Navigating the complexities of group work and group assessment in Higher Education through the critical lens of second year B.Com Extended

Curriculum students.

By Lemay Quesada

ABSTRACT

Group work is a form of cooperative learning which aims to cater for individual

differences, develop students' knowledge as well as generic skills such as

communication and critical thinking. In addition, group collaboration helps students

with building teamwork abilities and social interactions, besides learning about

various backgrounds, culture, beliefs, and attitudes (Burke, 2011). In recent years

there has been a shift in the way higher education institutions emphasise on group

work and group assessment as strategic channels to develop competencies in the

form of graduate attributes. However, despite these palpable benefits, some scholars

might argue that there are negative aspects embedded in group work which could

hinder academic success. The aim of this study is to explore the role of group work

and group assessment in promoting collaborative learning and academic success.

Specifically, the study aims to identify the advantages and disadvantages from the

perspective of second year B.Com Extended Curriculum students at the Economic

and Management Sciences Faculty (EMS). The study uses mixed methods by

means of a questionnaire and focus group interviews. Preliminary findings indicate

that although students acknowledge the positive contributions of group work, they

identify issues of poor ‘communication’, ‘poor work ethics’ and ‘different expectations’

as prevailing challenges they face. Additionally, a fundamental problem with group

assessment lies in the lack of transparency when it comes to grading and marks

allocation. All respondents concur that for an effective assessment of group work,

lecturers should provide students with detailed rubrics as well as the opportunity for

peer-feedback and peer-assessment. In conclusion, the findings of the study support

the existing notions of group-based learning by suggesting that despite the

challenges the experience is beneficial for the learner.

KEYWORDS.

Group work, collaborative learning, assessment, Higher Education

Background to the study

In the last few decades, there has been an increasing focus on creating an

assessment culture where the learner plays an active role in the learning and

evaluation processes in the form of collaborative or group work. Furthermore, the

changing learning environment strongly emphasises on building collaborative

learning through teamwork and peer-to-peer engagement, among other practices

(Dochy and McDowell, 1997). The recent shift in assessment practices has paved

the way for an emerging agenda that frames assessment not as looking back in

terms of knowledge and skills acquired, but as making a contribution to future

learning and practice through the calibration of student judgement (Boud &

Falchikov, 2006).

As mentioned above, group work takes centre stage as a form of cooperative

learning which aims to cater for individual differences, develop students' knowledge

as well as generic skills such as communication and critical thinking. When used

effectively, group work is an efficient way of dealing with the increased growth in

student numbers in higher education, especially in regard with reducing the pressure

of marking large volumes of assignments and to a certain extent in reducing class or

lecture time (Davies, 2009). The author further identifies group work as one of the

most advantageous ways of ensuring that students develop transferable skills for

life-long learning (teamwork, leadership, project management skills, communication

skills).

South Africa’s higher education domain is not exempt from the above notion. The

current higher education agenda focuses on preparing competent university

graduates who are employable and able to compete at a global level . It is important

to indicate that after 1994, South Africa has seen intensive policy-making in the

higher education sector with the objective to changing the teaching and learning

practices, in order to addressing remnants from apartheid’s educational policies (De

Jager & Nassimbeni, 2005). This goal can be thwarted by recurring factors such as

ill-equipped learners as well as poor curriculum planning and more specifically, by

poor alignment between outcomes and assessment. Despite the substantial changes

in the assessment landscape in higher education, there is room for further

investigation on the benefits of embedding group-based work and assessment in the

tertiary level curriculum.

Research questions

This research addressed the above problem by means of the following questions:

What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of group work in a collaborative learning environment?

What are the advantages and disadvantages encountered in group assessment tasks?

To what extent, do effective group work and group assessment techniques

can enhance academic success?

Research Objectives

The objectives in endeavouring to answer the research questions are:

To identify the advantages and disadvantages of group work;

To identify advantages and challenges faced in group assessment tasks, and

To explore effective group work and assessment techniques that can be used

to enhance academic success.

Literature review

Overview to collaborative learning

It is not surprising that the literature around the concepts of collaborative learning

and group work borrowed from Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’ theory

(1978). Collaboration involves interaction, participation and exchange of ideas

among the group members. The term collaborative learning refers to an instruction

method in which students at various performance levels work together in small

groups toward a common goal (Gokhale, 1995). The author further states that

proponents of collaborative learning strongly believe that actively exchanging ideas

in a group setting is likely to enhance and promote critical thinking. In addition,

Burke (2011) argues that in a collaborative learning environment, as opposed to a

passive learning environment, the students learn more actively and effectively.

