Abstract: The primary objective of this article is to provide
readers with guidance for designing effective group assignments
and activities for classes and workshops. In doing so, we examine
the forces that foster social loafing (uneven participation)
in learning groups and identify four key variables that must
be managed in order to create a group environment that is conducive
for broad-based member participation and learning. We then discuss
the impact of various types of activities and assignments on
learning and group cohesiveness. Finally, we present a checklist
that has been designed to evaluate the effectiveness of group
assignments in a wide variety of instructional settings and
subject areas.
Over the last few years group activities have become increasingly
popular. However, instructors and workshop leaders frequently
report three common problems that greatly reduce the effectiveness
of small-group based learning activities. Two of the three problems
typically occur while students or workshop participants are
actually engaged in the group work. Probably the most common
problem is that one or two vocal individuals often dominate
the discussions to the point that quieter members' ideas are
either unexpressed or largely ignored. Alternatively, groups
frequently have difficulty staying focused on the assigned task
because they get side-tracked on inconsequential or irrelevant
details. The third problem occurs when groups are reporting
the results of their work to the total class. Even when there
has been a high level of engagement in the small groups subsequent
whole-class discussions sometimes "fall flat."
Based on our experience, these "problems" are actually
symptoms that are almost always the result of poorly conceived
group tasks. Further, we believe that all three of these problems
can be avoided if classroom teachers and faculty developers
use activities that are designed to take into account: 1) the
developmental level of the groups in which they will be used
and, 2) the impact of the activity on the cohesiveness of the
groups.
With this in mind, our primary objective in writing this article
is to provide a set of conceptual tools to provide guidance
for designing effective group assignments and activities for
classes and workshops. Overall, the most important idea in the
paper is that the most reliable way to gauge the learning value
of group assignments is to examine their impact on group cohesiveness.
Accordingly, a second objective in writing this article is to
help readers understand how different types of learning tasks
contribute to or detract from group cohesion.
In the pages that follow, we:
1. discuss the psychological processes that result in uneven
participation by group members;
2. identify four key variables that must be managed in order
to create a group environment that is conducive for broad-based
member participation and learning;
3. describe the cognitive processes through which learning
occurs and discuss the implications for designing effective
learning activities;
4. outline the impact of assignment wording on learning and
group development;
5. present a checklist for evaluating and/or designing effective
group activities in a variety of subject areas and educational
settings;
6. Use a "before-after" example of a group assignment
from one of our colleague's classes to illustrate why the
effectiveness of group activities is so closely tied to their
impact on group cohesiveness.
The Nature of Group Interaction
Under certain conditions, a high percentage of group members
would prefer to sit back and let "someone else" work
on their behalf. This phenomenon, which has come to be known
as "social loafing" (Latane, Williams & Harkins,
1979) can be a serious problem in classrooms and workshops because
it heavily constrains the interaction necessary for a productive
learning environment. Further, if left unchecked, the conditions
that produce social loafing can prevent the development of the
social fabric that is necessary for effectively functioning
learning groups. More assertive members will inevitably "take
charge" and, by doing so, will both reduce the need for
additional input and create a sort of a "caste" system
in which quieter members often feel that their ideas might not
be welcomed.
We have identified six forces which, unless recognized and
dealt with by the instructor or workshop leader, will produce
a level of social loafing that will be a serious problem in
most learning groups. Three of these have to do with the characteristics
of group members. First, some people are naturally resistant
to participation (e.g., shy). Second, others prefer to dominate
a discussion. Third, members who feel they lack content knowledge
of the task at hand are usually reluctant to speak because they
are concerned about being seen as incompetent. Two others are
especially problematic in newly formed and/or temporary groups.
These are that members of new and/or temporary groups are typically
more concerned about their own personal image than that of the
group and also see themselves as having little to lose if the
group fails to perform effectively. Finally, the group task
promotes social loafing when it can be completed by one member
working alone and/or doesn't require members to reach an agreement.
See Figure 1.
