6
GROUP FACILITATION OF INDIVIDUAL LEARNING ARDEN FRANDSEN Utah State University Individual differences among students are not always obstacles to effective classroom learning. When individuals combine their diverse and complementary resources in learning and problem solving, their composite accomplishment usually exceeds the average accomplishment of individuals working separately (Frandsen, 1967a). The integrated resources of a team give it more information, a wider range of interpretations of problems, more pertinent hypotheses, more effective strategies, and sharper criticisms of proposed solutions than a single person can usually bring to bear on a problem. With effective interaction within a team, its composite output should, of course, exceed that of both the average and the best achievement of comparable individuals working separately. On this criterion, the results have usually fallen short of those expected. On a complex verbal judgment problem, Hall, Mouton, and Blake (1963) found that teams were more accurate than the average but not the best of comparable individuals. Greater advantages, however, have sometimes been found for team-work. In their recalls of a meaningful 52-segment prose passage, Yuker (1955) found that the average composite recall score of groups exceeded both the average individual score and the average of the best individual score in each group. Obtaining a rare outcome, Watson (1928) found on a divergent-thinking task (anagrams) that every group “produced more words than did the best in- dividual of the group.” For education, there is an even greater potential advantage in teamwork than that reflected in the products produced. In experience with resources beyond his own, the individual student in a team should pick up information and problem- solving strategies for improving his own efficiency in subsequent individual work. This is a potentiality; achieving it has proved elusive. The teams of students ex- ceeded the average performance of comparable individuals on the training materials in both Klausmeier, Wiersma, and Harris’ (1963) study of concept learning and in Hudgins’ (1960) study of arithmetic problem solving. But in neither of these studies did the team participants carry over any average advantages in subsequent in- dividual performance on the transfer tasks. The present investigation is a further study of social learning in the classroom and of the factors affecting its effectiveness. It tests the hypothesis that in the augmented problem-solving resources of a t,eam of diverse individuals, the student- under favorable conditions-can pick up information and strategies for improvement of his own subsequent efficiency. The potentially favorable conditions explored in this report include extended and guided practice in teamwork, degree of participa- tion in teamwork, heterogeneity versus homogeneity of team members with respect to background of vocabulary in the subject, and leader-coordination of teamwork. METHOD Subjects The subjects were students in different sections of Educational Psychology (all taught by the same instructor), whose undirected choices of a section made them random groups. With 50 to 60 students in each, two sections functioned as individuals and four sections worked in 4-person teams. Three of the four team-sections-in an alphabetical arrangement of seating-were instructed in groupwork procedures at the outset of the term and the instruction was reinforced occasionally throughout, the term. The teams in one of these sections were made homogeneous with respect to a

Group facilitation of individual learning

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

GROUP FACILITATION OF INDIVIDUAL LEARNING ARDEN FRANDSEN

Utah State University

Individual differences among students are not always obstacles to effective classroom learning. When individuals combine their diverse and complementary resources in learning and problem solving, their composite accomplishment usually exceeds the average accomplishment of individuals working separately (Frandsen, 1967a). The integrated resources of a team give it more information, a wider range of interpretations of problems, more pertinent hypotheses, more effective strategies, and sharper criticisms of proposed solutions than a single person can usually bring to bear on a problem.

With effective interaction within a team, its composite output should, of course, exceed that of both the average and the best achievement of comparable individuals working separately. On this criterion, the results have usually fallen short of those expected. On a complex verbal judgment problem, Hall, Mouton, and Blake (1963) found that teams were more accurate than the average but not the best of comparable individuals. Greater advantages, however, have sometimes been found for team-work. In their recalls of a meaningful 52-segment prose passage, Yuker (1955) found that the average composite recall score of groups exceeded both the average individual score and the average of the best individual score in each group. Obtaining a rare outcome, Watson (1928) found on a divergent-thinking task (anagrams) that every group “produced more words than did the best in- dividual of the group.”

For education, there is an even greater potential advantage in teamwork than that reflected in the products produced. In experience with resources beyond his own, the individual student in a team should pick up information and problem- solving strategies for improving his own efficiency in subsequent individual work. This is a potentiality; achieving i t has proved elusive. The teams of students ex- ceeded the average performance of comparable individuals on the training materials in both Klausmeier, Wiersma, and Harris’ (1963) study of concept learning and in Hudgins’ (1960) study of arithmetic problem solving. But in neither of these studies did the team participants carry over any average advantages in subsequent in- dividual performance on the transfer tasks.

