Charlotte, North Carolina
June 20, 1999
June 20, 1999
June 23, 1999
4.275.1 - 4.275.12
Getting a Grip on Groups
Marilyn A. Dyrud Oregon Institute of Technology
Teamwork: industry wants it and ABET 2000 requires it. But effectively implementing and managing student groups for class projects, lab work, and presentations is a complex affair, one that requires organization, understanding, and tact. This paper offers a general overview of the current state of group work in technical classes by examining ASEE literature for the past three years and comparing that information with the results of a survey of Oregon Institute of Technology technical faculty, aimed to pinpoint practices and problems involving student work groups.
The literature regarding student groups is rich and varied. Even a small snapshot of focused journals and conference proceedings yields dozens of resources, with content ranging from a variety of study results to classroom methodologies. To determine the current state of affairs, I searched ASEE publications for 1996-1998, specifically the Annual Conference Proceedings, FIE Conference Proceedings, Prism, and the Journal of Engineering Education. Articles which discuss student groups appear under a variety of general subject headings: cooperative learning, collaborative learning, active learning, group work, teamwork, interactive learning. Despite the diversity and number of articles, most tend to fall into one of the themes explained below: enhanced learning, course applications, group formation, interpersonal skill development, and assessment.
Most of the articles that detail positive experiences with group work note an important side benefit: students tend to learn more in groups because the members develop what Johnson and Johnson have dubbed a “positive interdependence,”22 resulting in enhanced “short-term memory, long-term retention, understanding of course material, critical thinking, and problem solving skills.”34
A 1996 study by Jones and Brickner compared two sections of a sophomore basic mechanics course, one traditional lecture and the other cooperative learning. In the three areas evaluated, the cooperative learning class consistently fared better, scoring 7-10% higher on exams and averaging half a letter grade higher. In addition, the experimental section displayed a better attitude towards study habits and rated teachers higher on faculty evaluations. The authors further note that 90-95% of students in the cooperative learning section “expressed positive comments towards this approach.”23
Dyrud, M. (1999, June), Getting A Grip On Groups Paper presented at 1999 Annual Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina. https://peer.asee.org/7693
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 1999 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015