Achieving desirable group-work outcomes through the group allocation process

The Authors

Phil Kelly, Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider how to form and compose work-groups for teaching and learning in diverse classrooms comprising internationally mobile students.

Design/methodology/approach – This study uses survey data from 150 MBA students from 25 countries.

Findings – The way members are allocated to a group impacts on both affective and performance outcomes.

Originality/value – For educators and trainers, these results emphasize the importance of group allocation and composition methods for affective and performance outcomes.

Article Type:

Research paper

Keyword(s):

Group work; Multicultural societies; Overseas students.

Journal:

Team Performance Management

Volume:

Number:

1/2

Year:

2008

pp:

22-38

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

1352-7592

Introduction

Global mobility trends impact upon both the workplace and the classroom (Unesco, 2006; Appelbaum and Shapiro, 1998). The number of Internationally Mobile Students (IMS) – those who study in foreign countries where they are not permanent residents – has continued to grow over the past two decades. This has led to the “internationalisation, globalisation and commercialisation of tertiary education”. As a consequence of the internationalisation and globalisation of business, tertiary educators are expected to develop multicultural group working skills i.e. learners need to be taught how to work in diverse groups; skills such as problem solving, interpersonal, social and time management may be developed (see for example, Bradshaw, 1989, Lane and Distefano, 1992, Laughton and Ottewill, 2000, McGraw and Tidwell, 2001, Blease, 2006 and Hansen, 2006). Yet educators of all types are not ignorant of group work – long recognising it as a way of learning in its own right (see for example, Slavin, 1980, Kretovics, 1999, Biggs, 1999 and Hernandez, 2002). Thus there are two primary goals associated with group work in the context of tertiary education. On the one hand students must learn how to and on the other hand may learn through operating in a group; in summary there are two key arguments for the inclusion of group work in tertiary education programmes.

Global mobility trends affect the classroom by increasing the diversity of learners: students originate from different home countries, have varied cultural backgrounds; vary in age, experience and gender. Classroom diversity refers to a class characterized by people with different human qualities who belong to different cultural groups. This has consequences for group work within the classroom. Firstly, cultural theories of education suggest variation in learning styles and preferences (see for example, Hofstede, 1980; Pun, 1989; Johnson, 1991; Jarrah, 1998; Rodrigues et al., 2000). This may lead a student from one country to favour group work and seek control over learning activities whilst another may prefer more traditional techniques where the teacher takes control over learning. Indeed the OECD (2005) call for the need for educators to be culturally sensitive. However, adapting learning styles and teaching to individual preferences has frequently been criticised (Coffield et al., 2004 and Felder, 1996). Secondly, a heterogeneous class is likely to result in multicultural groups. Scholars have argued positive and negative performance impacts in such cases. On the one hand there may be cognitive process benefits (McLeod and Lobel, 1992); diverse groups have been associated with creativity, able to consider a greater range of perspectives, generating high quality solutions. On the other hand, members may find integration and communication difficult (Appelbaum and Shapiro, 1998). Watson et al. (1993) suggest that diversity in ethnic background may have negative effects early in a group's life; members face greater interpersonal differences, have lower levels of initial attraction and must overcome communication barriers. Such problems may have a bearing upon student motivation, absenteeism, progression and retention. In summary, student mobility leads to a more diverse and heterogeneous class, itself a potential source of conflict and creativity; presenting arguments for and against group work.

The changes described thus far create a new environment in the classroom which requires a change in approach to teaching and the use of group work in particular. Individuals from different racial and ethnic backgrounds will need to work together in a shared classroom. If this is to be a positive experience, tutors must make decisions to assure goals are met. This article will explore the application of group work in multicultural adult teaching environments. Aside from confronting the problem of whether to include group work, cultural theories may determine important associated decisions such as who should allocate members to groups, how should the process operate and how should the resultant group be structured. In the next section alternative group allocation processes and group structures are considered, with reference to the literature. Following this, an empirical study into the use of group work in a specific multicultural programme (the MBA) is described and findings presented.

Literature

Despite having different tasks, most group activities subscribe to the same basic model – groups are formed, they perform a task(s) and then disband. The way they are formed, their structure and the outcomes of group work are discussed here.

