EXAMINATION INTO THE USE, PLACE AND EFFICACY OF GROUP WORK IN 
UNIVERSITY COURSES:


A Work in Progress Report of a Current Research Project 


Antoinette Ackermann and Sandi Plummer 
University of Canberra


In Tertiary Education Systems we often find ourselves using groups.  
These groups may involve students researching an area together, 
constructing a project together, presenting a tutorial together or any 
one of a number of other learning tasks.  One of the imperatives for 
students working together is the demand from employers for teamwork and 
interpersonal skills (NBEET 1992).   Other advantages lie in enhanced 
student learning through depth of topic, sharing of knowledge and 
experience, as well as in lecturer workload (Jaques 1991, Gibbs et al 
1986, Freeman 1993). 

We may have different reasons for using these groups as part of our 
instructional system and the outcome of their use may vary according to 
the goal.  But we believe that all of us have at one time or another 
been presented with dissatisfaction with an instructional system which 
includes group participation.  Main concerns identified at the Tertiary 
level are with the assessment of group project work in terms of equity 
of contribution and appropriate marking schemes (Gibbs, Habeshaw and 
Habeshaw 1986,  Trigwell 1992, Roberts et al, 1994).

Group work is a central part of courses in Health Education and 
Community Counselling; and group projects are assessable components of 
many of the units in these courses.  As part of the dynamic on-going 
process of course evaluation and self-reflexive praxis, we sought to 
examine the use, place and efficacy of group projects, as assessable 
components in these courses.   As the courses have a strong basis in 
cooperative/non competitive learning we felt that it was important to 
clarify any tensions which might arise from the use of cooperative 
teaching methods in a traditionally competitive (adult) academic 
environment.

Our overall approach in this project is based in action research 
whereby action is 
"intentionally  researched and modified, leading to the next stage 
which is then again intentionally examined for further change , and so 
on."(Wadsworth 1991 p.63).  
This paper describes our beginning stage.  It is organised in a 
research format which allows the initial exploration to be clearly 
contained.  We draw on the extensive research on group learning at the 
primary/secondary level using an analysis framework which focuses our 
attention on managing our instructional system.  Much of the research 
surrounding this analysis has addressed the three elements of 
interdependence, rewards and individual accountability (Slavin et al 
1985, Cohen 1994).  

This orientation to group work is also evident in group work in Higher 
Education.  Typically in project work the intention is for group or 
team members to contribute equally (Gibbs et al 19) with recognition 
that contributions may be valued for ideas, for leadership, for data 
collection, for the ability to contribute to communicating the outcome. 
 We suggest that responsibilities and the range of contributions are 
not always articulated clearly.   This becomes clearer when we factor 

in assessment.

Concern about the awarding of a grade which truly reflects an 
individuals level of achievement has given rise to a number of grading 
schemes many of which include peer assessment.  Gibbs et al (1986) 
suggest a satisfactory solution is to "build in mechanisms" for 
allocating different marks (p.104).  These include a shared group grade 
where the groups may allocate an individual component, negotiating the 
process within the group, or through a peer assessment with clearly 
imposed criteria.  Various systems, some with quite complex statistical 
formula, have been presented for the calculation of the individual 
component directed at fairness in effort ( Earl 1986, Goldfinch and 
Raeside 1990, Conway et al 1993).

Group work at the Tertiary level means incorporating principles of 
adult learning where students take more control of their learning, 
context where choice and autonomy are important issues.  There is a 
challenge here in structuring the learning environment to recognise and 
make full use of the different experiences and learning styles which 
individuals bring to the group.  

Instructional systems provide the means by which skills, processes, and 
information are further developed in students.  These instructional 
systems include both Task structures and Incentive structures (Slavin 
1983).  The way in which lecturers and tutors set up activities to 
promote student learning provides the Task structure, and the means of 
motivating the students provides the Incentive structure.  The use of 
groups is a description of the Task structure.

Typically in tertiary settings, the use of groups is in the form of an 
instructional system which provides for collaborative learning.  
Collaborative learning is where two or more students are required, 
rewarded, or permitted to work together on an academic task.

