This document discusses positive interdependence in project groups. It summarizes research on teamwork strategies, cooperative learning principles, and group dynamics. It then describes a 3-year study of 24 group projects involving 71 students from various backgrounds working together. The students chose their own topics and groups. They utilized teamwork strategies like parallel, sequential, and reciprocal work. They also applied cooperative learning principles such as positive interdependence, accountability, and social skills. Through applying these frameworks, the students were highly motivated and achieved strong results in their presentations despite coming from diverse backgrounds.

1. Positive Interdependence
in
Project Groups
Saravana Kumar
Language and Learning Centre

2.  —“We’ve done this before.”
 —“Group dynamics, teamwork strategies,
cooperative learning?”
 —“We didn’t do it quite like that!”

3. Appropriacy in an HE context
 This presentation looks at the
development of team based oral
presentations
 In an HE context they are dependent on
the “appropriate” representation of
academic ideas and despite lip service
being paid to new formats and approaches
to academic work, must still be justified in
terms of individual student ability in
relation to other academic programmes

4.  Communication, planning, writing and
presentation takes place through positive
interdependence
 As such students have negotiated every
step through the processes they work with
to the final product of their work and the
presentation
 They have also negotiated how their
written and oral discourse will be received
by their audience and justified choices
accordingly

5.  Students, often with significantly disparate
backgrounds, develop their projects
through a combination of teamwork
strategies, cooperative learning principles
and positive group dynamics
 They choose their own groups and
negotiate their own topics that will
represent the work to be presented for
final assessment in the module

6.  3 years
 6 modules
 24 group projects from a total of 71 students
 Groups vary in size from 2 to 6 students,
according to negotiated subject interest areas
 Mostly ERASMUS European exchange students
 5 full time Japanese students have also been
allowed to join the module
 A wide variety of topics have been chosen either
in specialist or mixed-discipline groups

7.  Class demographics
 Team work strategies
 Principles of cooperative learning
 Group dynamics
 Group, topic and medium nomination
 Seminars divided between input &
discussion and practice
 Specialist seminars on web design
 Group presentations & individual reports

8. Team working strategies
 parallel working, in which jobs are divided
into individual tasks;
 sequential working, in which jobs are
passed from one individual to another for
further refinement;
 reciprocal working, in which all group
members (or sub groups) work together
on all tasks.
(Sharples, 1999: 171)

9. Principles of cooperative learning
 positive interdependence;
 team formation;
 accountability;
 social skills;
 structuring (methods) and structures
(organisation).
(Olsen & Kagan, 1992: 1-30)

10. Group dynamics
 Forming
 Storming
 Norming
 Performing
(Argyle, 1969)
 Mourning
(Added by Heron, 1989)

11. Negative group dynamics
 Psychological defensiveness
Existential anxiety
Archaic anxiety
 Cultural oppression
Rigid hierarchy
Gender bias
Intellectual alienation
 Educational alienation

12. Team work in practice
 Balanced interaction with students aware
of processes and responsibilities
 Dissipation of earlier tensions and
negative impressions from prior learning
 High levels of motivation and achievement
 Greater awareness for compensation
strategies when things go wrong

13. In comparison to other team work
modules
 Higher levels of motivation and
satisfaction through choice
 Greater relative completion levels
 Much stronger feedback
 Continuation of module and further
development of approach

14. Conclusion
 Students work effectively, despite problems
that all modules face
 Positive group dynamics and reflection on
processes of team work and CL help students
understand their ultimate goal: effective
communication
 This in turn allows students to communicate
from their own perspectives and aims
 Strong social ties through positive process:
rare in HE modules

15. References
 http://users.aber.ac.uk/jpm/el21010/el2.html
 Argyle, M. (1969). Social Interaction. London: Methuen.
 Heron, J. (1989). The Facilitator’s Handbook. Kogan Page.
 Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D. & Skon, L. (1981).
“Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures on
Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin, 89: 47-62. In Kessler, C.
(Ed.) (1992).
 Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and
Research. Interaction Book Company: Edina, MN. In Kessler, C. (Ed.) (1992).
 Kessler, C. (Ed.) (1992). Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource
Book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
 Olson, R.E.W-B, & Kagan, S. (1992). “About Cooperative Learning” in Kessler, C.
(Ed.) (1992).
 Sharples, M. (1999). How We Write: Writing as Creative Design. London:
Routledge.
 Other references
 Richardson, V., Underhill, A. & Bowen, T. (1991). Group discussion worksheets
for “Teacher Development in English Language Teaching” British Council International
Specialist Course. Hastings: ILC/International House.