research collaborative group work

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of group work.

• Division of Psychology, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in educational systems. There is strong scientific support for the benefits of having students learning and working in groups. Nevertheless, studies about what occurs in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking. Similarly, the question of why some group work is successful and other group work results in the opposite is still unsolved. The aim of this article is to add to the current level of knowledge and understandings regarding the essence behind successful group work in higher education. This research is focused on the students’ experiences of group work and learning in groups, which is an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work prior to the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work ends up being a positive experience resulting in successful learning, while in other cases, the result is the reverse, are of interest. Data were collected through a study-specific questionnaire, with multiple choice and open-ended questions. The questionnaires were distributed to students in different study programs at two universities in Sweden. The present result is based on a reanalysis and qualitative analysis formed a key part of the study. The results indicate that most of the students’ experiences involved group work that facilitated learning, especially in the area of academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that served as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions facilitate or hamper students’ learning, as well as impact their experiences with group work.

Introduction

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in most educational systems, from compulsory education to higher education. The overarching purpose of group work in educational practice is to serve as an incentive for learning. For example, it is believed that the students involved in the group activity should “learn something.” This prerequisite has influenced previous research to predominantly focus on how to increase efficiency in group work and how to understand why some group work turns out favorably and other group work sessions result in the opposite. The review of previous research shows that in the 20th century, there has been an increase in research about students’ cooperation in the classroom ( Lou et al., 1996 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). This increasing interest can be traced back to the fact that both researchers and teachers have become aware of the positive effects that collaboration might have on students’ ability to learn. The main concern in the research area has been on how interaction and cooperation among students influence learning and problem solving in groups ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ).

Two approaches concerning learning in group are of interest, namely cooperative learning and collaborative learning . There seems to be a certain amount of confusion concerning how these concepts are to be interpreted and used, as well as what they actually signify. Often the conceptions are used synonymously even though there are some differentiations. Cooperative group work is usually considered as a comprehensive umbrella concept for several modes of student active working modes ( Johnson and Johnson, 1975 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ), whereas collaboration is a more of an exclusive concept and may be included in the much wider concept cooperation ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Cooperative learning may describe group work without any interaction between the students (i.e., the student may just be sitting next to each other; Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ), while collaborative learning always includes interaction, collaboration, and utilization of the group’s competences ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ).

At the present time, there is strong scientific support for the benefits of students learning and working in groups. In addition, the research shows that collaborative work promotes both academic achievement and collaborative abilities ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to Gillies and Boyle (2011) , the benefits are consistent irrespective of age (pre-school to college) and/or curriculum. When working interactively with others, students learn to inquire, share ideas, clarify differences, problem-solve, and construct new understandings. Gillies (2003a , b ) also stresses that students working together are more motivated to achieve than they would be when working individually. Thus, group work might serve as an incentive for learning, in terms of both academic knowledge and interpersonal skills. Nevertheless, studies about what occur in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking in the literature, especially when it comes to addressing the students’ points of view, with some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Similarly, the question of why some group work turns out successfully and other work results in the opposite is still unsolved. In this article, we hope to contribute some new pieces of information concerning the why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while others result in the opposite.

Group Work in Education

Group work is frequently used in higher education as a pedagogical mode in the classroom, and it is viewed as equivalent to any other pedagogical practice (i.e., whole class lesson or individual work). Without considering the pros and cons of group work, a non-reflective choice of pedagogical mode might end up resulting in less desirable consequences. A reflective choice, on the other hand, might result in positive experiences and enhanced learning ( Galton et al., 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

Group Work as Objective or Means

Group work might serve different purposes. As mentioned above, the overall purpose of the group work in education is that the students who participate in group work “learn something.” Learning can be in terms of academic knowledge or “group knowledge.” Group knowledge refers to learning to work in groups ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare might be of equal importance as academic knowledge, or they may even be prerequisites for learning. Thus, the group and the group work serve more functions than just than “just” being a pedagogical mode. Hence, before group work is implemented, it is important to consider the purpose the group assignment will have as the objective, the means, or both.

From a learning perspective, group work might function as both an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities) and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement) or both ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). If the purpose of the group work is to serve as an objective, the group’s function is to promote students’ development of group work abilities, such as social training and interpersonal skills. If, on the other hand, group work is used as a means to acquire academic knowledge, the group and the collaboration in the group become a base for students’ knowledge acquisition ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). The group contributes to the acquisition of knowledge and stimulates learning, thus promoting academic performance. Naturally, group work can be considered to be a learning environment, where group work is used both as an objective and as the means. One example of this concept is in the case of tutorial groups in problem-based learning. Both functions are important and might complement and/or even promote each other. Albeit used for different purposes, both approaches might serve as an incentive for learning, emphasizing different aspect knowledge, and learning in a group within an educational setting.

Working in a Group or as a Group

Even if group work is often defined as “pupils working together as a group or a team,” ( Blatchford et al., 2003 , p. 155), it is important to bear in mind that group work is not just one activity, but several activities with different conditions ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). This implies that group work may change characteristics several times during a group work session and/or during a group’s lifetime, thus suggesting that certain working modes may be better suited for different parts of a group’s work and vice versa ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). It is also important to differentiate between how the work is accomplished in the group, whether by working in a group or working as a group.

From a group work perspective, there are two primary ways of discussing cooperation in groups: working in a group (cooperation) or working as a group (collaboration; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Situations where students are sitting together in a group but working individually on separate parts of a group assignment are referred to as working in a group . This is not an uncommon situation within an educational setting ( Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ). Cooperation between students might occur, but it is not necessary to accomplish the group’s task. At the end of the task, the students put their separate contributions together into a joint product ( Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2010 , 2011a ). While no cooperative activities are mandatory while working in a group, cooperative learning may occur. However, the benefits in this case are an effect of social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) and are not caused by cooperation. In this situation, social facilitation alludes to the enhanced motivational effect that the presence of other students have on individual student’s performance.

Working as a group, on the other hand, causes learning benefits from collaboration with other group members. Working as a group is often referred to as “real group work” or “meaningful group work,” and denotes group work in which students utilizes the group members’ skills and work together to achieve a common goal. Moreover, working as a group presupposes collaboration, and that all group members will be involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, the utilization of the group’s competence, and the presence of problem solving and reflection. According to Granström (2006) , working as a group is a more uncommon activity in an educational setting. Both approaches might be useful in different parts of group work, depending on the purpose of the group work and type of task assigned to the group ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). Working in a group might lead to cooperative learning, while working as group might facilitate collaborative learning. While there are differences between the real meanings of the concepts, the terms are frequently used interchangeably ( Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

Previous Research of Students’ Experiences

As mentioned above, there are a limited number of studies concerning the participants’ perspectives on group work. Teachers often have to rely upon spontaneous viewpoints and indications about and students’ experiences of group work in the form of completed course evaluations. However, there are some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). To put this study in a context and provide a rationale for the present research, a selection of studies focusing on pupils’ and/or students’ experiences and conceptions of group work will be briefly discussed below. The pupils’ and/or students inside knowledge group work may present information relevant in all levels of educational systems.

Hansen (2006) conducted a small study with 34 participating students at a business faculty, focusing on the participants’ experiences of group work. In the study different aspects of students’ positive experiences of group work were identified. For example, it was found to be necessary that all group members take part and make an effort to take part in the group work, clear goals are set for the work, role differentiation exists among members, the task has some level of relevance, and there is clear leadership. Even though Hansen’s (2006) study was conducted in higher education, these findings may be relevant in other levels in educational systems.

To gain more knowledge and understand about the essence behind high-quality group work, Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) turned their focus toward students’ experiences and conceptions of group work in higher education. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating their students’ points of view and how the students assess working in groups. Do the students’ appreciate group projects or do they find it boring and even as a waste of time? Would some students prefer to work individually, or even in “the other group?” The study was a part of a larger research project on group work in education and only a small part of the data corpus was analyzed. Different critical aspects were identified as important incitements for whether the group work turned out to be a success or a failure. The students’ positive, as well as negative, experiences of group work include both task-related (e.g., learning, group composition, participants’ contribution, time) and socio-emotional (e.g., affiliation, conflict, group climate) aspects of group work. The students described their own group, as well as other groups, in a realistic way and did not believe that the grass was greener in the other group. The same data corpus is used in this article (see under Section The Previous Analysis). According to Underwood (2003) and Peterson and Miller (2004) , the students’ enthusiasm for group work is affected by type of task, as well as the group’s members. One problem that recurred frequently concerned students who did not contribute to the group work, also known as so-called free-riders ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Students are, in general, reluctant to punish free-riders and antipathy toward working in groups is often associated with a previous experience of having free-riders in the group ( Peterson and Miller, 2004 ). To accomplish a favorable attitude toward group work, the advantages of collaborative activities as a means for learning must be elucidated. Furthermore, students must be granted a guarantee that free-riders will not bring the group in an unfavorable light. The free-riders, on the other hand, must be encouraged to participate in the common project.

Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) were also interested in students’ experiences and conceptions of high-quality and low-quality group work in school and how students aged 13–16 describe good and bad group work? Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) show that the students seem to have a clear conception of what constitutes group work and what does not. According to the students, genuine group work is characterized by collaboration on an assignment given by the teacher. They describe group work as working together with their classmates on a common task. The students are also fully aware that successful group work calls for members with appropriate skills that are focused on the task and for all members take part in the common work. Furthermore, the results disclose what students consider being important requisites for successful versus more futile group work. The students’ inside knowledge about classroom activities ended up in a taxonomy of crucial conditions for high-quality group work. The six conditions were: (a) organization of group work conditions, (b) mode of working in groups, (c) tasks given in group work, (d) reporting group work, (e) assessment of group work, and (f) the role of the teacher in group work. The most essential condition for the students seemed to be group composition and the participants’ responsibilities and contributions. According to the students, a well-organized group consists of approximately three members, which allows the group to not be too heterogeneous. Members should be allotted a reasonable amount of time and be provided with an environment that is not too noisy. Hence, all six aspects are related to the role of the teacher’s leadership since the first five points concern the framework and prerequisites created by the teacher.

Näslund (2013) summarized students’ and researchers’ joint knowledge based on experience and research on in the context of shared perspective for group work. As a result, Näslund noticed a joint apprehension concerning what constitutes “an ideal group work.” Näslund (2013) highlighted the fact that both students and researchers emphasized for ideal group work to occur, the following conditions were important to have: (a) the group work is carried out in supportive context, (b) cooperation occurs, (c) the group work is well-structured, (d) students come prepared and act as working members during the meetings, and (e) group members show respect for each other.

