Abstract
It is through working in groups that students develop cooperative learning skills and experience. However, group work activity often leads students into a difficult experience, especially for first-year students who are not familiar with group work activities at university. This study explores obstacles faced by first-year students during their group work activities. It investigates whether a group of students with a similar learning style (homogeneous group) experience different obstacles compared to a group of students with a diverse learning style (heterogeneous group). In addition, to identify the difference, if any, between a group formed by a tutor and one where the students form the group themselves, tutor and self-allocated group allocations are explored. This study focuses on obstacles experienced by these students during group work activities. Using a sample of more than 200 students over a period of 3 years, the types and the changes of obstacles in different stages of group life are explored. The findings show that students experience obstacles which can be classified into personal and social, leadership and management, and task-related obstacles. Those obstacles were not static but increased over time. The study also investigates the impact of different methods of forming groups and whether this impacted on obstacles experienced. Overall, different interventions prompted different patterns of obstacle development.
Group work: do obstacles change over time?
In a higher education setting, group work activity has often been seen as a replacement or addition to traditional teaching methods (Cheng et al., 2008; Cohen, 1994; Colbeck et al., 2000; Hendry et al., 2005; Huxham and Land, 2000). Group work has been accepted as a mechanism whereby students learn subjects while engaging in problem solving, observation and participation in collaborative activities (Bonwell and Eison, 1991; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009; Sharan, 2010; Yazici, 2005). This approach focuses on students as being at the centre of activities and empowers them through the use of cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson, 1999; Sharan, 2010). Ideally, group work can help students to develop a sense of ‘team’ by encouraging them to support each other’s learning (Peterson and Miller, 2004; Slavin, 1983, 1990). As they learn to share, communicate ideas and listen to others’ ideas, working in a group will help students in their learning and to experience new constructs for understanding (French and Kottke, 2013; Hillyard et al., 2010; Johnson and Johnson, 2002; Webb et al., 1995).
A number of factors make group work an attractive method for teaching and learning in higher education (Barth et al., 2007; Collier, 1980; Gregory and Thorley, 2013). As teaching pedagogies have shifted from teacher-centred learning to student-centred learning, this shift is characterised by the change from traditional rote-learning methods to styles in which students are more able to play an active role (Braxton et al., 2000; Brockbank and McGill, 2007) and engage in cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson, 1999; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009; Yazici, 2005). Johnson and Johnson (1986) and Sobral (1997) found evidence that students working in a group achieve higher levels of learning and retain information longer than students who work individually. By engaging in a cooperative learning environment, students are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning and thus become critical thinkers (Sharan, 2010; Slavin, 1983, 1990; Totten et al., 1991).
Group work may, however, pose some potential problems (Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008; Hall and Buzwell, 2012; Hillyard et al., 2010; McCorkle et al., 1999; Micari and Drane, 2011; Scott-Ladd and Chan, 2008; Wang, 2012). Group work can be an unpleasant experience due to dysfunctional groups (Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008; Dommeyer, 2007). Groups may experience communication problems if group members are diverse and come from different backgrounds. Several obstacles have been highlighted, such as ‘free-ride’ members (Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008; Hall and Buzwell, 2012), social-comparison dilemmas (Micari and Pazos, 2014), management conflict (Scott-Ladd and Chan, 2008) and members’ low participation (Li and Campbell, 2008). Burdett and Hastie (2009) found that individuals were more satisfied with group work when they perceived greater workload equality. Another problem is related with social comparison where students feel intimidated as they are less talented or less able to perform well than other (Dijkstra et al., 2008; Micari and Drane, 2011). Demographic differences also appear to have an impact on group work. Wilkinson and Fung (2002) found in a mixed-ethnicity group, some students tend to dominate discussion and activities. A similar pattern has been found with regard to gender, where males are more active than females (Lockheed et al., 1983). Overall, it can be concluded that groups that are able to overcome obstacles and function at the higher stages of development are more productive (Wheelan and Lisk, 2000).
While studies have discussed obstacles that hinder learning in group work, those obstacles are often seen as static and do not change over time. In fact, the obstacles may disappear or escalate while new obstacles appear as groups progress from one stage of group development to another. Without understanding how students work as a group and how they use resources on solving and negotiating obstacles at the expense of learning, their learning process may perhaps be impaired in some way. For that reason, there is a need to better understand the development pattern of different types of obstacles during group work.
