.png)
.png)
Email this article 
The efficiency assessment of group work at the university
https://doi.org/10.20913/2618-7515-2021-4-17
Abstract
Group work at a university can lead to a noticeable growth of students' progress in studies, the ability to reason and motivate for further language mastering. The achievement of such results is directly dependent on each student contribution. Group support strategies such as role assignments, group contracts, anonymous grades and ratings are designed to encourage active student participation. The study objective is to reveal the students' perception of group work in general and the effectiveness of support strategies in particular. In-depth interviews were carried out in groups using support strategies. Students complained unequal contributions paying tribute to the social support provided by group members in both high- and low-performing groups. The students who scored high on the test results recognized the group work benefits regardless the overall performance of their groups, while students with lower scores perceived the group work as time-consuming «hard work»with little cognitive benefit. Anonymous comments from fellow students differed slightly between the high and low scoring groups. The numerical scores did indeed correlate with the group's overall performance. However, students in groups with the lower academic performance evaluated their classmates more rigorously, while students in higher performing groups were more generous in their ratings for less successful students. Scientific novelty lies in the approach to research group work at the university from the view point of students involving foreign experience and based on ideas, methods and technologies of Russian and foreign scientists. As a study result, it was determined that students of different levels of the subject training perceive group work as a valuable experience that has a positive effect on the learning process. The selected support strategies have shown the effectiveness varying degrees.
About the Authors
T. A. RakhimovaRussian Federation
Tat’yana A. Rakhimova – Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Foreign Languages
2, Solyanaya Square, Tomsk, 634003
I. P. Kaseka
Russian Federation
Irina P. Kaseka – Senior Lecturer, Department of Foreign Languages
2, Solyanaya Square, Tomsk, 634003
References
1. Handelsman J., Ebert-May D., Beichner R., Bruns P., Chang A., De Haan R., Gentile J., Lauffer S., Stewart J., Tilghman S. M., Wood W.B. Education. Scientific teaching. Science, 2004, no. 304, pp. 521–522. DOI: 10.1126/science.1096022.
2. Skomorovskaya N.B. Developing students' critical thinking. Actual problems of humanities and natural sciences, 2013, no. 12–2, pp. 283–289. (In Russ.).
3. Turdieva K.U. Development of critical thinking in students. Science and education today, 2019, no. 6–2, pp. 77–78. (In Russ.).
4. Petrova N.S., Petrov A.Yu., Chumakova L.A. Pedagogy of cooperation as a modern form of relationships in the university. Problems of modern teacher education, 2018, no. 61–3, pp. 180–184. (In Russ.).
5. Kopylova N.A. Modern pedagogy of cooperation as a scientific basis for interaction and joint activities of teachers and students of higher education. Scientific result. Pedagogy and Psychology of Education, 2017, no. 2, pp. 21–29. (In Russ.).
6. Gadzhiev G.M., Kvimsadze E.E. Pedagogical interaction in modern theories and concepts. Proceedings of Dagestan State Pedagogical Unicersity. Psychological and pedagogical sciences, 2012, no. 2, pp. 23–27. (In Russ.).
7. Shavishvili I.Sh. The method of peer learning in teaching practice. Sciences of Europe, 2019, no. 39–4, pp. 40–42. (In Russ.).
8. Bratchikova Yu.V. Group interactions of students: analysis of current trends. Pedagogical education in Russia, 2015, no. 6, pp. 132–137. (In Russ.).
9. Slavin R.E. Student team learning: a practical guide to cooperative learning. Washington, Nat. Education Assoc., 1991, 128 p.
10. Khozhaev A.A. Command-oriented learning as a technology for conducting practical classes for 4th year students. Bulletin of Kazakh National Medical University, 2016, no. 3, pp. 234–236. (In Russ.).
11. Michaelsen L.K., Bauman Knight A., Fink L.D. (eds.) Team-based learning: a transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, STYLUS Publ., 2004, 286 p.
12. Trusova N.I. A form of peer learning or a combination dialogue method. Externat.RF: e-journal. 2016. URL:http://ext.spb.ru/2011-03-29-09-03-14/131-edu-tech/10112-forma-vzaimoobucheniya-ili-metod-sochetatelnogo-dialoga.html (accessed 16.03.2021). (In Russ.).
13. Beichner R. The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) Project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 2007. Vol. 1, pp. 1–42. URL: https://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517&DocID=183.
14. Moog R.S., Spencer J.N. POGIL: an overview. ACS Symposium Series, 2008, vol. 994, pp. 1–13.
15. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the foundation of agency. Control of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness: essays in honor of the 60th birthday of August Flammer. New York, Psychology Press, 2000, pp. 17–33.
16. Chang Y.J., Hannafin M.J. The uses (and misuses) of collaborative distance education technologies: implications for the debate on transience in technology. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2015, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 77–92.
17. Creswell J.W. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles [etc.], Sage Publ., 2017, 304 p.
18. Kelli G., TiboDzh. Interpersonal relationships. Interdependence theory. Contemporary foreign social psychology. Moscow, 1984, pp. 61–81. (In Russ.).
19. Pomelov V. B. The movement of educators-innovators of the 1980s: to the 30th anniversary of cooperation pedagogy. Bulletin of Samara State Technical University. Series: Psychological and pedagogical sciences, 2016, no. 4, pp. 74–89. (In Russ.).
20. Grebenkina L.K., Kopylova N.A. Conceptual ideas of cooperation pedagogy as the basis for pedagogical interaction of teachers and students of a higher educational institution. Bulletin of S.A. Yesenin Ryazan State University, 2009, no. 22, pp. 13–24. (In Russ.).
21. Aleeva Yu.V., Popova N.V. The development of the cognitive activity of university students in the process of problem-based learning. Economics. Profession. Business, 2015, no. 1, pp. 58–60. (In Russ.).
22. Yakovleva E.A. Problem-based learning as an innovative direction in teaching Russian in higher education. Humanities bulletin, 2015, no. 1, pp. 1–7. (In Russ.).
23. Artyuhina V. Survey methods of studying public opinion: opportunities and limitations. Sociology in the modern world: science, education, creativity, 2017, vol. 1, no. 9–1, pp. 132–135. (In Russ.).
24. Firstov V.E. Sociometric and informational aspects of clustering of the student population in the organization and optimization of group cooperation in the educational process at school and university. Proceedings of Saratov University. New series. Series: Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2014, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 110–118. (In Russ.).
25. McMillan, D., Chavis, D. Sense of community: a definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 1986, no. 14, pp. 6–23.
26. Latané B., Williams K., Harkins S. Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 822–832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822.
27. Judd Ch. M., Westfall J., Kenny D.A. Experiments with more than one random factor: designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 2017, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 601–625.
28. Westfall, J., Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C.M. Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2014, vol. 143, no. 5, pp. 2020–2045. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000014.
29. Webb C.O., Ackerly D.D., McPeek M. A., Donoghue M.J. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 2002, vol. 8, no. 33, pp. 475–505.
30. Woolley A.W., Chabris Ch.F., Pentland A., Hashmi N., Malone Th.W. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 2010, vol. 330, no. 6004, pp. 686–688. DOI: 10.1126/science.1193147.
31. Theobald E.J., Eddy S.L., Grunspan D.Z., Wiggins B.L., Crowe A.J. Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: comfort and equity matter. PLoS ONE, 2017, vol. 12, no. 7, art. e0181336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181336.
Supplementary files
For citation: Rakhimova T.A., Kaseka I.P. The efficiency assessment of group work at the university. Professional education in the modern world. 2021;11(4):163-173. https://doi.org/10.20913/2618-7515-2021-4-17
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