Group allocation process

Like selecting a football team, the coach (educator) or players (learners) may select the team (group members). Students may be given the authority to select their own group members (Blease, 2006) or this activity may be undertaken for them by the tutor (Hernandez, 2002). It is generally assumed that the former approach is more subjective, based on emotions whilst the latter approach may be more objective. Tutors, possibly enabled by technology, may use heuristics (Koppenhaver and Shrader, 2003 and Baker and Powell, 2002), the alphabet or random (Sharan and Sharan, 1992) approaches to selection. Whereas heuristics may use algorithms scientifically, to spread traits proportionately and thus create diverse groups, random selection is seen as a means to give everyone an equal chance of working together. Other scholars (Mahenthiran and Rouse, 2000) have proposed hybrid approaches, distributing power and control of the process between students and tutors.

The group allocation process has important consequences. Firstly and directly, it determines the distribution of various structural variables within the group i.e. how many males or females there may be, their age, ability and nationality. Secondly and indirectly it impacts upon group cohesion and cooperative structures – the extent to which group members pull together. However, it may be argued that the group work goal should determine the preferred allocation method. If the goal is to learn how to work in groups and prepare students for the workplace then an argument may be proposed for tutor selection as, in many cases, a manager may be responsible for selecting a business team. However, if the goal is to enable students to learn through work in groups, then a tutor may be more concerned with affective outcomes and motivation, thus favouring student control of group formation. Control in the classroom concerns the authority structure and may be culturally determined as identified earlier. Many Eastern cultures typically leave control to those who are deemed to know best i.e. the tutor. In summary there are several ways to approach the allocation process and such methods may be determined by the goal and by culture.

Group structure

Over the past two decades several core structural variables such as group size, gender, ability, personality, nationality, age and experience have been researched and their impact upon performance ascertained. Researchers have argued that variability in age can create conflict within workgroups, due to differences in training and experience which lead workers of different ages to disagree with one another about their jobs. The available evidence suggests that in mixed gender groups (see gender heterogeneity), males are:

more active and influential than females;
more likely than females to engage in agentic activities (giving opinions and suggestions) but less likely to engage in communal activities; and
more concerned than females about resolving issues such as status, power and wealth (see Levine and Moreland, 1990, Koppenhaver and Shrader, 2003, Joiner et al., 1999 and Bennett and Cass, 1989).

Grouping on the basis of past performance has also been tried with varying success, Blease (2006). The abilities of group members are the focus of many studies on the effects of group composition. Most of these studies reflect a desire to create successful groups by selecting people who can work together productively (Bennett and Cass, 1989). Blease (2006) asks whether there is such a thing as an optimum group size. Gibbs (1992) suggests groups should be no larger that six because they are “ … cumbersome and difficult to manage [and they] are also easy for lazy students to hide in”. There are also coordination problems and motivation losses associated with larger groups (Levine and Moreland, 1990). Koppenhaver and Shrader (2003) discuss team size and the degree of interaction between members. Not only is it more difficult to coordinate the efforts of the team as membership grows, but efforts may increase as individual contributions lose value in team decisions; the need to create effective cooperative structures is argued by Hernandez (2002). Reduced effort may go unnoticed as team size increases, creating an incentive to free ride on the efforts of others (see social loafing). Given the issues of age, gender and home country diversity, the impact of ability and other variables it might therefore be prudent to ask how groups formed from adult multicultural classes should be structured and why.

Group outcomes

Whereas groups can outperform individual effort it takes time for them to develop the necessary structure to perform. Group-structure variables such as stage-of-development (Tuckman, 1965) and cohesiveness may be seen as preconditions for group performance argues Koppenhaver and Shrader (2003). The outcomes of cooperative learning techniques fall mainly into two categories: academic achievement (performance) and group cohesiveness i.e. cooperative learning techniques can achieve both cognitive and affective goals, Slavin (1980); performance refers to individual and group productivity whereas cohesiveness includes such variables as liking of others, feeling of being liked, group evaluation and race relations. Group performance is the process and outcome of member's joint efforts to achieve a collective goal or “the collective pursuit of a particular end”. Cohesion is about group solidarity and sense of community. Members of cohesive groups are more likely to talk and collaborate. Cohesion may be measured in many ways, for example, by asking people to describe their personal feelings about a group and its members; cohesion is stronger in groups whose members like one another. Many studies suggest that cohesion affects group performance (Levine and Moreland, 1990). Groups that do not pull together, at the other end of a continuum, may be categorised by conflict; conflict may have serious negative consequences such as interpersonal hostility and a reduced performance (Appelbaum and Shapiro, 1998).

Thus far we have identified a range of general theories concerning group work. However, what is lacking is a study of the impact of group allocation methods and related matters in the context of the tertiary multicultural classroom. Such a study is described next.

