Dr. Cecelia Easton, the Dean of Academic Planning and Advising, recently discussed Geneseo’s letter of academic probation with my INTD class. After examining the letter with us, she said that her goal is to change its negative tone. To involve students in the process, Cecelia asked our class to revise and rewrite a new version of the letter. Our INTD professor, Dr. McCoy, advised us that the best way to approach this task would be through group work. This opportunity was perfect for our class because we have been focusing on group work and balance since the beginning of the semester.
During our conversation with Cecelia, we talked as a group to identify the letters issues. She asked us to format the letter in a way that would tell a student of their low academic standing while establishing a nonthreatening tone. To successfully do this, our class was split into three groups in which our professor asked us to separately rewrite a draft of the letter.
Going into the process, I was enthusiastic to have the chance to rewrite a letter that many Geneseo students must encounter. However, after beginning the revision process, I recognized the risks that began to arise in my group.
A risk that I have identified is that it can be difficult for everyone in the group to equally share their input. As I scanned the INTD Critical Writer’s blog site, I came across a post written by Roisin O’Neill titled “Competition in Group Work.” Her post stated that “students often end up drowning out each other’s ideas, reluctant to be submissive enough to really hear the other’s point.” This situation has occurred in my group, and I believe there are many reasons why it has. For example, students tend to share their original perceptions rather than developing the groups existing conversation. Too often in group work; students ideas are swept under the rug when their classmates do not expand them. Failure to develop previous talking points could cause aspects of the letter to lack improvement; this could be considered a risk. My group believes that the best way to revise is to share ideas, build off of them, and then use them to format a stronger letter.
This concept reminded me of the relationship between T’Gatoi and Gan in Octavia Butler’s Bloodchild. Gan often struggles to share his voice because T’Gatoi is a powerful political figure who has contributed to his childhood. To deal with the power struggle that is occurring, he must remind her that “there is risk, Gatoi, in dealing with a partner.” To develop a strong relationship; both characters must remember to understand each other’s vantage. This aspect strongly relates to the class’s revision of the academic probation letter. In both the classroom and on the reserve, equality while working with others must be kept in mind. Without a continuous understanding between partners, the letter rewrite would not be a success and the relationship in Bloodchild would never achieve balance.
When working in groups, there is always the risk that not everyone will get the opportunity to share their thoughts. This issue could arise when some students are more willing to share their voices than others. Although it is natural for some students to participate more than others, there are ways to avoid this common occurrence. Kevin, the INTD teaching assistant, has given my group helpful advice that we have utilized. He has recommended that we use a voting system to decide what should be included in the rewrite. He also advised us to decide on a group leader who would encourage everyone to share their opinions. The Geneseo GLOBE mentions a similar message under the Leadership and Collaboration section. It states that Geneseo expects students to “enable, encourage, and recognize contributions to collaborative efforts by all group members; to manage and share work fairly and respectfully.” The GLOBE’s message offers the ideal way to work in groups. It proposes a framework of how groups should structure their tasks to manage work respectfully. I believe that this allows for a greater number of inputs, which can lead to a stronger writing piece.
Rewriting the academic letter comes with possible risks, such as unequal voicing of opinions. However, risk could have been heightened if our professor had not advised us to work on the rewrite using a step by step process. By rewriting the letter piece by piece, we could thoroughly focus on each section while avoiding the risk of procrastination. Even though there is the risk of not hearing everyone’s opinions, group work allowed for us to think together and format a clear letter. Our goal has been to give the letter a considerate tone while making the message of academic probation clear. By utilizing various ideas, I believe our class has improved the academic probation letter while including its important original components.