Group works: the impact of the different method of forming groups on obstacles
While working in groups may facilitate and reinforce learning activities, the challenge of employing group work is in part about the way that those groups are formed. There are several ways of forming groups, but the most popular ones are these two. First, allowing students to choose their own group (self-selected group). Second, that the tutor allocates students to groups, randomly, that is, without taking into account any factors such as gender balance, background, age or whatever (Huxham and Land, 2000).
Despite the benefits offered by group work in supporting learning, there have been studies indicating negative experiences of working in a group (e.g. Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008; Hall and Buzwell, 2012; Hillyard et al., 2010; McCorkle et al., 1999; Micari and Drane, 2011; Scott-Ladd and Chan, 2008; Wang, 2012). Apparently, the use of group work may force students to spend more time and put more effort into overcoming obstacles than dealing with tasks and learning in a cooperative way. While many studies have been focused on obstacles, little attention has been given to the dynamic nature of obstacles experienced by students during group work. In addition, there have been few studies examining the relationship between how groups are formed and the obstacles faced within each (Huxham and Land, 2010, Yazici, 2005).
It is argued, here, that students who have been tasked to work in a group that the tutor has formed, one which does not take into account any factors such as gender balance, background, age or whatever, (i.e. the group comprises students who have been randomly allocated), may find it difficult to perform in that group, especially in the early stages in introducing themselves to each other compared to self-selected groups. In self-selected groups, problems such as communication can be reduced, as members are more likely to be known to each other. The group often selects members based on their skills and capability that they believe will bring benefit to the group. Consequently, the self-selected group may experience fewer obstacles and a lower degree of difficulty than the group that has been formed by the tutor and which comprises students who have been randomly allocated.
Another common method that has been used to form groups is by attempting to ‘engineer’ groups according to certain characteristics (Yazici, 2005; Huxham and Land, 2010). Students process and learn new information in different ways, which may impact on their approach to group work activities. According to the concept of cooperative learning, having a variety of learning styles in a heterogeneous group has a positive impact on group work (e.g. Slavin,1990; 1995; Johnson and Johnson,1986). The argument is that in a heterogeneous learning group, students may complement their skills and capability (Cheng et al., 2008; Slavin,1983; 1990; Stevens and Slavin, 1995; Webb, 1982) which result in a better performance than a homogeneous learning group. However, students in heterogeneous learning groups may potentially experience more, or different, obstacles than those in homogeneous learning groups (e.g. Dweck, 1986; Monteil and Huguet, 1993). Students may be confronted with others who have different learning approaches and styles. The differences may hinder engagement, resulting in a reduced ability to learn effectively. Students in heterogeneous learning groups may potentially experience social-comparison problems where they feel inferior as they view others as more competent (Mugny et al., 2001).
There is, therefore, a gap in the literature regarding the method of assigning students to groups and its impact on the obstacles that they face along the way. Therefore, there is a need to address the following research questions. First, do the obstacles change over time? Second, to what extent do the different methods of forming groups impact the obstacles experienced? Third, does this vary when their learning style is taken into account? The following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a. Students in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experience more obstacles than those in self-selected groups.
H1b. Students in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experience greater difficulty than self-selected groups.
H2a. Students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles experience more obstacles than those in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles.
H2b. Students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles experience greater difficulty than those in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles.
Research method
In understanding the dynamic nature of obstacles, Tuckman’s (1965) stage model that has been used for many years and is recognised to be key model of group development (Wheelan and Hochberger, 1996) is drawn on. Tuckman synthesises a model of group development as a sequence of forming, storming, norming and performing (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman and Jensen, 1977). The stages of forming, storming and norming are relevant as they provide a recognisable frame for the analysis of group activity and obstacles over time. The performing stage is not addressed within this study as the focus is on obstacles, rather than task achievement. Interviews and surveys were conducted over a period of 3 years (2010–2012). The data were collected from students who joined ENTR101, a first-year introduction module at Lancaster University, UK, which was designed to inspire and challenge students with entrepreneurship concepts within the field of business and management. The module was delivered over 10 weeks from January to March each year where students worked in groups consisting of five or six students.
