Student Learning Outcomes and Attitudes Using Three Methods of Group Formation in a Nonmajors Biology Class

Abstract

Group work is often a key component of student-centered pedagogies, but there is conflicting evidence about what types of groups provide the most benefit for undergraduate students. We investigated student learning outcomes and attitudes toward working in groups when students were assigned to groups using different methods in a large-enrollment, student-centered class. We were particularly interested in how students entering the class with different levels of competence in biology performed in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups, and what types of group compositions were formed using different methods of group formation. We found that low-competence students had higher learning outcomes when they were in heterogeneous groups, while mid- and high-competence students performed equally well in both group types. Students of all competence types had better attitudes toward group work in heterogeneous groups. The use of student demographic variables to preemptively form groups and allowing students to self-select their group mates both yielded heterogeneous competence groups. Students in the instructor-formed, demographic groups had higher learning outcomes compared with students allowed to self-select. Thus, heterogeneous groupings provided the most benefit for students in our nonmajors, large-enrollment class.

Three Steps to Adapt Case Studies for Synchronous and Asynchronous Online Learning†

“…The expectation is that students will interact, share information, and challenge each other’s ideas ( Appendix 1, Table S3 ) ( 9 ). Research suggests outcomes are improved with demographically heterogeneous groups ( 10 ). However, if groups meet asynchronously, it may be best to let students choose teams based on availability (Y. Lin, personal communication).…”

Implementing team‐based learning in the life sciences: A case study in an online introductory level evolution and biodiversity course

“…The students are placed in formal pre‐determined teams of five students for the duration of the term. Formal teams provide students with peers to discuss course material and create interdependence among team members, promoting community and accountability in a big classroom (Donovan et al., 2018; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008). Several team building practices can be used to create strong and cohesive teams, most of them requiring careful consideration of several demographic and academic variables (Donovan et al, 2018).…”

Supporting Student Learning and Experiences in the Lab: (How) Should We Design Their Groups?

“…In instructor-selected sections, the instructor assigned groups using student pre-attributes (concept inventory pre-score and gender). As best as possible given the constraint of lab section size and some lack of initial data at the time, the instructor aimed to have an even spread of homogeneous-knowledge (high, mid, and low) and heterogeneous-knowledge groups, without isolating women (based on [21]). In student-selected sections, students formed their own groups on the first day of lab, with no guidance from the instructor aside from the group size.…”

“…In addition, demographic attributes are widely used to determine groups, as a practical strategy that does not require collecting/analyzing survey data or incoming quizzes [16,17]. Demographic composition can impact metrics of student learning and behaviours [18][19][20][21][22] -or not [17,23] -with no universal recommendation. The variability of the published recommendations illustrates that the context is quite important when determining optimal group composition.…”