From this brief exposition of a selection of research focusing on students’ views on group work, it is obvious that more systematic studies or documentations on students’ conceptions and experiences of group work within higher education are relevant and desired. The present study, which is a reanalysis of a corpus of data addressing the students’ perspective of group, is a step in that direction.

Aim of the Study

The overarching knowledge interest of this study is to enhance the body of knowledge regarding group work in higher education. The aim of this article is to add knowledge and understanding of what the essence behind successful group work in higher education is by focusing on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups , an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work until the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, are of interest.

Materials and Methods

To capture university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, an inductive qualitative approach, which emphasizes content and meaning rather than quantification, was used ( Breakwell et al., 2006 ; Bryman, 2012 ). The empirical data were collected through a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire and a qualitative content analysis was performed ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

Participants

All participating students attended traditional university programs where group work was a central and frequently used pedagogical method in the educational design. In addition, the participants’ programs allowed the students to be allocated to the same groups for a longer period of time, in some cases during a whole semester. University programs using specific pedagogical approaches, such as problem-based learning or case method, were not included in this study.

The participants consisted of a total of 210 students, 172 female and 38 male, from two universities in two different cities (approximately division: 75 and 25%). The students came from six different populations in four university programs: (a) The Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology, (b) The Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program, (c) Social Work Program, and (d) The Bachelor’s Programs in Biology. The informants were studying in their first through eighth terms, but the majority had previous experiences from working in other group settings. Only 2% of the students had just started their first term when the study was conducted, while the vast majority (96%) was participating in university studies in their second to sixth semester.

The teacher most frequently arranged the group composition and only a few students stated that they have had any influence on the group formation. There were, with a few exceptions, between 6 and 10 groups in each of the programs included in this study. The groups consisted of between four to eight members and the differences in sizes were almost proportionally distributed among the research group. The groups were foremost heterogeneous concerning gender, but irrespective of group size, there seems to have been a bias toward more women than men in most of the groups. When there was an underrepresented sex in the group, the minority mostly included two students of the same gender. More than 50% of the students answered that in this particularly group, they worked solely with new group members, i.e., students they had not worked with in previous group work during the program.

To collect data about students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire approached the students’ experiences regarding the specific group work they were working in at the time of the data collection (spring 2006), not their experiences of group work in general. The questionnaire contained a total of 18 questions, including both multiple choice and open-ended questions. The multiple choice questions concerned background variables and information about the present group. The seven open-ended questions were designed to gather data about the students’ experiences and perceptions of group work in higher education. The questionnaires were distributed to the different populations of students (some populations studied at the same program) at two universities in Sweden. During the time the questionnaires were completed, the researcher or an assistant was present to answer possible questions. In all, 210 students answered the questionnaire.

The previous analysis

As described above (Section Previous Research of Students’ Experiences) a previous analysis based on the same data corpus revealed that most of the students included in the study found group work to be an enjoyable and stimulating working method ( Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ). The data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis based on three different research questions. There were two main criticisms of the previous study presented from other researchers. The criticism conveyed applied mostly to the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group and second to the fact that the results were mostly descriptive. To counter this criticism and to elaborate on the analysis, a further analysis was conducted.

The present analysis

The present analysis (or reanalysis) was conducted by using an inductive qualitative content analysis based on three open-ended research questions:

(1) In what ways does group work contribute to your learning?

(2) What positive experiences have you had while working in your present group?

(3) What negative experiences have you had while working in your present group?

Each question corresponds to one aspect of the research’s objective, but together, they might support and enrich each other and unravel new information based on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work. Research question 1, listed above, was not included in the first analysis and is being investigated for the first time in this study, while the other two questions are being reanalyzed. An inductive, qualitative content analysis is applicable when the aim of the research is a description of the meaning or of a phenomenon in conceptual form ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

The analysis was carried out over several steps, following the basic principles of an inductive, qualitative content analysis ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). The steps included three phases: preparation, organizing, and reporting ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Each question was treated as a unit of analysis and was thus analyzed separately. In the preparation phase, the researcher tried to make sense of the data by becoming familiar with the data corpus. In the current study, this included transcription and thorough reading of the answers. An open coding system composed of marginal notes and headings began the second phase, which included organizing the data. This second phase, in turn, included open coding, creating categories, and abstraction. The notes and the headings from the open coding were transferred to coding sheets and then grouped into categories. Categories were formed through the interpretation of the codes that described the same meaning or phenomenon. Finally, an abstraction process began, where a general description of the grouped categories formed an abstraction (see Table 1 ). An abstraction was denominated using the content-characteristic words for this paper: learning, study-social function, and organization . The third phase, reporting , addressed the presentation of the process of analysis and the results.

TABLE 1. Examples from the organization phase of the coding process.

The final aim of this study is to present the phenomenon studied in a model or conceptual map of the categories ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). In following these procedures, we aim to expand our understanding of the existing work and to counter the second part of the criticisms, which included criticisms stating that the results were mostly descriptive in nature. To counter the criticisms regarding the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group, the qualitative abstraction that emerged from the qualitative content analysis was compared to background information by using SPSS. Three background variables were used: gender, cities, and programs.

Ethics and Quality

The ethical principles provided by the British Psychology Society have formed a guideline [ British Psychology Society (BPS), 2006 ] for the present study. The ethical principles, which emphasize the concern for participants’ interest, have been applied throughout the study [ American Psychological Association (APA), 2002 ; British Psychology Society (BPS), 2004 ; Barett, 2007 ]. To facilitate trustworthiness, a thorough description of the analysis process has been presented ( Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Translated citations are also included to increase trustworthiness.

As described above, the analysis resulted in three abstraction emerging: learning, study-social function , and organization . Each abstraction includes both a positive variant (i.e., facilitating learning, study-social function, and/or organization) as well as a negative alternative (i.e., hampering learning, study-social function, and/or organization). The results will be presented in three different sections, with each section corresponding to one abstraction. However, we would like to call attention to the fact that one fifth (20%, including missing value 8%) of the students included in this study did not perceive and/or mention any negative experiences at all in their present group. From a general point of view, there is no difference with respect to gender or city regarding the distribution of positive and negative experiences concerning the abstractions, neither concerning different programs nor the distribution of negative experiences (all p > 0.05). In contrast, there is a difference between the various programs and the distribution of positive experiences (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). The students from the social work program display a higher amount of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with the other programs.

The majority of the students (97%) responded that working in group somehow facilitated learning, academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both. They learned more or different things when working in groups than they would have if working alone. By discussing and questioning each other’s points of view and listening to their fellow students’ contributions, thus obtaining different perspectives, the participants experienced an enhanced academic learning, compared to working alone. “I learn much more by working in groups than working individually. I obtain more through interaction with the other group members.” Academic knowledge is not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gain advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work in group courses strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus learning about groups by working in groups. “Through practical knowledge demonstrate several of the phenomena we read about in theory (group psychology and sociology).”

The results show no difference when considering either gender or city. However, when comparing the four programs included in the study and the types of learning, a difference occurs (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). A division into two parts seems to generate the difference. On the one hand, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program emphasize academic knowledge. On the other hand, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities single handed, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning.

Even though the participants did not expressly report that group work hampered learning, they often mentioned that they perceived group work as being ineffective due to loss of focus and the presence of conflicts, thereby hampering conceivable learning. One respondent stated, “that you sometimes are out of focus in the discussion and get side-tracked instead of considering the task.” Another offered the following perspective: “Occasionally, it is too little task related and feels unnecessary sometimes. Individual work is, in certain situations, preferable.” Group work might be perceived as ineffective and time consuming considering long working periods with tedious discussions. One participant stated, “The time aspect, everything is time consuming.” The absence or presence of conflicts in the group affects students’ experiences, and conflicts not handled may influence learning in a negative way. The students perceived that it was difficult to come to an agreement and experience those conflicts and the need to compromise hampered individual learning. Accordingly, the absence of conflicts seemed to be an important incitement for learning. However, fear of conflicts can lead to reduced learning and cause negative experiences, but to a considerably lesser extent than does the presence of actual conflicts. “A great fear of conflicts sometimes raises an oppressive atmosphere.” “Fear of conflicts leads to much not made known.”

A Study-Social Function

Group work also has an important study - social function according to the students. They describe their membership in groups as an important aspect of affiliation. In general, the total number of students at a program is approximately 60–80 or more. In contexts with a large population of students, the smaller group gives the participants an opportunity to feel affiliated with the group and to each other. “Feels safe to have a certain group to prepare oneself together with before, for instance, an upcoming seminar.” The group gives the individual student a platform of belonging, which might serve as an important arena for learning ( facilitate ) and finding friends to spend leisure time with. Many of the participants also reported feeling a positive atmosphere in the group, which is important for the satisfaction of being in the group together with the fellow students.

To be a member of a group may also serve as a function of relief, both academically and socially, for the individual student. The participants reported that many of the tasks assigned by the university teachers are difficult to handle on their own. “The others explain to me. We help one another.” However, the students reported that they helped and supported each other, even if the task did not demand cooperation. “As a student, you get more active. You help one another to extract the groups’ common knowledge. Forward info if somebody is missing.” Being a member of a group also affects students’ motivation to study. They prepare themselves by reading texts and other material before the next group session. Group work may also have positive effects on achievement. Students’ total amount of time and effort on their work may also increase. Through group work, the participants also get confirmation of who they are and what their capacities are.

Being a member of a group also has its downside, which often has to do with the group climate and/or group processes, both of which have multiple and complex features. Many students reported that both the group climate and group processes might be the source of negative conceptions of the group and hamper learning. “Process losses.” The respondents described negative conceptions based on the feeling of not having enough time to get to know each other in the group or being in situations where no cooperation occurred. Other students referred to the fact that the group’s life is too long, which may lead to group members not only wearing each other out, but also having a negative effect on each other’s mood. “Influenced by each other’s mood.” Examples of negative experiences are process losses in general, including insufficient communication, unclear roles, and problems with one group member. As mentioned above, the students from the Social Work Program display a higher number of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with students from the other programs.

Organization

O rganization concerns the structure of group work and includes different aspects, all describing group work from different angles. The aspects are relevant no matter how the participants perceive the group work, whether as positive or negative. Unlike the other two abstractions (learning and study-social function), organization includes the same aspects no matter what the experiences are, namely group composition , group structure , way of working and contributions.

