This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 29 October 2014, At: 11:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Learning interactions in groupwork in scienceR. F. Kempa a & Aminah Ayob* aa University of Keele , Staffordshire, UKPublished online: 25 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: R. F. Kempa & Aminah Ayob* (1991) Learning interactions in groupwork in science, International Journal of Science Education, 13:3, 341-354, DOI:10.1080/0950069910130311
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130311
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
INT. j . sci. EDUC., 1991, VOL. 13, NO. 3, 341-354
Learning interactions in group work inscience
R. F. Kempa and Aminah Ayob*, University of Keele, Staffordshire, UK
In an attempt to explore the effectiveness of small-group learning in science, the verbal interactionsamong pupils engaged in problem-solving tasks were studied. Analysis of the transcripts of the discourserevealed substantial variations in the 'interactiveness' of groups (consisting of either three or four pupils).Interactions were predominantly task-related, but their content rarely rose about the level of 'factualinformation' interchange. Information exchange at higher cognitive levels ('explainer level' and 'insightlevel') was largely absent, suggesting that problem solving does not readily take place as a 'group activity'.The study of interaction patterns within groups led to the conclusion that most verbal information isexchanged in 'dialogue' form, involving only two pupils at a time.
Introduction
The practice of grouping pupils for instruction in science is widespread in situationswhere pupils' involvement in science activities is regarded as important. Typically,such groups contain from two to four pupils who, given a particular task or set oftasks, are expected to work together in order to arrive at a solution to the task(s).
The arguments in favour of group learning in science education vary from the'pragmatic' to those that are mainly 'educational' in character. Among the argumentsbased on pragmatism, that given in the Plowden Report (1976) is typical:
Sharing out the teacher's time is a major problem. Only seven or eight minutes a daywould be available for each child if all teaching were individual. Teachers, therefore,have to economize by teaching together a small group of pupils...
The 'educational' arguments in support of group learning are exemplified byWashton's (1967) suggestion that
Science activities should encourage students to participate as individuals, as well as ingroups; but in learning scientific information, attitudes and skills, the students shouldlearn how to work with fellow students in seeking solutions to common problems.
Various attempts have been made to estimate the proportion of lesson time spent bypupils on group work in the course of their normal school science work. Suchestimates vary in magnitude, depending on the nature of the work done; but figuresof 50% and 60% are not uncommon. Typically, during such phases, the pupils-having been given some task or set of tasks to attend to -a re required to assumeresponsibility for their own learning in that the teacher's involvement in groupactivities is usually very limited, if not absent altogether.
* Current address: School of Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
0950-0693/91 $3-00 © 1991 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
342 RESEARCH REPORTS
Given the obvious importance attributed in science education to group work, onemay legitimately raise the question of how effective it is in terms of pupils' learningand, following on from this, what factors promote or hinder this effectiveness.
Recent researches on peer-group work in classrooms provide little support forthe assumption that group work is an effective teaching-learning strategy. Forexample, Boydell (1975) and Galton et al. (1980) reported that most of the talk ingroups was not related to the task in hand and that conversations were not sustained.Boydell thus argued that pupils in groups will not talk freely about anything, letalone their work. Tisher and Power (1978), looking at pupils' involvement in task-related activities, found that, in the absence of supervision by the teacher, the level ofinvolvement declined to an average of 50% of 'normal'.
When pupil achievement (as opposed to involvement) is used as a criterion of theeffectiveness of the group work, a somewhat more positive picture emerges from theliterature. Several studies by Johnson and co-workers suggest that involvement inco-operative group work increases pupils' achievement (Johnson et al. 1980, 1981,Johnson and Johnson 1985); a study by Slavin et al. (1985) confirms this finding.However, it has to be said that, whilst these studies indicate the existence of a markedimpact of the social context on task performance and learning, they give noinformation about the nature of the interactions (e.g., in terms of their content andquality) that go on within the groups. Also, the focus in these studies, especially thoseof Johnson and co-workers, was largely on a comparison of co-operative versusindividualistic learning; thus, they may not be entirely relevant to the issue of groupwork in 'naturalistic' settings used in science education.
