university students' attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation

http://alh.sagepub.com/Active Learning in Higher Education

http://alh.sagepub.com/content/11/1/9The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1469787409355867

2010 11: 9Active Learning in Higher EducationCinnamon Hillyard, Diane Gillespie and Peter Littig

participationUniversity students' attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Active Learning in Higher EducationAdditional services and information for

http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://alh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://alh.sagepub.com/content/11/1/9.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 9, 2010Version of Record >>

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 5, 2014alh.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 5, 2014alh.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://alh.sagepub.com/

http://alh.sagepub.com/content/11/1/9

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://alh.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://alh.sagepub.com/content/11/1/9.refs.html

http://alh.sagepub.com/content/11/1/9.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Article

Corresponding author:Cinnamon Hillyard, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences Program, University of Washington Bothell, 18115 Campus Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011–8246, USA.Email: [email protected]

Active Learning in Higher Education11(1) 9–20

© The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermission.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1469787409355867 http://alh.sagepub.com

University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation

Cinnamon Hillyard, Diane Gillespie and Peter LittigUniversity of Washington Bothell, USA

AbstractThis study examined the frequency of small groups in university students’ coursework and how that related to their general attitudes toward learning in groups and their views about different aspects of group work. We administered a survey to 208 students in an upper-division interdisciplinary arts and sciences program. Students reported that they had been in multiple groups, of different duration and types, both in their current program and in courses at their lower-division institutions. A regression analysis uncovered strong relationships between students’ past and present group experiences, peers, and instructor clarity about group purpose. The findings suggest that successful group work is no longer a matter of instructor effort but requires campus initiatives and interdepartmental coordination if students are to understand and experience the benefits of learning in small groups.

Keywordsactive learning, frequency of groups, small groups, university students’ attitudes

Experiences of small group workUniversity students have increasingly been required to engage actively in their classes, often through participating in small groups. Yet, given this increased frequency, few studies have exam-ined students’ attitudes about their group work across their undergraduate courses. To investigate students’ experiences, a group of faculty in an upper-division interdisciplinary arts and sciences program, where small groups are frequently used, undertook a qualitative research project (Gillespie et al., 2006a; Gillespie et al., 2006b) designed to elicit student descriptions about their small group work and faculty perceptions about their use of groups to engage students in active learning.

Seventeen students reported in in-depth interviews that they had been in multiple groups and had had mixed, mostly negative, experiences in them. All but one stated that they had had difficulty transforming their negative group experiences into positive ones. Reporting little about what they had learned, they described interpersonal dynamics gone awry, which their instructors had told them they were responsible for correcting. They used a plethora of labels for group participants around dimensions of dominance/passivity (for example, bossy, deadweight), maturity/immaturity

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 5, 2014alh.sagepub.comDownloaded from


10 Active Learning in Higher Education 11(1)

(for example, wise one, kid) and conscientiousness/disengagement (for example, hard worker, slacker). In short, they had become savvy at stereotyping their classmates. They had participated in multiple groups under conditions that produced anxiety: hasty formation under pressure to accomplish tasks, sometimes not clearly related to their learning.

Faculty members’ descriptions of their classroom groups differed from students’. For example, none recognized the considerable struggle students had in determining how the task would be car-ried out. The faculty interviewed had not been trained formally in leading small groups nor had they read the research literature on small groups. Rather, their expertise resulted from some infor-mal reading and their own experimentation. All seemed to be aware of the zeitgeist around active learning and group work in our program and throughout higher education. Implicit in their view of group work was a general belief that students were gaining valuable experiences in groups across the curriculum. They seemed to assume that experience alone would increase students’ skills and abilities to learn in groups.

Troubled by the disjunction between faculty and student discourses about groups, we conducted a follow-up survey to see if the attitudes of the students interviewed about learning in groups were representative of the program’s student body. The only study that paralleled those of Gillespie et al. (2006a, b) was one conducted with engineering students (Colbeck et al., 2000). These students reported that they had learned from their past experiences to make group work relevant to their learning, yet they also reported that their instructors had not helped them to make their group work more meaningful.