The forces that promote social loafing in learning groups,
however, can largely be offset by assignments and practices
that foster the development of cohesive learning groups. There
are two reasons for this. First, as groups become more cohesive,
trust and understanding typically build to the point that even
naturally quiet members are willing and able to engage in intense
give-and-take interactions without having to worry about being
offensive or misunderstood (Michaelsen, Watson & Black,
1989; Watson, Michaelsen & Sharp, 1991; Watson, Kumar &
Michaelsen, 1993; Michaelsen, Black & Fink, 1996). Second,
a primary characteristic of cohesive groups is that members
see their own well being as being integrally tied to the success
of their group. As a result, members of cohesive groups are
often highly motivated to invest personal energy doing group
work (Shaw, 1981; Michaelsen, Jones & Watson, 1993).
Characteristics of Learning Tasks that Promote Group Cohesiveness
The single most effective strategy for eliminating social loafing
is to ensure that four key dimensions of the learning tasks
cause members to interact in ways that promote the development
of cohesive groups. Specifically, the tasks should be explicitly
designed to: 1) require a high level of individual accountability
for group members and/or workshop participants, 2) motivate
a great deal of discussion among group members, 3) ensure that
members receive immediate, unambiguous and meaningful feedback
(preferably involving direct comparisons with the performance
outputs from other groups), and 4) provide explicit rewards
for high levels of group performance (see Figure 2).
Ensuring individual accountability. Instructors or workshop
leaders often inadvertently foster social loafing by failing
to ensure that their group assignments (especially the first
one) require input from every group member. The initial assignment
is key for two reasons. First, the innate forces against broad-based
participation in new groups (see Figure 1) are so powerful that
they must be offset early on. Second, if the group is even modestly
successful with input from only one or two members, then it
is highly likely that the group will develop a norm supporting
at least partial non-participation of members (Feldman,
1984).
On the other hand, if the task explicitly requires input from
group members, then the question of whether their input is needed
becomes a moot point. As a result, at least two of the negatives
are turned into positives. One is that members are faced with
the possibility of being seen in a negative light if they don't
contribute. The other is that, because of the additional input,
the groups are both more likely to succeed, which reinforces
a norm that everyone is expected to provide input to the group
(Feldman, 1984). These dynamics are two of the main reasons
that giving an individual test followed immediately by a group
test is such a powerful learning and group-building tool (Michaelsen
& Black, 1994; Michaelsen, Black & Fink, 1996). Another
way to ensure broad-based input in small group discussions is
to hand out an individual worksheet and ask participants to
take a few minutes to think through the issues and write down
their ideas prior to the start of the group discussions (see
the discussion of "Think, Pair Share" in Cottell,
Millis & Engrave, 1996).
Motivating intensive group interaction. The
most common cause of social loafing is the use of assignments
that can be completed by independent individual work. When the
rational way to complete a task is to "delegate" the
work to individual members, that is exactly what will happen.
Delegating commonly occurs in two situations. One situation
is when the assignments are too easy (i.e., group interaction
isn't needed). In this case, one member will simply act on behalf
of the group. The other situation occurs when the task requires
a great deal of writing. Since writing is inherently an
individual activity, the only real group activity will be deciding
how to divide up the work. When group members work independently,
cohesiveness is reduced for at least two reasons. The first
reason is that some members always feel like they are having
to do more than their fair share (and in most cases, they probably
are correct). The other reason is that, depending on the group's
performance, the top students are likely to resent having to
choose between carrying their less able or less motivated peers
or risk getting a low grade.
Although a number of different types of tasks will reliably
produce high levels of group interaction, a highly reliable
"rule-of-thumb" is that assignments increase group
cohesiveness (and, over time, eliminate social loafing) when
they require members to make a concrete decision based on the
analysis of a complex issue. In other words, when we ask students
or workshop participants to apply a rule or solve a problem.
This type of task typically requires students to use a broad
range of intellectual skills including: recognizing and defining
concepts, making discriminations, and applying principles or
procedural rules (Gagne, 1970). Further, everyone typically
has both opportunities and incentives to participate actively
in completing the task because of the genuine need for broad-based
member input. The net result is that problem-based tasks almost
universally immerse students and/or workshop participants in
an information-rich, give-and-take discussions through which
their content learning increases. Further, if the assignment
is thoughtfully crafted, they are also likely to learn two important
lessons about their group. They are: 1) other members' input
is a valuable resource, and 2) we can accomplish something
by working together that none of us could have accomplished
on our own.
Facilitating external [meaningful] performance feedback.
