NTLT 2012 - Good work in group work

GOOD WORK in

Group WorkCath Tuohy

Whitireia New Zealand

Overview

• history• elements of collaborative group work• advantages and barriers • how we use collaborative group work• some tools to engage students with

course material - and each other.

• The greatest benefits of group work come when students work collaboratively on a task, generating ideas as a group and sharing in the process of “knowledge creation” (Kozar, 2010, p.17)

• “negotiate meaning, manipulate ideas with others and reflect on their learning” (Burdett, 2003, p.177).

• The sum is greater than the parts

Does group work ‗‗Good work?

A very brief history

• Morton Deutsch• 1949 : A theory of co-operation and competition • a positive correlation between cooperative learning and

observable benefits to the students. • relationship with the goal and each other• 1970s: Johnson and Johnson• 1983: Research based model of cooperative learning

positive interdependence • The student must perceive

that they, and other group members, have a mutual goal that will not be achieved without working towards it together (Johnson & Johnson, 1983).

• “sink or swim” (Siegel, 2005; Smith, et al., 2005).

individual accountability• In cooperative learning it is

not possible for one student to take a backseat and benefit from the work of others.

• Educators assess individual students’ performance and provide feedback around this.

(Johnson & Johnson, 1983)

face-to-face promotive interaction

• involves students supporting each other in the learning process and praising each other’s efforts to learn.

(Johnson & Johnson, 1983)

use of teamwork skills• involving the development

of communication, leadership and conflict resolution skills (Johnson &

Johnson, 1983).

• social skills (Wlodkowski, 1999).

group processing• This element requires the

students to reflect on their academic achievement as well as the group process involved in their learning

(Ballentine & McCourt Larres, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 1983)

Advantages

• promotes a significantly higher level of individual achievement

• stimulates critical thinking • encourages development of positive

relationships across diverse groups of students

• increases student psychological health– reducing anxiety and building self-

esteem

Student feedback

"You must learn to work with a group in order to achieve results.“

“participation [in group work] has enhanced my learning in my study group as I find talking to other students gives me a greater understanding and I tend to remember what I have learnt".

Barriers

• Independence rather than interdependence

• Competition• Teachers beliefs - persist even

against contradictions• Students

– Grades– Group structure

Student feedback

"In the self selected group we struggle with leadership and accepting and valuing each other’s information, although we are friends it is less valuable for learning in class but good for studying for exams"

Student feedback

"If people were working with others they didn't know and were not confident they were not likely to "step up" and "more motivated" students "carried" the "disorganised" and less productive students. To deal with this sharing of equal or similar commitments we had minutes and tasks set with deadlines"

Year One

• classes focus on: – communication, – listening skills, and – conflict resolution.

• They are also required to give (and receive) constructive feedback

• Study groups• DISC model

http://www.dtssydney.com/images/images/what_is_disc___the_disc_model_2.jpg

DISC

Student feedback

“… over the years we've got to get to know each other very well, and what each person's strengths are - therefore we can use each other as resources to learn more about a particular area/subject etc. "

• Semi-autonomous study groups (Hogan, 1999).

– Self-selected– Tasks set by their tutors every week

(TDL)– Study group support tutor

academic and pastoral support

– Structured group roles (facilitator, facilitator support, timekeeper and scribe)

– Report back to their support tutor in the form of minutes

– Participation by group members is noted

Year Two

Student feedback

"Group learning has increased my learning especially in year 2 bio groups ... the group had a mix of knowledge and skills and this enabled my understanding"

Year Three

1. Mutual goal2. Participation3. Support4. Communication5. Reflection

Context Based Learning

Student feedback

"The tutor selected group in year three [for health expo] was particularly good. We had a good team leader who coordinated work. We had lots of meetings and achieved good grades"

Student feedback

“[Allocated groups] helped learning as I worked with others that I would not have chosen to. Different age groups, different ideas and skill mix. A refreshing change from study groups, got to know others on the course that I normally would not have spoken to".

Health Expo

Despite the barriers . . .

• Generating ideas and sharing views

• Meeting people and building friendships

• Improved learning processes• Sharing of workload• Improved grades (Burdett, 2003, p.