Literature reviewThe frequent use of small groups in institutions of higher education is not surprising given the empirical and theoretical research that overwhelmingly supports the worth of active engagement for increased learning and development of higher-order cognitive skills, such as problem solving and critical thinking (Johnson et al., 1991; Slavin et al., 1995, 1996; Springer et al., 1999). No longer the domain of professional schools where active learning has been carried out for decades, active learning is now advocated in training programs for doctoral students and by teaching and learning centers across the country in many disciplines (Jungst et al., 2003). Cooperative (team-based) groups are one way that instructors can engage students (Michaelsen, 1992; Michaelsen and Black, 1994; Michaelsen et al., 1994; Michaelsen et al., 2002; Millis, 2006; Millis and Cottell, 1998). Typical of the findings of this research, Felder and Brent (1996), for example, conclude that group work ‘enhances motivation to learn, retention of knowledge, depth of understanding, and appreciation of the subject being taught’ (p. 43).

Although there is an extensive literature on the benefits of small group learning and descriptions of the characteristics of functional groups (Millis and Cottell, 1998; Michaelsen et al., 1997), the ways in which students are making sense of their multiple group experiences across courses have been far less studied than their experiences in a single class (Lake, 2001; Livingstone and Lynch 2000; Machemer and Crawford, 2007). Unless instructors devote instructional time to teaching about group work, students are not aware of the empirical and theoretical research that supports group learning and are not privy to the reasons why their instructors choose one approach over another (Springer et al., 1999).

The results of the studies on university students’ attitudes toward groups have been mixed, but several identify common sources of dissatisfaction. Phipps et al. (2001) surveyed sophomore, junior, and senior students from four different disciplines and found that students rated the effec-tiveness of specific techniques related to small group learning, such as interpersonal small group



Hillyard et al. 11

skills, much more positively than cooperative learning in general, which was rated negatively. Liden et al. (1985) found that students were generally positive about groups, especially about the chance to meet new students. They found, however, differences between faculty and students, with the students more negative about the value of learning that took place in group projects. Feichtner and Davis (1984–85) surveyed upper-division students in communication and business courses at two major southwestern universities about different types of group composition, grading, and tasks. Students reported negative experiences with groups that were too large, had too many class presentations or too little in-class time to meet, had little effect on their grades, and were not clearly relevant to the course. Machemer and Crawford (2007) found that students valued cooperative learning less than they did traditional lecture or other forms of active learning; they valued most what they perceived to be related to improving their performance on examinations.

Other research (Liden et al., 1985; Lizzio and Wilson, 2005; Payne and Monk-Turner, 2006) has shown that undergraduate students complained most frequently about workload distribution (that is, free loading) and management problems. Lizzio and Wilson (2005) found that, even if groups were given help when they function poorly, the students’ attitudes and perceptions remained nega-tive. Forrest and Miller’s (2003) results suggested that dissatisfaction from bad group experiences influenced students’ future group work. Boekaerts (2002) surveyed university sophomore educa-tion majors about their high-school experiences and found that previous group experiences, per se, did not have a relationship to students’ beliefs about the benefits of groups although their percep-tions of how teachers directed and assessed groups did. These studies find some positive student views of group work, but they also show that students have negative perceptions about different dimensions of groups. There is some consensus that aspects of bad past group experiences nega-tively relate to future group experiences and that, for students to gain from group participation, instructors must take into account students’ previous group experiences.

The present study contributes to the literature on students’ perceptions towards groups by examining the attitudes of students in an upper-division interdisciplinary arts and sciences program in which groups are frequently used. Students also had group experiences in their courses in their lower-division institutions (mainly community colleges). Against this backdrop, this study had three aims. First we determined the frequency and types of groups that students have participated in, both in our upper-division interdisciplinary arts and sciences program and in their courses in their lower-division institutions (mainly community colleges). Second, we evaluated students’ views about their overall group participation, across classes, including their attitudes about the value of learning in groups and which aspects of groups fostered or hindered their learning and development. This feature of our study is unique in that we measured their general orientation to group work based on their overall assessment of multiple group experiences. Finally, we inves-tigated the relationship between their attitudes to groups in general and their attitudes to past group experience, peers at our institution, instructors’ skills in setting up groups, and group struc-ture and composition. We also examined relationships with the typical demographic variables such as gender and age.

