1. 1 Project Oriented Student Work: Group Formation and Learning Stefan Cronholm, stecr@ida.liu.se Ulf Melin, ulfme@ida.liu.se Dept of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University Linköping, Sweden

2. 2 Outline Background Briefly about the case Research methodology Findings Conclusion and discussion

3. 3 Question Question: –“How do semi-randomly formed project groups affect learning in project-oriented work?” Answer: –Based on the students understanding of learning

4. 4 Project-Oriented Work (PROW) Characteristics: A form of group work Based on significant influences from theories of –temporary organizations and –student-centred education/learning (SCE) approaches. Defined as: “a temporary organization with a number of project members who are interacting during a limited time in order to reach a goal” (Packendorff, 1995)

5. 5 Semi-randomly formed groups Approaches to forming project groups in higher education are considered to be a key issue in group project work (Gibbs, 1995). Forming groups - considerations –How? »Randomly (e.g. throwing dice, drawing lots, etc) »Methodological (governed by criteria such as sex, learning styles, preferences, etc.) –Who should be in charge? »Students »Teachers

6. 6 Semi-randomly formed groups At least two dimensions exist when dividing groups: –From “randomly” to “methodological” –From “managed by students” to “managed by teachers” Semi-randomly formed groups 1) The students formed pairs (methodological and managed by students) 2) The teacher combined three student pairs into a project group by drawing lots (random and managed by teacher). Forming groups semi-randomly is a combination of both dimensions

7. 7 Motivation General driving forces: –Group work and projects are one of the most common forms of SCE and are amongst the most common form of undergraduate coursework assignments (Gibbs, 1995). –It is a fact that students spend more time working in project groups or small group discussions (Hartley, 1997). –This is not a new phenomenon, but according to Hartley (1997) this phenomenon is given very little attention. Specific (local) driving forces –Students complain about how groups are formed (the common situation is that student form groups by themselves)

8. 8 Briefly about the CASE Used in a university course, Subject: information systems First academic year The course lasted for 15 weeks, with full time studies and 60 students. The course spans from early phases in a systems development project such as a business analysis and requirement specification to system implementation of a relational database

9. 9 Briefly about the CASE The students have used descriptions and models for organizing –Projects, phases, documents, schedules, budgets and risk analysis The aim of the course was that students should learn how to design and implement an IS. Another aim was to simulate real life conditions for the students to feel as if they participate in an authentic system development project. The students were divided into ten groups Every group was formed with six members.

10. 10 Research methodology A combined qualitative and quantitative approach The first qualitative part –Data source: the student’s written experiences from using PROW (essay in free format) –Data Analysis: »inductive, inspired by Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), »generation of categories »Relating categories (conditions  consequence) »Categories are classified either as a strength or as a problem. The result of the qualitative part can be viewed as a hypothesis

11. 11 Research methodology – the quantitative part A questionnaire was used –The questionnaire consisted of »statements that corresponds to the categories generated »about identified relationships between categories –Questions were formulated as comparisons to the group division form “forming groups at the students free will” –Sent to 200 students that are enrolled on the study program. –74 students answered »More mature students that are close to graduation didn’t think that the questions concerned them »Lack of interest?

12. 12 Sub-category Condition: Semi- randomly formed project groups Consequence: Effects on learning Perspectives and dynamics Possibilities for discussing different perspectives Group dynamics Developed understanding of different perspectives Motivation Authentic Fun Prepared students for working life PedagogyConflict generativeStimulated learning Social relationsOpportunities in meeting new people Improved social skills HeterogeneityDifferent pre-knowledge and motivation Students with lower learning capability have learned from students with a higher capability Findings - strengths

13. 13 Findings - problems Sub-Category Condition: Semi-randomly formed project groups Consequence: Effects on learning CoordinationDifferent wishes about working times Conflicting activities outside the university Geographical distance between project membersObstructed learning due to: Group conflicts Non-creative group climate Ineffective learning HeterogeneityDifferent pre-knowledge: Knowledge levels Techniques of study Ways of thinking Study experience MotivationDifferences in: Levels of ambition Commitment to the present task and goals Social relationsDifferent personal chemistry

14. 14 Examples of nuanced pictures “semi-randomly formed project groups imply that students with a higher capacity have more difficulties in fulfilling their potential and that they will not be credited for their efforts” (45 % disagreed. 48 % agreed) The ineffective dimension of learning identified in the qualitative data material is not that evident in the quantitative data material. The quantitative data material produced a more nuanced picture of the relation between the formation of groups and the differences in students pre-knowledge and efforts. The main problem with group work (Gibbs, 1995) is that it is individual students that gain qualifications, not project groups. And as teachers we need to allocate marks fairly to individual students.

15. 15 Summary and Conclusions Main contribution –An analysis of students’ experiences from semi-randomly formed project groups and how this way of forming groups affects learning. –This way of forming groups has affected learning! –Claim: there is a relationship between how groups are formed and learning. –We have described this relationship in terms of conditions (group formation) and consequences (learning). –The findings are ordered in strengths and problems

16. 16 Summary and Conclusions Observation: –Several of the identified sub-categories exist both as a strength and as a problem Interpretation 1: –It appears that some of the students prefer a more secure and safe study situation. They prefer to work with students they know well in order to reach the course goal with as little disturbance as possible. Their attitude towards effectiveness (e.g. optimizing time and effort in order to reach a goal) in learning situations is an important condition. Interpretation 2: –There is an anxiety among some students about change. They feel comfortable within a group that has well-developed routines and social relations.

17. 17 Summary and Conclusions Interpretation 3: –There are students that look forward to meeting new project group members. These students perceive semi-randomly formed groups as an opportunity to achieve an improved group dynamic since different opinions and perspectives will be debated. Interpretation 4: –There are students that do not feel comfortable in their current project groups and therefore welcome a change. The reason for the discomfort is that there could have been problems with the social relations within the group.

18. 18 Summary and Conclusions The observation that several of the sub-categories are viewed both as a strength and as a problem can be summed up by inferring that there is a tension between the new (the exciting) and the old (the secure).

19. 19 At least two dimensions exist when dividing groups: –From “randomly” to “methodological” –From “student administered” to “teacher administered” Forming groups semi-randomly is a combination of both dimensions Question in this paper “How do semi-randomly formed project groups affect learning in project-oriented work?” Abstraction How does group formation affect learning in project-oriented work?”