The single most powerful force for the development of group
cohesiveness is the presence of an outside influence that is
perceived to be threatening to member goals and/or the well-being
of the group (Shaw, 1981). Differences among members become
less important as they pull together to protect themselves and/or
their public image. As a result, providing performance data
that allow comparisons with other groups is a very powerful
tool for increasing group cohesiveness.
Some assignments are clearly better than others at providing
such comparisons. In general, the more assignments provide unambiguous
performance feedback (especially if it is in a form that enables
direct comparisons with similar groups) the better they are
at promoting team development. Further, the more immediate the
feedback, the greater its value to both learning and group cohesiveness.
By contrast, assignments are likely to limit the development
of group cohesiveness (and encourage social loafing) if they
force groups to do the majority of their work in the absence
of feedback. When groups have no way of knowing how they are
doing (e.g. when groups are asked to produce some sort of a
complex "product" such as a group paper), members
are likely to experience a great deal of stress in working with
each other. For example, differences in members' work styles
often produce a great deal of tension in the group. Members
who have a strong preference for a systematic and orderly approach
and have time to work on the project often become so anxious
that they alienate their peers who either have different time
pressures or who feel they do better work when they are faced
with a performance deadline.
Rewarding group success. Although it would be
wonderful if students or workshop participants would complete
group assignments because of a love of learning, if we fail
to create a situation in which doing good work as a group "pays
off" in some meaningful way, we are, in effect, asking
them to behave irrationally. One obvious way to use group rewards
as a means of building group cohesiveness is to include group
performance in our grading system. Failing to do so will greatly
increase the probability that group cohesiveness will be blocked
by the fact that students will correctly see themselves competing
with other members of their own group.
Including group performance in the grading system is not,
however, the most effective way to use rewards for building
groups (and minimize social loafing) for three reasons. First,
unless the grading system also promotes individual accountability
(e.g., grading individual work that prepares students for group
work, using a peer evaluation system, etc.), social loafing
can still become a serious problem. Second, groups often contain
members with very different needs -- what may be an acceptable
grade for one student might be a disaster for another. Third,
giving grades isn't even a possibility in workshops and many
other educational settings in which we should be using group
work.
In our judgment, the reward that offers the greatest potential
for both classrooms and workshops is the basic human need for
social validation. Everyone wants to feel they can offer
something of value to others. Thus, by creating a situation
where the output from group work will be scrutinized and challenged
by peers from other groups, we are creating an environment that
promotes both group cohesiveness and learning.
The best and the worst. Based on our experience, the
best activity available for building group cohesiveness
and minimizing social loafing is the Readiness Assurance Process
which constitutes the first four steps in the learning activity
sequence in Team Learning (Michaelsen, Watson & Schraeder,
1985; Michaelsen, 1992; Michaelsen & Black, 1994) and the
worst activity is group term papers. The Readiness Assurance
Process is used at the very beginning of each major instructional
unit (i.e., prior to any lectures) to ensure that student master
basic course content. It involves four steps: 1) individual
students complete a test over a set of pre-assigned readings
and turn in their answers, 2) groups then re-take the same test
and turn in their consensus answers for immediate scoring (group
scores are posted on the board to provide immediate cross-group
comparisons), 3) groups are given time re-study their assigned
readings to prepare written appeals for any questions they have
missed, and 4) the instructor provides input that is specifically
focused on remediating student misunderstandings that have come
to light in the previous three steps of the process. The power
of the Readiness Assurance Process comes from the fact that
its activities, in combination, clearly meet all four of the
criteria for building groups (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).
By contrast, group term papers seldom provide any support for
building group cohesiveness and almost universally result in
at least the perception of social loafing. Because writing is
inherently an individual activity, the rational way to accomplish
the overall task is to divide up the work so that each member
independently completes part of the assignment (usually the
part that he or she already knows the most about). As a result,
there is seldom any significant discussion after the initial
division of labor, and feedback is generally unavailable until
it is too late to create either individual accountability or
meaningful comparisons with other groups. Further, under these
conditions, having part of the grade based on group performance
is as much of a negative as a positive. Members are well aware
that the failure of any member of the group could force the
rest to accept a low grade or engage in a last-minute attempt
to salvage a disaster. In fact, high-achieving students often
express the feeling that getting an acceptable grade on a group
term paper feels like having crossed a freeway during rush hour
without being run over.