The first stage of the research was undertaken by conducting interviews with a cohort of students in 2010. In total, there were 80 students who participated in the course. In all, 30 students were selected using a random sampling method. The journey of these students was followed and interviews were conducted every 2 weeks for 10 weeks. During the interviews, we asked students the following questions: ‘How is it going with your group?’, ‘Is everything going according to plan?’, ‘Do you experience any problems?’ and ‘Have you been in trouble with the group?’ If the students did not report any difficulties or obstacles, more detail questions were posed in relation with their perception on group performance, leadership, and the process during group work activity. Those questions aimed to explore any potential conflict that emerged during the activity. In total, 40 hours of data from the interviews were collected. The result of the analysis produced three categories of obstacles. Table 1 shows the mapping of the interview raw data to the obstacle categories.
Shows the mapping of the interview raw data.
As a summary, the obstacles can be succinctly conceptualised by three formative constructs: (1) personal and social obstacles, (2) leadership and management obstacles, and (3) task-related obstacles. Personal and social obstacles refer to obstacles related to personality and interaction among students, such as lack of motivation, personality clash and difficulties in accepting others’ opinions. Leadership and management obstacles refer to obstacles experienced by students during the process of group work activities. This obstacle includes some technical issues related to managing the process such as leadership, communication and approaches to problem solving. The task-related obstacle relates to the content of the assignment. This is associated with limited knowledge and skills possessed by students as well as possible misunderstandings of the task objectives and mistakes during the process. From the interviews and the observation on the group work process, we found that the students spent the first 2 weeks in the forming stage. The meetings took a long time as the group started to understand the nature of assignments and different capabilities that are available in the group. The storming stage was normally started at week 3 and lasted until week 6 where the groups needed to deliver their intermediate report. We defined the rest of the week as norming stage where the group reach consensus and start to work effectively towards the objective. Based on this construction of three categories of obstacles, a questionnaire was developed. We conducted surveys with a sample of 170 respondents over 2 years (85 students joining the module in 2011 and 85 students joining the module in 2012). The timing of the survey was in weeks 2, 5 and 8 during the 10-week module. In the survey, we used dichotomous variable (yes/no) to represent whether the students experience the obstacles. Using a five-point Likert-type scale, we also asked them to indicate the degree of difficulty caused by each obstacle.
Two types of analysis were performed: the trend analysis of obstacle category and the measurement of obstacles incidences during group work. Using the trend analysis, the study compared the frequency of obstacle appearance in Tuckman’s development stages. The second analysis measured the average number of obstacles experienced by students across the group development stages as well as the average degree of difficulties caused by each obstacle. Statistical tests were used to test the hypotheses. To test the hypotheses on how the method of assigning students into groups may have impacted the obstacles faced, we employed two experiments in two cohorts (2011 and 2012). In each cohort, students were divided into two workshops, each of which was grouped in different ways. The first experiment in 2011 allowed 40 students from the first workshop to choose their own groups and another 45 students from the second workshop were randomly allocated into groups by the tutor. As a result, four self-selected groups and five randomly allocated groups were established. In the second experiment (2012), we assigned students based on their learning style. In total, there were 85 students in the class. We attempted to ‘engineer’ students into two groups. The homogeneous cluster included students who shared similar learning styles, while in the heterogeneous cluster more than one learning style was included. To determine the learning style, the Felder–Silverman learning style questionnaire was used (Felder and Silverman, 1988; Felder and Spurlin, 2005; Litzinger et al., 2007). This assessment identifies the students’ dominant style on each style axis and returns a score from 1 to 10 to indicate the relative strength of this learning style. Felder and Silverman defined four types of learning styles: (1) active and reflective, (2) sensing and intuitive, (3) visual and verbal and (4) sequential and global. As a result, there were five groups of students with homogenous learning styles and four groups of students with heterogeneous learning styles.
Findings
Do the obstacles change over time?