Whether the group is composed in a homogeneous or heterogeneous way seems to be experienced in both a positive and negative sense. A well-thought-out group composition , including both group size and mix of members, is essential. A just large-enough group for the task, consisting of a population of members that is not too heterogeneous, facilitates a joyful experience and learning. A homogeneous mix of members might be perceived as positive, as the students feel that they have similar life situations, opinions, and skills, thereby causing positive conditions for collaboration within the group. Conversely, in a group with a heterogeneous mix, different members contribute with different knowledge and/or prior experiences, which can be used in the group for collective and collaborative learning. “Good group composition, distribution of age groups that leads to fruitful discussions.”

An additional facilitating prerequisite is that the group develops adequate ways of working together, which includes a well-organized group structure . Well-working groups are characterized as having developed adequate ways of working together, while groups that work less well together lack a developed way of cooperation. “Well-organized working group with clear and distinct rules and structure.” Preparation and attendance for group work are aspects mentioned as facilitating (and hampering) incitements. Group work in educational settings sometimes entails that you, as a student, are forced to read and learn within a certain period of time that is beyond your control. Some participants find the pressure positive, hence “increase the pressure to read chapters in time.” The members’ contribution to the group is also a central factor for the students’ apprehension of how the group works. This is, in short, about how much each member ought to contribute to the group and to the work. Groups considered to be well-working are ones where all members contribute to the group’s work, but the content of the contribution may vary according to the single member’s qualifications. “We work well together (most of us). Everybody participates in different ways and seems committed.” “Good, everybody participates the same amount. We complement each other well.”

The same prerequisites can lead to the reverse result, i.e., hampering learning and stirring up negative experiences. If the group members are too identical (a homogeneous group composition ), it might lead to a lack of opinions, which several participants perceived as being negative. “That we do not get a male perspective about the subject. We are all girls, at the age of 20, which also means that we have pretty much the same experiences that may be seen as both positive and negative. The negative is the lack of opinion.” If the group is considered to be too small, students seems to find it troublesome, as the relationships are few, but there are also few people who are available to handle the workload allotted to the group. Nevertheless, a group that is too large could also lead to negative experiences. “It is far too large a group.”

A lack of group structure might lead to a lower degree of satisfaction with the group’s way of working . A commonly expressed point of view seen in the students’ answers involved the occurrences of when all members did not attend the meetings (absence). In these cases, it was also viewed that the work in the group often was characterized as unstructured. “Sometimes a bit unclear structures, some students have difficulties with coming in time.” Not attending or coming unprepared or badly prepared to the group work is other aspect that is commented on. “Low degree of fellowship, punctuality is a problem, an insecure group.” Some students find it frustrating to prepare for a certain time decided that is beyond their control. “A necessity to read certain chapters within a specific period of time is never stimulating.”

One characteristic of groups that are not working well is that contribution varies among the members. In group work, students with different levels of ambition are assembled, which may result in different levels of interest and commitment, as well as differences in the willingness to take on responsibilities or part of the workload of the group’s work. Some members are active and do much of the work, while others barely contribute at all. “Some don’t do anything while others pull the heaviest burden. Two out of three prepare before the meeting, the rest think that they are able to read during the group work and do not supply the group with anything else other than delays and frustration.” A common answer seen in the questionnaires that concerns negative experiences of group work as they relate to contribution is: “Everybody does not contribute just as much.” or “There is always someone who just glides along and doesn’t take part.”

Summary of the Results

The results are summarized in a model illustrating the relationship between abstractions (i.e., learning, study-social function, and organization) and result (i.e., enhanced or reduced learning), as well as positive or negative experiences (see Figure 1 ).

FIGURE 1. A model illustrating the relationship between abstractions and result .

The figure shows that all three abstractions may facilitate or hamper learning as well as the experiences of group work. To piece together, the difficult and extensive jigsaw puzzle concerning why some group work result in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases the result is the reverse is still not solved. In this article, we propose that the prerequisites learning, study-social function, and organization influence learning and experiences of working in group, thus, providing additional pieces of information to the jigsaw puzzle (Figure 2 ).

FIGURE 2. Pieces of jigsaw puzzle influence learning and experiences.

The current study focuses on university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view, as well as how the students’ assess learning when working in groups. The analysis resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations. Each abstraction also included a positive and a negative variant. In other words, all three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work.

Learning in Group Work

The result shows that the majority of the students (97%) experience that working in group facilitated learning, either academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both, accordingly confirming previous research ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to the students, they learn more or different things when working in groups compared with working individually. Academic knowledge was not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gained advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work might strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus the students were learning about groups by working in groups. This implies that group work, from a learning perspective, serves several functions for the students ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Group work also seems to have an important study-social function for the university students, hence confirming that group work serves more functions than just being a pedagogical mode.

Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare seem to be highly important, and may even be essential prerequisites for learning. Accordingly, group work functions as both as an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities), and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement), or both, for the students ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). Moreover, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Program for Human Resources seem to use group work more as means for obtaining academic knowledge. In contrast, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities alone, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning, thus using group work as an objective, as a means, or as a combination of both. One interpretation might be that the type of task assigned to the students differs in various programs. This can be valid both concerning the purpose of group work (group work as objective or as the means), but also arrangement (working in a group or as a group; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Another possible explanation might be that the main emphasis in the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the Program for Human Resources is on product and academic knowledge, while in the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program, the process is more articulated and demanded. However, this is only speculation and further research is needed.

Even though the participants did not explicitly state that group work hampered learning, they mentioned that they perceived group work to be ineffective due to the loss of focus and/or the presence of conflicts with other group members, thereby hampering conceivable learning. This may also be an effect of the purpose or arrangement of the group work ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

Experiences of Group Work

The results revealed that several aspects of group work are important incentives for learning. In addition, this study revealed students’ experiences of group work (i.e., facilitating or hampering positive/negative experiences), which is in line with the previous studies on students’ experiences of working in groups ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Group composition, group structure, ways of working, and participants’ contributions are aspects put forward by the university students as either facilitating or hampering the positive experience of group work ( Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

Several of the aspects bear reference to whether the group members work in a group or as a group ( Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, utilization of the group’s competence, and includes problem solving and reflection. All group members are involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). According to the results, not all groups are working as a group but rather working in a group, which, according to Granström (2006) , is common in an educational setting.

Due to problems with group composition, members’ contributions, and group structure, including rules and ways of cooperation, some students end up with negative experiences of group work. Additionally, the university students allude to the fact that a well-functioning supportive study-social context is an essential prerequisite not only for positive experiences of group work, but also for learning ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Both working in a group and working as group might be useful in different parts of the group work ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ) and cause learning. Hence working in a group causes cooperative learning based on social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) while working as group causes learning benefits through collaboration with other group members. Although both approaches might cause positive or negative experiences, a conceivable interpretation is that working as a group has a greater potential to enhance positive experiences. The findings suggest a need for further research to fully understand why some group work causes positive experiences and other instances of group work cause negative experiences.

The findings in the current study develop the findings from Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) . First, it shows that it is possible to assemble all groups in to a joint research group (see below). Second, a thorough reanalysis, using an inductive qualitative content analysis, resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations as either facilitating or hampering learning, and experiences.

Methodological Considerations

There are some limitations in the current study and most of them have to do with the construction of the study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire. First, the questions do not discriminate between (a) the type of group work, (b) the purpose with the group work, (c) the structure of the group work (i.e., extent and/or time); or (d) ways of working in the group (i.e., cooperation or collaboration). Second, the design of the questionnaire does not facilitate comparison between the populations included in the group. The questionnaire treated group work as one activity and did not acknowledge that group work can serve different functions and include various activities ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). This simplification of the phenomena group work causes criticism concerning whether or not it is possible to assemble these populations into a joint research group. An elaborated description of the analysis process and the comparison to three background variables has been used to counter this criticism. The thin results from the comparison, indicate that based on the question used in the study-specific questionnaire, it is possible to assemble the results into a corpus of joint results.

Conclusion/Concluding Remarks

The results indicate that most of the students’ experienced that group work facilitated learning, especially concerning academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that serve as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work. By listening to the university students’ voices and elucidating their experiences and conceptions, we have been able to add new knowledge and understanding of what the essence is behind successful group work in higher education. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, can be of use for further development of group work as a pedagogical practice.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges Ph.D. Faculty Program Director, Charlotta Einarsson, for her contribution to the design of this study and contribution to early stages of the data analysis and manuscript.

American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct . Available at: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Baines, E., Blatchford, P., and Chowne, A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: effects on science attainment. Br. Educ. Res. J. 33, 663–680. doi: 10.1080/01411920701582231

CrossRef Full Text

Barett, M. (2007). “Practical and ethical issues in planning research,” in Research Methods in Psychology , eds G. Breakell, S. Hammond, C. Fife-Schaw, and J. A. Smith (London: Sage Publications), 24–48.

Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: progress and problems. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19, 1–40. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60211-7

Bennet, N., and Dunne, E. (1992). Managing Classroom Groups. Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Schuster Education.

Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., and Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39, 153–172. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8

Breakwell, G. M., and Hammond, F., Fife-Schaw, C., and Smith, J. A. (eds). (2006). Research Methods in Psychology . London: Sage Publications.

British Psychology Society (BPS). (2004). Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles, and Guidelines . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download.cfm?file_uuid=6D0645CC-7E96-C67F-D75E2648E5580115&ext=pdf

British Psychology Society (BPS). (2006). Code of Ethics and Conduct . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/the-society/code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct_home.cfm

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods . Oxford: University Press.

Cantwell, R. H., and Andrews, B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students’ feeling towards group work. Educ. Psychol. 22, 75–91. doi: 10.1080/01443410120101260

Elo, S., and Kyngäs, H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62, 107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text

Galton, M., and Williamson, J. (1992). Group Work in the Primary Classroom . London: Routledge.

Galton, M. J., Hargreaves, L., and Pell, T. (2009). Group work and whole-class teaching with 11–14-years-old compared. Cambridge J. Educ . 39, 119–147. doi: 10.1080/03057640802701994

Gillies, R. M. (2003a). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 137–147. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.137

Gillies, R. M. (2003b). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39, 35–49. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7

Gillies, R. M., and Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26, 933–940. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034

Gillies, R. M., and Boyle, M. (2011). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning (CL): a two-year follow-up. Teach. Educ. 1, 63–78. doi: 10.1080/10476210.2010.538045

Graneheim, U. H., and Lundman, B. (2003). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ. Today 24, 105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Granström, K. (2006). “Group phenomena and classroom management in Sweden,” in Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues , eds C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 1141–1160.