The issue of how effective group learning in science actually is and what factorsinfluence its effectiveness is not merely one of academic interest. Rather, it is of directpractical relevance to science teachers: if the effectiveness of group work is to bemaximized or optimized, such work has to be properly 'managed' by the teacher.This requires the teacher to be knowledgeable about the factors that promote, orhinder, learning in groups and about ways in which these factors can be manipulatedin order to promote pupils' learning and achievement.
Against the background of the foregoing considerations, a study was conductedto explore the interactions among pupils engaged in problem-solving activities ingroup settings and to determine the extent to which actual learning results from suchgroup work.* The specific questions considered were:
1. What are the (verbal) interactions among pupils engaged in group work inscience and which pupils do they involve?
2. To what extent, if at all, are the interactions between pupils involved in groupwork affected by selected pupil characteristics (e.g., their previous attainmentand personality traits)?
3. How does pupils' achievement from group work relate to their involvementin, and contributions to, the transactions within a group?
In view of the scope of the foregoing questions, this research report is presented intwo parts. In this, the first part, the findings relating to question 1 are reported. Thefindings concerning questions 2 and 3 will be communicated in a subsequent paper.
* For the purpose of the study, group work was defined as 'any collaborative activity involving two or morepupils that may take place in the course of a lesson and is not directly supervised or controlled by theteacher'.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
LEARNING INTERACTIONS IN GROUP WORK 343
Experimental
Group work in science can occur in two contexts, viz., in laboratory activities orsimilar practical work (e.g., during field studies) and in (non-practical) problemsolving. Of the two, practical work is potentially the more difficult to study, becauseit involves not only verbal interactions, but also manipulative operations that mayhave to be carried out by pupils in collaboration or separately. For this reason, thestudy described here focused on verbal interactions that occurred in the context of anumber of non-practical problem-solving situations each of which concerned theplanning of an experimental investigation. The actual situations used are outlinedbelow.
The pupil sample
Altogether 93 pupils (45 boys and 48 girls), aged about 16 years and studyingbiology, chemistry and physics as separate (compulsory) subjects, were involved inthe study. They were drawn from six schools in the Penang State of Malaysia. Thescience programme followed by the pupils was similar to that in the former Englishsystem leading to GCE 'O' level. (This is a consequence of the extensive adaptationof British curriculum schemes in Malaysia.) Each school provided one whole classfor participation in the study, by kind agreement of the school principals and thePenang Education Ministry.
Choice of problem-solving tasks
It was realized from the outset that the problem-solving tasks chosen for the studyhad to confront the pupils with genuinely 'novel' situations. Only in this way, it wasargued, could actual learning take place and its extent be determined. Also, it wasthought desirable for the situations to be as 'open-ended' as possible, i.e., not todemand or suggest any 'unique' or 'correct' solution.
After consideration of a range of possible problem-solving tasks, it was decided toadapt four of the exercises developed by the Assessment of Performance Unit inEngland for its study of pupils' scientific skills (DES 1984). A brief description of thefour tasks-labelled 'Ice-Drink', 'Bouncing Ball', 'Paper Towel' and 'Fertilizer',respectively-is given in the appendix.
Administration and data collection
Pupils' exposure to the various problem-solving tasks took place on a school-by-school basis. For each class thus available, the pupils were allowed to form their ownworking groups without intervention by the teacher, with the proviso that the groupsize should not exceed four pupils.
The various groups were introduced to the tasks to which they had to attend andasked to work out, by discussion, solutions that they regarded as appropriate. Notime limit was imposed on the discussions (which were audio-recorded forsubsequent analysis), and pupils were encouraged to treat the activity as part of theirnormal science learning.
Following the completion of the group discussions, the pupils were asked toseparate and write their own answers or solutions to the problem. The written
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
3 4 4 RESEARCH REPORTS
answers, it was assumed, would reflect what had been said during the discussion;thus, by comparing the information points contained in individual solutions withthose in the group solution, it was hoped to quantify the amount of learning that hadresulted from the group discussions. Details about this aspect will be presented inour subsequent paper.
Information about pupils' previous educational attainment and about theirpersonality traits was obtained from their school records and the administration ofthe Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory, respectively. A full description of thisinformation will be provided in the subsequent paper.