Based on the 2011 and 2012 data, the analysis found a similar pattern of obstacle development where most of the obstacles increased in the final stages. In the forming stage, the number of obstacles was relatively low compared to that in other stages. The students were relatively new to each other and may have encountered different personal characteristics and backgrounds. During this stage, the students adjusted their behaviour accordingly, to adapt to the differences as well as to build their leadership capacity. Comparing the number of obstacles across different types of obstacles, the students suffered most from the leadership and management obstacles. Personal and social obstacles shows a similar development pattern with leadership and management obstacles, where in the first two stages the number of obstacles were relatively stagnant but increased in the final stage. Task-related obstacles were relatively low at the beginning but increased drastically in the second and the final stages (Figures 1 and 2).
Trend of obstacles in 2011 study.
Trend of obstacles in 2012 study.
To what extent do the different methods of forming groups have an impact on the obstacles experienced?
Table 2 shows the average number of incidences of obstacles experienced by the groups and by each student. On average, the students in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced 17.04 obstacles in each stage compared to 17.74 obstacles experienced by the students in the self-selected groups in each stage. However, if we calculate the average number of obstacles experienced by the students, students in the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced significantly fewer obstacles (0.38 incidences of obstacles per student) than students in the self-selected groups (0.44 incidences of obstacles per student). In the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis, the most frequent obstacle was personality clash (0.47 incidences of obstacles per student) while the most frequent problem in the self-selected groups was different approaches to problem solving (0.61 incidences of obstacles per student) and communication and time management (0.58 incidences of obstacles per student).
Obstacles incidences in three development stages.
Note: Column A: Total number of obstacle incidences in three development stages; Column B: Average number of obstacle incidences in each stage; Column C: Obstacles incidences per student.
With regard to the role of learning style in terms of the make-up of the students in the group, students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles experienced more obstacles compared to the students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles. On average, the homogeneous groups experienced 18.22 obstacles compared to 17.19 obstacles experienced by the heterogeneous groups. The number of obstacles experienced by students is relatively similar with the students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles experiencing 0.40 incidences of obstacles per student and the students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles experiencing 0.43 incidences of obstacles per student. The obstacles experienced by the students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles were relatively spread across the categories, with the highest incidences of obstacles being different approaches to problem solving (0.51 incidences of obstacles per student). For the students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles, two obstacles, namely lack of leadership and different approaches to problem solving were the most common obstacles witnessing 0.58 and 0.53 incidences of obstacles per student.
While Table 2 indicates that the students in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced fewer obstacles per student than the self-selected groups, when analysing the degree of difficulty experienced (Table 3), students from the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis suffered more than the students from the self-selected groups. Students in the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced significant difficulty with regard to obstacles such as personality clash and lack of leadership. The self-selected groups reported a high degree of difficulty as a result of different approaches to problem solving. With regard to different learning styles, the students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles experienced significant difficulties in terms of task-related obstacles including lack of knowledge and lack of technical skills, while the students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles suffered from different approaches to problem solving.
Level of difficulty experienced by students.
SD: standard deviation; † p<.10; *p<.05; ** p<.01
In this section, the findings on the trend of obstacles experienced by the group over time are presented. For each figure, the obstacles experienced by the students within the category are added. Figure 3 shows that in forming stage, the personal and social obstacles where the students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles and the self-selected groups experienced fewer obstacles compared to the students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles and those in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis. This finding is in contrast to obstacles experienced by the students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles and groups formed by the tutor on a random basis where the number of obstacles is significantly higher. However, the obstacles experienced by the students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles and those in a self-selected group escalated in the later stages while students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles and those in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced a decline in the number of obstacles. In the final stage, the students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles and self-selected groups experienced more obstacles than the students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles and the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis.
Trend of personal and social obstacles across three stages.
Examination of the leadership and management obstacles shows a mixed trend (Figure 4). With regard to the differences in learning style, the students in groups comprising those with either a homogeneous or a heterogeneous learning style showed a similar trend where obstacles increased as the groups developed to the final stage. Comparing the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis and the self-selected groups, there are some interesting findings. At the beginning, the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced more obstacles than the self-selected groups but as the groups progressed to the storming stage, the obstacles reduced drastically in the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis while the self-selected groups suffered from a significant increase in the number of obstacles.
Trend of leadership and management obstacles across three stages.
The last figure (Figure 5) shows the development of task-related obstacles, where the number of obstacles increased drastically in the final stage. The pattern can be understood as the students must focus on accomplishing the task. Overall, the self-selected and students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles experienced a higher number of obstacles compared to other groups.