Hammar Chiriac, E. (2008). A scheme for understanding group processes in problem-based learning. High. Educ. 55, 505–518. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9071-7

Hammar Chiriac, E. (2010). “Group work is not one, but a great many processes – understanding group work dynamics,” in Group Theory: Classes, Representation and Connections, and Applications , ed. C. W. Danellis (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.), 153–166.

Hammar Chiriac, E. (2011a). Research on Group Work in Education . New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Hammar Chiriac, E. (2011b). “Research on group work in education,” in Emerging Issues in Compulsory Education [Progress in Education. Volume 20 ], ed R. Nata (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.), 25–44.

Hammar Chiriac, E., and Einarsson, C. (2007). “Is the grass greener in the other group? Students’ experiences of group-work” [“Är gräset grönare i den andra gruppen? Studenters erfarenheter av grupparbete”] [Published in Swedish], in Interaction on the Edge 2. Proceedings from the 5th GRASP Conference , ed. J. Näslund (Linköping: Linköping University).

Hammar Chiriac, E., and Granström, K. (2012). Teachers’ leadership and students’ experience of group work. Teach. Teach. Theor. Pract. 3, 345–363. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2012.629842

Hammar Chiriac, E., and Hempel, A. (2013), Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] . Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: suggestions for improving team projects. J. Educ. Bus. 82, 11–19. doi: 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing Students in Groups: Promoting Group Responsibility and Individual Accountability . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kutnick, P., and Beredondini, L. (2009). Can the enhancement of group work in classrooms provide a basis for effective communication in support of school-based cognitive achievement in classrooms of young learners? Cambridge J. Educ . 39, 71–94. doi: 10.1080/03057640902836880

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., and d’Apllonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 423–458. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004423

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1:2. Available at: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm_140309

Näslund, J. (2013). “Pupils’ and students’ view on group work” [Published in Swedish: Elevers och studenters syn på grupparbete] in Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] , eds E. Hammar Chiriac and A. Hempel (Lund: Studentlitteratur), 233–242.

Peterson, S, and Miller, J. A. (2004). Quality of college students’ experiences during cooperative learning. Soc. Psychol. Learn. 7, 161–183.

Underwood, J. D. M. (2003). Student attitudes towards socially acceptable and unacceptable group working practices. Br. J. Psychol. 94, 319–337. doi: 10.1348/000712603767876253

Uziel, L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: a review and meta-analysis. J. Res. Person. 41, 579–601. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008

Webb, N. M., and Palincsar, A. S. (1996). “Group processes in the classroom,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology , eds D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee (New York: Macmillan), 841–873.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). “Compresence,” in Psychology of Group Influence , ed. P. B. Paulus (New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum), 35–60.

Keywords : group work, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, higher education, students’ perspectives, qualitative research

Citation: Hammar Chiriac E (2014) Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of group work. Front. Psychol. 5 :558. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00558

Received: 30 Mar 2014; Accepted: 20 May 2014; Published online: 05 June 2014.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2014 Hammar Chiriac. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Eva Hammar Chiriac, Division of Psychology, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Collaborative group work: university students’ perceptions and experiences before and during COVID-19

• Original Paper
• Published: 23 May 2023
• Volume 3 , article number  86 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Natasha Vogel 1 &
• Eileen Wood   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3412-9625 1  

2537 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The present study examines how the transition from in-person to online instruction following COVID-19 restrictions impacted group work in higher education contexts. Senior undergraduate students were surveyed regarding their perceptions and experiences with collaborative instructional methods in the Fall term preceding shutdown associated with COVID-19 and one year later when learning had shifted to online formats due to health mandates. Although students had fewer courses, they had more group work assignments during the pandemic than before. Group work experiences were rated less favorably in terms of efficiency, satisfaction, motivation, and workload demands during the pandemic versus before. However, forming friendships among group members was a salient feature associated with positive perceptions toward group work both before and during the pandemic. Anxiety was associated with negative perceptions toward group work only during the pandemic. Despite considerable comfort and familiarity with online tools, in-person contexts were rated more favorably than online contexts in terms of quality of work produced and learning. Findings reinforce the need to consider inclusion of interactive and social opportunities as important aspects of instructional design, especially in online contexts.

Similar content being viewed by others

A Historical Review of Collaborative Learning and Cooperative Learning

The Gamification of Learning: a Meta-analysis

Michael Sailer & Lisa Homner

Online learning in higher education: exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement

Amber D. Dumford & Angie L. Miller

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Group work has a longstanding theoretical and evidence-based foundation as an effective learning tool in tertiary education (Johnson and Johnson 2009 ; Slavin  1980 ; Springer et al. 1999 ). Gains in academic performance (Webb 1982 ), comprehension (Bouton and Garth 1983 ), interpersonal skills (Johnson and Johnson 2009 ; Jorczak 2011 ), and student satisfaction with their learning (Michaelsen 1983 ) are associated with the inclusion of group work as part of instructional design. Group work also allows students to develop leadership and teamwork skills which are highly valued by employers (Gates et al. 1997 ). Much of the extant research on collaborative learning examines in-person group work. However, research also indicates benefits from group work in online contexts especially for fostering a sense of community where it is typically more difficult to interact with peers (Flaherty 2022 ; Jeong et al. 2019 ). Online group work has become especially relevant since March of 2020, when schools across the world migrated from conventional in-person teaching strategies and learning environments to fully online platforms in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Saldanha et al. 2021 ). Although some research identifies benefits associated with online formats, other findings highlight challenges to students learning experiences and outcomes (Chang and Kang 2016 ; Smith et al. 2011 ). The present study assesses university students’ attitudes, perceptions, and experiences with collaborative group work both before (Fall 2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Fall 2020) to better understand how these two contexts may have impacted students’ learning and social lives.

Effectiveness of group work for learning

Considerable research identifies the strengths inherent in using group work as an instructional tool. For example, group work can facilitate active co-construction of knowledge when, during discussions, students make connections and elaborate on class material (Bouton and Garth 1983 ; Jorczak 2011 ; Webb 2013 ). During discussions, peers with more knowledge can scaffold less knowledgeable peers, actively teach peers, and provide peers with alternate viewpoints (Bouton and Rice 1983 ; Hinton and Fischer 2010 ; Jeong et al. 2019 ). Students also tend to feel more comfortable contributing to full class discussions after having connected with peers in smaller group settings (Davis 1993 ). Inclusion of collaborative activities can increase student satisfaction, motivation, and their sense of belonging within the classroom (Cook 1991 ; Flaherty 2022 ; Gaudet et al. 2010 ; Wentzel and Watkins 2002 ). Additionally, group work can promote greater attendance, and performance (Michaelsen 1983 ) and less procrastination on schoolwork (Koppenborg and Klingsieck 2022 ).

Student preferences regarding group work

Despite extensive research highlighting the potential cognitive, performance, and social gains possible through peer collaboration, some students are reluctant to work in groups. Factors influencing students’ positive or negative perceptions of group work are varied and include: group formation strategies, group size, team cohesiveness, equity in workload, group monitoring techniques, methods of evaluation, and past academic collaborative experiences (Davis 1993 ; Mello 1993 ).

Regarding group formation strategies, students show a strong preference toward choosing their own group members rather than having instructors randomly assign groups (Chapman et al. 2006 ). Self-selected groups often out-perform randomly selected groups, with students showing greater satisfaction and teamwork when given the opportunity to choose group members (Hilton and Phillips 2010 ; Rusticus and Justus 2019 ). Research also suggests that smaller group sizes comprised of three to four students are more effective than larger groups (Davis 1993 ; Rusticus and Justus 2019 ). Smaller pairs/dyads are less ideal as they are less likely to generate the diversity of ideas, while larger groups consisting of five or more students may result in some group members not contributing equally to group discussions or assignments (Pauli et al. 2008 ).

A major concern leading to hesitancy toward group work involves the potential for “social loafers” or “free-riders” who do not contribute equally to course work, creating greater workload demands for other group members (Bouton and Rice 1983 ; Pauli et al. 2008 ). For this reason, some students prefer instructors to implement methods to monitor and manage groups, as well as to grade students individually rather than as a collective (Barfield 2003 ). Hesitancy to endorse group work may also arise as a function of prior experiences. Positive prior group work experiences can motivate optimistic perceptions about future group work leading to positive outcome expectations while previous negative group work experiences may create negative views and hesitancy to engage in group work (Elmassah et al. 2020 ). Awareness of students’ perceptions and preferences regarding group work is important for designing effective collaborative environments.

Online group work

Much of the earlier research involving group work examines traditional in-person contexts; however, advances in technology have made it possible to teach and administer group work in online and blended classes (Saldanha et al. 2021 ). In comparison to in-person classrooms, online classes can either be held synchronously, allowing for real-time connection with peers, or asynchronously, where interactions are not simultaneous (Gillis and Krull 2020 ). This allows students greater flexibility. Given the familiarity with technology that most students in todays classrooms have (i.e., ‘digital natives’) they may be predisposed to prefer online or blended formats (Prensky 2001 ). However, there is debate within the literature concerning the effectiveness of fully online classrooms, and more specifically online group work compared to contexts involving face-to-face interactions. Some researchers suggest that online group work is just as effective as traditional in-person collaboration (Smith et al. 2011 ) and may be especially useful for larger classes where it is difficult to manage in-person group meetings due to the number of students (Wright and Lawson 2005 ). Others, however, point to challenges resulting from delayed feedback in communication, or miscommunications due to a lack of, or limited visual cues among group members during online exchanges (Chang and Kang 2016 ). These challenges in online environments may make individuals less motivated to take online classes and less likely to work collaboratively in them (Smith et al. 2011 ). The mixed findings regarding online group work highlight the need to examine student experiences with group work following the shift to online learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, especially as students had the opportunity to choose classes in their preferred learning context prior to the pandemic. In addition, although a growing body of literature indicates that students had a difficult time adjusting to the online environment in general (Gillis and Krull 2020 ; Maqableh and Alia 2021 ), there is no information regarding how group work contexts in particular were experienced by students.

