Significance of context in university students' (meta)cognitions related to group work: A multi-layered, multi-dimensional and cultural approach

“No one can whistle a symphony. It takes an orchestra to play it.” H. E. Luccock

“…The benefits of cooperative learning in classroom settings are clearly established for individual learners (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). For example, evidence suggests that small-group work improves motivation, higher order thinking and deep learning (Kimmel & Volet, 2010). Amongst the many potential collaborative approaches, Michaelson's team-based learning (TBL) system offers the most promise for experiencing the benefit of teams for producing a better product, but Michaelson notes that students fail to recognize the role of team processes unless directed (Michaelson & Sweet, 2008).…”

“…Common problems reported by students include social loafing and failure to complete much of the assigned work together, and results for student satisfaction with group work have been mixed (Ashraf, 2004;Kimmel & Volet, 2010;Volet & Mansfield, 2006). Time investment is already problematic for students juggling study and work commitments, and some high achievers express disappointment, preferring reward for individual effort.…”

“…Instructors can compose teams based on surface-level criteria such as gender or deep-level criteria like cognitive style, however, this requires access to student profiles or pre-surveys. Findings for the relative benefits of culturally heterogeneous and homogeneous teams remain inconclusive (Kimmel & Volet, 2010).…”

Trajectories of change in university students’ general views of group work following one single group assignment: significance of instructional context and multidimensional aspects of experience

“…The multidimensionality of students' group work experience can be related to several aspects of group learning. Empirical studies have identified a range of significant dimensions, such as affect (Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2009;Linnenbrink-Garcia, Rogat, & Koskey, in 2011;Author(s), 2005), motivation (Boekaerts & Minnaert, 2006;Author(s), 2009Author(s), , 2012, management issues (Webb, 2009;Author(s), 2006), assessment (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 1999;Gatfield, 1999;White, Lloyd, Kennedy, & Stewart, 2005), social aspects (Chiu & Khoo, 2003;Jehn & Shah, 1997;Mello, 1993) as well as cognitive aspects (Cantwell & Andrews, 2002;Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn, 2007;Kimmel & Volet, 2010;Webb, 2009) of group work.…”

“…The present study aimed to address this gap by measuring students' multi-dimensional appraisals of group work as they applied to the same group activity, and both at the start and the end of that activity. Six dimensions (scales) representing respectively the cognitive, motivational, emotional, social, management and group assessment dimensions of a group activity were targeted, using the Student Appraisals of Group Assignment (SAGA) instrument (Author/s 2001;2008;2010). Each of these dimensions is grounded in a distinct conceptual and/or empirical body of literature.…”