What Kind ofGroups and Individuals

SUCCEEDin Collaborative Projects?

John A. Johnson

Penn State DuBois

j5j@psu.edu

Nature of the Project

Students in a large (~180) introductory psychology class were assigned to groups of 7-8 students.

Each group was to write an annotated list of web sites that helped answer 8 general questions about psychology.

Each student wrote his or her own answers to the questions.

Goals of Project

•To restore thoughtful exploration of ideas

•To increase internet literacy

•To assess how well students learn this way

–for the class, overall

–for different types of students

Observational Aside

• Witness the long string of trends and fads in teaching

• Yesterday, Total Quality Management

• Today, technology and collaboration

• Each hailed as THE ANSWER

• THE answers deny learning styles

• Bottom line: Does technique work?

For Missing Details

• Full report available at:

http://cac.psu.edu/~j5j/persona/courses/courses.html#Empower96

Setup Logistics

• Assess computer attitudes and literacy on first day of class

• Enter scores in spreadsheet; sort to distribute talent in groups

• Result: ~180 students in 25 groups of 7-8 students

• Signs labeled A-Y hung around auditorium perimeter

Assignments & Activities

• 50% each class allotted to group meetings and training for 3 weeks

• Meeting 1: Informal, introductions

• Meeting 2: 8 research questions;½ supportive, ½ supportive skills

• Meeting 3: Detailed description of expectations

Expected Product

• One annotated list of web sites for entire group

• Each member writes own answers to eight questions

• Annotated list & answers emailed

• Each student rates contribution of each group member

Criteria of Individual Success

• Score on ungraded multiple-choice test

• Score on research project

• Contribution rating from group

• Specific + and - behaviors

• Post-test of attitudes/literacy

Criteria for Group Success

• Equality of rated contributions

• # of valid web addresses

• # of questions adequately answered

• % of students who contributed

• Open-ended comments

Multiple Choice Test Scores

• Difference between scores on 19 questions not lectured on and 21 questions lectured on not statistically different

• Overall performance (52%) lower than previous year (69%)

• Scores correlated→r = .24 (p<.01) with project score→r = .45 (p<.01) with contribution score

Reports (N=166)

• 33 excellent (deep comprehension)

• 58 good (MC-test level)

• 54 okay (rote; mistakes & copying)

• 6 problems (marginal functioning)

• 15 failed to turn in anything

• Scores correlated r = .23 (p<.01) with rated group contribution)

Correlates of Individual Project Scores

• Low Neuroticism– (depression, self-consciousness)

• High Extraversion– (assertiveness)

• High Openness to Experience– (openness to aesthetics & ideas)

• High Conscientiousness– (competence, dutifulness,

achievement striving, self-discipline)

Distribution of Group Contribution Scores

0

5

10

15

20

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Group Contribution Scores

Correlates of Contribution to Group

• High Extraversion– (assertiveness and activity)

• High Openness to Experience– (openness to feelings)

• High Conscientiousness– (dutifulness, achievement striving,

self-discipline)

Correlates of Positive and Negative Behaviors

• High Conscientiousness– competence– order– dutifulness– achievement striving– self-discipline– deliberation

Follow-up Attitude QuestionsInterest in Web Searching

(compared to exams)

0

10

20

30

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 = low interest, 10 = high interest

Interest in Group Work(compared to individual work)

010203040

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 = low interest, 10 = high interest

Correlates of Attitudes

• Who likes web searching?– Unpredictable from personality scores

• Who likes group work? Students with high scores on:– emotional stability– gregariousness & excitement-seeking

• and low scores on– openness to aesthetics– openness to feelings

Indices of Group Success

0246

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of Students Contributing

Number of Groups

01234567

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of Questions Answered Adequately

Number of Groups

Correlates of Group Success

• % of Students Contributing related to– higher scores on multiple choice test– higher levels of

impulsivity, activity, immodesty– receiving the supportive rather than

directive skill handout

• Number of sites/answers related to– higher levels of openness to aesthetics

Future Directions

• I’ve eliminated group projects as a uniform requirement

• Future projects will involve individual tailoring– Projects will be an optional alternative– Groups can choose their members– Students can choose research topics

that interest them– Personality self-assessment may help

estimate suitability for projects