The present study

The present study evaluates how students perceived group work both before and during the transition from in-person to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding what factors impact students’ preferences involving group work contexts is important for educators and researchers, especially as the use of online learning has become a more prevalent feature of learning following the COVID-19 pandemic (Saldanha et al. 2021 ).

Senior undergraduate university students at a mid-sized Canadian university completed a survey asking about their experiences with group work before the pandemic (Fall 2019) when group work occurred in-person and during (Fall 2020) the pandemic when group work occurred online. A key research question involved comparing experiences in the two contexts. Consistent with existing research related to education during COVID-19, we expected some differences in students’ experiences and perceptions of group work across these two contexts. However, the present study examined group work contexts in particular which may have different outcomes and thus clear hypotheses could not be drawn. As such, this was an exploratory study. The study also explored aspects of students’ academic experiences that may have influenced their perceptions toward collaborative work.

Participants

In total, 135 senior undergraduate university students (68.7% third year, 26.1% fourth year and 5.2% beyond fourth year) at a mid-sized Canadian university participated. Twenty students were removed for failing fidelity questions or completing less than half the survey. Of the 115 remaining students ( n females  = 87, n males  = 26, and n other  = 2), there were no significant differences in age between males and females; t (103) = 0.959, p  = 0.34, with those identifying as “Other” close to these mean age scores. Most students (79.1%) were born and spent the majority of their life (92.2%) living in North America, with 12.2% born in Asia, 7% in Europe, and 1.7% in South America. Of those not born in North America, only 7.9% spent the majority of their life elsewhere: 7% in Asia and 0.9% in Australia. Approximately equal proportions of students were pursuing a Bachelor of Arts (44.3%) or a Bachelor of Science (45.2%) degree, followed by Business Administration (3.5%), Kinesiology (1.7%), Music (0.9%), and other unidentified degrees (4.3%).

Recruitment of students involved asking course instructors across a wide array of disciplines (i.e., sciences, social sciences, mathematics, business, and arts) to share a recruitment poster during their class and/or send an email with the recruitment poster to their class. Information about the study was distributed by these professors between March and May 2021 consistent with the end of Winter term (January to April) and the beginning of the Spring term (May). Participants could enter to win a draw prize ($10.00) as a token for their participation. This study was reviewed and approved by a university ethics review committee. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation. All participants were treated in accordance with APA/CPA ethical guidelines.

All participants completed one survey that assessed demographics (e.g., age, gender, place of birth) and experiences, attitudes, and perceptions of collaborative work before and after the shift to online classroom delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The shift to remote/online learning (which began on March 16, 2020) was in place during the distribution and completion of the survey.

Academic performance and course programming

Participants indicated their average letter grade range in the Fall 2019 (prior to COVID-19) and Fall 2020 terms (during COVID-19). Possible answers ranged from A range to the F range . Participants were also asked how many courses they were enrolled in during the Fall 2019 and Fall 2020 semesters.

The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD—7; Spitzer et al. 2006 ) asked participants to indicate how often they experienced seven symptoms in the last two weeks (e.g., “feeling nervous, anxious or on edge?”) using a 4-point scale (i.e., not at all to nearly everyday ; Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.91).

Perceptions and preferences regarding group work

Three questions assessed student preferences for collaborative group work. Students identified whether they prefer to complete their academic assignments working independently, in a group, or a combination of both. Preferred group size was assessed using a 4-point scale ranging from one other person to four or more other people . Participants were asked how they preferred their groups to be formed ( forming a group with friends, course instructor forms groups, a classmate asks them to join their group, or they ask classmates to join their group).

Experiences with group work before and during the pandemic

Students specified how many of their courses required collaborative/group assignments pre-pandemic (Fall 2019) and during COVID-19 (Fall 2020). Participants also identified how often instructors facilitated group formation before and during COVID-19 and how satisfied students were with the group selection methods used during both semesters using a 5-point scale (1 =  not at all to 5 =  extremely) . In addition, students rated six aspects of their experiences working collaboratively before and during the pandemic in terms of how efficient, motivating, stressful, satisfying and demanding in terms of workload they were (1 =  not at all to 5 =  extremely ), and the amount of scheduling conflicts students experienced (1 =  never to 5 =  always ).

Social aspects of collaborative work

Students rated social aspects of collaborative group work before and during the COVID-19 pandemic including how often they became friends with their group member(s) after completing a collaborative assignment (1 =  never to 5  =  always ) and how demanding socially groups were (1 =  not at all to 5 =  extremely ) .

Use of technology during group work

Participants answered two questions about the use of technology for collaborative group work. Students provided a general evaluation of their comfort using technology (1 =  Not at all comfortable to 5 =  Extremely Comfortable) . Additionally, students used a 5-point scale to indicate the ease of communication (1 =  extremely difficult to 5 = e xtremely easy ) for five online platforms frequently used by the university: Google Docs, Zoom, Discussion Boards, Email, and the school’s online learning platform.

Online versus in-person group preferences

Participants indicated whether they preferred to do collaborative group work online, in-person, or a combination of both. Students also rated how likely they would be to choose online group work settings in the future compared to traditional in-person contexts using a 5-point scale (1 =  extremely unlikely to 5 =  extremely likely ).

Three questions assessed students’ relative experiences with online and in-person learning contexts. Students rated the quality of their learning experience (1 =  I learn much more during traditional in-person group work to 5 =  I learn much more during online group work ) and the quality of their collaborative/group work assignments (1 =  traditional in-person group work produces a much greater quality of work to 5 =  online group work creates a much greater quality of work ). Participants also rated how assignment quality working in each of these two contexts (i.e., in-person and online) compared to their expectations (1 =  always below my expectation to 5 =  always above my expectation ).

At the time of this study, COVID-19 regulations prohibited in-person instruction and all classes were conducted either remotely, using video conferencing software (e.g., synchronously using Zoom ) or asynchronously, completely online. Ongoing government and health authority restrictions limited contact beyond immediate household members.

Participants attended a video conferencing testing session where they were provided a Qualtrics link to the online survey through the chat function. Each participant was assigned to a separate breakout room and completed their survey independently with the researcher available to answer questions and troubleshoot.

Students reported lower grades before the pandemic in Fall 2019 ( M  = 1.78, SD = 0.77) than during the pandemic in Fall 2020 ( M  = 1.57, SD = 0.76; t (114) = 2.56, p  = 0.01; see Table 1 ). Specifically, 88.7% of students received a letter grade in the A or B range prior to the pandemic and 93% reported grades in the A or B range during the pandemic.

The number of courses taken before the pandemic in Fall 2019 ( M  = 4.73, SD = 0.72) was greater than in Fall 2020 during the pandemic ( M  = 4.54, SD = 0.85; t (114) = 2.34, p  = 0.02; see Table 1 ). Although at both time points the majority of students were enrolled in four or five courses (90.4% vs 84.4% for Fall 2019 and Fall 2020, respectively), a higher percentage of students were enrolled in five courses prior to the pandemic (73.9%) compared to during the pandemic (57.4%).

Students’ mean anxiety scores ( M  = 2.40, SD = 0.84) fell between several days and more than half the days on the scale, indicating moderate levels of anxiety.

General attitudes regarding working in groups

When students were asked how they prefer to complete their course assignments, the majority (61.7%) indicated a preference for working independently. Just over a third (37.4%) indicated a preference for a combination of both group and independent work and very few preferred just collaborative assignments (0.9%).

The majority of participants preferred smaller group sizes comprised of themselves and two other students (40%) or dyads (36.5%). Larger groups sizes comprised of the student and three other group members were endorsed by 20% of the sample while few students (3.5%) preferred groups comprised of themselves and four or more other students.

Almost half of the participants endorsed being able to form their own groups with friends (48.7%) followed by instructors forming their groups (38.3%). Few students endorsed group formation strategies that involved having students find their own group members either by asking or being asked by their classmates (4.3% and 8.7% respectively).

Comparisons in experiences before and during the pandemic

Perceptions about group work.

In terms of how students experienced group work, six paired samples t -tests were conducted to assess perceived efficiency, motivation, satisfaction, stress, demands in terms of workload, and how often student experienced scheduling conflicts with their group members, with a Bonferroni correction ( p  < 0.007) for the number of analyses (see Table 2 for a summary). Higher ratings for efficiency ( M  = 3.42 vs M  = 2.93), motivation ( M  = 3.43 vs M  = 2.62), and satisfaction ( M  = 3.02 vs M  = 2.58) were reported for students’ collaborative experiences before the pandemic compared to during the pandemic, smallest t (112) = 3.96, p  < 0.001. Students also perceived group work experiences to be more demanding in terms of workload during the pandemic compared to before ( M  = 3.68 vs M  = 3.17), t (114) =  − 4.87, p  < 0.001. However, there were no differences in perceived stress ( M  = 3.64 vs M  = 3.91) or scheduling conflicts ( M  = 2.80 vs M  = 2.83) between the Fall 2019 and Fall 2020 terms.

Social variables associated with group work

In terms of social aspects, students reported forming fewer friendships with group members during the pandemic (Fall 2020 M = 2.05, SD = 1.03) than before the pandemic (Fall 2019 M = 2.52, SD = 1.10; t (114) = 3.80, p   0.001; see Table 1 ). Students’ ratings of social demands associated with group work did not significantly differ across the two terms ( M Fall 2019  = 3.13, SD = 1.26; M Fall 2020  = 2.90, SD = 1.34; t (114) = 1.71, p  = ns).

Academic programming differences

With respect to programming, students reported having more courses with a group work component during the pandemic ( M Fall 2020  = 3.13, SD = 1.6) than before the pandemic ( M Fall 2019  = 2.66, SD = 1.27), t (114) =  − 3.11, p  = 0.002. Students also indicated that their professors facilitated group formation more often during pandemic ( M Fall 2020  = 3.66, SD = 1.21) than prior to the pandemic ( M Fall 2019  = 3.43, SD = 1.16; t (81) = 2.00, p  = 0.049). Mean rating of satisfaction with group formation methods were above the midpoint of the scale indicating generally positive ratings, with these ratings not differing across the two terms, t (81) = 0.11, p  = 0.91 (see Table 1 ).