Collaborative and Cooperative Learning
Using this framework we can say that cooperative learning is one type 
of collaborative learning (Cooper 1990).  Cooperative learning requires 
both a cooperative task structure, one where 2 or more students can 
work together but may or may not receive rewards based on the groups 
performance; and a cooperative incentive structure, where the group is 
rewarded based on the performance of all group members .

Cooperative learning differs from collaborative learning in three very 
important ways.  Firstly it focuses on structures which are designed to 
ensure student-student interdependence.  Secondly it emphasises 
individual acceptability rather than undifferentiated group grades for 
team work, and thirdly it fosters cooperative behaviour in which each 
participant facilitates other participants.  Cooperation and team work 
are important, as is the valuing of each individual's contribution.

Many of our students will move into professional areas in which team 
work is highly valued and promoted.  Often this team work is seen to be 
the result of cooperative behaviour in which each member contributes to 
the fullest and the resultant product is greater than individual effort 
could have produced.  We also work to reduce the amount of enforced or 
teacher directed structure and wish to promote an intrinsic 
motivational system and self directed learning

In our courses cooperative behaviour is therefore one of the goals of 
our instructional system.  We seek to have students participating and 
coordinating their efforts and communicating such that each student 
facilitates the task performance or goal attainment of the other 

students.  We seek to instil or build upon a cooperative motive where 
there is a predisposition to act cooperatively in a situation which 
allows students the choice between cooperative, competitive or 
individualistic behaviour.  Because we work to promote a choice where 
there is a predisposition to act cooperatively, we may neglect the 
focus on the instructional systems which actually promote cooperation.  
Further, because our basic incentive system, grading, is typically 
competitive rather than cooperative this may also interfere with the 
goal of cooperative learning.

Structuring Cooperative Learning
In examining the research literature for the K - 12 are there are a 
number of structuring principles which arise for cooperative learning.

Interdependence
Firstly each student's goal attainment needs to be dependent on each 
other student's goal attainment.  The structure must be such that each 
student needs and expects some assistance from each other member in 
order to attain the goal.. A group mark does not necessarily promote 
interdependence.  Group marks lead to a higher grade than individual 
marks but this is not necessarily because of the interaction or 
motivation.  This result may be because if any individual can solve the 
problem, then all group mates get credit regardless of their own 
particular participation or learning.  Where the group mark is the only 
incentive for collaboration, the smarter group will allow the smartest 
student to complete the task providing useful support and then take 
credit for the achievement.  All students do not need to learn.  Only 
one student needs to perform.  

Cooperation can increase performance when coordination of efforts is 
vital to effective functioning in a short duration (Slaven, 1977).  
Competitive structures are at least as effective when coordination of 
efforts is not important.  Therefore the task must be clear to all, as 
is the role of each person in the group and the relative contribution 
of the group activity toward the course grade.  Furthermore there needs 
to be a retention of individuality within the group and a way of 
assessing the individual contribution of each student. One way of doing 
this would be that group grades only account for a small proportion of 
the overall mark.  Most importantly attention needs to be paid to 
'diffusion of responsibility", ie. the possibility for an individual to 
be rewarded even if they did very little and another who did a lot not 
be rewarded.   Diffusion of responsibility is the highest when group 
members can substitute one for another and when the group size is 
larger.  Lecturers need to facilitate processes to increase individual 
accountability.

Focus on the Goal of the Group Experience
Whether the goal is defined by the lecturer and/or the student group.
If cooperative behaviour is the goal then focus on this goal and 
provide the learning environment which supports this goal.   If 
producing a product is the goal then focus on this goal.  If learning a 
process or content is the goal then focus on this goal.  
The more goals the more work in focussing on goal attainment.  Thus 
lecturers may need to 1) work with students to ensure the development 
of clear and relevant goals and to keep them in perspective, 2) make 
sure cooperative learning tasks are perceived by students as relevant 
to the course and not busy work or an attempt by the lecturer to avoid 
work, 3) to make sure students understand and operationalise the 
criteria for success and can specify the desired outcomes.  Cooperation 
has many different connotations and uses and even in situations of 
choice and self-directed learning clear criteria for success act as an 
important motivator.  