Criteria for the analysis of discourse
For the purpose of analysing the verbal interactions among pupils, a categorizationsystem was used in which, first, a broad distribution was made between 'task-related'(TR) and 'task-unrelated' (TUR) discourse. Thereafter, the category relating totask-related discourse was further divided into sub- and sub-subcategories, accord-ing to the function served by the verbal interactions and utterances.
As is seen from table 1, which summarizes the categorization system, twosubcategories of task-related talk were identified. The first of these, labelled'interpersonal-interactive talk', embraces all those types of exchange between pupilsthat, in one way or another, are indicative of the dynamics of the group work. Itshould be mentioned that the various types of 'interpersonal-interactive talk' werederived from an initial qualitative analysis of a number of transcripts of groupdiscussion. The second subcategory of task-related talk, labelled 'cognitive infor-mation talk', deals with the quality of the information that was exchanged amongpupils, in relation to the problem(s) to be tackled or solved. The three levels of'cognitive information', viz., 'describer level', 'explainer level' and 'insight level',had previously been used by Kempa and Stancliffe in a preliminary study (Kempa1979) and were based on ideas originally proposed by Peel (1971).
Table 1. Category system for the analysis of discourse.
Types of verbal interaction
1. Task-related talk (TR)A. Interpersonal-interactive talk (IP) —consists of talk in relation to:
A.I Seeking approval (SA)A.2 Expressing approval (EA)A.3 Seeking guidance (SkG)A.4 Supplying advice (SAd)A.5 Issuing instructions (II)A.6 Expressing disapproval (ED)
B. Cognitive information talk (CI)-consists of talk at the following 'operational' levels:B.I Describer level (DL)B.2 Explainer level (EL)B.3 Insight level (IL)
2. Task-unrelated talk (TUR)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
LEARNING INTERACTIONS IN GROUP WORK 345
Inevitably, the assignment of pupils' utterances to particular types of talk, asidentified in table 1, involves subjective judgements. In consequence, some latitudeof error has to be allowed for in the results. However, this was confined to narrowmargins, through repeated cross-checking of the assignments made by the twoauthors.
The analysis of discourse within groups
As indicated above, the discussions taking place in the working groups were tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed. For ease of analysis, the transcripts wereprepared in a tabular format, listing the contributions of individual pupils in separatecolumns, with a clear indication of the sequence in which they were made. Thisprocedure proved particularly helpful in the analysis of the 'direction' on inter-actions between pupils in groups.
The basic 'units' of information derived from the analysis of the transcripts werethe utterances spoken by an individual. For the purpose of the present study, anutterance was defined as 'any verbal unit which possesses a recognizable andinterpretable element of communicated information'. Thus, utterances couldconsist of simple phrases (incomplete sentences), complete sentences or even chainsof phrases or sentences (as, for example, in an explanation provided by a pupil). Notinfrequently, though, statements made by pupils contained more than one utterance,e.g., when two thought-elements were expressed that were functionally or themati-cally unrelated to each other.
The initial analysis of the transcripts resulted in the identification of pupils'utterances. These were then coded according to the criteria given in table 1. Fromthis, the total number of utterances of each type made by the pupils within eachgroup could be determined. The information thus obtained served as the 'data-base'for subsequent analyses.
Results and discussion
In the presentation and discussion of results, we shall focus first on the interaction inwhole groups and, thereafter, on the contributions made by individuals workingwithin the groups. Initially, however, brief consideration has to be given to thechoice of measures of interactions.
a. Measures of interaction
As already indicated, the basic 'units' of information derived from the analysis of thetranscripts were the utterances spoken by the individuals involved in a groupactivity. From this, the total number of utterances (TNU) for the group is readilyderived and serves as a measure of number of the (verbal) exchanges and, hence, theinteraction that took place within a group during the problem-solving operation.