Relationships between academic programming and student experiences

To determine whether academic programming (grades and number of courses taken) or social factors impacted evaluations of group work, two sets of six linear regressions were conducted. One set reflected ratings for prior to the pandemic and one set for during the pandemic. In each case the three positive experiences (i.e., perceived efficiency, satisfaction, and motivation) and three challenging experiences (i.e., perceived stress, workload demands and scheduling conflicts) served as the dependent variables, while the independent variables included grades achieved, number of courses taken, overall anxiety, and friendships formed with group members following group work.

All models assessing more positive experiences in group work (i.e., efficiency, motivation, and satisfaction) were significant (smallest F motivation (4, 109) = 3.74, p  = 0.007, adj. R 2  = 0.088 for during the pandemic; see Table 3 for a summary). Becoming friends with group members was associated with greater efficiency ( β before  = 0.288 and β during  = 0.368), motivation ( β before  = 0.331 and β during  = 0.338), and satisfaction ( β before  = 0.341 and β during  = 0.410) before and during COVID-19 (see Table 3 ). In addition, anxiety was positively related to perceived efficiency prior to COVID-19 ( β before  = 0.238) but not during COVID-19.

Models assessing ratings of workload, stress and scheduling conflicts prior to the pandemic were not significant. Models assessing ratings of workload demands and stress during the pandemic were both significant ( F workload (4, 109) = 3.15, p  = 0.017, adj. R 2  = 0.071 and F stress (4, 108) = 2.73, p  = 0.033, adj. R 2  = 0.058, respectively). The model for scheduling conflicts was not significant (see Table 4 for a complete summary). Higher levels of anxiety were associated with greater perceived workload ( β during  = 0.317) and higher stress (and β during  = 0.27).

Technology use

Students’ ratings of their general comfort with technology approached ceiling level ( M  = 4.2, SD = 0.9). When students were subsequently asked to evaluate the ease of communication with group members using technologies supported by the university during the pandemic almost all platforms were rated as very easy to use. Specifically, Google Docs ( M  = 4.43, SD = 0.90), Zoom ( M  = 4.36, SD = 0.76), and Email ( M  = 4.3 SD = 0.98) all received mean ratings nearing ceiling on the 5-point scale. In addition, although slightly lower, students mean ratings of discussion boards ( M  = 3.64, SD = 1.27) and the university learning management system (LMS) (M  = 3.60, SD = 1.35) were also well above the midpoint of the scale. Given the near ceiling responses for many of these items, familiarity and ease of communication with technology were not included in subsequent analyses.

When students were asked to select from three choices regarding the format they would most prefer when completing an assignment, the majority of students endorsed a format that provided approximately equal opportunities to engage online and in-person (52.2%), followed by 30.4% who preferred primarily in-person formats and 17.4% preferring primarily online settings.

In terms of perceived learning ( M  = 2.35, SD = 1.12) and the quality of their group assignments ( M  = 2.31, SD = 0.97) in online contexts relative to in-person contexts, both means fell below the midpoint of the scale. Students rated online ( M  = 2.67, SD = 0.81) contexts lower than in-person contexts ( M  = 2.93, SD = 0.76) with respect to how the quality of group work assignments in these contexts met with expectations, t (114) =  − 2.82, p  = 0.006.

Mean scores for the likelihood to choose online collaborative group work platforms over traditional in-person ones in the future fell between somewhat unlikely and preference on the scale ( M  = 2.74, SD = 1.22).

Two linear regressions were conducted to assess the impact of academic programming variables (i.e., number of courses and grades achieved prior to and during COVID-19) and anxiety with respect to how students perceived the quality of their group assignments aligned with their expectations in each of an online context and an in-person context. Neither model was statistically significant.

A second set of two linear regressions (i.e., one for online and one for in-person contexts) examined how group work experiences (i.e., efficiency, satisfaction, motivation, workload, stress, and scheduling conflicts) impacted students’ expectations regarding the quality of assignments generated in groups. Both the online and in-person models were significant, F (15, 111) = 2.78, p  < 0.006, adj R 2  = 0.157; F (15, 111) = 2.89, p  < 0.001, adj R 2  = 0.201, respectively. Only perceived efficiency during the pandemic was associated with students’ perceptions about group quality meeting expectations in online contexts ( β  = 0.389, t  = 2.89, p  = 0.005). For in-person contexts, four variables corresponding with experience ratings prior to the pandemic were associated with students perceptions of group work quality meeting their expectations: perceived stress ( β  =  − 0.273, t  = 2.53, p  = 0.013), workload demands ( β  = 0.306, t  = 2.74, p  = 0.007), scheduling conflicts ( β  =  − 0.219, t  = 2.37, p  = 0.027), and satisfaction with group work ( β  = 0.28, t  = 2.29, p  = 0.024).

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, universities around the world, including the Canadian university sampled in the present study, temporarily ceased in-person instruction and migrated to fully online learning formats. The goal of the current study was to examine how this transition affected students’ experiences and perceptions with academic group work. Overall, our findings show that this period of instructional shift resulted in changes to students’ academic programming as well as their experiences with group work. On average, students completed one fewer course and received higher grades during the pandemic than before the pandemic. Despite the reduction in course load, students reported having more courses with a group work component during the pandemic than before. In general, students’ ratings of group work experiences suggest they were less optimal during the pandemic.

Group work experiences before and during the pandemic

Group work experiences were rated less favorably in terms of efficiency, satisfaction, motivation, and workload demands during the pandemic versus before the pandemic. Our findings regarding group work experiences align with a growing body of research identifying similar challenges resulting from instruction during the pandemic more broadly (e.g., Maqableh and Alia 2021 ; Stevanović et al. 2021 ). For example, several studies have reported decreased motivation for schoolwork during the pandemic (Slykerman et al. 2022 ; Stevanović et al. 2021 ). Fatigue resulting from the excessive screen time associated with fully online learning has been offered as one explanation for these motivational declines (Saldanha et al. 2021 ). Studies also point to increased distractions, reduced focus, and poor time management as factors associated with students’ dissatisfaction during the pandemic (Gillis and Krull 2020 ; Maqableh and Alia 2021 ). General dissatisfaction with online instruction during the pandemic also has been attributed to reduced opportunities for students to interact with their peers (Gillis and Krull 2020 ). The present study, however, indicates that opportunities for social connections leading to friendships afforded through group work was one of the most salient and consistent variables associated with positive perceptions toward group work (i.e., efficiency, satisfaction, and motivation) both before and during the pandemic. Although students were unable to interact in the many ways typical of face-to-face instruction, courses with group work provided an opportunity to engage in and build social relationships with peers while also completing academic work. Social relationship-building opportunities appears to be a key element of student satisfaction with their educational experience (Wentzel and Watkins 2002 ).

Formation of friendships through a group work context during the pandemic, however, came at a cost for students. Specifically, students in the present study reported greater workload demands associated with greater friendship formation in the online group work contexts during the pandemic but not prior to the pandemic. It is possible that workload was perceived to be greater during the pandemic because students only had the group work context to engage with others and may have felt the need to exert greater effort in their group work assignments in order to establish positive regard from members in their group (Flaherty 2022 ). Students may have been especially encouraged to work hard in their groups in order to take advantage of the limited opportunities that the pandemic afforded for making friendships.

Friendship formation was important both before and during the pandemic but limitations inherent in the online context may have made this important aspect of group work especially challenging during the pandemic. Although students reported that group work was a component of more courses during the pandemic, they also reported forming fewer friendships during the pandemic than before. It is possible that some online group work activities provided limited opportunities to engage with other students. For example, if the work was conducted primarily through shared documents rather than video conferencing or other synchronous shared interactions, then fewer opportunities to form friends would be expected. Findings from the present study suggest that inclusion of group work activities serves an important social role for students and that this may have been particularly valuable during the pandemic. However, decreases in student satisfaction with group work during the pandemic also suggests that further examination may be needed to determine which types of online connections with peers better support students’ social needs.

Anxiety did not appear to exert much influence in students’ perceptions toward group work with three exceptions. Specifically, higher anxiety scores were associated with greater efficiency in group work before the pandemic and with greater stress and workload during the pandemic. These different outcomes may be the product of students’ perceived control at the two time points. For example, prior to the pandemic anxiety may have prompted students to engage in strategies that would promote learning. Research suggests that moderate levels of anxiety, such as the levels found in the present sample, can enhance performance by enhancing motivation (Hooda and Saini 2017 ) and encouraging students to engage in effective learning strategies (e.g., studying). However, negative outcomes resulting from anxiety can occur from factors in the environment when issues such as family problems are present or when behaviors that negatively impact effective strategies (e.g., such as time management) are present (Hooda and Saini 2017 ). When students were constrained to their home environment during the pandemic these types of distractions and disruptions may have been more apparent. In addition, students may have experienced anxiety related to concerns beyond their control such as unpredictable access to technology or poor internet connections (Gillis and Krull 2020 ). These disruptions and challenges may have reduced the beneficial effects of anxiety experienced prior to the pandemic and, instead, resulted in increased stress and workload demand during the pandemic. Consistent with current literature regarding detrimental effects of anxiety in educational contexts (Barbosa-Camacho et al. 2022 ), negative outcomes associated with stress and workload appear to have impacted collaborative learning during the pandemic.

Group work preferences

The present study provided an opportunity to understand students’ preferences regarding group work in general and online during COVID-19. The majority of students preferred to complete assignments independently with fewer students endorsing formats involving some collaborative and some independent work and very few students opting for the majority of assignments to be completed through collaborative group work. This preference for independent work may reflect recognition of some of the challenges (i.e., loafing, scheduling) that may be associated with group work (Pauli et al. 2008 ). In addition, this preference may also reflect the competitive nature of higher education (Slavin 1980 ). Consistent with these concerns, and existing research (Davis 1993 ; Rusticus and Justus 2019 ), the majority of (76.5%) students in the present study preferred to work in smaller collaborative groups comprised of dyads or three individuals. Smaller groups often lead to greater accountability and less social loafing as there are less people in the group to rely on for work to get completed (Blumenfeld et al. 1996 ). In addition, smaller groups allow more opportunities for group members to contribute to the group dialogue (Bouton and Garth 1983 ; Webb 1982 ). Unlike recommendations in previous research (Pauli et al. 2008 ), some students in the present study opted for dyads rather than larger groups possibly due to easier scheduling and turn-taking opportunities when using video conferencing software.

