• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
NTLT 2012 - Good work in group work

NTLT 2012 - Good work in group work






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 17

http://www.ntltconference.ac.nz 16
http://www.blogger.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Image reference: © 2002-2012 CMPT Graphics.http://vector-images.com/clipart/clp378096/
  • Image reference: http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/615877/615877,1313500308,16/stock-vector-origami-style-numbers-set-82903051.jpg
  • Image reference: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/files/2011/02/highwaynumbers.jpg 
  • Image reference: http://www.psdgraphics.com/file/red-number-3.jpg
  • Image reference: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gKFyJfhE_q8/TbTTEwF0fLI/AAAAAAAAABw/ExkNoMfqG-k/s1600/numbers-795230.jpg
  • Image reference: http://www.psd-dude.com/tutorials/resources-images/amazing-tattoo-photoshop-brushes/tribal-numbers.jpg 

NTLT 2012 - Good work in group work NTLT 2012 - Good work in group work Presentation Transcript

  • GOOD WORK inGroup Work Cath TuohyWhitireia New Zealand
  • Overview• history• elements of collaborative group work• advantages and barriers• how we use collaborative group work• some tools to engage students with course material - and each other.
  • Does group work ‗‗ Good work?• The greatest benefits of group work come when students work collaboratively on a task, generating ideas as a group and sharing in the process of “knowledge creation” (Kozar, 2010, p.17)• “negotiate meaning, manipulate ideas with others and reflect on their learning” (Burdett, 2003, p.177).• The sum is greater than the parts
  • A very brief history• Morton Deutsch• 1949 : A theory of co-operation and competition• a positive correlation between cooperative learning and observable benefits to the students.• relationship with the goal and each other• 1970s: Johnson and Johnson• 1983: Research based model of cooperative learning
  • positive interdependence• The student must perceive that they, and other group members, have a mutual goal that will not be achieved without working towards it together (Johnson & Johnson, 1983).• “sink or swim”(Siegel, 2005; Smith, et al., 2005).
  • individual accountability• In cooperative learning it is not possible for one student to take a backseat and benefit from the work of others.• Educators assess individual students’ performance and provide feedback around this.(Johnson & Johnson, 1983)
  • face-to-face promotive interaction• involves students supporting each other in the learning process and praising each other’s efforts to learn.(Johnson & Johnson, 1983)
  • use of teamwork skills• involving the development of communication, leadership and conflict resolution skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1983).• social skills (Wlodkowski, 1999).
  • group processing• This element requires the students to reflect on their academic achievement as well as the group process involved in their learning(Ballentine & McCourt Larres, 2007; Johnson& Johnson, 1983)
  • Advantages• promotes a significantly higher level of individual achievement• stimulates critical thinking• encourages development of positive relationships across diverse groups of students• increases student psychological health – reducing anxiety and building self- esteem
  • "You must learn to work with a group inorder to achieve results.“ Student“participation [in group work] hasenhanced my learning in my study feedbackgroup as I find talking to other studentsgives me a greater understanding andI tend to remember what I have learnt".
  • Barriers• Independence rather than interdependence• Competition• Teachers beliefs - persist even against contradictions• Students – Grades – Group structure
  • "In the self selected groupwe struggle with leadership Studentand accepting and valuing feedbackeach other’s information,although we are friends it isless valuable for learning inclass but good for studyingfor exams"
  • "If people were working with othersthey didnt know and were notconfident they were not likely to Student"step up" and "more motivated"students "carried" the feedback"disorganised" and less productivestudents. To deal with this sharingof equal or similar commitments wehad minutes and tasks set withdeadlines"
  • Year One• classes focus on: – communication, – listening skills, and – conflict resolution.• They are also required to give (and receive) constructive feedback• Study groups• DISC model
  • DISC http://www.dtssydney.com/images/images/what_is_disc___the_disc_model_2.jpg
  • “… over the years weve gotto get to know each other Studentvery well, and what eachpersons strengths are - feedbacktherefore we can use eachother as resources to learnmore about a particulararea/subject etc. "
  • • Semi-autonomous study groups (Hogan, 1999). Year Two – Self-selected – Tasks set by their tutors every week (TDL) – Study group support tutor academic and pastoral support – Structured group roles (facilitator, facilitator support, timekeeper and scribe) – Report back to their support tutor in the form of minutes – Participation by group members is noted
  • "Group learning has Studentincreased my learning feedbackespecially in year 2 biogroups ... the group had amix of knowledge and skillsand this enabled myunderstanding"
  • YearThree
  • Context Based Learning 1. Mutual goal 2. Participation 3. Support 4. Communication 5. Reflection
  • "The tutor selected group inyear three [for health expo] Studentwas particularly good. We feedbackhad a good team leaderwho coordinated work. Wehad lots of meetings andachieved good grades"