Supervise and Structure Group Experience
There is a need to optimise the size, duration, and make up of the 
group.  If freedom of choice is an important element of the structure, 
then lecturers need to help students to make wise choices and evaluate 
their experiences such that they can learn from the experiences for 
future group work.  This may require the lecturer to monitor the 
student's progress and to intervene, if necessary, to teach cooperative 
skills and prepare students with the necessary social and communication 
skills.  A criteria referenced evaluation  system may be the best 
system when using cooperative learning methods. 

Process 
We sought a methodology for this project which was be consistent with 
our Courses philosophy of participation, cooperation and self-direction 
(Team doc 1993).   The Action Research approach provided a match with 
the cooperative/consultative nature of appropriate group experiences.  
The two researchers were also convenors of units so were particularly 
mindful of a number of dilemmas in using this approach:
- ensuring every voice is given equitable hearing
- guarding against bias in expression
- recognising and valuing of the subjective experiences (of teachers 
and students) and at the same time evaluating those experiences in a 
manner which allows values (notions of appropriate and inappropriate 
practices) to be placed on specific uses of Group Projects.

A graduate who had been involved in units the previous year joined us 
as a research assistant for the initial stage.  He brought important 
insights into the courses and was able to conduct interviews with 
students and with teaching staff.  The process began with an open-ended 
survey completed voluntarily either at the end of class time or in 
students own time.  Students were invited to identify themselves for a 
follow-up interview.   

56 students from 6 units in Community Counselling and Health Education 
completed the survey with questions about the nature of the group, how 
students selected their group, what were the students understandings of 
the rationale for using group work and the assessment process, what 
were the advantages and disadvantages of group work and knowledge and 
application of group theory.  All units were units where group work was 
an assessable component.    Half the units used an Ungraded Pass 
assessment and the other half used a typical HD, DI, CR and P system of 
assessment.

Follow-up interviews were conducted with 9 students.  5 teachers were 
interviewed including the two researchers.  
RESULTS

Survey 56 Students from 6 units in Counselling and H.Ed.

The students reported that the size of groups varied from two members 
to 11 members and that the members of the group were chosen based on 
topic (25 responses), friends (10 responses) and people (9 responses).  


The students understanding of the rationale for the group work was as 
follows:
Share and expand ideas/learn from each other, learn to cooperate - 33 
 responses
Learn group processes - 16 responses
Cover more ground - 5 responses

Save resources - 5 responses
When asked if the assessment process fitted with their understanding of 
the rationale for the use of the groups, 16 students stated that it 
fitted well and 16 stated that it did not fit very well.  This answer 
was not significantly different for units with UP marking or standard 
HD, DI,CR and Pass marking.  23 students gave no answer to this 
question.
When asked about the benefits and disadvantages of group work students' 
answers fell into the following categories:

Benefits  - Shared knowledge and ideas - 16 responses, social benefits 
- 12 responses,
learned cooperation - 11 responses.

Disadvantages - Difficult to meet 12 responses, and individuals did not 
pull their weight - 7 responses.

32 students felt that they had done units which had previously outlined 
group work theory and 18 students answered that they had not done such 
work.  Of the 32 students who answered yes 18 answered that they could 
link the theory and the practice and 14 answered that they could not.

Only 9 students answered that there was a need to formalise the above 
process and 8 students answered that the process didn't need to be 
formalised?


Other comments from interviews -

Students were asked "Did any conflict or really positive dynamics arise 
at all in your group? If so, what was it about, or how did it occur?"

All students talked about conflict.  Some stated that they dealt with 
it quickly or did not bother and just finished the project and 
continued disliking each other.  It appears that the shorter the time 
frame and the more task oriented the group, the less conflict arose.
 Some still had ill feelings with their group members years on.  1 
respondent experienced major conflict, with fierce shouting matches and 
nothing was ever really resolved.  Virtually all of this conflict arose 
due to people in the group not doing their work.  Some students did 
mention a few positives although they were far outweighed by negatives.
Some felt that the amount of time for the project was just too short 
for groups to develop properly.
"Were there any members that stood out particularly?"

All but one respondent had one or more people that stood out in their 
group.  Most mentioned that one or more members had done little or no 
work for the group., yet shared in their good marks.