Method

A key focus of this study is the group allocation process and its consequences. Questionnaires were used (see Appendix) to collect data from a multicultural class for the following variables: demographic data, national culture dimensions, perceptions of teaching/ learning methods, personal experience of each teaching/learning techniques, group allocation beliefs and post semester group-work experience. Data was also collected about performance (group and individual assessment) outcomes. Constructs such as “culture” and “teaching techniques” were operationalised using previously tried and tested instruments (see Hofstede, 1980; Rodrigues, 2004). Data collection took place between September 2006 and April 2007. In total there were (n=158) participants from UK MBA programmes. The study sample came from two types of MBA programme (executive and international), however much of the international sample were typically aged 21-25 with limited work experience and came from a variety of countries (n=25).

The questionnaire was used to establish respondent characteristics, teaching preferences and experiences. Respondents were questioned about their preferred group allocation process, both pre and post course (module). To determine affective outcomes, respondents were asked about their experience of group work upon completion of group activities and the module. Respondents were posed several affective questions, such as whether they liked the group activities (Q1), whether the group work provided variety (Q3) and helped with friendship development (Q5). Respondents were also asked whether they felt the group work required proven interpersonal skills (Q4) and whether they, personally, felt in-control whilst working within the group (Q6). Q8 measured the degree to which a respondent felt the group influenced their effort on group tasks. Having experienced group work (through self-selected group members) we also asked if they considered the team selection process to be fair (Q7) and how much they felt they learned as a result of the group work (Q9). Further data was collected from respondents' assessed group assignment work, presenting measurements of performance outcomes. Data was then categorised and analysed.

Analysis and findings

Data was collected in the manner described, coded and entered into a table for analysis using SPSS. In this section we focus mainly on two levels of analysis: individual and student-group. We examine relationships between variables, determining which, if any, variables are significantly associated, the strengths of relationship between variables and also investigate whether certain groups are significantly different or not. For example, we examine whether heterogeneous (diverse) outperform homogenous student-groups and whether students from such groups are more or less satisfied as a result of their group study experience. With regard to the group allocation process, respondent preference for control was investigated. Respondents were asked to indicate their preference over control of learning – should control be with the lecturer or student. The mean and modal response lay between the two points i.e. students wanted shared control of learning. A significant relationship[1] was observed between uncertainty avoidance, a dimension of national culture, and desired control over learning (−0.291*); Students valuing certainty prefer teachers to control their study; students from higher power distance countries (Hofstede, 1980) are more likely to encounter autocratic teachers at home. At the beginning of the course, almost one in two students preferred to be allocated to a group through decision rules that assured groups were diverse – containing a mix of ability, nationality, gender, age and personality. Surprisingly, few preferred to select their own groups and even fewer favoured teacher selection. It would seem this cohort did not want to be randomly or subjectively allocated but “scientifically” allocated to a group. More than 75 per cent, three in four respondents changed their views as to how students should be allocated to groups after they had experienced group work on the MBA programme i.e. by the end of the first semester. Prior to commencing studies, respondents favoured an algorithmic selection process. In such a method, a rational formula is used to allocate students to groups in order to mix students fairly and create a diverse team. Whilst this method remained popular, following the group work experience, respondents favoured autonomy, wanting to select their own groups. Overall, with the passage of a semester, respondents were less dependent on the tutor for group allocation.

With regard to group structure, a significant relationship was observed between country diversity and assessment outcome (0.572*); diverse groups, having worked closely together for several weeks, outperformed homogenous groups, t(15)=3.004, p<0.01 (2-tailed). However, gender diversity (homogenous and heterogeneous gender groups) did not impact significantly upon assessment outcome. With regard to individual ability, it was found that where there were more capable individuals in a group, the group performance was better. Measurements were taken that semester to show the individual assessment score for the best group member, (Best ind); the average of the best two individuals (Avg top 2 ind); the average ability of the whole group (Avg ind ability) and the actual group assessment score, itself an average of two assessed components (a presentation and a written reflection report) (Av gp sc). The total number of students in the sample was 140, making the (N) groups of 31. The items associated with (Av gp sc) were explored using correlation analysis and significant (p <.01) relationships observed with the following variables: (Best Ind) (0.498**), (Avg top 2 Ind) (0.515**) and (Avg Ind ability) (0.530**). The results suggest that placing more capable individuals in a group leads to a better group performance. However, a single more able individual is likely to have a significant impact upon group performance. Their effect is simply enhanced by the presence of further, able students.

