1. Dr Bejan David Analoui Dr Dennis Duty
Students’ experiences of working in engineered diverse groups Panacea or Paradox
Dr Bejan David Analoui
Dr Dennis Duty

2. Group work issues Benefits of group work Development of key skills
Active learning-engagement
Improved outcomes
Problems
Group management/processes
Unequal contribution
Heterogeneous
Groups

3. Background to the study
Research methods module year 2 undergraduates
Increase in cohort size-excessive marking load
Need to prepare for final year dissertation
Need to improve student learning and attainment
Develop a group based, year long research task to replace traditional approach.

4. Engineering the groups
Groups were engineered because of the reported benefits in terms of learning, communication and attainment, especially were the task was long-term.
Students asked to pair off with a preferred working partner.
Paired average grade calculated from year 1 (where available)
Groups of 6 formed with:
1x High performing pair
1 x Middle performing pair
1 x international pair
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
STAGE 3

5. Research Questions
1. What were students’ experiences of the engineered groups?
2. What impact did the group allocation method have on students’ learning?

6. Data Collection and Analysis
Semi-structured interviews (n=22), fifteen to forty-seven minutes
Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006):
Codes inducted from the data (in-vivo coding)
Codes were collated according to meanings
Themes were examined, and sub themes determined
Reviewed to ensure internal and external homogeneity (Patton, 1960)

7. MPM2: I think that’s a really good thing that you did as well because then you can have someone familiar with you. Cos if you just go into summert and you don’t know who everyone is, it could get lonely for some people.
HPM3: I think maybe like if you were pairing up with…. I know some groups have paired up with other groups and the other groups still kind of not really contributed. They’ve not tried to come out of that little group that they were in to start with.
Research Question 1
Pairing
Created cliques in some cases
Beneficial to “have someone familiar”
Positive Experiences
New experience
Meet new people
New insights into practice in other countries
Gained skills
Negative Experiences
Low attendance of peers
Difficulty with communication
Conflict
Concerns over variable contribution

8. Research Question 2
We assume that the extent of learning is positively related to a students’ contribution to the group
(We think this is a safe assumption)
Our findings highlight considerable variations in contribution, some of which we attribute to the allocation method
We argue that the allocation method inhibited some students’ opportunities for learning

9. Research Question 2 Variable contribution was due to:
Limited and non-contribution of others (social loafing)
Low quality of peer work
Language
Having to guide or teach others
Having to do the work of others
Being excluded from contributing

10. Excluded From Contributing
MPF3: we have two people who like to lead...and they like want to do all the work, and in the end they complain that they’ve done everything.
Excluded From Contributing
EUMPF:...we talked today, with this guy who is one of the leader. And we agreed that me and the other girl are going to do the literature review, but he already mentioned that he
doesn’t trust us so he might have to do the whole thing but I told
him I’m going to try my best... It makes me feel like I’m not needed in the group really.
Mid-performing and international students reported being excluded
Quality of their work
Reduced opportunities for learning
Some being excluded
Over-contribution from others as a result
MPM1: So I was there with him when I knew he was doing it in class but apart from that, he just wanted to do everything.

11. Excluded From Contributing
Few reports in the literature..
Livingstone and Lynch (2000) - student confession
Volet and Mansfield (2006) – ejected from the group
Pitt (2000) – it’s a rational choice
Exclusion is problematic: when students are restricted from contributing their opportunity to learn from the work undertaken by the group is severely limited. Engineered allocation may contribute to the likelihood of its occurrence

12. Matrix of Contribution
We had reports of students both wanting and not wanting to contribute, and wanting, and not wanting others to contribute.
Contribution based on:
a) the extent to which the student desires to contribute and
b) the extent to which the group desires the student to contribute.

13. Model of Contribution

14. Implications
Students and educators to be cognizant of potential for exclusion, under and over-contribution
Peer assessment
Personal development
Graduate recruiters
Students who have been excluded may have poor perceptions of group work, and
May not have the skills and knowledge indicated by their qualification
Business and management community
Examining variable contributions to teams

15. Limitations & Future Research
Sample size
Participant bias
Future research:
Additional investigation of exclusion or forced-loafing