It is important to mention the role of feedback and specifically of peer-feedback in

the collaborative learning process. In terms of feedback, Boud and Molloy (2013)

view it as act undertaken by the teacher or facilitator to benefit the student. In a bid

to engage the students actively with feedback processes is to implement peer-

review (Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014). Consequently, the authors argue that

students often perceive the feedback they receive from peers as more

understandable and helpful than teacher’s feedback.

Advantages and disadvantages of group work

In the context of Teaching and Learning, a collaborative learning environment is

established upon the existence of group work and group activities. The Oxford

Dictionary (online) defines group work as ‘work done by a group in collaboration’

(“Group work”, n.d.). As mentioned before, when collaborative learning takes place,

there is a likelihood that the participants will engage actively and subsequently

develop skills such as communication and critical thinking (Hassanien, 2006; Slavin,

1996; Gokhale, 1995). Group work helps students develop teamwork skills and

social interactions as well as learning about various backgrounds, culture, beliefs,

and attitudes (Burke, 2011). Notwithstanding the benefits of group interaction, there

are challenges that might hamper the outcome of the activity.

Probably the one of the most common challenges encountered in group work is

when one or two outspoken individuals dominate the discussions and in the process

alienate the other participants (Michaelsen, Fink, & Knight, 1997). The former could

happen inadvertently, but it can have negative consequences on the group

dynamics. Another common challenge or disadvantage of group work is he infamous

free-rider or non-performing team member. As Morris and Hayes (1997) argue the

real problem of the non-performing group member is that he or she would benefit of

the accomplishments of the remaining group members (cited in Davies, 2009). Other

disadvantages are poor communication, poor attendance at group meetings and

cultural differences (Hassanien, 2006). Alternatively, groups frequently have

difficulty staying focused on the assigned task because they might get side-tracked

on irrelevant information (Michaelsen, Fink, & Knight, 1997). These challenges

identified in the literature can be mitigated through implementing adequate group

planning and management.

Effective group assessment as catalyst for academic successThe above discussion points out how collaborative learning is enhanced through

group work by indicating the various benefits. Although there are challenges

embedded in that process of collaboration, there is no doubt that group work can be

beneficial. The notion of effective group work and assessment as key promoters of

academic success is not new. From the perspectives of Vygotsky (1978), students

are capable of performing at higher intellectual levels when asked to work in

collaborative situations than when asked to work individually. When it comes to

measure the effectiveness of collaborative learning, there must be "group goals" and

"individual accountability" as it is in the interest of every group member that concepts

are understood and goals are attained (Slavin, 1989; 1980).

MethodsThe study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods. In

order to answer the research questions, a semi-structured questionnaire (see

ADDENDA 2) and focus group interviews were employed. The decision of using

these methods stems from the exploratory nature of the study. It is not uncommon

for research studies of exploratory nature to use a combination of data collection

techniques such as semi-structured interviews and questionnaires (Bryman, Bell et

al., 2014: 237). In addition, the literature on the topic revealed the use of qualitative

research as an ideal way to capture perceptions and other insights surrounding

collaborative work as well as group assessment tasks. As a qualitative method,

focus group is concerned with studying how participants express their views and

perspectives on an issue or topic of mutual interest to themselves and the

researcher (Bryman et al., 2014: 232; Morgan & Spanish, 1984).

The population object of analysis comprised of Second year B.Com ECP students.

The participants were selected from the 2014 cohort. The desirable number of

participants and focus group sessions depends upon the nature and complexity of

the subject under investigation (Powell & Single, 1996; Nyamathi & Shuler, 1990).

Random probability sampling was used for the survey questionnaire part, while

purposive sampling was used for the focus group selection. The target sample for

this research included 1 focus group, consisting of 6 students representing gender

and residential status (i.e. student resides on campus or outside campus). The focus

group participants were selected from the pool of students who answered the

questionnaire.

As indicated before, the data were collected using questionnaires and interview

questions. It is important to note that students who took part of the study were

informed of the consent forms (see ADDENDA 1) and the issues of confidentiality.

All consented to the study. The key findings from the questionnaire and the literature

review served as bases for the formulation of the focus group questions. Three open

discussion questions were proposed:

a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of group work? Examples on how each manifests.

b. What would you like to see implemented in both your group work and group assessment to mitigate the key challenges identified in the questionnaire (i.e. poor communication skills, poor attendance, not equal efforts, poor work ethics, and different expectations)?

c. What are your suggestions regarding effective ways to use group work

and group assessment to achieving your academic goals or academic success? Explain.