Subsequent analysis identified many correlations between items Q1-Q9. Consequently the data was reduced using factor analysis. Three components[2] were identified through the use of the principal components factor analysis technique: C1 – labelled “Group Allocation Process” (Gp_formation_process in Table I) was based on a single item, question 7. The question measured respondent's perception of the fairness of the group selection process; C2 – labelled “Group Cohesion” was based on three items, questions 3, 5 and 6. A group cohesion score was determined from the sum of the respondent's selection. The aspects of cohesion were based on bonding (friendship) and a perception of control i.e. the degree to which an individual felt able to influence the group and C3 – labelled “Affective Outcomes” was based on three items, questions 1, 2 and 9. An affective Outcomes score was determined from the sum of the respondent's selection. Aspects of Affective outcome derived from measurements of personal enjoyment of group activities; a belief in their value to the course and the attribution of learning to the group work by respondents. A fourth component, group motivated effort, was formed from the single item represented by question 8, “How much influence did the group that you were assigned to have on the amount of effort you put forth on the group projects?”. The data was further analysed and scores computed for the factors listed. To identify relationships/correlations the factor scores and the actual group assessment scores (group presentation and report) were then analysed (see Table I). Significant relationships were used to construct a relationship model (see Figure 1).

Respondents liked the group activities and felt they added value to the MBA course. Group members felt their work depended upon an ability to work with others and that group activities had provided an opportunity to develop friendships with other students on the course. The way groups are selected has significant impact upon affective outcomes. This is important not only because we want students to enjoy group work as a learning method but also because of the relationship of affective outcomes with effort and performance. The data suggests the more a student considered the group selection process to be fair, the greater the affective outcome. Interestingly a significant relationship between affective outcomes and performance outcomes was observed.

Discussion and conclusions

This study was essentially targeted at new problems associated with managing heterogeneous post-graduate learning groups holding diverse pedagogical preferences and the resultant challenges for the tutor in selecting and using appropriate learning techniques and teaching models. In particular, the research focused on the use of group work in the multicultural classroom. Primary aims of the study were to address the related problems of whether, when and how to use, form and structure groups for teaching and learning in the multicultural context:

Should group work be used as a teaching and learning method? – The adoption problem;
Who and how should groups be formed? – The allocation problem; and
How should student work groups be structured? – The structural problem.

Arguments may be made for and against the adoption of group work in the context of the multicultural tertiary classroom. Arguments for group work stem from industry – a need to prepare students for the workplace – the transferable skill argument, and general learning process theory – the teaching argument – whilst arguments against stem from culture-based theories of education. Group or team work not only benefits employee work but also presents an active mechanism for teaching and learning (Slavin, 1980) and motivating students (Biggs, 1999, p. 87). Contrary to many previous articles suggesting Eastern learners prefer passive-like techniques, this study found no significant difference in preference for Active-like or Passive-like techniques when contrasting eastern and western students studying in the UK. Given the large proportion of students from Eastern countries it was surprising to find no student showing preference for the traditional lecturer; rather, the preferred lecturer style (mode) was one that mainly involved students and gave some control over their learning experience. The IMS may not be typical of their home-country culture; the counter arguments put forward by culture-based-theories of education are less applicable when students leave their home country in search of education in another country. Culture based theory argues for the tailoring of teaching to student preference. However, many respected scholars and studies do not believe that we should tailor teaching to preference. Felder (1996) recognises that whilst teaching exclusively to a student's preferred learning style might be desirable to the student in the immediate term, as a consequence the student may not develop the mental dexterity needed to reach their potential for achievement in school and as professionals; the workplace requires professionals to make use of all learning style modes. Consequently, he argues that “an objective of education should thus be to help students build their skills in both their preferred and less preferred modes of learning”. Felder (1993) discusses learning/teaching style mismatches, “the point, however, is not to determine each student's learning style and then teach to it exclusively but simply to address each side of each learning style dimension at least some of the time”. However, the relationship between culture (the uncertainty avoidance and power distance dimensions in particular) and the authority structure of the classroom should inform decisions about how groups are initially formed. Certain cultures prefer the tutor, through objective means, to allocate members to groups. This may only be a significant issue at commencement of studies, however.