Although it is reasonable to accept the total number of utterances as a validindicator of interactions within a group, this measure has two disadvantages: it doesnot take account of different group sizes and, more importantly, it does not considerthe rate at which the interactions occur. For example, it could be that two groups(attending to the same problem) produce the same number of utterances, but takedifferent times for the completion of the task. In this case, one would have to argue
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
346 RESEARCH REPORTS
that the group producing the higher number of utterances per unit time should beregarded as the more interactive. However, the utterances per unit time measure isnot without disadvantages either: first, it fails to give an indication of the totalnumber of utterances produced by a working group; second, there is a conceptualobjection to the use of this measure since there must be an upper limit to the numberof meaningful utterances that can be made in a given time interval, simply because afinite amount of time is needed for each utterance.
Table 2 summarizes the raw data obtained for the group discussions studied, andcompares various possible measures of interaction. Inspection of the data in the tableleads to the following conclusions:
(i) The number of utterances (TNU) produced by individual working groupsvaries greatly, irrespective of group size and task attended to. Likewise,major variations are noted in the total time spent by groups on thecompletion of the tasks. Here, some influence of the nature of the task isnoticeable in a qualitative sense: the average completion times for tasks 2 and3 are below those for tasks 1 and 4.
(ii) There appears to be a rough correlation between the T N U data and the timespent on discussion. However, there are several examples where thiscorrespondence breaks down.
(iii) Group size appears to have little effect on the total number of utterances oron the rate at which utterances are made. Even the final measure (number ofutterances per unit time and person) produces much overlap between thetwo group sizes.
Thus, no measure of interaction presents itself that could be regarded as superior toany other. For this reason, T N U was accepted as the most convenient measure andused for most subsequent analyses.
b. Interactions in whole groups
The analysis of the verbal interactions within the discussion groups was initiallymade in accordance with the categories and subcategories of talk identified in table 1.
Table 3 provides an overall summary of the breakdown analysis of TUR into thevarious components. For ease of comparison, both the actual number of utterancesand percentized data are given (the latter in parentheses).
It is noted from the table that the proportion of task-unrelated utterances in thetotal discussions was generally very low: in only four of the 27 groups studied did itexceed 10% and for only two of them did it exceed 50%. In fact, the averagepercentage of utterances that could be classed as 'task-related' was found to be 96%.The latter figure must be regarded as exceptionally high, even for the Malaysianschool situation. To some extent at least this is attributable to the higher 'disciplinelevel' in Malaysian schools, compared with that in, e.g., British schools. However, itis also possible and, indeed, likely that the 'Hawthorn effect' operated in thisinstance: the pupils - knowing that they were involved in an experimental situation -focused strongly on the task in hand!
The task-related discourse divided into interpersonal talk and cognitive infor-mation exchange roughly in the ratio 1-3:1. However, it is noticed from table 3 thatfor the more interactive groups (i.e., those with a high or relatively high level of task-related talk) this ratio tends to be more heavily weighted towards the interpersonal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
LEARNING INTERACTIONS IN GROUP WORK 347
•8 §S « I sO 33 -ti *> tT)t> tT"rT lO0P1{1T P ?> *—' T> T> 9P 0 * 0 0 1 ^ 0 0 o r - p p o o p
3 S " ^ dovO'^-ro^rHc^co h« [N [N 10 c*i ri »- 10 ifl ih n n n w *o 4 t*i t tn
« 1ffj 53 Qj M O l O O N v O O O ^ Th 00 O D i/l t^ O h" lO r-1 \D t" O ^ O M 00 00•*3 S 1 ^ l o n O ' t O ^ n r s c> t>> r* oo n N r-« o ui in n M j- T rj- —< so en
i n - -o•cft Sg g «§ 2 s
« § d ^
•a'-g ^
"§ Sw ' C * ' ^ roopoopcpopinirj p O O p O fp p loopppoorpop OOOOO
O 5 * ^ rH rH (S| 1 N (S r-1 ^< H r-H 1 t-i ^ i—( —I —i rH (N| M fS
oen
3 sS& m^ + o»NO<! H*ano«o> o + nh-nifltv o>a + « nO ? I ^ lOO^THM^WirirH OOmfN-^-^Or^ OvOlOOt^OOt^ M [ in Ifl IflS Q w 2 * n r i r t « n r i « M N N n TH »» cS<-"^"»- ^H— - -(N ^OT-<
M ^ § ^« ^ S
I — * — s s s s s s s —
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Table 3. Breakdown analysis of the utterances made by working groups into main components andsubcomponents identified in table 1.
