This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 06 November 2014, At: 07:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication TeacherPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmt20

What Do Students Really Do in LearningGroupsJennifer R. ConsidinePublished online: 13 May 2013.

To cite this article: Jennifer R. Considine (2013) What Do Students Really Do in Learning Groups,Communication Teacher, 27:4, 223-229, DOI: 10.1080/17404622.2013.798011

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2013.798011

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

What Do Students Really Do inLearning GroupsJennifer R. Considine

Courses: Group Communication and any communication course requiring the use of

project groups.

Objectives: Upon completion of this semester-long project, students should be able to:

analyze and reflect upon their own communication behaviors in a group setting, and explain

the importance of examining actual communication practices as opposed to retrospective

self-report of communication practices. This project also allows instructors to assess

students’ performance in learning group meetings both inside and outside of class time.

Introduction and Rationale

For the past few decades, scholars have strongly recommended the use of group-

centered learning (GCL) in the college classroom. GCL (also called cooperative or

collaborative learning) involves students in projects that require them to work

together to solve problems, complete assignments, take exams, and create products.

GCL has been shown to help students develop communication skills, conflict

management skills, and problem-solving skills (Herbster & Hannula, 1992); increase

liking among students (Slavin, 1991); increase student self-esteem (Johnson,

Johnson, & Taylor, 1993); promote interaction among diverse student populations

(Johnson & Johnson, 1981); and increase achievement (Herbster & Hannula, 1992;

Johnson et al., 1993). While many of these studies are focused primarily on short-

term learning outcomes, other studies suggest that GCL can have longer-lasting

impacts upon student learning, particularly when it encourages students to apply

course knowledge to the context (i.e., a future job) in which the knowledge will be

used (Innes, 2007). Given that employers increasingly want college graduates to

possess teamwork skills for working in diverse teams, teaching our students

teamwork skills is particularly important (AACU, 2010).

Like many instructors, I frequently ask my students to work together on semester-

long group projects in my group communication classes and advanced commu-

nication seminars (Michaelson et al., 2004). Despite using assessment methods such

Jennifer R. Considine, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Communication, 800 Algoma Blvd, Oshkosh, WI

54901, USA. Email: considij@uwosh.edu.

ISSN 1740-4622 (print)/ISSN 1740-4630 (online) # 2013 National Communication Association

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2013.798011

Communication Teacher

Vol. 27, No. 4, October 2013, pp. 223�229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

06 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

as peer evaluations that attempt to ensure equitable participation in the group project

outcome, my experience suggests these evaluations of peer performance seldom

reveal much about individual group member behavior and communication patterns.

While peer evaluations may reveal students that have made absolutely no

contribution to the team, the tendency for friendship to inflate marks and

interpersonal dislike to deflate evaluations demonstrates the subjectivity of these

evaluations (Pond, Coates, & Palermo, 2007).

Assuming that the final outcome of the semester-long project is an accurate

reflection of individual and group member learning is also problematic. In their

study of 26 project teams in management classes, Druskat and Kayes (2000) found

that effective team performance and effective team process were seldom aligned.

Groups that had the highest scores on their team projects also reported excessive

interpersonal conflict, lack of attendance, and groupthink behaviors. In group

communication courses in which we want our students to learn and practice effective

communication skills, this focus on the final performance at the expense of the

learning process is particularly problematic.

The limitations of these assessments suggest the need for an additional process

to monitor and assess the performance of learning groups as they work together

on team projects. While retrospective reflection on their team’s performance

through journals and debriefing papers can help students assess some of their

communication behaviors, the ability to assess actual communication behaviors

can be very revealing for students. Previous studies of retrospective assessments

suggest that students, particularly especially strong or weak students, tend to have

inflated views of their own performance (Pond et al., 2007). Hence, it seems

important to allow students and faculty a method through which we can assess the

students’ actual communication behaviors as they work on a semester-long group

project.

The Activity

Instructors assign this project in two parts. First, students are asked to audio record

all group meetings using a digital recorder and post these meetings to the course Web

site. Second, students are asked to analyze a minimum of two hours of audio

recordings to evaluate their team’s performance during the semester. This analysis

serves as the basis for their final course paper.

Part One: Recording

Students are asked to record all group meetings, both in class and outside of class,

throughout the semester. Adequate quality digital audio recorders cost about $40 and

may be provided to the students at the beginning of the semester. In my experience,

students do an excellent job using and maintaining these recorders throughout the

semester. If the instructor is unable to provide recorders, most students now also

possess the ability to make digital recordings on their cell phones or laptop

224 Communication Teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

06 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

computers. Although recording devices are becoming easily accessible, instructors

should work with their campus technology services to ensure that recording devices

are compatible with course management software.

During each group meeting, students are directed to spend their group time

working on their course project. In my classes, course projects include activities such

as creating a public relations campaign or holding a fundraiser for a nonprofit

organization. These course projects are challenging and meaningful for the students

and require multiple meetings for completion. Following each group meeting,

students are asked to upload the recordings to the course Web site so that the

instructor and other members of their group may access them. Because of the

sensitive nature of some issues discussed in groups, the students should be given

the option to turn off the recorder if they do not feel comfortable recording a portion

of the group meeting.