MethodologySettingThe study took place in an interdisciplinary arts and sciences program, the largest of five programs on a branch campus of a northwest research university in the United States. Students transfer into the program from a variety of community colleges and universities to complete their bachelor’s degree. The program’s courses encourage interdisciplinary inquiry, effective writing and speaking,




critical thinking and problem solving, and collaboration and shared leadership. Program instructors are known for their interactive pedagogy, and report using small groups as part of their approach to engaged teaching and learning. Many program instructors have won awards for their teaching. The program offers a two-credit course on small groups once a year, but only a small number of program students take it.

What makes this setting especially relevant for the study of student attitudes toward small groups is that program instructors have developed their small group pedagogy independently. Instructors are largely unaware of the nature and frequency of group practices in other courses. In this way the setting is similar to arts and sciences colleges where instructors are likely to be unaware of their students’ group experiences across the curriculum.

The surveyWe constructed a survey designed to gather demographic and academic information about program students and to investigate their attitudes toward learning in small groups. We pre-tested survey items with undergraduate students in the program during the quarter before the survey was distrib-uted. Based on their comments, we modified the wording and sequence of a few of the questions. The resulting survey items had a high reliability score (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.922).

Survey respondents were asked to identify their previous community colleges/universities and indicate the length of time that they had been in the program. They were also asked to report their age and gender and to provide an estimate of their cumulative grade point average (GPA). Other items on the survey, each rated with a Likert-type scale, inquired about respondents’ perceptions of and opinions about the effectiveness and importance of both their pre-program and in-program small-group experiences. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or dis-agreed with statements that described various dimensions of learning in program groups, state-ments about how program groups functioned, and statements about how participating in program groups had helped them develop specific skills. Our institutional review board approved this research project.

ProcedureTo elicit a high response rate and to ensure that our sample represented the larger population of program students, we administered the survey during classes. The sheer number of classes and the potential of wasted class time (given that students are in multiple classes) made administra-tion across all classes impractical. We chose instead to do purposeful sampling of classes using the program’s time schedule as a sampling frame. We divided classes into five groups based on the days of the week and the time of day that the classes met. Classes were then randomly selected from these groups. Once a class was selected, we contacted the instructor and asked if he or she was willing to participate in the study. Instructors who agreed to participate informed their students of the survey in advance and assured their students that participation was voluntary and anonymous.

At the time the questionnaire was administered, instructors were asked to leave the classroom and not to return until the survey was completed. Students were then read a standard set of instruc-tions. Students who had already taken the survey in another class were told not to retake it. Since class time was used to take the survey and few blank surveys were returned, we believe that the response rate was high.



Hillyard et al. 13

Participants

The survey was completed by 208 students (see Table 1 for sample characteristics). Respondents’ demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and enrollment status, closely matched those of the larger population of 449 students enrolled at the time of the study. Based on these parallels, we believe our sample to be representative of the students in the program.

Although we had some indication that participation in small groups was widespread in the pro-gram (Gillespie et al., 2006), we had no data quantifying this. As Table 2 shows, respondents had been frequent participators in small groups, both in their pre-program and program courses. All had been in at least one small group during their undergraduate years and many had extensive experi-ences in groups. For example, 42% of respondents reported that many or almost all of their courses in their previous institutions had required groups. Over half of the students reported that, in the program, they had been in a total of 11 or more small groups; 23% estimated that they had been in 21 or more program groups. At the time the survey was administered (that is, early in the quarter) respondents had already participated, on average, in more than two different in-class groups.

Students reported extensive experience with groups of varying durations and configurations (see Table 2 for details). For example, 76% of students had participated in a quarter-long group, 78% had been in a group that lasted for a period of 2–4 weeks, and 70% had been in a group that

Table 1. Sample characteristics

N Percentage

Female 207 74%Age 25 and under 206 58%Enrolled full-time 208 76%Working part-time or full-time 208 85%Have significant family responsibilities 207 48%Enrolled in program for 4 or more quarters 201 48%Transferred from community college 185 91%Less than 1 year passed since previous college experience 208 83%Average GPA in program (self-reported) 186 3.4

Table 2. Students’ experiences with group work

N Percentage

Participated in an in-class group 207 96%Participated in an on-line group 207 70%Participated in an out-of-class group 207 82%Participated in a group formed for one class period only 207 70%Participated in a group lasting 2–4 weeks of the quarter 207 78%Participated in a group lasting for the entire quarter 207 76%Pre-program courses requiring group work (many or almost all) 207 42%Program courses requiring group work (many or almost all) 202 51%At least one group had been graded (of those who had participated 195 97% in group work)Average number of in-program groups per quarter 195 3.4




was formed spontaneously during a single class period. Seventy percent of students had partici-pated in an on-line group and 81% had participated in an out-of-class group. Finally, 97% of respondents who had participated in a small group had worked in a group that was graded.