Task/Group
1/11/21/31/41/51/61/71/8
2/12/22/32/42/52/62/7
3/13/23/33/43/53/63/7
4/14/24/34/44/5
Pupilsper group
33334444
3334444
3333344
33344
Task-related talk(TR)
445 (98)380 (97)306 (97)117(97)645 (99)382 (100)126 (84)38 (33)
275 (98)234 (100)221 (96)329 (96)133 (95)106 (100)39 (100)
222 (77)164 (100)141 (92)28 (26)71 (100)
181 (98)177 (100)
419 (100)251 (91)
54 (100)608 (93)148 (97)
Interpersonal talk(IP)
287 (64)214 (56)230 (75)
79 (68)419 (65)283 (74)
71 (56)27 (71)
146 (53)114(49)99 (45)
226 (69)71 (53)48 (45)14 (36)
117(53)90 (55)86 (61)
6(22)37 (52)
131 (72)109 (62)
239 (57)181 (72)
13 (24)405 (67)107 (72)
Cognitiveinformation talk
(CI)
158 (36)166 (44)76 (25)38 (32)
226 (35)99 (26)55 (44)11 (29)
129 (47)120(51)122 (55)103 (31)62 (47)58 (55)25 (64)
105 (47)74 (45)55 (39)22 (78)34 (48)50 (28)68 (38)
180 (43)70 (28)41 (76)
302 (33)41 (28)
Task-unrelated talk(TUR)
10(2)11(3)8(3)3(3)4(1)0(0)
24 (16)78 (67)
6(2)0(0)8(4)
14(4)7(5)0(0)0(0)
68 (23)0(0)
12(8)79 (74)
0(0)4(2)0(0)
1(0)24(9)0(0)
44(7)5(3)
Figures in parenthesis denote percentages.
00
M>
»
O
1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
LEARNING INTERACTIONS IN GROUP WORK 349
talk and often is close to 2 : 1 . This is perhaps not surprising since 'interactiveness'with a group can be expected to manifest itself, in the first instance, throughexchanges that relate to the procedures/activities in which the pupils are engaged,rather than the observations made or conclusions reached by them.
As was previously noted, a range of subcategories of interpersonal talk had beenidentified from the initial qualitative examination of the transcripts. Detailedquantitative analysis of the interpersonal talk recorded led to the data given intable 4. From this, it is seen that, in the main, interpersonal talk-as it actuallyoccurred-was concerned with three aspects: 'supplying advice' to fellow pupils(SAd), 'seeking guidance' from then (SkG) and 'expressing approval (EA), i.e.,endorsing points made or actions taken by other pupils. Between them, these threesubcategories account for over 82% of the total interpersonal talk. This high level ispleasing for, it may be argued, these three modes of interpersonal communication areessentially of a 'harmonizing' nature, unlike the 'issuing instructions' (II) and'expressing disapproval' (ED) modes that can be claimed to be indicative of some'power' and/or 'conflict' relationship with a group. Indeed, the SAd, SkG and EAcategories used here resemble closely the 'markers' that Barnes and Todd (1977)used in their analysis of levels of 'collaborativeness' within their working groups.
The summary analysis of cognitive information interchange within workinggroups is given in table 5. Again, it is apparent that the four tasks used in the study ledto nearly identical distributions of the cognitive information in terms of level. Theoverwhelming proportion of exchanges in this category was clearly at the'describer level', i.e., the exchanges were concerned with the communicationof straightforward factual information and data. Exchanges at a 'higher level' ofintellectual functioning and reasoning were comparatively rare, as the data for the'explainer level' and 'insight level' clearly indicate. Indeed, when the performancesof individual groups were examined, it transpired that over one-third of them hadnot produced any exchanges at the explainer or insight levels.
Table 4. Distribution of interpersonal talk into component subcategories(percentized).
Subcategory Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Average
Seeking approval (SkA)Expressing approval (EA)Seeking guidance (SkG)Supplying advice (SAd)Issuing instructions (II)Expressing disapproval (ED)
Table 5. Distribution of cognitive information talk into component sub-categories (percentized).
