Team Formation Methods for Increasing Interaction During InClass Group Work

1
Team Formation Methods for Increasing Interaction
During In-Class Group Work

• Katherine Deibel
• Computer Science Engineering
• University of Washington
• Seattle, Washington, USA

2
In-class group work

• Break up into groups and discuss this problem
  for the next 10 minutes.
• Short duration 5 20 minutes
• Simple, direct way to incorporate active learning
  
• Students typically select their own groups

Assigning groups can lead to greater student
interaction and learning
3
Outline

• Argument For Assigning Teams for
• In-Class Group Work
• How to Assign In-Class Teams
• Desired Traits for In-Class Teams
• The Latent Jigsaw Method
• Forming Teams Through Learning Styles
• Conclusions

4
Collaborative learning

• Large body of literature
• Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods
• Clarke, 1994
• Cooperation and the use of technology
• Johnson Johnson, 1996
• Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates
  in SMET A Meta-Analysis
• Springer et al., 1999
• Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning
• Felder Brent, 2001

5
Why group work is good

• Great pedagogical value Springer et al., 1999
• Directly engages the learner with the material
• Exposes students to different ideas
• Promotes peer-teaching
• Socialization boosts level of information
  processing
• Student-to-student interaction is key!

6
Interaction and Learning

• Interaction is correlated with learning.
• Tutorial dialogue study Core et al., 2003
• More utterances by a student led to greater
  learning gains.
• Passive listening less effective

7
The ideal goal of group work

• In the time allotted, each and every student
  should be motivated and comfortable enough to
  converse and interact with his or her group.

8
How to guarantee interaction

• The literature suggests assigning groups
• Gives an instructor better control of student
  interactions
• Certain group designs can promote interaction.
• Haller et al., 2000 Oakley et al., 2004
• However
• Most literature on assigning groups looks only at
  long-term group projects.

9
Risks of student-selected teams
Regarding long-term group projects Haller et
al., 2000 Oakley et al., 2004

• Teams tend to form around friendships.
• Less exposure to different ideas
• Greater chance of undesirable behaviour
• Isolation of under-represented minorities
• Can increase sense of loneliness
• Non-participation or purely passive roles likely

These risks apply to in-class group work too!!!
10
Summary of argument

• Interaction is key to effective group work.
• Student-selected teams are not guaranteed to
  encourage the right forms of interaction.
• Assigning teams allows the instructor to address
  threats to interaction.
• Therefore
• Assigning in-class teams can be beneficial by
  promoting and guaranteeing student interaction.

11
Outline

• Argument For Assigning Teams for
• In-Class Group Work
• How to Assign In-Class Teams
• Desired Traits for In-Class Teams
• The Latent Jigsaw Method
• Forming Teams Through Learning Styles
• Conclusions

12
Desired Traits for In-Class Teams

• Immediate productivity
• Focus on students discussing the problem
• Deemphasize the need to learn how to work
  together
• Barker, 2005
• Uniform participation
• Create a group atmosphere that encourages every
  member to contribute
• Efficiently use the allotted time

13
Outline

• Argument For Assigning Teams for
• In-Class Group Work
• How to Assign In-Class Teams
• Desired Traits for In-Class Teams
• The Latent Jigsaw Method
• Forming Teams Through Learning Styles
• Conclusions

14
The Original Jigsaw Method

• Promotes peer-teaching by making each member in
  charge of educating the rest of the group
• Developed by Eliot Aronson (1971)
• http//www.jigsaw.org

15
Original Jigsaw Method Example
Portuguese Culture
Expert Groups
Learning Groups
Time
16
Jigsaws learning groups

• Immediate Productivity
• Learning group has a set agenda of peer
  teaching.
• Uniform Participation
• Each member must teach his or her peers.

17
The latent jigsaw method

• Original jigsaw method is time consuming.
• Expert group stage requires students to master
  the material.
• Idea of the latent jigsaw method
• Use students pre-existing knowledge to
  determine expertise
• Avoid requiring mastery of a topic

18
The latent jigsaw in action
Open-Ended Question A C B D
Shuffle
19
Observations from piloting

• Students had a personal stake in the peer
  teaching process.
• Contagious enthusiasm
• Critical thinking evident
• Students could discuss pros and cons about all
  the choices.
• Some students admitted changing their opinion of
  the best answer.

20
Outline

• Argument For Assigning Teams for
• In-Class Group Work
• How to Assign In-Class Teams
• Desired Traits for In-Class Teams
• The Latent Jigsaw Method
• Forming Teams Through Learning Styles
• Conclusions

21
Learning styles and Group Work

• Learning Style
• A set of behaviours preferred by a person for
  learning.
• Using styles for grouping is not a new idea
• Business management Bridges, 2000
• Engineering Education Jensen et al., 2000

22
Learning styles and IGWS

• Felder-Silverman Learning Styles
• Developed for science engineering students
• Students completed an online Felder-Silverman
  Learning Style Inventory for homework.
• Reflective / Active axis
• Describes ones approach to problem-solving
• Reflective learners think silently before
  offering a solution or starting an experiment.
• Active learners brainstorm out loud and try out
  new ideas.

23
Forming teams

• Members of a team should have similar Reflective
  / Active scores
• Immediate productivity
• Members in a group will start the solution
  process in a similar way.
• Uniform participation
• Similar thinking styles provide a comfortable,
  familiar atmosphere to work in.

24
Observations from piloting

• Groups clearly identifiable by their behaviours
• Reflective groups quiet for first few minutes
• Active groups immediately started brainstorming
  out loud.
• Evidence of participation by everyone
• Students confident in explaining ideas regardless
  of classroom persona
• Students verbally supportive of team members

25
Conclusions

• Assigning teams for in-class group work can be
  beneficial.
• The classroom atmosphere changed
• Greater student participation and interaction
• More enthusiasm
• More time on task
• Etc.
• The results are preliminary future study is
  needed.

26
A final thought

• Student opinions of in-class group work
• changed for the positive.
• Survey at the start of the term
• 53 negative about in-class group work
• Voluntary feedback at the end of the term
• 1 out of 27 negative about in-class group work
• Rest of responses positive and detailed

27
A special thanks to

• The faculty and students involved
• Steve Wolfman and Ken Yasuhara for all their
  advice and insights
• For more information, please contact
• deibel_at_cs.washington.edu
• http//www.cs.washington.edu/homes/deibel

28
Setting and context

• 4-year, large public university
• Teaching assistant for Data Structures
• Recitation sections
• Meets once a week
• 15-35 students (average)
• Students discussed open-ended questions involving
  the application of data structures
• Taught two terms
• First term students self-selected groups
• Second term students assigned to groups

29
What about cost?

• For in-class group work, assigning teams is not
  worth the time nor the expense Oakley et al.,
  2004
• Rebuttal
• Repeated use amortizes the cost
• Team formation methods should be low cost