The data from the questionnaires were examined using basic frequency and

descriptive statistics. On the other hand, the qualitative data (from the interview)

were transcribed using tape-based analysis, wherein the researcher listens to the

tape of the focus group and subsequently creates a condensed transcript (Reed &

Roskell-Payton, 1997; Krueger, 1994). Nevertheless, this type of data is helpful

because the researcher can concentrate on the research question(s) by only

transcribing the parts of the interview that offer a better understanding of the

phenomenon of interest.

Preliminary findings

The following section discusses the preliminary findings obtained from a pilot study

and they offer a window to the complexities of group work and group assessment.

The full study will be carried out in the near future.

Questionnaire

From a demographics point of view, all respondents (100%) are registered for double

majors. Three participants (75%) are in the age-group 21-25 years, while the one

falls under the 18-20 age-bracket. Similar frequency count occurs with their area of

residence, with 75% of respondents residing “on campus” and the remainder

indicating “off campus residence”. Additionally, all indicated that they have taken part

of at least two academic group projects in the course of their studies.

Regarding personality and their attitude toward academic work, the answers vary,

however, all respondents indicated their ‘diligence’ and hardworking attitude when it

comes to item d in Q6 of the questionnaire (‘group work engages my interest’).

Interestingly, respondents who reside on campus (majority 75%) seem to be more

‘diligent’ overall.

When indicating their level of discomfort in Group learning activities, the opinions are

divided, with 50% suggesting they often find it ‘difficult to understand what the group

task entails’, and the remainder 50% specifying they’ sometimes feel nervous when

sharing and communicating ideas within the group’. The latter may allude to issues

ranging from lack of confidence (behavioural) to poor communication skills

(educational).

It is not surprising that all participants have encountered several challenges while

doing group work. In that regard, the majority indicated ‘not equal effort/contribution’,

‘poor communication skills’, and ‘poor attendance at group meetings’ are the most

challenging points; while ‘different cultural approaches to work’ did not seem to be a

major difficulty (1 out 4 indicated his/her concern). Altogether, the participants

concurred that the following tools and practices contribute to enhancing the

effectiveness of group work are ‘very important’: formal lecture and team work; peer-

assessment; group record book; tutor support and guidance, and academic

resources and materials.

Focus group interview

The focus group participants were selected from those who answered the

questionnaire. However, out the 4 potential contributors, only 3 consented to move to

the next phase. Once again, informed consents were sent to the students. For the

purposes of the discussion, each participant was allocated a separate code namely

FGR1, FGR2, and FGR3 (FGR stands for focus group respondent). The researcher

booked the ABSA room located in the EMS Faculty, which is equipped with flip

charts, white boards and audio visual recording facilities. Upon arrival, each student

was handed a copy of the agenda for the interview (see ADDENDA 3) by the

assistant moderator. The interview was tape-recorded and lasted 1 hour and 20

minutes.

Perceived advantages and disadvantages of group work

The focus group interaction yielded interesting results. Although not unexpected, the

fact that the respondents acknowledged the importance and positive aspects of

group work, somewhat resonates with the literature on the topic. The views (below)

are self-explanatory:

FGR1 commented in connection to advantages “everybody brings different resources e.g. their networks, contacts, documents and knowhow”. Further on, the respondent stated that “different ideas on the same point can be beneficial ‘cause (sic.) members can learn new ways to look at the questions”

FGR3 added “I agree with FGR1, but also group work helps to lower the work load assigned by the lecturer as work can be distributed among team members”

FGR2 supports the arguments found in the works of Hassanien (2006) and Gokhale (1995) by stating that “when working together students can interact actively and learn new skills”

The above excerpts are a reflection of what it has been discussed in the literature on

collaborative work. Without any doubt, group work offers a platform to gain new

knowledge and strengthen existing skills ( Burke ,2011; Davies, 2009; Gokhale,

1995). However, despite the positive contributions, there are set backs in

collaborative academic work. These challenges were identified in the literature as

well as the questionnaire (see Questionnaire Findings). When asked to elaborate on

the perceived disadvantages, the participants gave more details:

FGR2 explained “the problem with group work is that people are lazy and they tend to rely – heavily – on others…or for example when some team members leave their part of the assignment to the last minute and the quality of the work is poor”

FGR3 indicated that “editing poorly written work can be time consuming and annoying. Another issue is how dominant personalities take all responsibility and other people let them do all the work ‘cause they are lazy”

