Team Formation Methods for Increasing Interaction During In-Class Group Work

1. Team Formation Methods for Increasing Interaction During In-Class Group Work Katherine Deibel Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington Seattle, Washington, USA ITiCSE 2005

2. In-class group work “Break up into groups and discuss this problem for the next 10 minutes.” • Short duration: 5 – 20 minutes • Simple, direct way to incorporate active learning • Students typically select their own groups Assigning groups can lead to greater student interaction and learning ITiCSE 2005

3. Outline • Argument For Assigning Teams for In-Class Group Work • How to Assign In-Class Teams: • Desired Traits for In-Class Teams • The Latent Jigsaw Method • Forming Teams Through Learning Styles • Conclusions ITiCSE 2005

4. Collaborative learning • Large body of literature: • Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods [Clarke, 1994] • Cooperation and the use of technology [Johnson & Johnson, 1996] • Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in SMET: A Meta-Analysis [Springer et al., 1999] • Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning [Felder & Brent, 2001] ITiCSE 2005

5. Why group work is good • Great pedagogical value [Springer et al., 1999] • Directly engages the learner with the material • Exposes students to different ideas • Promotes peer-teaching • Socialization boosts level of information processing • Student-to-student interaction is key! ITiCSE 2005

6. Interaction and Learning • Interaction is correlated with learning. • Tutorial dialogue study [Core et al., 2003] • More utterances by a student led to greater learning gains. • Passive listening less effective ITiCSE 2005

7. The ideal goal of group work In the time allotted, each and every student should be motivated and comfortable enough to converse and interact with his or her group. ITiCSE 2005

8. How to guarantee interaction • The literature suggests assigning groups • Gives an instructor better control of student interactions • Certain group designs can promote interaction. • [Haller et al., 2000; Oakley et al., 2004] • However • Most literature on assigning groups looks only at long-term group projects. ITiCSE 2005

9. Risks of student-selected teams • Teams tend to form around friendships. • Less exposure to different ideas • Greater chance of undesirable behaviour • Isolation of under-represented minorities • Can increase sense of loneliness • Non-participation or purely passive roles likely Regarding long-term group projects: [Haller et al., 2000; Oakley et al., 2004] These risks apply to in-class group work too!!! ITiCSE 2005

10. Summary of argument • Interaction is key to effective group work. • Student-selected teams are not guaranteed to encourage the right forms of interaction. • Assigning teams allows the instructor to address threats to interaction. Therefore: Assigning in-class teams can be beneficial by promoting and guaranteeing student interaction. ITiCSE 2005

11. Outline • Argument For Assigning Teams for In-Class Group Work • How to Assign In-Class Teams: • Desired Traits for In-Class Teams • The Latent Jigsaw Method • Forming Teams Through Learning Styles • Conclusions ITiCSE 2005

12. Desired Traits for In-Class Teams • Immediate productivity • Focus on students discussing the problem • Deemphasize the need to learn how to work together • [Barker, 2005] • Uniform participation • Create a group atmosphere that encourages every member to contribute • Efficiently use the allotted time ITiCSE 2005

13. Outline • Argument For Assigning Teams for In-Class Group Work • How to Assign In-Class Teams: • Desired Traits for In-Class Teams • The Latent Jigsaw Method • Forming Teams Through Learning Styles • Conclusions ITiCSE 2005

14. The Original Jigsaw Method • Promotes peer-teaching by making each member in charge of educating the rest of the group • Developed by Eliot Aronson (1971) • http://www.jigsaw.org ITiCSE 2005

15. Sebastianism A Fado B Saudade C Desenrascanço D Original Jigsaw Method – Example Portuguese Culture Expert Groups Learning Groups Time ITiCSE 2005

16. Learning Groups A B C D Jigsaw’s learning groups • Immediate Productivity: Learning group has a set agenda of peer teaching. • Uniform Participation: Each member must teach his or her peers. ITiCSE 2005

17. The latent jigsaw method • Original jigsaw method is time consuming. • Expert group stage requires students to master the material. • Idea of the latent jigsaw method: • Use students’ pre-existing knowledge to determine “expertise” • Avoid requiring mastery of a topic ITiCSE 2005

18. Open-Ended Question: On an embedded device with limited memory, what sorting algorithm would you choose to implement? Learning Groups A Students Respond Quick Sort Insertion Sort Merge Sort Heap Sort B C D The latent jigsaw in action Open-Ended Question A C B D Shuffle ITiCSE 2005

19. Observations from piloting • Students had a personal stake in the peer teaching process. • Contagious enthusiasm • Critical thinking evident • Students could discuss pros and cons about all the choices. • Some students admitted changing their opinion of the best answer. ITiCSE 2005

20. Outline • Argument For Assigning Teams for In-Class Group Work • How to Assign In-Class Teams: • Desired Traits for In-Class Teams • The Latent Jigsaw Method • Forming Teams Through Learning Styles • Conclusions ITiCSE 2005

21. Learning styles and Group Work • Learning Style: A set of behaviours preferred by a person for learning. • Using styles for grouping is not a new idea: • Business management [Bridges, 2000] • Engineering Education [Jensen et al., 2000] ITiCSE 2005

22. Learning styles and IGWS • Felder-Silverman Learning Styles • Developed for science & engineering students • Students completed an online Felder-Silverman Learning Style Inventory for homework. • Reflective / Active axis • Describes one’s approach to problem-solving • Reflective learners think silently before offering a solution or starting an experiment. • Active learners brainstorm out loud and try out new ideas. ITiCSE 2005

23. Forming teams • Members of a team should have similar Reflective / Active scores • Immediate productivity • Members in a group will start the solution process in a similar way. • Uniform participation • Similar thinking styles provide a comfortable, familiar atmosphere to work in. ITiCSE 2005

24. Observations from piloting • Groups clearly identifiable by their behaviours • Reflective groups quiet for first few minutes • Active groups immediately started brainstorming out loud. • Evidence of participation by everyone • Students confident in explaining ideas regardless of classroom persona • Students verbally supportive of team members ITiCSE 2005

25. Conclusions • Assigning teams for in-class group work can be beneficial. • The classroom atmosphere changed • Greater student participation and interaction • More enthusiasm • More time on task • Etc. • The results are preliminary; future study is needed. ITiCSE 2005

26. A final thought Student opinions of in-class group work changed for the positive. • Survey at the start of the term: • 53% negative about in-class group work • Voluntary feedback at the end of the term: • 1 out of 27 negative about in-class group work • Rest of responses positive and detailed ITiCSE 2005

27. A special thanks to… • The faculty and students involved • Steve Wolfman and Ken Yasuhara for all their advice and insights For more information, please contact: deibel@cs.washington.edu http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/deibel ITiCSE 2005