Improving group satisfaction: Making groups work in a first-year undergraduate course Helen Bonanno, Janet Jones, Linda English.

Teaching In Higher Education. Abingdon: 1998. Vol. 3, Iss. 3; pg. 365, 18 pgs

ABSTRACT The value of working in groups as a strategy for learning, and the development of communication and interpersonal skills is acknowledged in most tertiary institutions. Academic staff tend to avoid introducing groupwork into crowded first-year undergraduate curriculum, because of large student numbers and, in many cases, staffing constraints. This paper outlines the establishment of a groupwork component in a first-year undergraduate accounting tutorial programme. Although this component did not work well in the first year for about half the students involved, it proved a valuable social and academic support for the rest of the cohort, so was continued into a second year. To increase group satisfaction, structural and managerial changes were introduced, with positive results. Establishing groupwork early in an undergraduate course allows group skills to develop over time, encourages reflection on learning behaviour and can facilitate increasing expertise in the subject area. Introduction Australian universities, like higher education institutions in many countries, are operating under great pressure to deliver quality teaching and research with contracting resources of time, money and staff, and a wider diversity of students than ever before. In this context, the value of small group work for its positive effect on student learning, and on the development of their generic intellectual, communication and interpersonal skills has been widely acknowledged. The use of small group work has often been associated with more studentcentred approaches to teaching and learning, e.g. problem-based learning, co-operative learning, and experiential learning and enthusiastically adopted in many professionally based disciplines within the health sciences and management education. Research into learning in this context links the type of task demanded of students to the type of learning that takes place either a surface or deep approach to learning (Marton & Saljo, 1976; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Biggs, 1987). It is generally accepted that engagement in the learning process is encouraged by cooperation (Mills, 1991) and that the development of skills associated with deep learning is facilitated by group work (Gibbs, 1990; Tribe, 1994). At the same time, research into group-based learning has been from varying perspectives and sought to investigate the effectiveness of both the processes and outcomes of such learning. For much small group work in higher education it is the quality of the outcome rather than the quality of the process which has been often perceived as the main concern by group members and their tutors. Jacques (1984, p. 242) comments on the nature of task-based groups in education: '... rarely do either tutors or students reflect on their teamwork skills in their work together, or seek substantial improvement in their skills as the work progresses.' Explicit input on the nature of group processes and the encouragement of reflection on these processes are challenges to the course designer who seeks to incorporate group-based learning into the curriculum. Apart from its value in learning, there is widespread acknowledgement by educators and potential employers alike who see the development of the ability to work effectively in teams

as a desirable outcome of tertiary education. The Higher Education for Capability (HEC) movement in the UK sees the development of individual communicative skills as valid learning objectives in their own right: '(Group-based learning) ... promotes the development of personal and team skills, and an understanding of discipline-based subject matter' (Gregory & Thorley, 1994, p. 23). In a recent government report (Candy et al., 1994), teamwork skills are identified as one of the valued transferable skills components in undergraduate courses. Despite its obvious value, the use of groupwork within courses raises many issues such as assessment, the quality of student learning, student attitudes and perceptions towards groupwork, and staff training. Another issue is efficient use of resources, as many institutions suffer from a decrees in resources. Including groupwork into any course presents many challenges for the designer, but these are challenges which we found worthwhile. Closer analysis of cases involving group-based teaching can help to shed light on some of the issues and may provide answers to some of the challenges. The purpose of this paper is to outline a case study involving groupwork within a tutorial program of a first-year undergraduate Accounting course at the University of Sydney, Australia. The groupwork assessment was initially established in response to constraints of time and student numbers, in the context of revision of the tutorial programme as a whole. It became increasingly valued by staff and students both as strategy for the development of deep learning, and as a way to develop communication skills. First, the paper will outline the course and the changes made and then describe the development of the groupwork component over a 2-year period (1994 and 1995). The issues arising from the implementation and evaluation of the programme, the changes made in the management and support of the groups, and the effect of these changes on the satisfaction of group members will also be discussed. The Context and Nature of the Groupwork Component The Students In the University of Sydney, many first-year undergraduate courses are composed of a high percentage of students who come from backgrounds where the first language is not English. In 1994 (total in cohort: 555) and 1995 (total in cohort: 490) the percentage of students in the first year Accounting who had a first language other than English was just over 50%. In addition, the students taking the Accounting 1 course came from several degree courses, including Engineering, Economics, Commerce/Law and Agriculture. Most of these students are Australian residents entering university as secondary school leavers who have attained an appropriate score in the year 12 university entrance examination, although the number of International students entering through other pathways is increasing. Local students who are native speakers of languages other than English often have high numeracy skills, but low academic literacy skills and oral communication skills. Mature-age students and other nontraditional groupings have added to the diversity of the current first-year undergraduate cohorts. Students in first-year undergraduate courses coming from an environment that has given them experience of groupwork of any kind are in the minority. The Course The Accounting 1 course is a two-semester course in financial accounting at the University of Sydney. The course consists of two lectures, a workshop and a 1-hour tutorial per week. The