Part Two: Assessment

The recordings can serve as data for assessment for both instructors and students.

Certainly, few instructors’ schedules would allow them the time to listen to all

recordings for a semester. However, in groups that are having problems with a

particular member or groups that seem to be having a very difficult time, the

instructor might listen to a portion of the group meetings to help identify and resolve

group problems. In addition, the recordings can serve as verification of peer

evaluation data. For example, when a particular group member is accused of missing

meetings and skipping work, a review of the group recordings can verify this

information.

Perhaps more importantly, the recordings can serve as data for students to assess

their own behavior and reflect upon their communication skills. Because students

tend to have overinflated views of their own communication abilities, it is important

to encourage them to assess their actual behavior in a learning group. In addition to

the audio recording, the second deliverable for this project is an 8�10-page report in

which students assess and reflect upon the communication in their student learning

group. Student assessment and reflection should include four steps: (1) reviewing a

recording of a group meeting, (2) describing what the student heard in the group

meeting, (3) analyzing the group interaction using course content, and (4) reflection

upon the learning outcomes.

To begin the assessment, students should be directed to choose a meeting for

analysis in which their group worked together to solve one or more problems. The

initial meeting may be good for analysis, as students often have to solve several

problems, including finding a meeting time, establishing common goals, and

choosing a project topic. Later meetings can also serve as good fodder for analysis,

as they may present more complex problems and more conflict. To ensure that

students have enough data for analysis, they should be asked to examine two hours of

recordings, which may mean students analyze several meetings.

Communication Teacher 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

06 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Once the students have chosen meeting(s) to analyze, they should be encouraged

to choose a framework for analysis. In their report, students should be encouraged to

explain their framework using course materials, describe what the text suggests they

‘‘should’’ do in groups, and provide examples to explain what their group actually

did. Following the explanation of their behavior, the students should analyze their

group’s behavior, noting strengths and weaknesses of the group’s approach.

Finally, students should reflect upon their behavior in the learning group and the

learning outcomes of the recording analysis. Listening to their group audio recording

allows students to experience the gap between what they think they do, the ‘‘espoused

theory,’’ and what their behavior actually shows, the ‘‘theory in use’’ (Argyris &

Schon, 1978). Although experiencing these differences may make some students

uncomfortable, theories of reflection suggest that ‘‘developmentally challenging,

uncomfortable, or perplexing’’ experiences are precisely those that lead to reflection

and consequently greater learning (Rogers, 2001). In completing this reflection,

students ‘‘close the loop’’ on their learning and contemplate how they can improve

their communication skills in future projects.

In my experience, the most difficult part of this project for students is the selection

of the best framework for analysis. They are adept at picking up on the patterns of

behaviors of their group that are ripe for analysis, but may need to be challenged to

connect that behavior to course concepts. For example, upon listening to a series of

meetings, one group member noticed that her group continually repeated discus-

sions. Because the group kept few notes from one meeting to the next, they spent a

lot of group time trying to remember what they had decided and what task was

assigned to each group member. Listening to these group meetings helped this

student, and her group, to realize the importance of creating meeting agendas. The

required reflection in this assignment helped this student view agendas as useful to

group communication rather than as just an additional ‘‘busywork’’ assignment.

After discussions with me, the student was also able to connect this experience to

the multistage model of group decision making (Poole, 2003). She was able to reflect

upon the reasons why decision making is not always a linear process, and the

advantages and disadvantages of the multisequence approach. This example also

illustrates the importance of having students listen to their actual communication

behaviors. Like many others, this group never realized how much time they waste

repeating the same discussion until they had listened to the audio recordings.

Because choosing an analysis framework is difficult for students, instructors may

choose to assign an analysis framework. One common tool for group analysis is Bales’

(1950) Interaction Process Analysis (IPA), which identifies four major categories of

interaction in groups and allows students to analyze both the task and relational

messages in the group (for an explanation of how to use Bales’ IPA, see Keyton,

2003). IPA also allows students to analyze the distribution of communication across

the group and analyze how group members are contributing. For lower-level

communication classes, IPA may be too complicated, and students might be

encouraged to choose a simpler tool for analysis. For example, students might

analyze the process the group used to problem solve and identify whether the group

226 Communication Teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

06 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

used a phase model, a spiraling model, or a multisequence model (Beebe &

Masterson, 2006). In their analysis paper, students should explain the different

problem-solving approaches, make clear which problem-solving approach was used,

and describe group interactions that support their claims. In my lower-level classes, I

have found that assigning a framework is more effective, but advanced students seem

to appreciate the freedom to choose their own framework and typically write more

rich papers because they have matched the framework to the unique experiences of

their group.

The second area that students sometimes struggle with this project is the reflection

component. Asking students to complete an articulate learning can add more depth

to their reflections (Ash & Clayton, 2004). A complete articulated learning is a series

of paragraphs addressing each of four prompting questions:

1. What did I learn?

2. How, specifically, did I learn it?

3. Why does this learning matter, or why is it significant?

4. In what ways will I use this learning; or what goals shall I set in accordance with

what I have learned in order to improve myself, the quality of my learning, or the

quality of my future experiences?