The present investigation is a further study of social learning in the classroom and of the factors affecting its effectiveness. It tests the hypothesis that in the augmented problem-solving resources of a t,eam of diverse individuals, the student- under favorable conditions-can pick up information and strategies for improvement of his own subsequent efficiency. The potentially favorable conditions explored in this report include extended and guided practice in teamwork, degree of participa- tion in teamwork, heterogeneity versus homogeneity of team members with respect to background of vocabulary in the subject, and leader-coordination of teamwork.

METHOD Subjects

The subjects were students in different sections of Educational Psychology (all taught by the same instructor), whose undirected choices of a section made them random groups. With 50 to 60 students in each, two sections functioned as individuals and four sections worked in 4-person teams. Three of the four team-sections-in an alphabetical arrangement of seating-were instructed in groupwork procedures a t the outset of the term and the instruction was reinforced occasionally throughout, the term. The teams in one of these sections were made homogeneous with respect to a

GROUP FACILITATION OF INDIVIDUAL LEARNING 293

40-item vocabulary teht based on the glossary in the Educational Psychology text which all of the sections studied. The mediari correlation bet,ween the vocabulary test and achievement in the course is .32. The members of the teams in the fourth sectiori were instructed to take differentiated roles in leader-coordinated work. The seating arrangement in the classroom provided 4 chairs for each half row. On the occasions for teamwork, a slight turning of the chairs at the ends of each half row made intercommunications among the students convenient.. The buzz of quiet talk during the 25-minute periods of such work every other day seemed not to be distracting. Procedure

For all six sections, the subject matter was the principles of educational psychology. I t is analo- gous to much of t,he academic curriculum at the secondary and collegiate levels. And the learning and problem-solving device which was used is adaptable for effective work b0t.h of teams and of individuals.

It is comprised of l’ressey-type testing-teaching programs which test, review, and organize the student’s understanding of each chapter of the textbook in the course. As a supplement and review of each chapter, 25 multiple-choice items were made to cover the basic concepts-the theories and experiments, generalizat,ions of princi les, significant implications, and pertinent applications of the principles in teaching. In preparation !or each exercise, t,he student is expected to achieve an organized understanding of the basic concepts of the chapter. For study with t,he self-testing-teaching exercise, he receives both a mimeographed copy of t.he 25 questions and a Pressey-type teaching machine (Frandsen, 1967b). In a t.rial-and-check process, he decides upon a tentative answer and punches one of eight holes beside the number of the question. If the pencil slips t.hrough, the confirmation of being correct should make him more sure and confident in subsequent applications of the same prin- ciples. If, however, the student’s first answer is incorrect, an uripunched part of the key stops the pencil point from going through; and the student learns that he must revise his thinking and try other alt.ernatives until he discovers the correct solution and the principles which support it. The device is equally suited for group work. A team of studei1t.s can interact verbally in deciding and checking the answers to the questions. In interactive discussion, the participant,s in a team decide which of the multiple-choice alt.ernatives they think is correct and designate one of the members to try punching the corresponding hole in the teaching machine. Every participant has a copy of the questions, but only m e member of a team has the teaching machine.

The instructions on group work given the t,eams comprised the accumulated ideas which former teams had found effective. I t consists of the four paragraphs on page 534 of Frandsen’s Educatianal Psychology. The paragraphs elaborate these topical sent,ences: “Excerise initiative in contributing ideas to the group. Extend and elaborate contributions. . . . Take advantage of each student’s particular talents. . . . Explnit the group for individual learning.” The instructor read these para- graphs to the students. And, being in their textbook, the paragraphs were available to the students for rereading. For the sections given continuous inst,ruction, one of the paragraphs and variants of the suggestions in it were reread every week. And whenever the instructor observed instances of effective group work in a team, he reinforced sat,isfaction in t’heir use by reporting them to the entire class.

Continuing the comparisons between teams and individuals over the 12 weeks of the course provided time for practice of the teamwork strategies. It was assumed that the teams would be relatively more effective in the later than in t,he earlier parts of t.he course.

As a measure of degree of participation in the teamwork, each student in a team rated his three teammates from “ ( I ) never” to “(5) almost always” on ten aspects of the teamwork, illustrated by the five following items. The items represent t.he kinds of participation likely t,o occur in this particular problem-solving t.ask.

( ) ( ) Ilisagrees and announces an alternat,ive choice. ( ) ( ) ( ) Writes notes on ideas to remember or study.