ResultsStudents’ current perceptions about small groups in our programThirty-three survey items measured students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward group work on a five-point scale (see Table 3 for a listing of these items). For example, their ratings of individual items, such as ‘chances to experience diversity of ideas and opinions’ (mean of 3.85) and ‘chances to deepen understanding of course material’ (mean of 3.81), were positive, though moderately so. Similarly, most of the items related to skills had positive ratings, such as ‘learning to collaborate with others’ (mean of 3.91), ‘presenting to an audience’ (mean of 3.67), and ‘developing leadership skills’ (mean of 3.52), indicating that students perceive small groups as places to enhance their abilities. Fifty-five percent of students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘working in small groups enhances my learning’ (mean of 3.87). One survey question asked specifically for an overall rating of their small-group experiences in our program: 33% rated their experiences as mostly negative or mixed, 34% reported more positive experiences than negative, and 33% had mostly positive small-group experiences in our program (mean 3.81).

Past experiences with small groupsTwo survey questions asked students to rate their experiences with small groups before coming to our program. The first asked them how effective these experiences were at developing small-group skills, and the second asked about the importance of these experiences in developing academic skills. Thirty-four percent reported that their pre-program experiences were minimally or not at all effective in developing small-group skills, and 40% reported that their previous experiences were minimally or not at all important in developing academic skills.

Experiences with peers in small groupsFive survey questions asked students to rate their experiences with peers in small groups. The first asked them to rate how accepted they felt by their classmates, and the second asked them to rate how often their peers were prepared enough to make small-group work worthwhile. Eighty-seven percent of students reported that they felt accepted by group mates most or all of the time, and 54% reported they felt peers were prepared most or all of the time. The other three questions about peers asked the extent to which the student agreed or disagreed with statements about peer participation in groups. Forty percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘a few people dominate’, yet only 20% agreed or strongly agreed that ‘a few people do all the work’ and only 15% agreed or strongly agreed with that statement ‘all members participate equally’.

Instructor influence and group structureTwo survey questions asked students’ opinions about instructors’ management of small groups in our programs. Thirty-seven percent of students agreed or strongly agreed that ‘instructors give enough time for small group work’, and 32% agreed or strongly agreed that ‘instructors clearly explain why they are using small groups’.



Hillyard et al. 15

Two survey questions asked students’ opinions on group structure and composition. About half (48%) agreed or strongly agreed that they prefer highly structured groups while only 25% agreed or strongly agreed that they learn best in randomly assigned groups.

Relationships with attitudes towards small groupsWe focused on two measures of general attitudes towards small groups in our program: the rating of overall effectiveness of small groups and the rating of enhanced learning in small groups. We considered these to be dependent variables and were interested in what might be associated with the student ratings on these two aspects. We used the demographic variables (displayed in Table 1), amount of group experience (variables from Table 2), the two questions rating small-group experi-ences in previous institutions, the five items measuring experiences with peers in small groups, the

Table 3. Rated survey items

Item Mean Standard deviation

Learning to collaborate with others 3.91 0.982Chances to experience diversity of ideas and opinions 3.85 0.994Appreciating diverse viewpoints 3.84 0.951In the program, small groups are a waste of time1 3.82 1.180Chances to deepen understanding of course material 3.81 1.038Overall rating of small group experiences in our program 3.81 1.098Communicating ideas to others in small groups 3.71 0.905Presenting to an audience 3.67 1.024Understanding and applying course concepts 3.63 1.041Talking meaningfully about course material 3.62 1.033Finding out how other students think about course material 3.61 1.074Critically analyzing ideas and arguments 3.55 0.925Defining and solving problems 3.55 1.028Sharpening arguments about course related materials 3.54 0.997Developing leadership skills 3.52 1.188Working in small groups in the program enhances learning 3.48 1.156Understanding cultural diversity 3.45 1.223I am graded fairly for the work I do in small groups 3.44 1.061Developing a capacity for empathy 3.42 1.096Instructors are skilled at using small groups effectively in their courses 3.32 0.889Preparing for or enhancing a career 3.31 2.603Chances to develop leadership skills 3.29 1.084Break from instructor lecturing1 3.27 1.278Preparing for advanced education 3.21 1.246Learning to locate information to help make decisions or solve problems 3.18 1.018Instructors give enough time for small-group work 3.15 1.017Instructors clearly explain why they are using small groups 2.94 1.114Writing clearly and coherently 2.78 1.150Age is a factor in effectiveness of small groups 2.52 1.389Time to relax and socialize1 2.52 1.218Discussing non-related topics1 2.24 1.142Gender is a factor in the effectiveness of small groups 2.11 1.197Race/ethnicity is a factor in the effectiveness of small groups 1.76 1.0111Item was reversely coded; N = 176 students who rated all of these items