tutorial programme, which focuses on theory and the application of theories to case studies, contains a large groupwork component. Groups were focused on problem-solving of case studies involving increasingly complex real life situations in professional accounting. In the the groupwork component, practical advantages emerged for both students and tutors. For tutors, groupwork provided a way of overcoming limits of time and large numbers because meetings took place outside timetabled sessions, and provided valuable experience in both written and oral communication for students without increasing their marking load to unreasonable levels. For students, groups provided a place for discussion of tutorial readings and weekly exercises in the first year, and in both years provided practice in the production of both oral presentations and case study written reports through group problem-solving tasks. Students were not individually assessed in these skills until after they had gone through the process of producing oral presentations and written reports as a group. There were accompanying disadvantages. By operating outside timetabled hours, groupwork put added stress on already crowded student timetables. It was therefore particularly important that students should see the groupwork component as valuable. For staff, it became apparent that knowledge of team skills and processes was necessary so that tutors could assist groups with conflict situations, and ensourage a positive attitude to groupwork. This resulted in an increasing focus on training and development for staff, and in an increased emphasis on the positive role played by groups in learning; in particular, in the areas of gaining subject knowledge, reflection on interpersonal experience and management and completion of task. Evaluation Semester 1 1994 Generally speaking, students' positive and negative comments reflected the broad experiences reported by teachers working in the field of problembased learning, e.g. groupwork is time consuming (Cawley, 1991), groupwork can be more fun than conventional task fulfilment, and there is resentment if group members do not put in equal effort (Lovie-Kitchin, 1991). 32.5% of students reported that study groups helped them develop team skills.57.7% of students felt that the case studies helped them to relate the course material to the real world. Of the 15 students interviewed, 10 commented positively on study groups as helpful to learning and also beneficial as part of a social network. The forum expressed strong agreement for the view that participating in a team that worked well was helpful for learning, but that difficulties with teams hindered learning. Generally, students perceived members who did not contribute equally as a major problem, particularly when it came to assessing their performance, and also indicated that about half the teams worked well together and half did not work effectively. A summary of this qualitative feedback on the success of study groups can be seen in Table I.

TABLE I. Most common suggestions from students concerned areas of dynamics, e.g. difficulties with equal contribution from group members, a perceived need for closer staff involvement and support; organisational problems; e.g. group size, need for more planning time; and fine tuning of assessment procedures.

Discussion Issues that emerged for both staff and students during the first year covered a wide range, many of which are reflected in the literature. Lack of Experience of Staff This and the resulting need for support was one issue which had been generally anticipated from the outset. Gregory & Thorley (1994a, p. 57) have pointed out that introducing groupwork is a staff development issue as well as an issue of developing student skills. Most course tutors had no experience in facilitation of groupwork or, indeed, in other aspects of classroom management. In order to give tutors some support in 1994, training sessions were held, a special manual was designed and a weekly staff meeting was held. The weekly staff meetings were considered an essential form of staff development by the tutors themselves. Several tutors who lasted the first year of the programme and also stayed on staff for 1995 were a strong source of peer support to newer tutors, but the issue of staff development was never completely resolved. Lack of Experience of Student Groups Mcgrath-Champ and Baird (1995) found that lack of experience in working in groups was one of a number of challenges facing their students. This is even more of a challenge in a first-year undergraduate course. The majority of the students were school leavers who had just gone through their university entrance examinations, and were thus very focused on assessment. The idea of taking responsibility for the effective functioning of group processes, as well as the group product was new to most students, and the idea that the successful working of the group was itself an important learning outcome was also new. Main issues for students were those of time management-fitting in the groupwork around crowded timetables-and the peer assessment of individual members' contribution to the group product. This latter process is generally acknowledged as problematic (Gregory & Thorley, 1994b, p. 182), despite a variety of innovative methods. Peer assessment with the objective of increasing equal participation was tried in various ways in this tutorial component; for example, dividing a group total mark of 100 among group members in proportion to their contribution. However, students perceived this process of assessment as destructive of group dynamics, although complaints about laziness were the most common negative assessment of the effectiveness of groups in the qualitative evaluation interviews. Satisfaction with the Group Process Identification and categorisation of the components of 'satisfaction' relating to groups has a substantial place in the literature of groupwork (Keyton, 1991; Witteman, 1991). For the taskorientated students in this tutorial programme, satisfaction could be generally identified with three components: equal contribution of all members ('I liked my study group ... we all contributed equally and helped each other', Student interview, 1994); the positive assessment of the group product; supportive social/emotional aspects of the group ('I had a nice group and made friends', `Interacting in a group is better than going home and trying to do it alone', Student interviews, 1994).