As measures of the effect on subsequent individual performance of group versus individual work on the self-testing-teaching exercises, tests paralleling the content of those taken with the teaching machine were constructed on each chapter. The items in the parallel, Form 2, tests were not variants on t.he identical facts or principles tested in Form 1 ; they were on related ideas-ideas which might be considered in answering corresponding items in the two forms. For example, here are a pair of related items from Forms 1 and 2, respectively:

F1 (3) When the concepts of a subject are arranged in an hierarchical, developmental order, the best single index of a student’s readiness for a next step is a measure of his (1) intelligence, (2) aptitude in the subject, (3) knowledge of t’he needed subordinatelevel concepts, (4) general academic achievement.

F, (3) In a ladder-like scale of the number concepts, in which students’ attainment of a higher level presupposes their mastery of the lower levels, Wohwill found a definite trend of correlation between (1) children’s ages and their mastery of the scale, (2) the logical order in the scale and percentage of children succeeding at each level, (3) both of these pairs of variables, (4) neither of these pairs of variables.

Annouiices his choice of an answer by its number.

Cites a principle or experiment in support of his choice. Asks for elaboration or experimental support of a teammate’s choice.

294 ARDEN FRANDSEN

RESULTS With our present data, we evaluate six aspects of teamwork and the conditions

affecting its effectiveness: (a) We compare individuals and teams for correctness of initial trials on the self-testing-teaching exercises; (b) We inventory students' pre- ferences for team versus individual work on the self-testing-teaching exercises; (c) We test for carry-over to improved individual performance, by comparing teams and individuals both on the individually-taken parallel tests and on the overview mid- term and final tests in the course; (d) We relate degree of participation in the teams to gains or losses from Form 1 to Form 2 on the parallel tests; (e) We compare heterogeneous and homogeneous teams on the self-testing-teaching exercises and for carry-over on selected parallel tests and on the midterm and final tests; and (f) we compare leader-coordinated work in teams with individual work on both the self-testing-teaching exercises and on the individually-taken parallel, midterm, and final tests.'

An examination of the mean scores on the initial trials on the self-testing- teaching exercises shows that in every one of the 13 comparisons the average number of correct answers achieved by the teams exceeded by 2 or 3 points the average score earned by the individuals. Such consistent differences favoring the groups could be expected by chance only one time in 8192 comparisons, (l/2)13. As a check on the random division of the groups according to abilities for learning educational psychology, the team and individual roles of the two sections were reversed on tests 12 and 14. On these tests, the students who had previously worked in teams functioned as individuals and the former individuals worked in teams. Although the differences between the means on tests 12 and 14 are now smaller than those on the preceding tests, they favor the teams. The advantage comes from teamwork rather than from differences in the abilities of the sections. However, the smaller differences suggest that practice is necessary for effective groupwork.

Support for the hypothesis that effective group work requires practice is also seen in the widening differences between the means of teams and individuals from earlier to later trials. On the sum of the first three trials, the mean difference be- tween the teams and individuals is 7.20. For the last three trials (trials 9, 10, and l l ) , it rises to 10.95. This difference is brought about by the increasing advantage the teams have over the individuals, with more experience on the self-testing- teaching exercises. For the individuals, the mean scores on the sums of the first and last three tests were 50.51 and 50.91, respectively. For the teams, the cor- responding mean scores were 57.71 and 61.86. From the earlier to later tests, the individuals made no appreciable gain; the teams made a mean gain of 4.15. This gain is statistically significant (t = 5.60) a t the .001 level.

To determine which mode of work students prefer, the students in two sections -who had tried both modes-were asked to state their preferences for individual or team work, from the points of view of both effectiveness and enjoyment. One section had taken the first 12 exercises in teams while the other section had taken them individually. Then the team-practiced students took Exercise 13 individually and the individually-practiced students took it in teams. An examination of the

'For supplementary tabular material, order NAPS Document 00155 from ASIS National Auxiliary Publications Service, c/o CCM Information Sciences, Inc., 22 West 34th Street, New York, N. Y. 10001; remitting $1.00 for microfiche or $3.00 for photocopies.

GROUP FACILITATION O F INDIVIDUAL LE.4RNING 295

answers of these students shows that nearly all st,udents (96y0 and 87%) find group work on these problem-solving exercises more enjoyable than individual work. And small but stat.ist iually significant majorities (62% and 59y0) of both sect,ions believe that their learning is more effective in teams than as individuals. The Chi-square values for t,hese differences are all significant a t the .001 level.