Consistent with previous research (Chapman et al. 2006 ; Hilton and Phillips 2010 ; Rusticus and Justus 2019 ), students in the present study preferred to form their own groups with friends. However, students also preferred to have instructors form groups rather than having to approach peers unknown to them or waiting for peers to approach them. Having instructors organize groups in these latter situations may be more efficient due to challenges in interacting online especially with unknown peers. Overall, group formation strategies, and group size are important instructional considerations for promoting learning and satisfaction with learning (Springer et al. 1999 ).

Group work and online contexts

Students in the present study indicated a high level of familiarity with technology in general and with the specific technologies (e.g., Zoom) used for instruction during the pandemic. However, when asked to identify a preferred instructional format, students indicated a preference for a combination of online and in-person work, rather than completely in-person learning or online only formats, with online only formats being deemed the least desirable option. These preferences align with previous research endorsing blended instructional formats (Pechenkina and Aeschliman 2017; Wright and Lawson 2005 ) that permit independent online study opportunities and the social learning opportunities that occur in person.

Even though student grade performance increased during the pandemic and the number of courses decreased, these academic variables did not affect how students rated the quality of their online and in-person group work experiences in terms of meeting their expectations. However, perceptions toward group work differentially influenced assessments of quality prior to and during the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic when working in-person, both increased stress and scheduling conflicts resulted in group work assignment quality falling below expectations while increased workload demands and satisfaction with group work was associated with high expectations that the quality of assignments produced would meet or exceed expectations. Overall, a greater number of variables influenced evaluations in the in-person group work contexts prior to the pandemic than for the online context during the pandemic. Perhaps this difference reinforces the significant challenges faced during the pandemic such that any opportunity for efficiencies to occur in groups was particularly noteworthy. When efficiency was apparent, this was perceived to be sufficient for assignments to meet or exceed expectations. Prior to the pandemic, however, more factors influenced expectations. In particular, in-person contexts may be more complex as a result of managing both group member responsibilities as well as social dynamics.

Limitations and future directions

Given the sudden and unexpected transitions involved with the pandemic, it was not possible to directly assess experiences prior to the pandemic. Since this study was conducted in the Spring 2021 term students had to recall their experiences and perceptions regarding the Fall 2019 and Fall 2020 terms. Thus, the present study relies on students’ self-reported reflections of past experiences. Although less direct, this method does permit an understanding of students’ subjective evaluations of their experiences at both time periods. Research suggests that past experiences influence current perceptions (Elmassah et al. 2020 ), thus past group work experiences may have created expectancies associated with group work during the pandemic which are likely reflected in the ratings obtained in the present study. Going forward it may be useful to reassess students’ perceptions at three time points (pre-pandemic, during pandemic, and after pandemic) when universities transition back to primarily in-person instruction.

Additional factors associated with changes in living arrangements and, social isolation may also have contributed to observed differences in the present study. It may be important in future research to assess both academic and general life experiences to better determine the relative impact of each on students’ perceptions toward academic experiences.

A growing body of literature is defining the impact of the transition to online only instruction that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic on students. Over time, our initial general understanding is being further refined through investigation of impacts in specific instructional contexts. The present study confirms some of the general observations noted in extant research but also provides new and different insights specific to group work contexts. Overall, the study highlights the critical role social opportunities play in students’ experiences of group work. In particular, even though students’ group work experiences were less optimal during the pandemic, opportunities for friendship formation available through group work provided a positive influence for students. Our outcomes reinforce the need to develop interactive and socially dynamic online course formats to foster a sense of community and belonging within online classrooms. Identifying what strategies are effective and enjoyable for students in online collaborative environments is important for structuring group work effectively.

Data availability

Data generated for this study can be made available upon reasonable request.

Barbosa-Camacho FJ, Romero-Limón OM, Ibarrola-Peéa JC, Almanza-Mena YL, Pintor-Belmontes KJ, Sánchez-López VA et al (2022) Depression, anxiety, and academic performance in COVID-19: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry 22(1):1–443. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04062-3

Article   Google Scholar  

Barfield RL (2003) Students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with group grades and the group experience in the college classroom. Assess Eval High Educ 28(4):355–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293032000066191

Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Soloway E, Krajcik J (1996) Learning with peers: from small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educ Res 25(8):37–40. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025008037

Bouton C, Garth RY (1983) Students in learning groups: active learning through conversation. New Dir Teach Learn 14:73–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219831410

Bouton C, Rice B (1983) Developing student skills and abilities. New Dir Teach Learn 14:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219831406

Chang B, Kang H (2016) Challenges facing group work online. Distance Educ 37(1):73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1154781

Chapman KJ, Meuter M, Toy D, Wright L (2006) Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. J Manag Educ 30(4):557–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905284872

Cook L (1991) Cooperative learning: a successful college teaching strategy. Innov High Educ 16(1):27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00911556

Davis BG (1993) Tools for teaching. Jossey-Bass Inc, California

Google Scholar  

Elmassah S, Mostafa-Bacheer S, James R (2020) What shapes students’ perceptions of group work: personality or past experience? Int J Educ Manag 34(9):1457–1473. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2019-0401

Flaherty HB (2022) Using collaborative group learning principles to foster community in online classrooms. J Teach Soc Work 42(1):31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2021.2013390

Gates AQ, Della-Piana CK, Bernat A (1997) Affinity groups: a framework for developing workplace skills. Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change. 1:53-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.1997.644810

Gaudet AD, Ramer LM, Nakonechny J, Cragg JJ, Ramer MS (2010) Small-group learning in an upper-level university biology class enhances academic performance and student attitudes toward group work. PLoS ONE 5(12):e15821. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015821

Gillis A, Krull LM (2020) COVID-19 remote learning transition in Spring 2020: class structures, student perceptions, and inequality in college courses. Teach Sociol 48(4):283–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X20954263

Hilton S, Phillips F (2010) Instructor-assigned and student-selected groups: a view from inside. Issues Account Educ 25(1):15–33. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2010.25.1.15

Hinton C, Fischer KW (2010) Learning from the developmental and biological perspective. In: Dumont H, Istance D, Benavides F (eds) The nature of learning using research to inspire practice. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp 113–133

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hooda M, Saini A (2017) Academic anxiety: an overview. Educational Quest

Jeong H, Hmelo-Silver CE, Jo K (2019) Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: a meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educ Res Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284

Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2009) An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ Res 38(5):365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057

Jorczak RL (2011) An information processing perspective on divergence and convergence in collaborative learning. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 6(2):207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9104-6

Koppenborg M, Klingsieck KB (2022) Group work and student procrastination. Learn Individ Differ 94:102–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102117

Maqableh M, Alia M (2021) Evaluation online learning of undergraduate students under lockdown amidst COVID-19 Pandemic: the online learning experience and students’ satisfaction. Child Youth Serv Rev 128:106–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106160

Mello JA (1993) Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings. J Manag Educ 17(2):253–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299301700210

Michaelsen LK (1983) Team learning in large classes. New Dir Teach Learn 1983(14):13–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219831404

Pauli R, Mohiyeddini C, Bray D, Michie F, Street B (2008) Individual differences in negative group work experiences in collaborative student learning. Educ Psychol 28(1):47–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701413746

Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On Horizon 9(5):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816

Rusticus SA, Justus BJ (2019) Comparing student- and teacher-formed teams on group dynamics, satisfaction, and performance. Small Group Res 50(4):443–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419854520

Saldanha K, Currin-McCulloch J, Muskat B, Simon SR, Bergart AM, Mesbur ES, Kelly D (2021) Turning boxes into supportive circles: Enhancing online group work teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soc Work Groups 44(4):310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2021.1910110

Slavin RE (1980) Cooperative learning. Rev Educ Res. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050002315

Slykerman R, Li E, Mitchell EA (2022) Students’ experience of online university education during the COVID-19 pandemic: relationships to psychological health. Stud Success 13(1):32–40. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.2023

Smith GG, Sorensen C, Gump A, Heindel AJ, Caris M, Martinez CD (2011) Overcoming student resistance to group work: online versus face-to-face. Internet High Educ 14(2):121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.005

Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B (2006) A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 166(10):1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS (1999) Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 69(1):21–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170643

Stevanović A, Božić R, Radovic S (2021) Higher education students’ experiences and opinion about distance learning during the Covid-19 pandemic. J Comput Assist Learn 37(6):1682–1693. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12613

Webb NW (1982) Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. J Educ Psychol 74(4):475–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.475

Webb NW (2013) Information processing approaches to collaborative learning. In: Hmelo-Silver CE (ed) The international handbook of collaborative learning. Routledge, London, pp 19–40

Wentzel KR, Watkins DE (2002) Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psych Rev 31(3):366–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086161

Wright ER, Lawson AH (2005) Computer mediated communication and student learning in large introductory sociology classes. Teach Sociol 33(2):122–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0503300201

Download references

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Natasha Vogel & Eileen Wood

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors participated in the survey design, recruitment, data collection and analysis and preparation of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eileen Wood .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

Ethical Approval was provided through the Research Ethics Board (REB) at Wilfrid Laurier University. All research was performed in accordance with APA/CPA and the Canadian Tri-Council ethical guidelines.

Informed consent

All participants were provided an information page prior to participating in the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for participation in the study.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vogel, N., Wood, E. Collaborative group work: university students’ perceptions and experiences before and during COVID-19. SN Soc Sci 3 , 86 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00670-2

Download citation

Received : 21 September 2022

Accepted : 28 April 2023

Published : 23 May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00670-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Collaboration
• Online education
• Student perceptions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Publications

Collaborative Group Techniques

This document has been excerpted from Supplement A of the "Teacher's Guide to accompany Minds•On Physics: Motion" (cf. Minds•On Physics ).

Introduction

Collaborative groups and cooperative learning refer to a variety of structured classroom management techniques and grading systems developed and studied by Aronson, Johnson & Johnson, Kagan, Slavin, and others since the early 1970s. These terms usually do not refer to loosely structured group work in which students are told simply to "work together" on a problem or assignment. To emphasize the difference between unstructured group work and collaborative group work, groups are usually referred to as teams. Collaborative structures are content-free, and thus can be used in a variety of contexts.

Studies have shown that in well structured cooperative groups, students consistently learn many different subjects better than students in traditionally structured classrooms. Cooperative learning also has a number of psychological and social benefits, such as being exposed to other points-of-view, learning how to cooperate, having more positive feelings about school, having more positive feelings about themselves and others, and wanting their classmates to do well.

