1. GOOD WORK
in
Group Work
Cath Tuohy
Whitireia New Zealand

2. 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.

3. Does group work
‗‗ Good work?
• 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

4. 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

5. 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).

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. use of teamwork skills
• involving the development
of communication,
leadership and conflict
resolution skills (Johnson &
Johnson, 1983).
• social skills (Wlodkowski, 1999).

9. 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)

10. 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

11. "You must learn to work with a group in
order to achieve results.“
Student
“participation [in group work] has
enhanced my learning in my study
feedback
group as I find talking to other students
gives me a greater understanding and
I tend to remember what I have learnt".

12. Barriers
• Independence rather than
interdependence
• Competition
• Teachers beliefs - persist even
against contradictions
• Students
– Grades
– Group structure

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

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

15. 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

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

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

18. • Semi-autonomous study groups
(Hogan, 1999).
Year Two
– 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

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

20. Year
Three

21. Context Based Learning
1. Mutual goal
2. Participation
3. Support
4. Communication
5. Reflection

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

23. “[Allocated groups] helped
learning as I worked with others Student
that I would not have chosen to.
Different age groups, different feedback
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".

24. Health
Expo

25. 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).

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

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

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

29. 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.

30. 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.