As compared to individual work on the self-testing-teaching exercises, students prefer and are more effective in t,eamwork. On the transfer tests, t,he story is differ- ent. The expanded range of knowledge to which the team participants had been exposed gave them no a.dvantage on the individually-taken parallel tests over the students who had taken the self-testing-teaching exercises individually. The mean scores on the three parallel tests and also on the midterm and final tests are practical- ly identical for t.he individuals and t,eams. On t,he final test, these means are 55.57 for the individuals and 55.34 for the teams. Experience in the group work gave these students no advantage which they carried over to subsequent individual problem-solving work.

But before we conclude that carry-over from team to individual work is im- possible, let us examine t,he individual differences within the teams. In earlier studies of group work, both Shaw (1932) and Hall, Mouton, and Blake (1963) have remarked 011 the passive participation of some team members. Our students also seemed to vary in ext,erit of active, conscientious part.icipation. Therefore, even without, an azJeraqe advantage of the t,eams on the parallel test,s, there could still be individual advmtages. Some student,s could make gains from Form 1 (taken in teams) to Forni 2 (taken individually); others could sustain losses. Gains were defined as Form 2 scores exceeding Form 1 scores and losses were defined as Form 2 scores falling short of or equalling Form 1 scores. However, before these scores were compared, the Form 2 scores were adjusted to equate the means on Form 1 and Form 2 for students who took both of these tests individually.

The gains or losses were related to the peer ratings on the participation in the teams. These ratings were also adjusted to c,orrect for individual biases toward high or low ratings by equating the mean rat.ings of the 14 teams in the instructed heterogeneous section.

At’ all three stages of prior experience iii participation, the mean participation scores of the st,udent.s who gain are higher than for those who lose. Moreover, the biserial correlations between gain or loss and extent of participation tend to rise with more experience in teamwork. The correlations rise from .33, a t the third self-testing-teaching exercise, through .39, a t the sixth exercise, to .44, a t the eleventh exercise. The trend suggests that as students learn better strategies of participation, they also make their participation pay dividends in improved subsequent individual performance in applications of the same set of principles.

The fact that teams attain but do not exceed the performance of the “best individual” in nominal groups suggests that, teams merely let their best members give them solutions to problems. They do not-in interactive discussion-generate solutions beyond the resources of a single member. As Hall, Mouton, and Blake (1963) have remarked, there seems to be a “surplus of individual wisdom” which groups often fail to exploit. The observation suggests the hypothesis that teams which are homogeneous with respect to pertinent background knowledge are more likely to generate more solutions in interactive discussion than do heterogeneous

296 ARDEN FRANDSEN

teams. To test this hypothesis, the mean scores of 14 4-person homogeneous teams and of 15 4-person heterogeneous teams were compared on both the self-testing- teaching exercises and on individually-taken transfer tests. The mean educational- psychology vocabulary scores of the homogeneous and heterogeneous sections were 23.50 and 23.67, respectively. The corresponding standard deviationsthe indices of heterogeneity-were 1.22 and 3.90, respectively.

An examination of the mean scores on the team-taken self-testing-teaching exercises and on the individually taken parallel, midterm, and final tests of the homogeneous and heterogeneous teams suggests that homogeneity is not an effective factor in either the self-testing-teaching exercises or on the transfer tests. On the self-testing-teaching exercises numbers 2 through 15, the homogeneous and hetero- geneous sections differ inconsistently by only a fraction of a point. Moreover, on the parallel and on the midterm and final tests the two groups are approximately equal. The largest of these differences, 57.11 - 55.75 on the final test and favoring the heterogeneous teams, is not statistically significant at the .10 level. Thus, homo- geneity for vocabulary did not enhance the effectiveness of either teamwork or subsequent individual performance.

Maier (1967) has proposed another way of enhancing the effectiveness of group work. To utilize fully the resources of the participants in group problem solving, he says that the assets must be exploited and the liabilities avoided. He suggests that the group leader-functioning as the team’s central nervous system-can accomplish these ends by integrating the contributions of the pafticipants and guiding them toward unified solutions. The leader should take the role of organizing the information contributed, summarizing ideas, stimulating explorations, detecting and resolving differences, and being alert to cues which indicate that the group is ready to agree on a unified solution. He should concentrate on listening and on keeping the discussion moving toward a solution.