Having determined that group work should be adopted then there are arguments for and against a variety of alternative group allocation methods. In the literature review we explored the ways in which students may be allocated to groups see Mahenthiran and Rouse (2000), Hansen (2006), Connerley and Mael (2001) and Muller (1989). Whilst certain scholars argued in favour of instructor- assigned teams, see Koppenhaver and Shrader (2003) and Hernandez (2002), Blease (2006) suggests that student-self-selection is the most common method of group formation. However, others have argued that Professor-selected teams more closely match the workplace, in which supervisors place workers in teams rather than allowing self-selection. Sharan and Sharan (1992) are advocates of random grouping, believing that all students are equally valuable. Mahenthiran and Rouse (2000) concluded that the best group selection is to pair friends and then combine them to form groups rather than randomly assigning students to groups. Despite student self-allocation being the most common approach, at the beginning of the MBA it was found that almost one in two students preferred to be allocated to a group through decision rules (a scientific approach) that assure groups are diverse – containing a mix of ability, nationality, gender, age and personality. Surprisingly, few preferred to select their own groups and even fewer favoured teacher selection. It would seem that, initially, students do not want to be randomly or subjectively allocated but “scientifically” allocated to a group. With consideration to the specific findings of this study and theories and arguments presented within the literature a shared allocation process with shared control over group allocation is favoured here. The mixed pair approach suggested by Mahenthiran and Rouse (2000) has merit; such an approach achieves student-buy-in, higher initial cohesion resulting in quicker productivity and helps provide all students with a favourable team experience through an equitable approach. Students should select a partner to form a pair and the tutor should then combine pairs to meet country and gender diversity goals. Consequently, such an allocation process is commensurate with business experience goals i.e. a need to work in multicultural and diverse groups. This approach should mitigate the risks associated with teacher intervention in the allocation process. With too much intervention there is the risk of the potential for students to blame tutors for poor performance.

Like football, arguments about who should select the team have been considered here: the coach or the players and how they should make choices – random, value based or rationally (scientific). In this final section the structure or composition of the team (group) will be considered. Is there a need for “clever” people, men or women, etc. in the group and should the group be composed of similar or different students (homogenous or diverse). Students vary in many ways and their variation may be used in grouping. The structure of the multicultural group is important. In particular, ability and cultural diversity play key roles. Over the course of a semester, the diverse group outperforms the homogenous group when performance through group assessment is considered.

Group structure (composition) may also have other consequences. Mahenthiran and Rouse (2000) citing (Daly and Kreiser, 1992) suggest that one of the reasons for low academic performance and college “drop-out” is the minimum interaction of students with their peers and faculty. The way groups are selected has significant impact upon affective outcomes. This is important not only because students should enjoy group work as a learning method but also because of the relationship of affective outcomes with effort and performance. The data suggests the more a student considered the group selection process to be fair, the greater the affective outcome; a significant relationship exists between affective outcomes and performance outcomes.

In conclusion, it can be argued that globalisation results in an increase in IMS and changes the adult classroom environment for many university and similar courses in different parts of the world. This has a bearing upon arguments for the use and goals of group work in the multicultural classroom. Culture and group work goals affect methods used to allocate students to groups and the structure of such groups. Care must be taken with such decisions as they determine both affective and performance outcomes. Such outcomes in turn will impact upon key education metrics such as student progression and retention through variables such as student attendance and motivation.

Future research

Whilst the findings of this research build on existing studies, gaps remain in our knowledge of multicultural group work in adult education. Educators and trainers need to learn how to manage more heterogeneous workgroups in the classroom. Research on heterogeneity in groups suggests that diversity offers both a great opportunity as well as an enormous challenge. Diversity appears to be a double-edged sword, increasing the opportunity for creativity as well as the likelihood that group members will be dissatisfied and fail to identify with the group. Diversity creates difficulty for groups due to significant differences in ways of thinking and behaving. Differences can create serious coordination and communication difficulties for groups. A group that is diverse could be expected to have members who may have had significantly different experiences and, therefore, significantly different perspectives on key issues or problems. Initially, homogeneous groups report significantly more effective processes and tend to perform better than diverse groups. Research suggests that diversity may have negative effects on individual and group outcomes early in a group's life, presumably because it takes some time for group members to get over their differences. However, after this stage, once a certain level of behavioural integration has been achieved, groups may be able to obtain benefits from the greater variety of perspectives inherent within a diverse group. The emphasis of this study was on the consequences of the group allocation process in diverse classroom environments. This study did not consider how adult learners actually interact in their contrived multicultural groups, particularly during the forming stage, a matter which lends itself to rich qualitative study. Such study may present useful guidelines that help make multicultural group-work a success in teaching and learning environments from a cohesion viewpoint.

Figure 1Relationship model