Level Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Average
Describer level 82 80 96 90 87Explainer level 15 16 2 5 10Insight level 3 4 2 2 3
524233559
430243462
428243149
326223639
428233447
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
350 RESEARCH REPORTS
The extent to which cognitive information exchanges at the higher levels (EL andIL) could have been produced, must depend-at least in par t -on the nature of thetasks tackled by the groups. Planning tasks, like those used in this study, are bound toproduce a good deal of 'descriptive' information; but they also offer ample scope fordiscourse at the 'explainer level', especially when attempts are made by pupils toindicate why certain procedures are advocated. However, as the results clearly show,such attempts were very rare indeed.
The current results concerning the nature of the cognitive informationexchanged by pupils involved in group work are in line with those previouslyreported by Tann (1980) and also by Kempa (1979). They also concur with thefindings made by, e.g., Johnson and Johnson (1985); their conclusion was thatpupils' exposure to traditional teaching methods made it difficult for them to engagein discussion, especially in giving explanations which require them to express theirthoughts.
Whether Johnson and Johnson's observation applies also to the present findings,must be a matter of speculation. What seems certain, from this and other studies, isthat engagement in 'higher level' cognitive information exchanges is something thatdoes not come naturally to pupils. It is a skill that needs to be carefully developed andfostered by teachers: in the absence of such skill development, group work is unlikelyto fulfil the educational expectations that are associated with it.
c. Interactions between pupils within groups
There is no a priori reason why, in working groups comprising three or more pupils,all pupils should contribute to a discussion to the same extent. The presence in agroup of a very 'dominant' person, for example, would probably cause an imbalancein the contributions made. Neither is it necessarily to be expected that theinteractions should involve all pupils at all (or most) times: it is possible, at least intheory, for a pupil to be 'bypassed' in a group discussion, with the result that he orshe would effectively work outside the group structure.
Considerations such as the foregoing led us to undertake an analysis of theinteractions between pupils in working groups. Initially, this focused on the questionof how 'balanced' pupils' involvement in groups' discussions was. A completely'balanced' situation would prevail if, in a discussion involving n pupils, each pupilcontributed a nth part to the discussion as a whole. For a 3-pupil group, this wouldamount to a third of the total utterances; for a 4-pupil group, the equivalent figurewould be one-quarter.
In practice, some latitude has to be allowed for, the extent of which can only bearbitrary. In the present case, it was judged that, if the contributions of an individualpupil remained within the range 16-7% to 50% in the case of 3-pupil groups and12-5% to 37-5% for 4-pupil groups, the pattern of interaction could still be regardedas adequately balanced. (These figures represent a range from 0-5 to 1-5 times the'ideal' contribution.) Group discussions not meeting the foregoing criterion werejudged to have been 'unbalanced'.
Table 6 summarizes the finding obtained from this analysis. It is seen from thisthat, overall, pupils' contributions to the discussion were reasonably balanced in justover half of the groups. However, it is also noticed that the tendency towardsimbalance was more pronounced in the case of the 4-pupil groups: here, the ratio of'balanced' to 'unbalanced' groups was 4 :7 , compared with 9:4 for the 3-pupil
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
LEARNING INTERACTIONS IN GROUP WORK 351
Table 6. Analysis of task-related information exchange within groups interms of 'balance' (cf. text).
Number of groups
. 1 *All groups (JV= 24)*'Balanced' participation 13'Unbalanced' participation 11
confined to 1 pupil 7involving more than 1 pupil 4
Three-pupil groups (iV=13)'Balanced' participation 9'Unbalanced' participation 4
confined to 1 pupil 3involving more than 1 pupil 1
Four-pupil groups (JV= 11)'Balanced' participation 4'Unbalanced' participation 7
confined to 1 pupil 4involving more than 1 pupil 3
* The total number of groups investigated was 27. However, three of them were excluded from theanalysis because of very low levels of interaction.
groups. A possible explanation of this is that, as the group size increases, it becomeseasier for individual members to assume a relatively 'passive' role in the groupactivities, or to take on a position of dominance. An additional point suggested by thepresent figures is that the number of pupils making unbalanced contributions togroup work increases with group size. Admittedly, the relatively small number ofinstances observed in this study make it difficult to claim general validity for thisfinding; nevertheless, it seems to be an entirely plausible conclusion to draw.
