IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0181336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter

Author

Listed:
  • Elli J Theobald
  • Sarah L Eddy
  • Daniel Z Grunspan
  • Benjamin L Wiggins
  • Alison J Crowe

Abstract

Active learning in college classes and participation in the workforce frequently hinge on small group work. However, group dynamics vary, ranging from equitable collaboration to dysfunctional groups dominated by one individual. To explore how group dynamics impact student learning, we asked students in a large-enrollment university biology class to self-report their experience during in-class group work. Specifically, we asked students whether there was a friend in their group, whether they were comfortable in their group, and whether someone dominated their group. Surveys were administered after students participated in two different types of intentionally constructed group activities: 1) a loosely-structured activity wherein students worked together for an entire class period (termed the ‘single-group’ activity), or 2) a highly-structured ‘jigsaw’ activity wherein students first independently mastered different subtopics, then formed new groups to peer-teach their respective subtopics. We measured content mastery by the change in score on identical pre-/post-tests. We then investigated whether activity type or student demographics predicted the likelihood of reporting working with a dominator, being comfortable in their group, or working with a friend. We found that students who more strongly agreed that they worked with a dominator were 17.8% less likely to answer an additional question correct on the 8-question post-test. Similarly, when students were comfortable in their group, content mastery increased by 27.5%. Working with a friend was the single biggest predictor of student comfort, although working with a friend did not impact performance. Finally, we found that students were 67% less likely to agree that someone dominated their group during the jigsaw activities than during the single group activities. We conclude that group activities that rely on positive interdependence, and include turn-taking and have explicit prompts for students to explain their reasoning, such as our jigsaw, can help reduce the negative impact of inequitable groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Elli J Theobald & Sarah L Eddy & Daniel Z Grunspan & Benjamin L Wiggins & Alison J Crowe, 2017. "Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0181336
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181336
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181336&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0181336?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heather Sarsons, 2015. "Recognition for Group Work," Working Paper 254946, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    2. Gruenfeld, Deborah H & Mannix, Elizabeth A. & Williams, Katherine Y. & Neale, Margaret A., 1996. "Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-15, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tomasz Gajderowicz & Maciej Jakubowski & Sylwia Wrona & Ghadah Alkhadim, 2023. "Is students’ teamwork a dreamwork? A new DCE-based multidimensional approach to preferences towards group work," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Firas Almasri & Gertrude I Hewapathirana & Fatme Ghaddar & Nick Lee & Bashar Ibrahim, 2021. "Measuring attitudes towards biology major and non-major: Effect of students’ gender, group composition, and learning environment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-35, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    2. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Patricia Funk & Nagore Iriberri, 2020. "Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(1), pages 269-327.
    3. Matthias Weber, 2016. "The Effects of Listing Authors in Alphabetical Order: A survey of the Empirical Evidence," Bank of Lithuania Occasional Paper Series 12, Bank of Lithuania.
    4. Barron, Kai & Ditlmann, Ruth & Gehrig, Stefan & Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian, 2020. "Explicit and implicit belief-based gender discrimination: A hiring experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-306, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Lorena Rivera León & Jacques Mairesse & Robin Cowan, 2017. "Gender Gaps and Scientific Productivity in Middle-Income Countries: Evidence from Mexico," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 98456, Inter-American Development Bank.
    6. Grossman, Philip J. & Eckel, Catherine & Komai, Mana & Zhan, Wei, 2019. "It pays to be a man: Rewards for leaders in a coordination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 197-215.
    7. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Conference presentations and academic publishing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 228-254.
    8. O'Connor, Kathleen M., 1997. "Groups and Solos in Context: The Effects of Accountability on Team Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 384-407, December.
    9. Birinder Singh Sandhawalia & Darren Dalcher, 2015. "Dynamic Knowledge Support Model for Decision-Making and Sustainable Growth: An Empirical Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 803-823, September.
    10. Kyle Lewis, 2004. "Knowledge and Performance in Knowledge-Worker Teams: A Longitudinal Study of Transactive Memory Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1519-1533, November.
    11. Robert S. Huckman & Bradley R. Staats, 2011. "Fluid Tasks and Fluid Teams: The Impact of Diversity in Experience and Team Familiarity on Team Performance," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 310-328, July.
    12. Hunton, James E. & Gibson, Dana, 1999. "Soliciting user-input during the development of an accounting information system: investigating the efficacy of group discussion," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(7), pages 597-618, October.
    13. Homan, A.C. & van Knippenberg, D.L. & van Kleef, G.A. & de Dreu, C.K.W., 2006. "Bridging Faultlines by Valuing Diversity: Diversity Beliefs, Information Elaboration, and Performance in Diverse Work Groups," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-071-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    14. Hamish Low & Luigi Pistaferri, 2019. "Disability Insurance: Error Rates and Gender Differences," Economics Series Working Papers 889, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    15. Matteo Cristofaro, 2016. "Cognitive styles in dynamic decision making: a laboratory experiment," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1), pages 53-82.
    16. Harjoto, Maretno A. & Laksmana, Indrarini & Yang, Ya-wen, 2018. "Board diversity and corporate investment oversight," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 40-47.
    17. Schippers, M.C., 2020. "Majority Decision Making Works Best under Conditions of Leadership Ambiguity and Shared Task Representations," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2020-011-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    18. Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2017. "Pay, Rank and Job Satisfaction amongst Academic Economists in the UK," Discussion Papers 17/17, Department of Economics, University of York.
    19. Zacchia, Giulia, 2016. "Segregation or homologation? Gender differences in recent Italian economic thought," MPRA Paper 72279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Andreas Menzel & Christopher Woodruff, 2019. "Gender Wage Gaps and Worker Mobility: Evidence from the Garment Sector in Bangladesh," NBER Working Papers 25982, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0181336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.