FGR1 explained her concerns “dealing with conflict and conflictive views is really difficult, also working with friends can be a bad decision, they are too emotional... I admit that if I could choose, I would only do individual work, less hassle and more certainty of the quality of my work”

Challenges seem to outweigh the advantages, which echoes the sentiment of

students’ endless complains about the pressures of group assignments. Although

the challenge of dealing with diversity and students from different ethnic and

religious backgrounds was not discussed in detail, two of the respondents (FGR2 and FGR1) indicated that it can be hard to understand different accents and people’s

expectations but being from another culture was not such a disadvantage. Opposing

that view, the literature highlighted that in diverse groups structures a negative

aspect is often when most of the written work is taken over by the students with the

best language fluency, which constitutes a problem in some universities where very

large numbers of non-English speaking (NES) students are being taught. The UWC

is an example of an institution hosting diverse groups of students who largely qualify

under the NES category.

Perceived advantages and disadvantages of group assessment

While there are few advantages worthy of mention, the respondents were more vocal

about the negative side of group assessment. The theme of ‘transparency’ came out

strongly as a problem they have dealt with. Each respondent said that when

instructing on group work, lecturers and facilitators do not provide clear ‘marking

rubric’ or ‘marking criteria’. This aspect is considered to be a weak area in the group

assessment setting.

FGR1 “there are times when I receive feedback for a group assignment but I feel it is unfair, however there is not measure or benchmark I or my group mates can use to evaluate that”… “if I look at all my modules this semester, there is only one module where the lecturer actually gives continuous feedback and allows peer feedback for grading”

FGR3 “I can’t think of many good things to say about group assessment, other than I am always left wondering where did my effort go? What I mean is that sometimes I spend lots (sic) of time reading material and writing but the effort does not translate” … “but maybe it can work, if people are really interested in learning and performing well, not everyone wants to score good arks you know”

From the above, it can be inferred that the process of assessment and specifically

grading the group effort constitutes a pressing concern among students. This point

is supported by Slavin (1989) who emphasized on the importance of “group goals"

and "individual accountability" in order to attain good academic performance.

Effective tools to enhance group work

Although there is no consensus as to what constitute an effective tool or practice to

enhance group work and ultimately improve academic performance, the participants

have strong opinions which placed the measures in context.

FGR2 argued “I think effectiveness of group work is definitely possible if for example the work is divided equally among the members; people should get individual marks that weigh on their efforts. In my opinion, the lecturers should allocate encourage peer- assessment for more effective contribution”

On that same line of thought, FGR1 stated “peer assessment and feedback are really useful, it is better to get opinions from your own peers, not as easy from the lecturers. For some reason students (like me) are more open to share their views…motivation is also important”

By suggesting the above, the participants indicated the need for more transparency

from the lecturers, which is perceived to be a pervasive problem across the modules.

These findings are aligned with the literature and especially with results from a study

conducted by Hassanien in 2006. The author found out that students working in a

groups tend to perform better when there is clarity on the ‘marking criteria’ and when

‘peers’ are involved, either by providing feedback or by assessing each other’s work

(Hassanien, 2006). Further on, the respondents stressed their critical suggestions

regarding corrective actions that may promote effective group work and assessment:

FGR2 proposed “assignment’s instructions should be made available in advance so us (the students) have time to prepare and avoid last minute issues…the quality of the work can be affected by too many submissions at the same time (sic)...I also believe that students must be free to choose who they want to work with, in many modules this not allowed, which demotivates me”

FGR1 expressed her opinion “the lecturer or even the tutor should provide training to the students in how to do group assignments, I mean…they (lecturers) assume we know it all and that we can understand the way groups work. I say this because there a lots of lazy students one is paired with and if they knew what the task asks of them maybe they will not rely on hard-working team mates”

FGR3 supported the above “yeah (sic) the assumption is that we know the stuff but lecturers must offer proper guidance. Also the structure of the assignment should have better weighting, for example if the paper is out of 40 marks and the questions do not have same weighting then it is not fair for students…I think tutors should play a more active role, they need to be given more responsibilities so if we consult there are options other than the lecturer”.