two items rating instructors’ management of small groups, and the two items measuring structure and composition as the independent variables. We applied a multiple-regression model to compare each of the two dependent variables with the independent variables (results of the regression analy-sis can be found in Table 4).

The measure of overall effectiveness had a strong, positive, statistically significant relationship (p < 0.001) with both the ratings of ‘peers are academically prepared so that small-group interac-tions are worthwhile’ and ‘instructors clearly explain why they are using small groups’. The rating of the item ‘a few people do all the work’, which was reversely coded, had a moderate, positive relationship (p = 0.012) in the regression analysis for this dependent variable (R = 0.395, F = 29.352, p < 0.001).

The measure of enhanced learning also had significant relationships with these same three inde-pendent variables: ‘peers are academically prepared so that small-group interactions are worthwhile’ (p = 0.021), ‘instructors clearly explain why they are using small groups’ (p < 0.001), and ‘a few people do all the work’ (p = 0.021). In addition, enhanced learning was also strongly related to the item ‘pre-program small-group experiences were important in developing academic skills’ (p = 0.012) and the total number of small groups students had participated in during the program (p = 0.020). The regression model was also strong in this case (R = 0.335, F = 13.375, p < 0.001).

Many of the independent variables did not have statistically significant relationships with either of the dependent variables. For example, neither age nor gender had a significant relationship. Further, preferences for group structure and composition also showed no significant relationship with ratings of overall effectiveness of or enhanced learning in small groups.

Pre-program small group importance and enhanced learning in program groupsWe wanted to follow up the highly significant relationship found between attitudes of pre-program group experiences and attitudes of enhanced learning in program groups. As seen in Table 5, we found that a large majority (79.5%) of our students felt that their pre-program small groups were not at all, minimally, or somewhat important at developing academic skills. Of those students in that group, half remained negative or neutral about the enhanced learning item; that is, 40% (50% of 80%) of all the respondents remained negative or neutral about small groups. Strikingly differ-ent, of those students who came in with positive pre-program small-group experiences, 79% remained positive about learning in small groups in our program.

Table 4. Relationships with effectiveness of, and learning in, small groups

Survey item Overall effectiveness Enhanced learning

β p β p

Peers are academically prepared so that small-group 0.391 < 0.001** 2.33 0.021*interactions are worthwhile.Instructors clearly explain why they are using small groups. 0.292 < 0.001** 0.303 < 0.001**A few people do all the work. 0.181 0.012* 0.261 < 0.001**Pre-program small-group experiences were important in 0.107 0.140 0.182 0.012* developing academic skills.Total number of small groups in program courses. -0.039 0.589 0.169 0.020*

β is the standardized regression coefficient; p is the corresponding level of significance**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05



Hillyard et al. 17

Discussion

Groups were ubiquitous in our respondents’ undergraduate courses. All had been in at least one group, and most had been in many more. In general, our respondents rated program group work positively, though not overwhelmingly so, given the program’s commitment to active learning; only 32% reported that their small-group experiences had been mostly positive. Their overall rat-ing of their group experiences in the program, however, was strikingly higher than their ratings of their pre-program groups. For example, only 17% agreed that their small-group experiences at a previous institution were extremely or very important in developing their academic skills. Phipps et al. (2001) found similar attitudes about group experiences: 18% of their respondents agreed that ‘cooperative learning positively affected learning’. Similarly to Boekaerts’ (2002) conclusions, we found that ‘mere experience’ in groups did not change students’ negative attitudes about the effec-tiveness of small groups in our program. However, students did become more positive about groups enhancing their learning as they participated in more groups.