Further analysis of the discourse within working groups addressed itself to thequestion of how the interactions among pupils were patterned. Preliminary analysesof the transcripts had suggested that, not infrequently, interactions within a groupinvolved only two pupils at a time who then seemed to be engaged in a dialogue. Itwas thus of interest to examine in detail the interaction patterns within groups.
For the purpose of the interaction patterns analysis, 'interaction matrices' wereconstructed which summarized quantitatively (in percentages) the direction of talkbetween pupils. An example of an interaction matrix is given in table 7. Therepresentation of the data from interaction matrices in a graphical form makes thedirections of the interactions particularly clear, as figure 1 illustrates. Theinformation in table 7 and figure 1 suggests that a considerable proportion of thediscourse in a group is conducted in the form of 'dialogues' between two pupils at atime. Analysis across the 27 working groups showed that only approximately 14% ofverbal interactions were made to groups as a whole (standard deviation: 5%), and thatthis figure applied equally to 3-pupil and 4-pupil groups. It is noteworthy that in afew cases one particular pupil appeared to have been excluded altogether from thegroup discussion.
The non-participation of a pupil in a discussion (which is an inevitableconsequence of the situation just described) does, of course, not necessarily, meanthat this pupil derives no benefit from the discourse conducted between other pupils.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Table 7.
Pupil originating utterances
PIP2P3
Total utterances receivedby pupil(s)
Example of an
PI
1511
26
'interaction
Utterances addressed to
Individuals
P2
17—12
29
P3 group
16 311 3— 12
27 18
RESEARCH REPORTS
matrix'.
Total utterances initiatedby pupil(s)
362935
100
* The figures represent percentages of task-related verbal exchanges between pupils in the group.
PUPIL 135.8
PUPIL 228.8
11.9
11.2
PUPIL 335.4
Numbers denote percentages. Exchanges with whole group (G) indicated by numbers in shaded areas.
Figure 1. Graphical representation of verbal interactions within a 3-pupilgroup (cf. table 7).
Provided that the 'non-participant' actually listens in on a 'dialogue' between theothers and, on other occasions, actually changes into a 'participant' in conversation,educational benefit for him/her from the involvement in group work ought to ensue.However, if a pupil assumes (by personal choice) or is made to assume (by the actionof his/her fellow pupils) the position of an 'outsider', it is doubtful whether any realbenefit would accrue from that pupil's engagement in group work. Some of theeducational goals often ascribed to group work, e.g., development of interpersonaland communication skills, etc., are unlikely to be achieved by that pupil; as far assubject-specific learning is concerned, this would at best be of a 'passive' nature.
The extent to which learning resulted from the group work conducted inconnection with this study will be examined in the follow-up paper to thispublication, as will be the relationship between certain 'pupil variables' (includingability and personality traits) and pupil behaviour in group learning situations.
Conclusion
This paper reports on the (verbal) interactions occurring within 'working groups'engaged in (non-practical) problem-solving in science education. The interactions ofaltogether 27 groups were examined, and the relative smallness of this number makes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
LEARNING INTERACTIONS IN GROUP WORK 3 5 3
it difficult to arrive at generalizable conclusions. However, the following findings areindicated by the study.
1. Interactions within groups are far from uniform, even when identical tasksand group sizes are considered. The non-uniformity manifests itself in tworespects: (i) the total amount of verbal information exchanged within a group,and (ii) the extent to which individual people contribute to, or becomeinvolved in, the information interchange within a group.
2. Much of the talk within working groups appears to take the form of 'dialogues'between two group members at a time. Whilst this occurs, the role of the othergroup member is uncertain: are they 'silent' participants or are they 'left out'?If or when the latter occurs, the non-participant is unlikely to benefit from theinteraction between other group members.
3. Task-related talk (which formed the dominant form of interaction within thepresent groups) tended to be generally more weighted towards interpersonalinteractions than to the exchange of cognitive information. In the latter, thefocus is mainly on the transmission of factual information and simple matters.There is a genuine absence of transactions involving 'higher level' cognitivethinking of the type often associated with genuine problem solving.