  • “[Allocated groups] helpedlearning as I worked with others Studentthat I would not have chosen to.Different age groups, different feedbackideas and skill mix. A refreshingchange from study groups, gotto know others on the coursethat I normally would not havespoken to".
  • HealthExpo
  • Despite the barriers . . .• Generating ideas and sharing views• Meeting people and building friendships• Improved learning processes• Sharing of workload• Improved grades (Burdett, 2003, p. 183).
  • "Our study group has beentogether since year one and Studentexpanded this year to 8 students.We share information, we respond feedbackto questions via email, we providematerial [and] hand-outs when amember is absent. We providecollegial support which is thestrongest benefit"
  • Resources• Fishbowl• Think – Pair- Share (Square)• Word-webbing• Blackboard share• Teams Check• Rally table• Doughnut
  • Last word"Group learning is good… it reinforces learningbecause we teach eachother and learn fromeach other“
  • References• Ballantine, J., & McCourt Larres, P. (2007). Co-operative learning: a pedagogy to improve students’ generic skills? Education and Training, 49(2), 126-137.• Baloche, L., Mauger, M. L., Willis, T. M., Filinuk, J. R., Michalsky, B. V. (1993). Fishbowls, creative controversy, talking chips: Exploring literature cooperatively. English Journal, 82(6), 43-49• Bassett, C., McWhirter, J. J., & Kitzmiller, K. (1999). Teacher implementation of cooperative learning groups. Contemporary Education, 7(1), 46-50• Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page? Peer Review, 7(2), 4-7• Burdett, J. (2003). Making groups work: university students’ perceptions. International Education Journal, 4(3), 177- 191.• Deutsch, M. (1949a). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129-152• Deutsch, M. (1949b). An experimental study of the effects of co-operation and competition upon group processes. Human Relations, 2 (3), 199-231• DTS International. (2011). DISC personality profiling retrieved from http://www.dtssydney.com/images/images/what_is_disc___the_disc_model_2.jpg• Drewery, W., & Bird, L. (2004) Human development in Aotearoa. A journey through life (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: McGraw Hill• Gerges, G. (2001). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ variation in use of instructional methods: Why is teacher efficacy not a significant contributor? Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 71-88• Hampton, D. R., & Grudnitski, G. (1996). Does cooperative learning mean equal learning? Journal of Education for Business, 72(1), 5-7• Hogan, C. (1999). Semi-autonomous study groups. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13(1), 31-44.• Imel, S. (1999). Using groups in adult learning: Theory and practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 19(1), 54-61• Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences the answer? Applied Social Psychology, 4, 199-224• Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Motivational processes. In D.W. Johnson & R. T. Johnson, Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. (pp. 77-86). Minnesota, MN: Interaction Book Company.
  • References continued• Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Maximising instruction through cooperative learning. ASEE Prism, 7(6), 24-29• Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1994). The structural approach: Six keys to cooperative learning. In S. Sharan (Ed). Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 66-81). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.• Kanev, K., Kimura, S., & Orr, T. (2009). A framework for collaborative learning in dynamic group environments. nternational Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 7(1), 58-77• King, P. & Behnke, R. (2005). Problems associated with evaluating student performance in groups. College Teaching, 53(2), 57-61.• Kozar, O. (2010). Towards better group work: seeing the difference between cooperation and collaboration. English Teaching Forum, 2, 16-23.• Lopes, L. & Bettencourt, T. (2011). Functional features of group work developed by 12 grade students within “inquiry teaching approach”. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 15, 3143-3147.• Networked learning community (n.d).Rally table. Retrieved from http://www.eazhull.org.uk/nlc/rally_table.htm• Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S. & Higgins, S. (2001). University students’ perceptions of cooperative learning: I mplications for administrators and instructors. Journal of Experiential Education, 24, 14-21.• University of Massachusetts Amherst. (2012). Collaborative group techniques. Retrieved from hhtp://www.srri.umass.edu/topics/collaborative-group-techniques.• Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online Collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Information management. 17(1/2), 31- 33• Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6) 339-349, 384.• Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (2005) Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom- based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101• Wiley, D. (2002). Get your head out of the sand: Why are some in our field ignoring the epistemological revolution? TechTrends,46(2), 68-69• Wlodkowski, R.J. (1999). Establishing inclusion among adult learners. In R.J. Wlodkowski, Enhancing adult motivation to learn. (Rev. ed.). (pp. 89-131). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.