Differences in group process that result from the specific
requirements of learning tasks not only affect group cohesiveness;
they also have a profound impact on learning. Before we try
to link group processes and learning, however, we will briefly
set the stage by reviewing some of what is known about "ways"
in which we learn, i.e., process information. As a result, the
following paragraphs focus on cognitive processes that come
into play as we take-in, store, and use ideas and information.
Learning Processes: Implications for Assignment Design
On the surface, what we know would seem to be the sum total
of the information to which we have been exposed. Taking in
information is, however, only part of the learning process (Bruning,
Schraw & Ronning, 1994). Information that is taken in and
stored in short-term memory decays very rapidly. Thus, from
a practical standpoint, what we "know" is more a function
of our ability to retrieve and use the information than the
sum total of the information that we have taken in.
Impact of what we know. Our ability to learn is profoundly
affected by both information to which we have previously been
exposed and the way this information is stored in our long-term
memory. Most importantly, our capability to learn depends on
the extent to which the related components of our memory are
clustered into well organized structures (i.e., sometimes referred
to as schemata -- see Anderson, 1993; Mandler, 1984; Bruning
et al., 1994). These information structures are important because
they provide "hooks" that help establish links between
new information that is related to what we already "know"
and between the individual components of our existing structures.
In addition, the structures provide a backdrop that helps us
to recognize what we don't know (i.e., information that
doesn't "fit").
Information structures and learning. What we "know,"
then, is largely a function of the number, complexity and inter-connectedness
of the information structures in our long-term memory and, for
practical purposes, consists of the information that we are
able to retrieve and use. Significant learning has taken place
when we increase the amount of information we are able to retrieve
and use. This usually occurs when new information motivates
us to: 1) add to existing structures, 2) establish new structures,
or 3) establish new links within or between existing structures.
Elaborative Rehearsal. If a learning activity exposes
us to new information that neatly connects to a "hook"
in one of our information structures, then it is simply "attached"
to the appropriate link. If new information appears to conflict
with existing grouping, the learning process takes a very different,
but even more beneficial, course. Initially, we will "search
through" our long-term memory to review the linkages upon
which the apparent conflict is based. If this review confirms
the existence of a conflict, we will be in a state of discomfort
until we find a harmonious accommodation. If none is found and
the information's credibility is sustained, we are motivated
to eliminate the conflict by modifying and/or adding to existing
information grouping. This memory retrieval and examination
process, called elaborative rehearsal (Craik & Lockhart,
1986), facilitates learning because each stage has a positive
impact on our long-term memory. As a result, the greater the
extent to which an assignment exposes students or workshop participants
to credible information that conflicts with their existing information
structures, the greater its impact on their long-term memory.
Promoting the development of higher-level cognitive skills.
The importance of providing opportunities for elaborative rehearsal
is dramatically illustrated by a series of studies involving
learning groups that are summarized in Slavin (1995). In all
of the studies, students were divided into four member "Jigsaw"
groups. Each member was assigned to become a subject-matter
expert with respect to one of four areas and then given the
opportunity to teach the material to the other members of his
or her Jigsaw team. In most instances, students in Jigsaw groups
scored higher on an overall summative test than students from
a control group who had been taught with a more traditional
method. The positive benefits of the Jigsaw activity, however,
were primarily due to students' mastery of the material that
they had "taught" to their peers. Hearing someone
else explain a set of concepts (i.e., listening to a lecture)
had a minimal positive effect as compared to the impact of having
to synthesize the information, organize a presentation and present
the information to a group of peers.
In two other studies, Lazarowitz (1991) and Lazarowitz and
Karsenty (1990) added an additional learning task for the Jigsaw
groups. After the Jigsaw peer instruction, each of the groups
was given a discovery-oriented problem to solve that required
actively using information presented by each of the four
subject-matter experts. The most significant finding from these
studies was that requiring students to engage in a higher level
thinking (Gagne, 1970) increased students' ability to recall
and use the information that was originally presented by the
other subject-matter experts.