The fact that groupwork was a negative experience for approximately half the students in the first year ('I could have done it on my own just as well or better', Student interview, 1994) was of great concern to course designers, who acknowledged that groups would only be a useful learning tool if they were carefully managed and supported from the beginning. For the other half, who felt that groups were a positive learning experience, there was an unexpected bonus-the group provided a valuable network of social support that improved the quality of the first year experience. Comments such as `My study group worked well-it became more social than task oriented....', `It was very motivating, it was great' (Student interviews, 1994) are very encouraging. Effectiveness of Heterogeneous Groups The issue of effectiveness of diverse groups compared to homogeneous groups was not explicitly explored, but it emerged very early with the formation of groups. The mix of language background in the tutorials, and the presence of a minority of older students in the cohort meant that diverse groups were more likely than not. The controversy in the literature (Kirchmeyer, 1993; McLeod et al., 1996) concerning the comparative effectiveness of diverse and uniform groups was reflected in student qualitative comment: `Half my group was quiet Asian girls who worked with each other', 'I changed my group to one that was more open', `Groups make you relate to others', `Group members should encourage members who don't feel confident to speak' (Student interviews, 1994). Students who had English as a first language tended to regard students who participated less actively in discussion as contributing less. Groups were later encouraged to raise awareness of the different possible ways to contribute to a project, other than in discussions. Group Formation The Accounting students were roughly divided between the desire for the tutors to take the responsibility of creating groups (and thus take the responsibility for non-functioning groups) and the desire to self-select. In the first year of the tutorial programme the students were encouraged to self-select, with the tutor stepping in if there were any problems, but in fact students found their choices restricted by timetabling and logistic problems. Thus, with these issues in mind, it is important to make groups work better for more students and making the dynamics of group processes more explicit. Conclusions Using groupwork as a strategy for learning and skills development in large first-year undergraduate cohorts has many practical difficulties, and demands much from staff who often lack training in facilitation and experience in groupwork. As teachers who are aware of the emphasis put on communication skills in the workforce, we assume that working in groups must be helpful for our students (Green, 1997). Unfortunately, this is not necessarily immediately true. In many cases, groupwork can only be helpful to first-year undergraduate students after a change in focus has taken place. Most of our first year students have come direct from a public examination system that focuses on successful product. In order to benefit from groupwork there must be an equal focus in the curriculum on successful process, and an explicit recognition of the type of learning that this involves. Many students require a demonstration of the need for working in groups, and the value of the process for them as individuals. Many students are already efficient reproductive learners, but need to consciously change their focus to successful learning for understanding. Assessed tasks that

