ELearning/Teaching online/Facilitation: Group learning

Many learning theorists and practitioners believe that learning is primarily a social experience, constructivist and social learning proponents in particular. Although we can and do learn by ourselves, there is extensive evidence suggesting that learning with others is effective for most types of learning, and the most effective for certain types of learning.

Research

Prince (2004) summarizes 90 years of research attesting to the value of group learning, referred to as collaborative and cooperative learning, compared to individual and competitive learning (where a winner is declared). Johnson & Johnson (2008) cite over forty research studies finding a variety of positive outcomes resulting from group work.

Group learning vs. Individual learning.

• Improved perceptions of social support (.70 effect size¹ [ES])
• Improved academic achievement (.64 ES)
• Improved quality of interpersonal interactions (.60 ES)
• Improved student attitudes (.55 ES)
• Improved perseverance (.46 ES)

Group learning vs. Competitive learning

• Improved perceptions of social support (.83 ES)
• Improved interpersonal relationships (.82 ES)
• Improved academic achievement (.67 ES)
• Improved self-esteem (.67 ES)

¹Effect size is a measure of the positive or negative impact of one condition compared to another; the higher the number, the greater the effect. Examples: .20 ES is roughly equivalent to an 8% (modest) gain, .50 equals a 14% (moderate) gain, and .80 a 31% (strong) gain. ES scores over 1.00 are rare, though they can theoretically go up to 3.00.

Effective uses of groups

Beyond the positive effects of group learning, as described above, some learning goals that can only be achieved in groups. Here is a partial list of the effective use of groups.

• Effective communication
• Team work, working in groups²
• Decision-making and problem-solving
• Critical thinking
• Issue exploration
• Leadership
• Negotiation
• Diversity
• Creativity

²”In a networked world, being able to work effectively as part of a virtual team is becoming just as important as being able to work effectively in face-to-face teams.” (Loh & Smyth, 2010). A very recent study of intelligence analysis and prediction (Mellers, et. al., 2015) found that teams were approximately 10% better at forecasting future events than individuals working alone. "Teamwork produced enlightened cognitive altruism: Forecasters in teams shared news articles, argued about the evidence, and exchanged rationales using self-critical epistemic norms. Forecasters who worked alone were less accurate." It is important to note that team participants were trained in effective group functioning prior to their participation.

Types of groups

Johnson & Johnson (2008) describe four types of groups applicable to online learning.

Formal group learning

• Composed of 3-5 people focused on the achievement of specific learning goals, completing specific projects (solving a problem, writing a report, judging a product, conducting an experiment, preparing a case, making recommendations).
• Current, authentic (real world) tasks increase student interest and productivity.
• Assignments need to be of sufficient depth to require sustained effort and sufficient duration to allow participants to work through all stages of cognitive presence: exploration -> integration -> resolution (see Learning communities). One to two months or more is recommended.
• This type of group learning is the most rigorous and demanding of both students and instructors. The instructor must identify the learning objective, clearly explain the task and accountabilities, identify the skills to be practiced, monitor and provide feedback, intervene when necessary, and help the group process their experience. Keep in mind that we advocate replacing some of the usual forms of learning and assessment, not adding to them.
• Setup within learning management systems (LMS) involve assignments, dedicated discussion boards, and possibly dedicated chat rooms.

Informal group learning

• Students work together to achieve a “small” learning objective in temporary ad hoc groups lasting for one week or less.
• Exploration of the topic at hand, in which students exchange viewpoints and experiences, and possibly integration or summarizing are worthy goals for this type of group.
• Group size should range from 10-15 participants. Fewer than ten can lead to premature closure due to lack of diversity of views. More than 15 increases the likelihood of “serial monologues” in which students state their views but fail to respond to others.
• Dedicated discussion boards and/or chat rooms would typically be used in LMS.

Mutual support groups

• Long-term, heterogeneous groups with stable membership whose primary responsibilities are to provide support, encouragement, assistance, and mutual accountability. This type of group most resembles typical study groups formed by classroom students.
• Recommended group size is 3-4 members.
• These groups typically meet or exchange messages on a regular basis.
• Depending on the desires of the group, communication could involve mail messages, dedicated discussion boards, or dedicated chat rooms.