In elaborating Maier’s idea to fit our teams, we assigned all four members the differentiated roles of leader, referencer, operator, and evaluator. The referencer was expected to make notes or be able to refer to the facts needed. The operator checked the group solution on the teaching machine. And the evaluator observed and re- ported to each participant the merits of his performance. While playing these differentiated roles, all of the participants were also expected to contribute whatever ideas they could to the solution of each problem.

To test the effect of leader-coordinated teamwork, one section of teams was instructed to take the differentiated roles we have defined. Another section of students worked as individuals. An examination of the mean scores on the self- testing-teaching exercises of these leader-coordinated teams and of students who worked separately shows that the teams exceeded the performance of the individuals on all of the ten exercises. Such a consistent succession of outcomes could occur by chance only once in 1024 trials, (1/2)1°.

But just as we found for leaderless teams, the leader-coordinated teams demon- strated no advantage over individuals on the transfer criteria. On parallel test 1122 -taken individually by both the teams and individuals-the teams earned a score only .58 higher than that of the individuals. The difference falls short of statistical significance at the .10 level. The sums of midterm and final tests were: 78.94 for the teams and 79.64 for the individuals.

GROUP FACILITATION OF INDIVIDUAL LEARNING 297

SUMMARY On such problem-solving tasks as the self-testing-teaching exercises used in this

study, we can confidently predict that the composite achievement of teams of students will exceed the average performance of comparable students working separately. Moreover, with more practice in teamwork, the advantage of teams over individuals tends to increase. But the advantage of teamwork falls short of the level which interaction among diverse participants should make possible. The composite t.eam scores only approximate the best individual in a nominal team.

On the transfer criteria, advantages for tea.mwork are difficult to demonstrate. From the richer problem-solving resources of a team, the typical participant carries over no certain advantage in Subsequent individual performance on the transfer tests. On the parallel, midterm, and final tests, the mean scores of teams and in- dividuals were equal. But there were consistent individual differences. Within the teams, whet'her individual participants gained or Idst on the parallel tests was found related to t.he ratings by their teammates on extent of their participation in the teamwork. Active participation facilitated transfer to the parallel and to the midterm and final tests.

On factors which might facilitate general transfer from group work to improved subsequent individual performance, two hypotheses were tested-homogeneity of subject-vocabulary within teams and leader-coordination of teamwork. Hetero- geneous and homogeneous teams performed equally well both on the self-testing- teaching exercises and on the individually-taken transfer tests. And although leader-coordinated teams, just as leaderless teams did, exceeded the performance of individuals on the self-testing-teaching exercises, they carried over no certain ad- vantage i n subsequent individual performance on the transfer tests. The one exception to this finding is in the comparison of individuals and teams on tests 121 arid 122. On the individually taken parallel test, the teams sustained to a slight extent the advantage they had achieved over the individuals on the self-testing- teaching exercises.

This exception to the generally negative findings on group facilitation of individual learning suggests the possibility that under still better conditions general transfer from group work to improved individual efficiency can be demonstrated. One possibility is that more thorough training than the verbal instruction given our leader-coordinated teams will more fully exploit the potential advantages and avoid the disadvantages of team work in school learning.

REFERENCES FRI\NDSEN, A. N. Educational psychology. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1067. (a) FIL~NDSEN, A. N. Instructor's manual lo accompany educational psycholog,tj. New York : McGraw-

HALL, E. J., MOUTON, J.\NE, I% BLAKE, 11. 11. Group problem solving effectiveness under conditions

HUDGINS, B. B. EHects of group experience on individual problem solving. Journal of Educational

KLAUSMEIER, H. J., WIEIISMI, W., & HmiiIs, C. W. Efficiency of initial learning and transfer by

MItIEit , N. R . F. Asset,s a d liabilities in group problem sob.hg: The need for an integrative function.

SHAW, RI. E. Cornparisc 1115 of individuals a i d sniall groups in rational solution of complex problems.

WATSON, C. B. 110 groups think more efficiently than individuals? Journal of Abnormal and Social

YUKER, H. E. Group atmosphere and memory. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955,

Hill, l!l67. (b)

of polliiig vs. iiiteractioii. Journal of Social Psychology, 1963, 69, 147-157.

Psychology, 1060, 61, 37-42.

individrials, pairs, and qiiads. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1963, 54, 160-164.

Psychological IZevview, 1967, 74, 239-24!).

American Journal of Psychology, 1932, 44, 4!)1-508.

Psychology, 1928, 23, 328-336.

61, 17-28.