Based on the overall results of the Jigsaw studies, it appears
that listening to another peer in a learning group, even when
combined with the opportunity to ask clarifying questions, produces
only modest gains in long-term memory. On the other hand, learning
activities that require higher-level thinking skills (Gagne,
1970) such as acting in a teaching role (see also Bargh &
Schul, 1980) or using concepts to solve a discovery-oriented
problem, produce substantially greater long-term gains in students'
ability to recall and use course concepts. Other types of learning
activities that focus on using higher level thinking skills
have also been shown to produce similar gains compared to simple
cognitive tasks such as listening to lectures or going over
one's notes. These include taking tests (see Nungester &
Duchastel, 1982), writing "minute papers" (Wilson,
1986), and being exposed to opposing views on a subject then
having to resolve the conflicts in the process of making a decision
(Smith, Johnson & Johnson, 1981). In combination,
these findings convincingly argue that he long-term impact of
group work will be much greater if group assignments go beyond
simply exposing learners to new information by requiring them
to actively engage in the use of higher-level cognitive skills.
Phrasing Assignments to Promote the Use of Higher-level
Cognitive Skills.
The degree to which assignments stimulate higher-level cognitive
skills (i.e., elaborative rehearsal) is largely a function of
what we ask students to "produce." For example, suppose
an English composition instructor wanted to ensure that his
or her students were able to recognize the effective use of
active vs. passive voice in written communication. Three alternative
versions of the assignment are shown in Figure 4 (see also Michaelsen,
Black & Fink, 1996).
In the examples shown in Figure 4, the order of the tasks reflects
the degree to which they would require the use of higher-level
cognitive skills. It is unlikely that alternative #1 would
stimulate higher-level thinking because students could "make-a-list"
by simply extracting items from one or more reference sources
and recording them in another location. Assignment #2 is considerably
better. Having to "make-a-choice" would require students
to examine critically the sentences in the sample passage and
use the criteria that define active vs. passive voice to identify
examples of active and passive voice. Alternative #3 would provide
the most practice using higher-level cognitive skills for two
reasons. First, students could not complete task #3 unless they
could also complete tasks #1 and #2. Second, as is typical of
"make-a-specific-choice" assignments, picking a single
best example of correct use of passive voice would require students
to use/develop a number of higher-level cognitive skills. At
a minimum, these would include making multiple comparisons and
discriminations, analysis of content information and, verification
of rule application (see Gagne, 1970).
Implications for Effective Group Assignments
Although "make-a-specific-choice" assignments (e.g.
Figure 4) are beneficial for individual students working alone,
they produce the greatest gains in conjunction with learning
groups. In part, this occurs because students/workshop participants
have an additional source of motivation to take the assignment
seriously. In addition, group interaction provides two additional
opportunities to stimulate active learning. One is during discussions
within the groups. The other occurs during subsequent class
discussions (i.e., between groups). Further, when used in a
group context, "Make-a-specific-choice" assignments
increase learning in each step of the process and set the stage
for greater learning in the next (see Figure 5).
Individual preparation for group work. As long as group
members are given the assignment as preparation for group work
(e.g. in the example from Figure 4, having everyone read the
same passage and select the sentence in which passive voice
is used most appropriately), having students make a specific
choice ensures that members will be individually far more accountable
(see above) for having engaged in higher-level thinking than
is the case with "make-a-list" assignments for three
reasons. First, learners have to use higher-level thinking skills
in order to make choices (e.g. see Gagne, 1970). Second, members
expect to be asked to share their choice with their group. Third,
they are also aware that, unless the group is in complete agreement,
the differences will be so evident that proponents of each of
the alternatives will almost certainly be asked to explain the
reasons behind their choices. As a result, "make-a-specific-choice"
assignments motivate most students/workshop participants to
enter the group discussion with a with a clearly defined position
and the ability to defend it (see figure 5).
Discussions within groups. The difference between "make-a-list"
and "make-a-specific-choice" assignments is even more
evident in intra-team discussion. Listing possibilities tends
to be a low energy team task for several reasons. One is that
a search for what should be on a list focuses on quantity rather
than quality. Another is that once several items go on the list,
it is easy for quieter and/or less self-assured participants
to get "off the hook" by saying that their ideas are
already listed. Finally, making a list seldom leads to a feeling
of pride in the group output because the majority of the items
are likely to be in common with other groups.