Constructive controversy

Essentially online debates, constructed controversy groups are made of four students divided into pairs, with one pair taking the “pro” position and the other the “con” position. These groups work best using a five-step procedure.

1. Pairs prepare their best case possible for their assigned position.
2. Pairs present their case to the opposing pair.
3. Period of open discussion in which the two sides argue forcefully and persuasively for their position while subjecting the opposing position to critical analysis. Rules of Facilitation: Discussions#netiquette|netiquette are observed at all times.
4. Pairs reverse positions and argue for the opposing side.
5. The group drops all advocacy and comes to a consensus of their best judgement about the issue.

Elements of effective groups

Putting a group of people together to achieve a goal does not make a learning group. Arum & Roksa (2011) describe a significant negative association between learning and unstructured time spent studying with peers. Empirical research into group functioning has been lacking but there are recent ones that shed light on the matter. Two studies out of M.I.T. (Wooley, Chabirs et al, 2010; Engel, Woolley et al., 2014) looked at over 200 teams of 2-5 members to identify characteristics of highly effective teams. The second study looked at both face-to-face and online groups and found, somewhat surprisingly, that the same set of characteristics were found in both settings. The most effective teams were distinguished by three characteristics:

1. Members contributed more equally to team discussions, rather than letting one or two dominate.
2. Members were good at "emotion-reading", the ability to pick up on subtextual emotional states of others (social reasoning).
3. The presence of women on the team, partially explained by "the fact that women, on average, were better at mind-reading than men."

Consistent with these findings, there is a high level of consensus among experts that five essential ingredients are characteristic of successful groups. Students need to learn and understand these ingredients so they know to practice them during the assignment.

Positive interdependence. Each member perceives that he or she cannot succeed unless the group does. Members act trustworthy by acknowledging and challenging each other’s ideas and facilitate each other’s efforts (e.g., helping another improve on an idea rather than criticizing).

Individual accountability. Elements include meeting agreed-to timelines and due dates, completing assigned work, maintaining timely participation, and providing timely feedback. Research by An & Kim (2008) found that participants ranked individual accountability as the most important factor in group success, and lack of accountability to be the most detrimental to success.

Promotive interaction. Behaviors that promote cooperation, team spirit, and successful outcomes. Irwin (2007) discusses five examples of promotive interaction:

• Exchange of personal information and social discussion early in the process.
• Recognizing individual identities and taking the time to consider all viewpoints.
• Conscious willingness to compromise.
• Refraining from making assumptions or jumping to premature conclusions. Asking for clarification.
• Refraining from taking things personally, and withholding personal criticisms.

Interpersonal and group skills. Practicing these skills begins with abiding by established rules of netiquette (online etiquette). Early on, the group needs to establish its own processes to use during the completion of the assignment. Process issues include determining how and how often the group will meet or communicate, how decisions will be made, how work is distributed, and the steps for carrying out the assignment.

Perhaps the most important group skill is managing conflict. Adherence to promotive interactions, discussed earlier, can help avert negative conflict. However, students need to know that not all conflict is bad. Jehn (1997) identified three forms of group conflict: affective/personal, process/procedural, and task-focused/substantive.

This 20-month longitudinal study revealed that personal conflict seriously degraded group results and extended the time necessary for task accomplishment, as well as dousing satisfaction among group members. Procedural conflicts were also detrimental, but to a lesser extent. Task conflict, on the other hand, was associated with high task performance and shortened timeframes. The best performing teams experienced moderate to high levels of task-related conflict. “Task conflict seems to have been beneficial by increasing constructive criticism, careful evaluation of alternatives, and realistic questioning of members’ ideas and opinions.” Jehn also noted that procedural and task-related conflict can easily escalate to personal conflict without restraint on the part of conflicting members.