In the light of the foregoing results, it must be argued that at least some of theeducational benefits that are frequently claimed for group work in science are notrealized. Apart from the pattern of pupil involvement in group work (which is often'unbalanced' as stated under 1 and 2 above), the low level of intellectual transactionswithin the groups leads to the conclusion that any problem solving as such is more ofan 'individual' activity, rather than the result of the sharing of ideas within a group.This aspect will be further explored in our next paper, as will be the educationalimplications of our findings. At this stage, only one observation is made: this is that ifgroup work is to be effective, the participants in it need to be able to 'manage' theiractivities. For this to happen, teachers themselves have to assume responsibility forthe development of such 'management skills' in pupils and be prepared to facilitategroup work by appropriate task analysis and task structuring.
References
BARNES, D. and TODD, F. 1977, Communication and Learning in Small Groups (Routledge &Kegan Paul, London).
BOYDELL, D. 1975, Pupil behaviour in junior classrooms. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, Vol. 45, pp. 122-129.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (DES) 1984, APU: Science in Schools. Age 13:Report No. 2 (HMSO, London).
GALTON, M., SIMON, B. and CROLL, P. 1.980, Inside the Primary School (Routledge & KeganPaul, London).
JOHNSON, D. W. and JOHNSON, R. T. 1985, The internal dynamics of cooperative learninggroups. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb andR. Schmuck (eds), Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn (Plenum Press, NewYork).
JOHNSON, D. W., MARUYAMA, G., JOHNSON, R. T., NELSON, D. and SKON, L. 1981, Effects ofcooperative, competitive and individualistic goal structures on achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 89, pp. 47-62.
JOHNSON, D. W., SKON, L. and JOHNSON, R. T. 1980, Effects of cooperative, competitive andindividualistic conditions on children's problem-solving performance. American Educ-ational Research Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 83-93.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
354 LEARNING INTERACTIONS IN GROUP WORK
KEMPA, R. F., 1979, Studying curriculum implementation in the classroom. In P. Tamir,A. Blum, A. Hofstein and N. Sabar (eds), Curriculum Implementation and its Relation-ship to Curriculum Development in Science (Rehovot, Jerusalem, Israel).
PEEL, E. A. 1971, The Nature of Adolescent Judgement (Staples Press, London).PLOWDEN REPORT 1976, Children and Their Primary Schools (HMSO, London).SLAVIN, R., SHARAN, S., KAGAN, S., HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ, R., WEBB, C. and SCHMUCK, R.
1985, Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn (Plenum Press, New York).TANN, C. S., 1980, A study of group work in primary and lower secondary school.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leicester, UK.TISHER, R. P. and POWER, C. N. 1978, The learning environment associated with an
Australian curriculum innovation. Curriculum Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 169-184.WASHTON, N. S. 1967, Teaching Science Creatively in the Secondary Schools (Science
Teaching Series) (W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia).
Appendix: Brief description of problem-solving tasks used
Task 1-'Ice-Drink'
In this, pupils are asked to plan an investigation to find out which kind of container(metal, glass, plastic) and what way of 'insulating' it (immersion in water, wrappingwith a dry or wet towel) would keep an ice-drink cold for the longest period of time.Critical aspects of this investigation include the control of experimental conditions toensure that comparable results are obtained and the adoption of a meaningfuloperationalization of 'keeping cold longest'.
Task 2-'Bouncing Ball'
This task requires pupils to plan an investigation into the 'bouncing' behaviour ofthree balls (of different sizes) on different surfaces. A particularly interesting aspectof this task, in addition to others, is how 'fairness' in testing can be ensured.
Task 3-'Paper Towel'
This task concerns the planning of an investigation to find out which kind of papertowel (three different kinds of 'kitchen towel') will hold most water. Among theissues to be considered here is the meaning and operationalization of the term'holding water', as well as the identification of an approach that will result in ameaningful answer.
Task 4-'Fertilizer'
This task is about planning an investigation to establish which of the fertilizerswould make house plants grow faster. Critical issues here are the interpretation andoperationalization of the notion of 'fast growth', but also the 'control' of growingconditions, e.g., exposure to light, dampness of soil, etc.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
New
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
11 2
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Recommended