By contrast, when groups are asked to select a single best
choice based on specific criteria and know that other groups
have been given the same assignment, members are likely to engage
in an intense give-and-take discussion of why any given choice
is better than another. No one wants to be the only group to
have made a particular choice (e.g. which sentence is the best
example of the correct use of passive voice -- see Figure 4)
and not be able to present a clear and cogent rationale for
their position. As a result, most groups will engage in "make-a-specific-choice"
tasks with a great deal of energy and are also likely to be
willing and able to defend their choices.
Discussions between groups. Group assignments phrased
in "make-a-specific-choice" terms produce their greatest
gains in subsequent class discussions (i.e., between-groups).
Two of the benefits come from the simplicity of the output.
One is that they invariably promote group accountability
because any differences between groups are absolutely clear.
For example, an assignment that asked groups to select the single
best example of an appropriate use of passive voice (see Figure
4) would produce a much more productive class discussion than
an assignment that asked groups to identify examples of appropriate
use of active and passive voice (see Figure 4). Comparing "best
examples" is likely to produce a more intense and informative
discussion than either listing examples or the choice of a clear
example. When comparing "best examples," groups have
a vested interest in defending their position and the discussion
will focus on the reasons that one choice is better than another.
By contrast, group assignments that result in either lists
or non-specific choices often result in low-energy class discussion
and allow relatively poor group analyses to go unchallenged.
The lack of energy results from the fact that groups tend to
be far more interested in their own work than that of other
groups. Poor analysis often goes unchallenged because: 1) having
students/workshop participants either make a list or a non-specific
choice is likely to produce so much data that the task of finding
something to challenge can be quite difficult and, 2) the absence
of clear comparisons allows groups to overlook inconsistencies
in both their own and other groups' analyses.
Group cohesiveness. Another important benefit of properly
designed "make-a-specific-choice" group assignments
is their positive impact on cohesiveness. Because reaching consensus
on a difficult choice requires a great deal of thought and effort,
students/workshop participants intuitively realize that differences
between teams represent an important source of feedback. Thus,
because differences between team choices are so clear, they
represent a significant external threat. By contrast, "make-a-list"
assignments seldom promote group cohesiveness because the output
is poorly suited for inter-group comparisons. This becomes most
apparent when groups share the results of their discussions.
Even though groups generally do a pretty good job of making
lists, there is almost always a "nose-dive" in the
energy level when the groups "report" to the class.
In fact, simply getting students/workshop participants to pay
attention to each other as representatives go over each item
in their list can be a serious problem. Differences that groups
might otherwise take pride in and be motivated to defend, are
both obscured and diminished in significance by the sheer volume
of data.
Assignments that Facilitate Inter-group Comparisons.
There are two keys to ensuring that "make-a-specific choice"
assignments facilitate inter-group comparisons. One is keeping
the "output" as simple as possible. The other is organizing
the inter-group sharing process to minimize the amount of time
used in a lecture-like mode (i.e., a series of representatives
giving a report of what happened in their group).
For example, suppose a marketing instructor wanted to create
a "make-a-specific choice" assignment that would ensure
him or her that students understood the key variables that should
be considered in selecting a site upon which to locate a new
business. One way to word the assignment would be, "Select
what you think would be the ideal site to locate a new dry cleaning
establishment in _______ (i.e., filling in the name of a specific
city about which students could gain access to relevant data),
identify, and be prepared to explain the rationale for the single
most important site selection factor that led to your decision
(Michaelsen, Black & Fink, 1996) ."
Although the assignment involves making a specific choice,
the degree to which it would support inter-group comparisons
depends on both the specific "product" that was used
to represent their choice and the nature of the group reporting
process. One common approach would be to assign each of four
groups to make a 10-minute presentation revealing their chosen
location and the rationale for selecting it followed by a few
minutes for questions and class discussion.
Alternatively, the instructor could require students to come
to class having made their choice and, instead of using class
time for presentations, he or she could:
1) Give each group a post-it-note with their group number
on it, a felt-tipped marker and a legal-sized sheet of paper.
2) Allow 5-minutes to decide on and record their single
most important reason for their decision.
3) Require groups (after 5 minutes), to place their post-it
on their selected location on a city map attached to the
classroom wall.
4) Allow groups 10 minutes to formulate questions they
would like to ask the other groups.
5) Use the remainder of the class for questions and discussion.
In this example, the "post-it-note" version of the
assignment would provide far more explicit intergroup comparisons.