Training for group effectiveness

Traing programs for effective group functioning typically include the following elements (Mellers, et. al., 2015; Lyttle & Associates, 2015):

• Strategies for explaining one's reasoning to others
• Strategies for offering constructive critiques
• Framework for building successful teams
• Team composition
• Managing team dynamics and conflict
• Team decision-making and creativity

Group processing following task completion. To really benefit from group work, members need to take the time to discuss and evaluate their experience, both in terms of achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships. This can easily be accomplished by members individually completing evaluations followed by group discussion of the results. This is accomplished by way of a survey assessment in the LMS and the use of the group discussion board or chat room. Sample surveys are included in this unit. Typical matters include:

• Review of achievements
• What went well and what could be improved on
• Individual contributions

Groups gone bad

1. A group gone bad

Neu (2012) investigated the unintended negative consequences of group assignments and identified several cognitive, affective, and behavioral manifestations. They present real challenges to group cohesiveness and productivity.

Doubts begin with group member selection. Concerns range from, “Will I get stuck with losers?” to “What if I’m grouped with so-and-so?” Most methods rely on chance, like counting off. However, many instructors do try to group students with a variety of backgrounds, but there is little research telling us how those efforts impact learning. Everson (2009) describes her approach: “I look closely at my class lists and attempt to include a mix of different majors or areas of study within each group. This way, I hope that students will bring unique perspectives to group discussion and learn more from one another.”

Students bring with them attitudes about groups, most often based on prior experience. Bad experiences produce skepticism and distrust, while good experiences likely yield the opposite.

Once formed, groups do include members with varying expectations of themselves and others. These differences may be based on motivation, interest, prior skill and knowledge levels, self-efficacy, and academic abilities. Unaddressed, differences in expectations are a leading cause of conflict.

The division of labor within groups varies along a number of lines. A favorite is assigning tasks based on existing strengths, thus limiting the value of the experience. “We try to play to people’s strengths. If someone is a better writer they can work on the paper, if someone is an excellent researcher they can take on more of the research, or whatever we feel like they’re best at to maximize their effort and efficiency.” Other approaches include perceived trustworthiness, individual interests, the anticipated amount of labor required, and random assignment. Conflict arises when motivations and choices clash.

Unequal contribution is the most often cited source of conflict, frustration, and disappointment within groups (Alden, 2011; Brandon & Hollingshead, 1999; Cann, 2006; Capdeferro & Romero, 2012; Marshall, 2008; Neu, 2012). Social loafing, deliberately reducing one’s effort, is the most commonly perceived reason, but Neu cites other reasons including lower academic ability, individual conceptions of “normal” effort, varying levels of interest, and lifestyle factors like employment, family obligations, and course load. Regardless, unequal contribution must be dealt with for the assignment to be completed. Some groups confront the offender while others jump in and complete the work.

Finally, while students have definite opinions about the work of teammates, they abhor peer evaluations. “It is a peer evaluation but it’s not valid whatsoever,” reports a typical student. First, students may agree to rate each other equally. Second, most want to avoid hurting others’ feelings. Third, many fear the possibility of confrontation with the offended party.

Equality bias in group decision-making

People of differing competence tend to give each other's views equal weight, preventing them from making the best group decisions, according to a recent study (Mahmoodi et al., 2015). An experiment paired men in three countries to work on a visual judgement task. When the pair reached differing conclusions, one was randomly asked to make the final decision. On average the more competent people were right about 70% of the time compared to 30% for the less competent member. When assigned the final decision, the more competent member went with the other's judgement 40% of the time, whereas the less competent member went with the other's choice 50% of the time. This "equality bias" continued after members were informed of the competency differences. It even continued after monetary rewards were put in place for correct decisions.

The authors concluded that, "People are incredibly bad at taking differences in competence into account when making group decisions." The reasons behind equality bias were not uncovered, but "one explanation could be that people are reluctant to take sole responsibility for group decisions. If people give others equal say in a decision then they share the responsibility for potential errors. Aversion to social exclusion may also play a part, as a less competent person may want their own decision represented so that they feel relevant and included. More competent members may want to avoid ignoring or excluding the other person." Equality bias appears to be a universal human trait which could affect many different decision-making processes in modern life, from high-level policy decisions to everyday situations.