require and reward the skills which develop through effective teamwork can help students make this change of focus. Class discussions of learning experiences and positive approaches to improve group dynamics in the context of managing these tasks can support students who are not accustomed to reflecting on themselves as learners. A positive consequence of focusing on strategies that foster a deep approach to learning in a group situation-reflection, discussion, negotiation and collaboration-is that these strategies also encourage students to engage effectively with the subject content and the culture of the discipline. Although the introduction of this groupwork component was not as smooth as was expected in its first year, subsequent years (1996 and 1997) have seen a change in student attitude as the culture of first year has incorporated the notion that groupwork is expected and valued. Students have also perceived the links between the groupwork in their first undergraduate year with team project work done in later years of their degrees. Starting the process of developing group skills early in an undergraduate degree and seeing the process as on-going means that by the time of graduation, students have a solid understanding of the value of effective teamwork, and a repertoire of useful skills and learning strategies to take into the workforce. REFERENCES BELBIN, M. (1983) Management Teams: why they succeed or fail (London, Heinemann). BIGGS, J.B. (1987) Student Approaches to Learning and Studying (Melbourne, Australian Council for Educational Research) BIGGS, J.B. (1993) From theory to practice: a cognitive systems approach, Higher Education Research and Development, 12, pp. 73-87. CANDY, P.C., CREBERT, G. & O'LEARY, J. (1994) Developing Lifelong Learners Through Undergraduate Education (National Board of Employment Education and Training, Australian Government Publishing Service). CAPPELLETTO, G. (1993) Educating Chartered Accountants in Australia (Institute of Charted Accountants in Australia). CAWLEY, P. (1991) A problem-based module in mechanical engineering, in: D. BOUD & G. FELETTI (Eds) The Challenge of Problem Based Learning (Kogan Page, London). CHRISTIE, F. (1990) The changing face of literacy, in: F. CHRISTIE (Ed.) Literacy for a Changing World (Australian Council For Educational Research, Hawthorn, Victoria). ENTWISTLE, N. & RAMSDEN, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning (Kent, Croom Helm). GIBBS, G. (1990) Improving Student Learning Project: briefing paper (The Oxford Centre of Staff Development, Oxford Polytechnic, UK). GRAY, R, BEBBINGToN, J. & MCPHAIL, K. (1994) Teaching ethics in accounting and the ethics of accounting teaching: education for immorality and a possible case for social and environmental accounting education, Accounting Education, 3, pp. 51-75. GREEN, R. (1997) Designing and assessing task centred groupwork: issues of management and assessment for students and teachers in higher education: paper presented at the Higher Education Research & Development Society of Australasia Annual International Conference, Adelaide, South Australia, 8-11 July. GREGORY, R. & THORLEY, L. (1994a) Chapter 1: Introduction, in: L. THORLEY & R. GREGORY (Eds) Using Group-based Learning in Higher Education, pp. 19-25. (London, Kogan Page). GREGORY, R. & THORLEY, L. (1994b) Chapter 26: Present challenges, in: L. THORLEY & R. GREGORY (Eds) Using Group-based Learning in Higher Education, pp. 179-187

(London, Kogan Page). HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (London, Edward Arnold). HARBOUR, J. (1990) Understanding and improving small group performance, Performance and Instruction, January, pp. 1-7. HELMS, M. & HAYES, P.J. (1990) When bad groups are good: an appraisal of learning from group projects, Journal of Education for Business, Sept-Oct, pp. 5-8. JAQUES, D. (1984) Learning in Groups (Croom Helm, London). JOHNSON, D.W. & JOHNSON, F.P. (1987) Joining Together: group theory and group skills (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall). KEYTON, J. (1991) Evaluating member satisfaction, Small Group Research, 21, pp. 198219. KIRCHMEYER, C. (1993) Multicultural task groups: an account of the low contribution level of minorities, Small Group Research, 24, pp. 127-148. LOVIE-KITCHIN, J. (1991) Problem-based learning in optometry, in: D. BOUD & G. FELETTI (Eds) The Challenge of Problem Based Learning (Kogan Page, London). MILLS, B.J. (1991) Enhancing adult learning through cooperative small groups, Continuing Higher Education Review, 55(3), pp. 144-153 McGRATH-CHAMP, S. & BAIRD, M. (1995) Teaching HRM: practise what we preach? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, "Educational Issues in HRM", 33(3), pp. 60-75. MCLEoD, P.L., LOBEL, S.A. & Cox, T.H. JR (1996) Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups, Small Group Research, 27, pp. 248-264. MARTON, F. & SALJO, R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning II-outcomes as a function of the learners's conception of task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, pp. 115-127. RAMSDEN, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education (Routledge, London). SCUDDER, J.N., HERSCHAL, R.T. & CROSSLAND, M.D. (1994) Test of a model linking cognitive motivation, assessment of alternatives, decision quality and group process satisfaction, Small Group Research, 25, pp. 57-82. SMITH, B.C. (1993) Interpersonal behaviors that damage the productivity of creative problem solving groups, Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, pp. 171-185. STRAUS, S.G. (1996) Getting a clue: the effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups, Small Group Research, 27, pp. 115-142. TRIBE, D.M.R. (1994) Chapter 2: an overview from higher education, in: L. THORLEY & R. GREGORY (Eds) Using Group-based Learning in Higher Education (London, Kogan Page). WEBB, C., ENGLISH, L. & BONANNO, H. (1995) Collaboration in subject design: integration of the teaching and assessment of literacy skills into a first-year accounting course, Accounting Education, 4, pp. 335-350. WITTEMAN, H. (1991) Group member satisfaction: a conflict-related account, Small Group Research, 22, pp. 24-58. [Author Affiliation] HELEN BONANNO, JANET JONES & LINDA ENGLISH Learning Assistance Centre, Education Building A 35, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
305 PQ 1313676989

Copyright 2011 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Text-only interface This subscription is brought to you by The University of Sheffield