The following table shows the comparisons of the student survey results 
with both the indepth interviews with staff and students.

Comparisons of student (56) and staff interviews (5), and in-depth 
interviews (9)
StudentsLecturersIn-Depth
1. Size of groups
2-113 to 4-62-5
2. How are groups selected?
25 topictopic and people7 topic
10 friends3 people
9 people
3. Rational for groups? None mentioned cooperation but in depth 

interview with students
learning group process (16)negotiation skills (8)learn cooperation 
build networks
cover more ground (5)planning, decision making, assertiveness, 
communication skills, conflict resolution etc.save resources (5)
4. Does assessment fit with the rationale?
16 yes3 no (graded)5 no
16 no2 yes (ungraded)4 yes
5. Was there previous teaching of group processes?
32 yes4 yes9 yes
18 no1 no(not correlated to student answers)
6. Do students link previous group training with group experience?
18 yes2 yes (cc)4 yes
14 no3 no (HEd)5 no
(not correlated to student answers
7. Should the link between theory and practice be formalised?
9 yes4 yes8 yes
8 no1 no1 no
8. Benefits
Survey of students: shared knowledge and ideas (16), social benefits 
(12), learned cooperation (11)
Interviews with students: Learned to cooperate (4), covered more ground 
(4), teamwork (2), making friends (4)
9. Disadvantages
Survey of students: difficult to meet (120, individuals did not pull 
their weight (7)
Interviews with students: diffusion of responsibility (5), difficult to 
meet (3), too competitive (1)
Note:Not all students answered all the questions.

CONCLUSIONS
Most of the studies have looked at achievement or performance as 
outcome measures of cooperative group experiences, this study choose to 
look primarily at student experience and management of assessable group 
projects.

All the groups were collaborative in structure and most of the groups 
had a cooperative task structure but there was no evidence of a 
cooperative incentive structure.  The groups fostered some student - 
student interdependence but none emphasised individual accountability 
because all gave an undifferentiated group grade.  (Diary in some)
Cooperation, as such, was not mentioned by the lecturers as the 
rationale for the groups and group process skills seemed to be the 
major emphasis.  In the in-depth interviews with students, most 
students mentioned cooperation as a major rationale.  This may imply 
that the lecturers were interested in providing skills which they 
believed would lead to a cooperative motive on the part of group 
members.  However clearly specifying the criteria for cooperation was 
not foremost in the lecturers' goals.

Interdependence
In terms of the important structures for cooperative learning, 
interdependence was not fostered by the incentive.  Students agreed 
that when the task duration was short that cooperation increased, and 
that coordination increased as the time for the completion of the goal 
approached.  The lecturers seemed to organise the task but not the 
roles of persons in the groups nor did the lecturers assess the 
individual contribution.  This seemed to lead to diffusion of 
responsibility as the biggest problem for the students.
There seemed to be little staff organisation to increase individual 
accountability which might have decreased the impact of the diffusion 
of responsibility.  The goal of the group experience seemed to differ 

from unit to unit.  Often there seemed to be multiple goals.  The 
cooperative goal was not clearly stated but the students seemed able, 
never-the-less, to perceive the cooperative goal and felt that it was 
relevant even if not always achievable.  Lecturers, especially in 
Community Counselling, were more optimistic than students about the 
achievement of the goals.  The criteria for success and the desired 
behaviours for cooperation were not clearly articulated.

Supervision and structure of group experiences
Most work took place outside the class time and therefore outside of 
direct supervision of the lecturers.  From comments made by students in 
the in-depth surveys, it would seem that greater monitoring of the 
group performance may have resulted in fewer social problems.  
Lecturers may have needed to intervene to teach more cooperative 
skills.  How this would have affected the (content) learning outcomes 
is not known.  From the reports in the literature the group size seemed 
to be optimal as did most of the length of the group experience.

Groups chosen by friendship groups do not maximise the heterogeneity of 
the group.  However, we have no evidence if groups chosen by topic were 
more heterogeneous than groups chosen by friendship.

In terms of previous group experience and theory, most students felt 
that they had been prepared.  However, the linking of the preparation 
to the practice seemed tenuous at the most.  