With presentations, the differences are obscured by three factors.
First, the sheer volume of data in three other 10-minute presentations
makes it difficult for students to keep track. Second, the relevant
facts are presented over a 40-minute span. As a result, the
key points will be temporally separated by far less significant
information. Third, since the groups are likely to use a variety
of presentation modes, establishing links between key ideas
is likely to seem like comparing apples and oranges. By contrast,
using the "post-it-note" approach ensures that, instead
of being overwhelmed with data, students are exposed to a simultaneous,
common, permanent, and highly visual representation of only
the essential data: 1) the proposed locations and 2) the foundation
of each group's rationale for their choice. Further, they have
a designated time to carefully process and digest the information
in an integrated way.
A Checklist for Effective Group Activities.
Probably the most important key in designing effective group
assignments is viewing the entire context within which they
will be used. This includes taking into account the developmental
level of the groups, individual preparation for group work,
discussions within groups, post-group class discussions, and
the extent to which the group will work together again. The
following checklist (see Figure 6) provides prompts for taking
these factors into account as you evaluate and or design group
assignments.
Making Good Group Assignments into Great Ones
Regardless of its primary intent, every learning activity affects
learning in two very different ways. First, the specific characteristics
of the activity determine how much active learning can be achieved
by its use. Second, each activity inherently fosters (or inhibits)
the peer interactions that have a major impact on team development.
Further, modifying an activity in an attempt to change the impact
on either dimension is likely to affect the other.
For example, we have an agronomist colleague who wants his
students to develop the ability to recognize the weeds that
commonly infest turf grass lawns in our region. Initially, he
used an assignment that required groups to "identify and
appropriately tag an example of each weed variety growing in
plot #1 [which he had laid out] on the lawn on the east side
of this building". The assignment worked quite well but,
he decided to modify the group portion of the activity in an
attempt to increase its value for building cohesiveness. The
revised assignment uses 5 plots (one for each group in the class)
and requires an additional 20 minutes to complete. During the
first 10 minutes the group members, working individually within
their team's plot, find and temporarily tag an example of each
weed variety. During the next 20 minutes, the groups: agree
on (and permanently tag) a sample of each weed variety in their
plot (and receive 10 points for each correctly tagged weed variety)
and, 2) prepare for a "weed finders challenge" (WFC).
During the WFC, groups have 5 minutes to examine each others'
plots and "challenge" incorrectly tagged weeds. If
their challenge is valid, they receive 10 bonus points but,
if the challenge is bogus, they lose 10 points to the group
who elicited the challenge.
Although the changes were modest in nature, they produced positive
changes in all four of the factors that affect group cohesiveness
(see Figure 2). The assignment now provides rewards for group
work (the opportunity to earn points for correctly tagging weeds
and extra points by successfully challenging other groups).
The assignment provides external comparison/feedback (by giving
other groups the opportunity to challenge each other). The assignment
produces high levels of group interaction (reaching consensus
on your own samples and preparing members to scout other plots).
Finally, the assignment promotes individual accountability on
both ends (individual tagging prior to group work and individuals
serving as scouts during the WFC). As a result, the assignment
is much more effective in building group cohesiveness. Groups
typically use the first half of their time to make sure they
have a correctly tagged sample of each weed variety. Then they
turn their attention to preparing for the WFC by: 1) preparing
members to scout for a potential challenge because they don't
have time to go to each of the other plots as a group and 2)
shifting their tags to atypical examples of the weed
varieties in an attempt to "set-up" other groups for
a bogus challenge.
Even though the impact on cohesiveness has been highly positive,
the impact on learning has been even greater. The knowledge
that they will have to work on their own causes group members
to be more serious about advance preparation. Thus, members
start out with a reasonably high level of understanding that
is further enhanced during the group discussions in preparation
for the weed finders' challenge. Nor does the learning end there.
Many of the students who have participated in the weed finders
challenge report that they can't have a picnic any more without
thinking about what kind of weeds are going to be covered by
their picnic blanket.
Energy -- the Acid Test for Effective Group Activities
Our colleague's experience with modifying the group assignment
for his agronomy class illustrates two key concepts about effective
group assignments. First, the best way to increase the effectiveness
of group assignments is to focus on increasing the extent to
which they build group cohesiveness. Assignments simply will
not increase group cohesiveness unless they produce a great
deal of task-focused energy. Thus, if you ask yourself the question,
"How can I change this assignment so that it will increase
group cohesiveness?" you are also asking, "How can
I change this assignment so that students/workshop participants
will commit a higher level of energy to this learning task?"