Trend of task-related obstacles across three stages.
By observing the trend of obstacles development across the three stages, some conclusions can be drawn. With regard to personal and social obstacles, the findings show that the pattern is rather complex where each type of group experienced a dynamic increase and decrease of obstacles. While the number of obstacles increased for the students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles and those in the self-selected groups, the students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles and those in the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced a decrease in their obstacles. With regard to leadership and management obstacles, the findings also showed that the number of obstacles increased over the three stages. However, the students in the self-selected groups and those in the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis showed a significant dynamic change from the first to the last stages. While for self-selected groups the number of obstacles increased dramatically, the students in the groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced the opposite, where the obstacles declined. This finding indicates that the way that the group is formed has an effect on the process. With regard to the task obstacles, the obstacles escalated in the final stage. While most of the groups experienced similar patterns, those students in the self-selected groups fared the worst compared to others.
Conclusion
This study explored the obstacles that appeared in each stage of group development. Using trend analysis, the study found that the obstacles experienced by the students increased as the groups progressed. Each stage had its own major obstacles, as the challenges and the context of each stage are different. The study found that most obstacles increase in the final stage with the leadership and management obstacles being among the most in terms of obstacles experienced. Two hypotheses regarding the impact that different methods in the forming groups may have had on the number and type of incidences of obstacles faced, namely, whether or not students in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experience would experience more obstacles than those in groups that students themselves selected, that is, self-selected groups, and whether students in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis would experience greater difficulty than self-selected groups. It was hypothesised that students in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis would experience more obstacles than those in the self-selected groups. In fact, students in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced fewer obstacles than those in self-selected groups. In addition, students in groups formed by the tutor on a random basis experienced more problematic obstacles than those in self-selected groups with regard to personality clashes and lack of leadership.
With regard to the second hypothesis, that is, whether students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles would experience more obstacles and face greater difficulty than those in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles, the results did not confirm that students in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles experienced more obstacles than those in groups comprising homogeneous learning styles. Rather, those in groups comprising those with heterogeneous learning styles experienced fewer problematic task-related obstacles than those in groups comprising students with homogeneous learning styles. Students in groups comprising those with homogeneous learning styles suffered from obstacles such as lack of knowledge on the subject and technical skills. Based on this finding, it can be argued that the method of assigning students into groups determines the type and the development of obstacles experienced by students.
Limitations include that the study is based on the relatively small sample in a very specific context, namely, undergraduate students in their first year and within the field of business and management. Therefore, future work needs to look at more samples, such as those from later on during their undergraduate studies and also those at postgraduate level and also in different contexts, such as different disciplines and different cultural contexts, to support any generalisation of the findings. By further testing the findings in several different contexts, this can enrich our understanding about the factors that may influence the emergence and development of obstacles. There are also different ways of forming groups, and so future work needs to look at how different formations may or may not impact how students work in groups. It may also be fruitful to explore the role of intervention in supporting the learning process and in developing students’ understanding of the group processes they are experiencing during group activities (Hillyard et al., 2010). Future studies could therefore usefully incorporate both the assessment of learning outcomes and the impact of students’ prior understanding of group processes and obstacles in group activities.
The study described in this article explored the obstacles and their development during group work activities. The declining trend of obstacles experienced by the heterogeneous groups and the random group is interesting as they are assumed to encounter more diverse approaches due to differences in learning style and time needed to perform. The increased obstacles of the homogeneous and self-selected groups may be caused by the lack of complementary skills that were necessary for successful completion of the final stage. The contribution of this study is twofold. First, the study provides further empirical evidence that obstacles are not static but instead change over time during group development (Jehn and Mannix, 2001). This work builds on and develops the literature on cooperative learning within groups (Slavin, 1983; 1990) by addressing not only outcomes but also by shedding light on the nature and type of those obstacles as they develop over time. Second, it helps us as lecturers/faculty when it comes to our decision-making in terms of the choices open to us when it comes to the formation of groups in our classrooms. In addition to this, the study highlights potential obstacles to successful group processes and task completion at different stages of group life, which might perhaps be addressed by timely tutor, or institutional (Hillyard et al. 2010), support and intervention.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.