183).

Student feedback

"Our study group has been together since year one and expanded this year to 8 students. We share information, we respond to questions via email, we provide material [and] hand-outs when a member is absent. We provide collegial support which is the strongest benefit"

Resources

• Fishbowl• Think – Pair- Share (Square)• Word-webbing• Blackboard share• Teams Check• Rally table• Doughnut

Last word

"Group learning is good … it reinforces learning because we teach each other and learn from each other“

References

• Ballantine, J., & McCourt Larres, P. (2007). Co-operative learning: a pedagogy to improve students’ generic skills? Education and Training, 49(2), 126-137.

• Baloche, L., Mauger, M. L., Willis, T. M., Filinuk, J. R., Michalsky, B. V. (1993). Fishbowls, creative controversy, talking chips: Exploring literature cooperatively. English Journal, 82(6), 43-49

•  Bassett, C., McWhirter, J. J., & Kitzmiller, K. (1999). Teacher implementation of cooperative learning groups. Contemporary Education, 7(1), 46-50

•  Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page? Peer Review, 7(2), 4-7 •  Burdett, J. (2003). Making groups work: university students’ perceptions. International Education Journal, 4(3), 177- 191.•  Deutsch, M. (1949a). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129-152•  Deutsch, M. (1949b). An experimental study of the effects of co-operation and competition upon group processes. Human

Relations, 2 (3), 199-231• DTS International. (2011). DISC personality profiling retrieved from

http://www.dtssydney.com/images/images/what_is_disc___the_disc_model_2.jpg• Drewery, W., & Bird, L. (2004) Human development in Aotearoa. A journey through life (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand:

McGraw Hill•  Gerges, G. (2001). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ variation in use of instructional methods: Why is teacher

efficacy not a significant contributor? Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 71-88• Hampton, D. R., & Grudnitski, G. (1996). Does cooperative learning mean equal learning? Journal of Education for

Business, 72(1), 5-7• Hogan, C. (1999). Semi-autonomous study groups. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13(1), 31-44.•  Imel, S. (1999). Using groups in adult learning: Theory and practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health

Professions, 19(1), 54-61 •  Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences

the answer? Applied Social Psychology, 4, 199-224•  Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Motivational processes. In D.W. Johnson & R. T. Johnson, Cooperation and

competition: Theory and research. (pp. 77-86). Minnesota, MN: Interaction Book Company.

References continued

• Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Maximising instruction through cooperative learning. ASEE Prism, 7(6), 24-29

• Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1994). The structural approach: Six keys to cooperative learning. In S. Sharan (Ed). Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 66-81). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

•  Kanev, K., Kimura, S., & Orr, T. (2009). A framework for collaborative learning in dynamic group environments. nternational Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 7(1), 58-77

• King, P. & Behnke, R. (2005). Problems associated with evaluating student performance in groups. College Teaching, 53(2), 57-61.

•  Kozar, O. (2010). Towards better group work: seeing the difference between cooperation and collaboration. English Teaching Forum, 2, 16-23.

• Lopes, L. & Bettencourt, T. (2011). Functional features of group work developed by 12 grade students within “inquiry teaching approach”. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 15, 3143-3147.

•  Networked learning community (n.d).Rally table. Retrieved from http://www.eazhull.org.uk/nlc/rally_table.htm•  Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S. & Higgins, S. (2001). University students’ perceptions of cooperative learning: I

mplications for administrators and instructors. Journal of Experiential Education, 24, 14-21.•  University of Massachusetts Amherst. (2012). Collaborative group techniques. Retrieved from

hhtp://www.srri.umass.edu/topics/collaborative-group-techniques.•  Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online Collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Information management. 17(1/2), 31-

33•  Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal of Educational

Research, 98(6) 339-349, 384. •  Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (2005) Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-

based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101 •  Wiley, D. (2002). Get your head out of the sand: Why are some in our field ignoring the epistemological

revolution? TechTrends,46(2), 68-69 •  Wlodkowski, R.J. (1999). Establishing inclusion among adult learners. In R.J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing adult

motivation to learn. (Rev. ed.). (pp. 89-131). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.