The relationship between respondents’ ratings of their group experiences in their previous insti-tutions and their attitudes about enhanced learning was highly significant. If students had bad experiences in groups in institutions prior to enrolling in the program, their attitudes remained negative, regardless of their experiences in the program. The lingering influence of bad experi-ences corroborates Forrest and Miller’s (2003) findings that past bad experiences influenced stu-dents’ future participation and Lizzio and Wilson’s (2005) finding that even when poorly functioning groups were offered help, students remained dissatisfied with the group experience. In light of Gillespie et al.’s (2006) findings, one could argue that respondents in this study were applying negative scripts from prior experiences to new group contexts.

As in other studies (Colbeck et al., 2000; Gillespie, et al., 2006; Payne and Monk-Turner, 2006), our participants reported that their peers mattered in their assessment of groups. If respondents positively rated their peers as academically prepared for group work, they were more likely to rate their group experiences as both effective and enhancing their learning. Conversely, if students perceived that ‘a few people do all the work’ then they had more negative attitudes about the effec-tiveness of the program’s small groups. That 40% of people thought that ‘a few people dominate’ suggested that management issues in program groups were problematic across courses. These find-ings uncover patterns that transcend an individual instructor’s course. Improving relationships with peers is going to involve program-wide efforts.

For this group of students, instructor clarity in explaining why groups were used was more important than how they structured or composed groups. Even though these students were highly

Table 5. Relationships between previous and current small-group experiences

Importance of pre-program groups Working in small groups in current program enhances learning at developing your academic skills

Disagree, strongly disagree, or Agree or strongly agree neutral (% within group) (% within group)

Not at all, minimally, or somewhat 50% 50%important (79.5% of all respondents)Very or extremely important 21% 79%(17.5% of all respondents)

3% of respondents had no previous group experience




experienced with groups and might have appeared to be group savvy, they wanted instructor clarity on the purpose of their group work. While programmatic emphasis on the value of small groups for learning might be useful, individual instructors still need to tell students why they are using a particular group activity in their class.

The most important finding of this study, however, was intractability of students’ negative views about small groups enhancing their learning if their pre-program experiences were negative. As Forrest and Kelly (2003) argued, instructors need to address negative attitudes that students bring with them about bad past group experiences. If they do not, these students’ attitudes can carry into their present groups, no doubt affecting that group’s climate. Addressing negative past experiences is going to take a collective effort on the part of program instructors.

Studies of student views of group work commonly end with similar advice to instructors about their individual classes. But our study points to the need for concerted action, across departments/programs and even across institutions (see Colbeck et al., 2000, for a similar recommendation). Our findings suggest that, in an arts and sciences context, experience alone will not always create more positive attitudes about learning in groups. Students need clarity about the type and purpose of group work and to feel that their peers are competent and prepared.

Future research needs to examine students’ attitudes given the amount of classroom time devoted to small-group work and the types of groups in which they participate. It is also critical to investigate how negative attitudes acquired from earlier experiences in dysfunctional groups might be reversed. Meanwhile, cross-institutional, campus, and departmental conversations might lead to collective approaches that would increase learning in small groups, which have become, for the students in this study, not just an occasional exercise but a staple in their classrooms.

References

Boekaerts, M. (2002) ‘Assessment of Attitudes about New Learners’ Roles: Factor Analysis of the Beliefs about Working in Small Groups Questionnaire’, Psychological Reports 90: 986–96.

Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E. & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000) ‘Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects’, Journal of Higher Education 71: 60–80.

Feichtner, S. B. & Davis, E. A. (1984–85) ‘Why Some Groups Fail: A Survey of Students’ Experiences with Learning Groups’, Organizational Behavior Teaching Review 9: 58–73.

Feldner, M. & Brent, R. (1996) ‘Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student-Centered Instruction’, College Teaching 44(2): 43–7.

Forrest, K. D. & Miller, R. L. (2003) ‘Not Another Group Project: Why Good Teachers Should Care about Bad Group Experiences’, Teaching of Psychology 30: 244–6.

Gillespie, D., Rosamond, S. & Thomas, E. (2006a) ‘Grouped Out?: Default Strategies for Participating in Multiple Small Groups’, Journal of General Education 55: 81–102.