Creating effective group assignments and projects

Lessons we can take from the foregoing review include:

1. Clearly identify your purpose in forming groups. Be sure to consider interpersonal and affective goals as well as cognitive.
2. Smaller groups of 3 – 5 are more likely to be successful that larger ones. The chance of conflict for any reason increases exponentially with each new member.
3. Include a grading rubric that spells out expectations and differentiates levels of performance.
4. Include a lesson on group process and conflict management before groups begin their work.
5. Include an initial activity focused on getting members acquainted and establishing group norms and processes.
6. For large projects, establish dates for the accomplishment of major milestones. It’s a good idea to provide a rubric for each milestone unless the requirements remain constant.
7. Monitor group interactions, and note the frequency of participation (using student tracking). Intervene early when you see lack of progress or cohesion.
8. Periodically post messages to each group regarding their functioning and quality and quantity of work.
9. Include a final group processing event described earlier.

Assessing group learning

Because members need to be held accountable both as individuals and as a group, assessing group learning is a multi-faceted endeavor. Alden (2011) asked 56 students and 17 faculty members to evaluate four common online group evaluation practices: (1) shared team grade for the final product, (2) faculty review of participation and quality using transcripts and other data, (3) faculty review of student-generated portfolios, and (4) peer assessment, all using the following criteria:

• Validity of grades
• Ease on faculty
• Encouraging active participation
• Perception of fairness
• Provision of formative feedback
• Impact on group dynamics

Overall, portfolio review was favored most by faculty members while review of transcripts and other data was preferred by students, although the differences were not significant. Faculty viewed shared grades least favorably, and students didn’t like this or peer assessment.

Looking at individual criteria, both groups perceived records and portfolio review as about equally valid, shared grades as the easiest for faculty, portfolio review as best encouraging participation, and portfolio review as providing the highest level of formative feedback. Significantly, both groups viewed shared grades as most discouraging participation.

They differed on perceptions of student ease, perceived fairness, and impact on group dynamics. Faculty thought shared grades would be easiest for students, but students saw records review as easiest. Students said records review was the fairest approach while faculty thought better of portfolio review, but differences were minimal. An important difference in perceptions was revealed between the two groups regarding impact on group dynamics. Faculty believed peer assessment would most positively impact dynamics but students viewed this most negatively in favor of records review.

In his final analysis, Allen came down on the side of records review. We agree, but also believe that assigning a shared grade is consistent with the real world of work where credit and blame are also shared. Therefore, we encourage you to include both group and individual grades for group assignments, especially larger projects. Use the following information to arrive at grades and provide feedback. Students will need to conduct their interactions within the LMS. Communicate this requirement as part of the assignment instructions.

• Read the transcripts of group communication regularly (LMS messages and discussions) and note trends (three or more instances) in participation and quality of contributions you observe. Use these reviews as an opportunity to provide feedback and coaching to each group.
• Use Student Tracking in the LMS to determine the level of individual participation. Are the number of logins and messages, and the time spent roughly equivalent? Be sure to allow students to track their own participation.
• Assign the same product or outcome grade to all members. The final product represents the efforts of the group as a whole.
• Also assign individual participation grades, taking into account the LMS measures and results of the group processing survey and final discussion.

Conclusion

Group learning is one of the most powerful teaching tools available, especially learning to communicate and work with others. These are indispensable life skills that determine, in large measure, individual success within society.

Groups contribute immensely to social presence and student perceptions of inclusion and support.

Without structure, student groups have a negative impact on learning.

Teaching and learning through groups takes work on the part of instructor and student alike, and must be carefully set up and managed to be successful.

Group assignments can constitute a major component of student performance. As such, they can replace at least some other forms of assessment. Learning management systems afford a number of performance measures useful in stimulating and assessing learning.

---

#top

⇑ Up to Teaching Online

⇑ ⇑ Up to Home