What transpired in the above discussion is not necessarily a novelty; however the

notion of openness, transparency and peer feedback resonates with the narrative on

flexile learning collaborative environments (Davies, 2009; Slavin, 1996)

Concluding remarks

This research focused on exploring perceptions of ECP students with regard to

advantages and disadvantages of group work. In essence, the study aimed at

unlocking their critical views in order to identify effective tools and practices that can

enhance collaborative learning and academic performance. Qualitative and

quantitative methods were used in the form of questionnaires and a focus-group

interview. Overall, preliminary results support the perception that collaborative

learning is of utmost importance for academic success (Burke, 2011; Davies, 2009;

Gokhale, 1995; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). All respondents acknowledged the

importance of group work but pointed out at the many challenges that can hinder the

quality of the material. Furthermore, it was pointed out that lecturers need to be more

‘transparent’ when it comes to grading/assessing the material(s) and utilize ‘peer-

feedback’ if effective group work is intended. Though the findings might vary if the

sample of participants is increased (conduct more focus groups using different

recruitment criteria), in conclusion, it appears that although students are inclined to

‘vilify’ group work as a challenging academic activity, the outcomes of the study

support the existing views of group-based learning by suggesting that despite the

trials and tribulations the experience is beneficial for the learner.

References

Boud, D., Molloy, E. (2013) Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. DOI:10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.

Boud, D., Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4),399-413.

Bryman, A., Bell, E., Hirschsohn, P., Dos Santos, A., Du Toit, J., Masenge, A., Van Aardt, I., Wagner, C. (2014). Research Methodology: Business and Management Contexts. Oxford University Press: South Africa, ISBN 978 0 19907613 0

Burke, A. (2011). Group Work: How to Use Groups Effectively. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 11(2), 87-9.

Davies, W.M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions. Higher Education, 58. 563-584. DOI 10.1007/s 10734-009-9216-y

De Jager, K., Nassimbeni, M. (2005). Information Literacy and Quality Assurance in South African Higher Education Institutions. International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 55(1), 31-38. DOI:10.1515/LIBR.za

Dochy, F. J. R. C., McDowell, L. (1997). Introduction to assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279-298.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22-30.

Group work. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 22, 2015, From http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/group-work

Hassanien, A. (2006). Student Experience of Group Work and Group Assessment in Higher Education. Journal of Teaching in Travel et Tourism, 6(1), 17-30.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Interaction Book Company Edina, MN. ISBN 0939603101.

Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D., & Knight, A. (1997). Designing effective group activities: Lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development. In D. DcZure (Ed), To Improve the Academy, Vol. 16(pp. 373-398).

Morgan, D.L., Spanish, M.T. (1984). Focus Groups: A new tool for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Sociology, 7(3): 253-270.

Nicol, D., Thomson, A., Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.

Nyamathi A. & Shuler P. (1990). Focus group interview: a research technique for informed nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 15: 1281–1288.

Powell, R. A., Single, H.M. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 8 (5): 499-504.

Reed, J., & Roskell-Payton, V. (1997). Focus Groups: issues of analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26: 786-771.

Slavin, R.E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational psychology, 2 (1). 43-69.

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: An international perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33(4), 231-243.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative Learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2). 315-342.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge , MA: Harvard University Press.

University of the Western Cape

Private Bag X17, Bellville 7535, Cape Town, South Africa

Telephone: (021) 959 9306

E-mail: Lquesada@uwc.ac.za

Letter of consent for questionnaire

Title: An exploratory study on the perceptions of group work and group assessment tasks in promoting a collaborative learning environment and academic success: the views of second year B.Com General Extended Curriculum Programme (ECP) Students at the University of the Western Cape (UWC).

Researcher: Lemay Llorente Quesada

1. I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet explaining the above research project and I have had the opportunity to ask any questions about said project.

2. I understand that I am free not to participate and have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, without having to explain myself. I am aware that this questionnaire might result in research which may be published, but my name maybe/not be used.

3. I understand my response and personal data will be kept strictly confidential. I gave permission for members of the research team to have access to my anonymized responses. I understand that the information derived from this research is confidential and treated as such.

4. I agree that the data collected from me to be used in future research.

5. I agree to take part in the above research project. ________________________________________________________________________________

Name of participant: ……………………………………………… Signature:…………………………… Date:………………………….

ADDENDA 1_INFORMED CONSENT FORMS

University of the Western Cape

Private Bag X17, Bellville 7535, Cape Town, South Africa

Telephone: (021) 959 9306

E-mail: Lquesada@uwc.ac.za

Letter of consent for Focus Group Interview

Title: An exploratory study on the perceptions of group work and group assessment tasks in promoting a collaborative learning environment and academic success: the views of second year B.Com General Extended Curriculum Programme (ECP) Students at the University of the Western Cape (UWC).