In completing this reflection, students ‘‘close the loop’’ on their learning and

contemplate how they can improve their communication skills in future projects.

These analysis and reflection papers can also serve as the basis for instructors to assess

the students’ learning of course objectives.

In reviewing papers, instructors should look for four major components. First,

students should adequately describe their analysis framework. Second, students

should include short transcribed examples from the audio recordings to illustrate

their claims about the group’s communication. Third, students should analyze these

communication exchanges using the chosen framework. Fourth, students should

reflect upon this experience and detail how they can use their learning in the future.

Excellent papers will make clear connections between examples and the framework,

describe student learning, and offer useful suggestions for future meetings. Average to

below average papers often include all elements, but fail to make clear connections

between the examples and analysis framework.

Debriefing

The semester-long nature of this project allows many opportunities for debriefing.

The recording and analysis allows for an excellent discussion on research. As training

in research is often a key part of the undergraduate curriculum, this experience allows

students to discuss both how they felt being ‘‘subjects’’ in the ‘‘research’’ of their

classmates, as well as how they felt about being ‘‘researchers.’’ Once analysis papers

and reflections have been submitted, instructors might also lead a structured group

discussion around the key themes in the papers. It is helpful to ask the students to

Communication Teacher 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

06 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

talk about what they thought they would hear and what they actually heard listening

to the group audio recording to illustrate the difference between ‘‘espoused theories’’

and ‘‘theories-in-use.’’

Appraisal

Initially, I was reticent about asking my students to record their learning group

meetings. I feared that students might feel that I was assuming a ‘‘Big Brother’’ role by

performing excessive surveillance over the group. On the contrary, an anonymous

end-of-semester survey of students’ perceptions of audio recording (N � 24) showed

that students had positive feelings about the audio recording. While a few of the

students were neutral, 76% of students agreed or strongly agreed that I should use

audio recorders for group projects in future classes. Three of the five groups reported

never turning off the recorders during group meetings, and the other two groups

reported rarely turning off the recorders to talk about off-task issues or other students

in the class.

Students reported very few changes in their behavior because of the audio

recording, and the changes that were reported were largely positive. Half of the

students reported being more on task because of the audio recordings; the other half

reported that there was no change in their behavior. None of the students reported

being nervous because of the audio recording, nor did they report participating less

because of the recording. While students did not believe the recording changed their

own behavior, they thought other students were more responsible because the

recording process increased accountability for the project.

These results suggest that audio recording group meetings can provide an

additional avenue for communication between students and instructors, and allow

both to assess learning more accurately. A common phrase when we debrief this

activity is, ‘‘I never realized I . . .’’ as students reflect upon their participation in the

group meetings. Whether they realize their behavior is better or worse than they

previously expected, students as a whole seem to be able to make better connections

between real communication and course concepts by completing this activity.

References and Suggested Readings

AACU. (2010). Raising the bar: Employers’ views on college learning in the wake of the economic

downturn: A survey among employers conducted on behalf of the Association of American

Colleges and Universities by Hart Research Associates. Retrieved from: http://www.aacu.org/

leap/documents/2009_EmployerSurvey.pdf

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading,

MA: Addison Wesley.

Ash, S., & Clayton, P. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and

assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 137�154. Retrieved from http://www.

springer.com/education�%26�language/higher�education/journal/10755

Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

228 Communication Teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

06 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (2006). Communicating in small groups: Principles and practice.

Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in short-term project teams.

Small Group Research, 31(3), 328�353. doi:10.1177/104649640003100304

Herbster, D., & Hannula, J. J. (1992, February). Cooperative learning in the teacher preparation

course. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Orlando, FL.

Innes, R. B. (2007). Dialogic communication in collaborative problem sovling groups. International

Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1, 1�19. Retrieved from http://

academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v1n1/innes/IJ_Innes.pdf

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning

experiences on interethnic interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 444�449.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.3.444

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Taylor, B. (1993). Impact of cooperative and individualistic

learning on high-ability students’ achievement, self-esteem, and social acceptance. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 839�844. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9713946

Keyton, J. (2003). Observing group interaction. In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, &

L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication: Theory and practice (8th Ed., pp. 256�266).

Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Michaelson, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Eds.). (2004). Team based learning: A transformative

use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Pond, K., Coates, D. & Palermo, O. A. (2007). Student experiences of peer review marking of team

projects. International Journal of Management Education, 6, 2, 30�43. Retrieved from: http://

www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/bmaf/documents/publications/IJME/Vol6No2/IJME62Pond.pdf

Poole, M. S. (2003). A multiple sequence model of group decision development. In R. Y. Hirokawa,

R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication: Theory

and practice (8th ed., pp. 76�82). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Rogers, R. R. (2001). Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher

Education, 26, 37�57. Retrieved from: http://www.springer.com/education�%26�language/

higher�education/journal/10755

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48,

71�82. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199102_slavin.pdf

Communication Teacher 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

07:

06 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014