There seemed little difference in student responses in graded and 
ungraded units, with the exception that the hostility over time seemed 
to be less in the ungraded units.

Lecturers reported many dilemmas because of the assessment and the 
difficulties in mixings cooperative and competitive system in an adult 
learning environment.

One of the most positive results, however, is that even with all these 
difficulties over half of the students found the group experience 
provided them with positive outcomes which could be classified as 
cooperative.  It would seem that despite stated difficulties students 
valued what they had learnt.   The survey did not ask students what 
they needed or wanted to learn from the group project, but focused on 
staff goals, expectations and management of the assessment process.  
Therefore we have no specific information on whether students needs 
were met.

Major problem from students point of view diffusion of responsibility 
and the current structure provides little or overcome such diffusion.

Researching the Next Stage 
The conclusions which have emerged have provided two different action 
paths:
ĄThe first involves working with our peers.  In reporting back to our 
teaching team and to the academic staff the need emerged for lecturers 
to share their experiences and needs in working with groups.  A 
workshop is planned which will enable lecturers to work together to 
clarify goals and outcomes for their units where students work in 
groups, to examine options for structuring their group work and the 
assessment of student outcomes.
ĄThe second action involves working with our own students in managing 
their group project work more effectively.  In one unit this 
modification of practice began when students were presented with the 
results of our analysis.  The students engaged in a wide ranging 
discussion on the implications of our findings for their group work.   

The lecturer and students discussed goals and expected outcomes, the 
options for monitoring and assessing their progress and negotiating 
changes to the way the group work was structured.

We continue to examine the use, place and efficacy of group work in 
university teaching and in line with action research, this project is 
evolving and may continue in varied directions.

Bibliography

Cohen, E. G.  Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive 
Small Groups,  Review of Educational Research, Spring 1994,  Vol. 64, 
No 1, pp.1-35
Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A., and Wu M.,  Peer Assessment of An 
Individual's Contribution to a Group Project,  Assessment and 
Evaluation in Higher Education,  Vol. 18, No.1, 1993
Cooper, J.  Cooperative Learning and College Teaching: Tips from the 
Trenches,  The Teaching Professor,  May 1990, Vol 4, No 5, pp.1-2
Earl, S.E.  Staff and Peer Assessment - Measuring an Individual's 
Contribution to Group Performance,  Assessment and Evaluation in Higher 
Education , Spring 1986, VolĘ11, No.1  
Freeman, M.,  The Reliability of Business Students in Assessing their 
Peers  Paper presented at the AARE Conference,  Freemantle, November 
1993
Gibbs, G., Habeshaw, S. and Habeshaw, T.,  53 Interesting Ways to 
Assess Your Students,  Bristol, Technical and Educational Services  
1986
Goldfinch, J. and Raeside, R.,  Development of a Peer Assessment 
Technique for Obtaining Individual Marks on a Group Project, Assessment 
and Evaluation in Higher Education, Autumn 1990, Vol. 15, No.3 
Habeshaw, S., Gibbs, G. and Habeshaw, T.,  53 Interesting Things to do 
in your Seminars and Tutorials,  Technical and Educational Services 
Ltd, Bristol  1987
Jaques, D., Learning in Groups, 2nd edition, Kogan Page Ltd  London 
1991
Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R.T.  Learning Together and Alone, 
Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning, Prentice Hall 
Inc., New Jersey  1975
NBEET, Skills Sought by Employers of Graduates, Commission Report No. 
20, AGPS Canberra, December 1992
Slavin, R., Co-operative Learning,  Longman Inc., New York  1983
Roberts, A., Johnston, S., Chambers, B. and Molony, R., Guide to 
Assessment Practices at the University of Canberra, University of 
Canberra 1994
Trigwell, R., Information for UTS Staff on Assessment, University of 
Technology Sydney, Autumn Semester 1992
University of Canberra, Programs in Community Education  Programs of 
Courses in Health Education, and Counselling and HRD , Canberra 1993
Wadsworth, Y., Everyday Evaluation on the Run, Action Research Issues 
Association (Inc.) Melbourne 1991