Researcher: Lemay Llorente Quesada

1. I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet explaining the above research project and I have had the opportunity to ask any questions about said project.

2. I understand that I am free not to participate and have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, without having to explain myself. I am aware that this interview might result in research which may be published, but my name maybe/not be used.

3. I understand my response and personal data will be kept strictly confidential. I gave permission for members of the research team to have access to my anonymized responses. I understand that the information derived from this research is confidential and treated as such.

4. I agree that the data collected from me to be used in future research.

5. I agree to take part in the above research project. ________________________________________________________________________________

Name of participant: ……………………………………………… Signature:…………………………… Date:………………………….

ADDENDA 2. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ON ATTITUDES TOWARD GROUP WORK

Dear respondent

This survey questionnaire aims at revealing your views about group work and group assessment. The reason for this research is to explore the perceptions of students regarding their attitudes toward academic group work, group learning and assessment. Your views would provide an insight into dynamics of group work. I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Please answer the following questions:

Q1. Indicate your gender [Tick your answer]

Male Female

Q2. Indicate your age group [Tick your answer]

19-21 21-25 Older than 25

Q3. Indicate your study major [Tick your answer]

BCom. Gen BCom.Fin B.Com Acc. B.Com IS B.Com HR

Q4. Where do you stay/reside?

On campus residence

Outside campus

Q5. How often have you participated in “academic group work”?

Once Twice More than Twice

Q6. Please MATCH your personality (i.e. behaviour, temperament) to your Attitudes toward Academic Group for each of the following quotes:

Friendliness Diligence Anxious

a) Work Group work helps me learn better.

b) I enjoy participating in group work.

c) Group work is a productive use of class time,

d) Group work engages my interest.

e) I find it easier to learn in group.

f) I learn best when I am working alone.

g) I learn something in a group setting.

h) I tend to remember more than if I learn if from a lecture.

Q7. Please choose the “ quote” that BEST describes your Discomfort in Group Learning :

a) I sometimes feel nervous when I have to give my ideas or communicate within group.

b) I often find it difficult to understand what the group task is.

c) I am often afraid to ask for help within my group.

d) I rarely feel relaxed within a group.

Q8. Please choose the “ quote” that BEST describes your Preference in Group Learning :

a) I understand information better after explaining it to others in a group.

b) I often have a strong feeling of satisfaction when I become totally involved in group achievement.

c) I usually make a strong personal contribution to group work.

d) I like group work more when we can make up our own group.

e) I can usually understand other group members ideas.

f) It is best when each person helps each other within a group.

Q9. Which of the following CHALLENGES you encountered during Group Work?

a) Poor communication skillsb) Different grade expectationsc) Poor attendance at group meetingsd) Not equal effortse) Poor work ethics

f) Different cultural approaches to workg) Lack of formal leadership

Q10. Indicate the level of importance of the following Tools or Practices that contribute to enhancing Group Work:

Very Important

Somewhat important

Not Important

a) Practice workshops for group activities.

b) Special assignment seminars.c) Formal lecture on group and team

work.d) Peer-assessment.e) Self-assessment.f) Group record book.g) Tutor support and guidance.h) Academic resources and materials

e.g. study room

Q11. In your opinion, what can be done to improve the perceptions of academic group work?

Thank you for your participation!

NB* This questionnaire has been adapted from Hassanien (2006).

ADDENDA 3_FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW

Date: 14 / 05/ 2015 Venue: ABSA Room EMS Faculty, level 2

Moderator: Lemay Quesada Assistant Moderator: Judie Chache

TOPIC AGENDA

1. INTRODUCTION [Duration 10 minutes]

Brief welcoming and introduction to the session. The aim and format of the focus group will be explained. Hand in consent forms. Explain confidentiality. Other conventions such as the involvement of participants, recordings, views, debates, and report on proceedings.

2. DISCUSSION TOPICS/QUESTIONS [ Duration 60 minutes]

d. What are the advantages and disadvantages of group work? Examples on how each manifests. [20 minutes]

e. What would you like to see implemented in both your group work and group assessment to mitigate the key challenges identified in the questionnaire (i.e. poor communication skills, poor attendance, not equal efforts, poor work ethics, and different expectations)? [20 minutes]

f. What are your suggestions regarding effective ways to use group work and group assessment to achieving your academic goals or academic success? Explain. [20 minutes]

3. SUMMING UP [Duration 10 minutes]Thanks and appreciation.

Close

4. Refreshments will be served after the proceedings.