Myers-Briggs profiling to assign students to groups.

Consequences : Rotating the members of the groups would minimize the chance that one group would have their education compromised because of a bad mix of personalities. Plus, group rotation would give the entire class a chance to learn how to deal with various people. Unfortunately, such rotations make it hard for groups to truly develop into teams.

In this case study, leaders were apparently not appointed, as Joe is the "unspoken leader" of his group. If the TA chose a leader and, perhaps, rotated that position, perhaps more students would feel comfortable speaking for the group and feel more obliged to participate.

Creating all-female groups may, as some studies suggest, afford a better learning environment for women who would otherwise be marginalized. However, such segregation might be looked at as condescending by women, or viewed as preferential treatment by men. Furthermore, such groups may not prepare students for their future work environments.
Selecting the groups so as to mix and match personalities based on Myers-Briggs or other personality testing methods could make the groups more evenly composed and thus improve evaluation results. However, doing so requires considerable time and instructional expertise, and does not guarantee an absence of interpersonal conflict. In fact, the presence of complementary Myers-Briggs types, while it may make groups more effective, may also lead to conflicts when group members disagree about how to solve a problem.

5. Response : Let the groups sort out their own issues (do nothing).

Consequences : Doing nothing could alienate Marie further and does little to engage Anna Lee and Brandon Peck. Yet, if the other groups are meeting the instructional goals of the professor, perhaps the problem does not warrant interdiction. Perhaps time will allow Marie and Joe to develop a better working relationship.

 

Useful Resources

Reaching All Students: A Resource Book for Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)

 

Diversity Institute Literature Review

 

"add