Second, the single best indicator of the effectiveness of a
group assignment is what happens when groups share the results
of their discussions with the class as a whole. The higher the
energy (i.e., the extent to which groups are interested in and
willing to spontaneously challenge each others thinking and
defend their own), the more confident you can be that: 1) they
have taken their group work seriously and 2) their ability to
tackle even more difficult learning tasks has been significantly
enhanced.
Conclusion
Overall, we hope that four messages have come through in this
paper. First, group activities and assignments can be a highly
effective tool for developing both students' mastery of basic
conceptual material and their higher-level thinking and problem
solving skills. Second, the vast majority of student or workshop
participants dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., social loafing,
one or two members dominating the discussion, etc.) and complaints
(e.g., having to carry the dead wood, the instructor isn't teaching,
etc.) are the result of bad assignments not bad learners.
Third, the key to designing effective group assignments is to
maximize the extent to which the learning tasks promote the
development of cohesive learning groups. Finally, the single
best way to gauge the effectiveness of group assignments is
the observe the level of energy that is present when the results
of the small group discussions are reported to the class as
a whole.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American
Psychologist, 48, 35-44.
Bargh J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits
of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74
(5), 593-604.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J, & Ronning, R. R. (1994).
Cognitive Psychology and instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cottell, P., Millis, B. J. & Engrave, R. W. ( 1996).
Cooperative learning techniques and teaching notes: Financial
accounting. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.
Craik, F. L. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1986) CHARM is not
enough: Comments on Eich's model of cued recall. Psychological
review, 93, 360-364.
Feldman, D. (1984). The development and enforcement of
group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47-53.
Gagne, R. M. (1970). The conditions for learning (2nd
Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Latane, B., Williams, K. and Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands
make light the work: The causes and consequences of social
loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 822-832.
Lazarowitz, R. (1991). Learning biology cooperatively:
An Israeli junior high school study. Cooperative Learning,
11 (3), 19-21.
Lazarowitz, R. and Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning
and student's self-esteem in tenth grade biology classrooms.
In Sharon, S. (ed.) Cooperative learning theory and research
(pp. 143-149). New York: Praeger Publishers.
Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes:
Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Michaelsen, L. K. (1992). Team learning: A comprehensive
approach for harnessing the poser of small groups in higher
education. In To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty,
Instructional and Organizational Development, 1992.
Wulff, D. H. & Nyquist, J. D. (Eds.). Stillwater, OK
: New Forums Press Co.
Michaelsen, L. K. & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning
teams: The key to harnessing the power of small groups in
higher education. In Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook
for Higher Education Vol. 2. State College, PA: National
Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Michaelsen, L. K., Black, R. H. & Fink, L. D. (1996).
What every faculty developer needs to know about learning
groups. In To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty,
Instructional and Organizational Development, 1996.
Richlin, L. (Ed.). Stillwater, OK : New Forums Press Co.
Michaelsen, L. K. , Jones, C. F. & Watson, W. E. (1993).
Beyond Groups and Cooperation: Building High Performance
Learning Teams. In To Improve the Academy: Resources
for Faculty, Instructional and Organizational Development,
1993. Wright, D. L & Lunde, J. P. (Eds.). Stillwater,
OK : New Forums Press Co.
Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E. & Black, R. H. (1989).
A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision
making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 834-839.
Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E. & Schraeder, C. B.
(1985). Informative testing: A practical approach for tutoring
with groups. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review,
9(4), 18-33.
Nungester, R. J. & Duchastel, P. C. (1982). Testing
versus review: Effects on retention. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(1), 18-22.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of
small group behavior (3rd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning (2nd Ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, K. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1981). Can
conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence
seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology,
73(5), 651-663.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K. & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993).
Cultural diversity's impact on group process and performance:
Comparing culturally homogeneous and culturally diverse
task groups. The Academy of Management Journal. 36(3),
590-602.
Watson, W. E., Michaelsen, L. K. & Sharp, W. (1991).
Member competence, group interaction and group decision-making:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76, 801-809.