Gillespie, D., Roos, J. & Slaughter, C. (2006b) ‘Undergraduates’ Ambivalence about Leadership in Small Groups’, The Journal of Excellence in College Teaching 17(3): 33–49.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (1991) Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Jungst, S., Licklider, L. L. & Wiersma, J. (2003) ‘Providing Support for Faculty Who Wish to Shift to a Learning-Centered Paradigm in their Higher Education Classrooms’, The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 3(3): 69–81.

Lake, D. A. (2001) ‘Student Performance and Perceptions of a Lecture-Based Course Compared with the Same Course Utilizing Group Discussion’, Physical Therapy 81: 896–903.

Liden, R. C., Nagao, D. H. & Parsons, C. K. (1998) ‘Student and Faculty Attitudes Concerning the Use of Group Projects’, Organizational Behavior Teaching Review 10: 32–8.



Hillyard et al. 19

Livingstone, D. & Lynch, K. (2000) ‘Group Project Work and Student-Centred Active Learning: Two Different Experiences’, Studies in Higher Education 25: 325–46.

Lizzio, A. & Wilson, K. (2005) ‘Self-Managed Learning Groups in Higher Education: Students’ Perceptions of Process and Outcomes’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 75: 373–90.

Machemer, P. L. & Crawford, P. (2007) ‘Student Perceptions of Active Learning in a Large Cross-Disciplinary Classroom’, Active Learning in Higher Education 8(1): 9–30.

Michaelsen, L. K. (1992) ‘Team Learning: A Comprehensive Approach for Harnessing the Power of Small Groups in Higher Education’, in D. H. Wulff & J. D. Nyquist (eds) To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional and Organizational Development, pp. 107–22. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Michaelsen, L. K. & Black, R.H. (1994) ‘Building Learning Teams: The Key to Harnessing the Power of Small Groups in Higher Education’, in A. Goodfell (ed.) Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education, vol. 2, pp. 65–81. State College, PA: National Center for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.

Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D. & Watson, W. E. (1994) ‘Pre-Instructional Minitests: An Efficient Solution to Covering Content’, Journal of Management Education 18(1): 32–44.

Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D. & Knight, A. (1997) ‘Designing Effective Group Activities: Lessons for Classroom Teaching and Faculty Development’, in D. DeZure (ed.) To Improve the Academy, vol. 16, pp. 373–98. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press & The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.

Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D. & Knight, A. (2002) Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups for Large and Small Classes. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Millis, B. J. (2006) ‘A Closer Look at Group Work: A Message from the Guest Editor’, Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 17(3): 1–7.

Millis, B. J. & Cottell, P. G., Jr (1998) Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

Payne, B. K. & Monk-Turner, E. (2006) ‘Students’ Perceptions of Group Projects: The Role of Race, Age, and Slacking’, College Student Journal 40: 132–9.

Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S. & Higgins, S. (2001) ‘University Students’ Perceptions of Cooperative Learning: Implications for Administrators and Instructors’, Journal of Experiential Education 24: 14–22.

Slavin, R. E. (1995) Cooperative Learning, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Slavin, R. E. (1996) ‘Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need

to Know’, Contemporary Educational Psychology 21: 43–69.Springer, L., Stanne, M. E. & Donovan, S. S. (1999) ‘Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in

Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis’, Review of Educational Research 69(1): 21–51.

Biographical notes

Cinnamon Hillyard is an assistant professor in the Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences Program. She received her doctoral degree in Mathematics from Utah State University. Dr Hillyard’s scholarship and teaching focus on undergraduate mathematics and statistics education, especially in the realm of quantitative literacy. [Email: [email protected]]

Diane Gillespie is a professor in the Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences program. She received her PhD in Cultural and Psychological Studies in Education from the University of Nebraska Lincoln. Dr Gillespie’s recent research interests have included examining the power of conceptual metaphor in faculty narratives. She has also been involved in multiple research projects on small groups. [Email: [email protected]]




Peter Littig is an assistant professor in the Science and Technology Program. He received his doctoral degree in Mathematics from the University of Washington. Dr Littig’s research interests are in algebraic topology, Lie theory, the historical development of mathematical thought, and the sociology of mathematics. [Email: [email protected]]

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Katherine Hildbold, Ernest Kandilidge, Laura Martin, and Rebecca Wilkinson for their helpful work in the development of the survey.

Address for all authors: Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences Program, University of Washington Bothell, 18115 Campus Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011–8246, USA.



university students' attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation

Documents