Studies have shown also that all students benefit academically from cooperative learning. Successful students show modest gains in performance and achievement, while historically unsuccessful students usually show tremendous gains when taught using cooperation as the primary motivator. Cooperative grouping lets students organize their thoughts in a less threatening context than whole-class discussions, and prepares students for sharing their thoughts with the class. Also relevant for Minds•On Physics is that students can make progress on exercises they would not be able to attempt alone.

Getting started with cooperative learning

Because students often lack collaborative group skills, it is essential to begin the school year with activities designed to target interaction skills and team building within the class. Students need to learn how to listen to other students, and to analyze and interpret what they are saying. Students must learn, for example, how to encourage others in their group to participate, how to ask questions, how to manage dominant personalities, how to monitor and modify the group dynamic, and how to communicate effectively. Unless these skills are targeted early in the year, cooperative learning is likely to fail.

Therefore, the focus of instruction at the beginning of the year should be on developing group skills, rather than on physics. This investment of time will yield huge dividends later in the year. For example, have students sit in a circle and have volunteers define what they think science is all about. Then require the person sitting on his/her left (or right, whichever you choose) to paraphrase the definition. Be sure to tell students the structure of the activity beforehand, and have the class discuss and reflect on the activity immediately afterwards. Another effective structure is to have a team of three or four students work on a problem together -- a problem from algebra, for example, that they should already know how to solve -- and have three or four other students observe the interactions. Afterwards, have everyone discuss what happened, and what didn't happen, as the inner group solved the given problem. (This is sometimes called Fishbowl .)

Some common collaborative group structures

There are literally hundreds of cooperative structures and dozens of books available to help teachers incorporate cooperative learning into their classrooms. The structures listed and described here are believed to be particularly useful with the Minds•On Physics materials and approach.

• Fishbowl. Teams of three or four work on a problem or exercise. At the same time, other teams of three or four observe the first teams. In particular, the first teams work on seeking other points-of-view, listening to and paraphrasing ideas, and other communication skills while solving the given problem. The second teams focus their attention on the team dynamic and make sure they are prepared to discuss how well or poorly the first teams worked together to solve the problem. (There is sometimes the tendency of the second teams to focus on the problem rather than the team dynamic.) After some time (even if every team has not finished the problem), the class discusses what happened and what didn't happen during the activity.
• Pairs Check. Teams of four work in pairs on a set of exercises. First one member works on a problem, while the second member coaches. Then the second member works on a problem while the first coaches. Pairs then check their answers with members of the same team. After all problems, inconsistencies, etc. are resolved, the process is repeated for subsequent exercises.
• Pairs Check II. This is the same as Pairs Check, except that students do exercises individually beforehand. One student explains his/her answer on a question to another student, and they discuss it. Then, they reverse roles for the next question. Answers are agreed upon before sharing with the whole team.
• Teams Check. Teammates help each other understand answers to exercises, so that any member of the team may be called upon to answer any one of the questions.
• Jigsaw. If there is reading material (such as background) to be digested before doing an activity, split it up into 3 or 4 self-contained parts. Divide the class into the same number of Reading Groups, with one member from each team. Give one part of the reading to each team to digest and to prepare to explain to their team. Then rearrange the students so that each team has someone who has read one of the self-contained parts, and have each student teach his/her part of the reading to the rest of the team.
• Think-Pair-Share. Students think about each question, pair off and discuss the question with a classmate, and share their answers with the class.
• Think-Pair-Square. This is the same as Think-Pair-Share, except that students share their answers with members of another pair.
• Word Webbing. As a team or individually, open-ended or with concepts provided by the teacher, students construct a concept map within a specified domain. If done in teams, each member should have a different color of pen.

Team Product. Students work together, but each has a primary role within the team. Some favorite roles are:

• Manager (to keep the team on task);
• Reader (to read aloud the question being answered by the team);
• Encourager (to make sure everyone participates);
• Checker (to make sure everyone understands);
• Writer (to record results and to make sure everyone agrees);
• Artist (if needed to prepare the presentation); and
• Presenter (if needed to explain the team's answer to the rest of the class).

The most important roles are the Manager, Checker, and Writer. (In other words, teams of three with these three roles are the most common.) In order to accommodate some of the other roles, students may take on two of them at the same time.

• Blackboard Share. Teams share their answers with the class and get feedback. This can be done on posterboards or transparencies instead.
• Roving Reporter. When a team gets stuck, one member is allowed to roam the room looking for ideas and reports back to the team.
• Ask each team to add an item to each box, and let the other teams evaluate and comment on the choices;
• Present additional items to the class, and ask teams to decide which box each item belongs in.
• Have teams describe their categories.

Deciding which structure should be used

Some structures are more compatible with certain activities or instructional goals than others. For instance, Fishbowl is good for developing skills; Pairs Check and Jigsaw are good for learning new material; and Word Webbing and Two-Box Induction are good for relating concepts. Also, do not introduce too many new structures too quickly; usually about one new structure per week is recommended.

Other advice

It is usually a good idea to have the details of a cooperative group activity worked out before class. You should know how students are to divide themselves into teams (e.g., by assignment, by drawing lots, or by personal preference); how many students should be on each team (2, 3, or 4, usually); what the team composition should be (heterogeneous or homogeneous; all male, all female, or mixed); which questions each team should work on; when the activity is officially over; how to bring the activity to closure; and how to grade the activity (if at all). Also, it's important that everyone has an active role within each team, and that there are "sponge" activities that teams can work on if they finish earlier than other teams. Finally, hang in there. It takes some perseverance for both students and teachers to get collaborative groups to work effectively, but the rewards are definitely worth the effort.

The following books and articles should help teachers incorporate collaborative learning. In particular, Cooperative Learning by Spencer Kagan has an entire chapter devoted to resources, including books on theory, research, and methods, manipulatives, video tapes, newsletters, and the names and addresses of some cooperative learning organizations.

• Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J. & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
• Johnson, R.T. & Johnson, D.W. (1991). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W. & Holubec, E.J., Eds. (1987). Structuring Cooperative Learning: Lesson Plans for Teachers. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
• Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W. & Holubec, E.J. (1993). Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company
• Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W. & Smith, K.A. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
• Heller, P., Keith, R. & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60, 627-636.
• Heller, P. & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60, 637-644.
• Kagan, S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4): 12-15.
• ------ (1996). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
• Sharan, S., Hare, P., Webb, C.D. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, S., Eds. (1980). Cooperation in Education. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.
• Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Printer-friendly version
• Login to post comments

Quick Links

• News & Announcements
• Calendar of Events

This site is maintained by the Scientific Reasoning Research Institute . © 2016 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Site Policies (Site editors: login/profile , logout )

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• 3rd Week Enrollment
• Undergraduate Statistics
• Graduate Statistics
• Undergraduate Surveys
• Graduate Surveys
• Diversity Statistics
• Decision Support

Equity Analytics

Equity research & analytics.

Our team supports UC San Diego's Strategic Plan and the Strategic Plan for Inclusive Excellence through: 

Creating Accountability Through Data

We facilitate the use of data to build meaning-making in collaboration with context-knowledgeable others. We achieve this by embedding our work into processes and partnerships focused on improving structures, policies, and practices to support our campus-wide commitment to  Inclusive Excellence . Currently, the Equity Research & Analytics Team provides data for several key accountability processes, including the Campus-Wide Strategic Plan for Inclusive Excellence Accountability Process and the American Association for the Advancement of Science STEMM Equity Initiative , also known as SEA Change. 

Mixed Methods & Theoretically Informed Research

We embrace sociological, educational, organizational change, and other bodies of scholarly research & theory to inform and contextualize our work and engage multiple methods to enable us to answer pressing questions with thoroughness and rigor to drive institutional action forward. An example of this work includes our 2022 report, co-authored with the Director of the Office for Faculty Diversity and Inclusion Mardestinee Perez, Supporting UC San Diego’s Academic Employees: Findings and Checklists for Change from the Academics@UCSD™ Survey and Roundtables .

Collaborative Partnerships Around Data & Research

The work of the  Equity Research & Analytics Team would not be possible without our fantastic partners! Internal to Institutional Research, the Equity Research & Analytics Team partners closely with the Student Success Research & Analytics Team,  Administrative Operations Research Team, and individual contributors to support data-informed change. The Equity Research & Analytics Team also partners with data & research experts across General Campus, the Health Sciences, and the Health System to ensure the information used to drive change is both accurate and appropriately contextualized. Our Team embraces the Executive Vice Chancellor's Collective Impact approach and operates under the motto that we can "make tremendous progress on UC San Diego’s strategic priorities by working together more intentionally." 

Providing Educational Opportunities and Developing Community to Support Equity-Minded Data Use & Assessment Practices

The  Equity Research & Analytics Team works in partnership with other units and experts to provide educational opportunities to increase equity-mindedness in the data, research, and assessment space. This includes providing support around developing an equity-mindedness approach to units undergoing program review, through trainings with Erin Espaldon, the Director of the Student Success Research & Analytics Team. We also work closely with other units that share our philosophies about equity-mindedness and student-centeredness such as Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs  Assessment, Evaluation, and Organizational Development  to create staff and faculty development opportunities, such as our multi-part equity-minded assessment cycle course, which will be offered for a third time with UC Santa Cruz in Fall 2023. 

Providing Thought Partnership Around Equity-Minded, Privacy-Oriented, and Ethical Data Use

"It's important to remember that behind every data point is  a daughter, a mother, a sister—a person with hopes and dreams ." - Melinda Gates

• Publications
• News and Events
• Education and Outreach

Software Engineering Institute

Cite this post.

AMS Citation

Schmidt, D., 2024: The Latest Work from the SEI: an OpenAI Collaboration, Generative AI, and Zero Trust. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute's Insights (blog), Accessed April 11, 2024, https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/the-latest-work-from-the-sei-an-openai-collaboration-generative-ai-and-zero-trust/.

APA Citation

Schmidt, D. (2024, April 10). The Latest Work from the SEI: an OpenAI Collaboration, Generative AI, and Zero Trust. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/the-latest-work-from-the-sei-an-openai-collaboration-generative-ai-and-zero-trust/.

Chicago Citation

Schmidt, Douglas. "The Latest Work from the SEI: an OpenAI Collaboration, Generative AI, and Zero Trust." Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute's Insights (blog) . Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute, April 10, 2024. https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/the-latest-work-from-the-sei-an-openai-collaboration-generative-ai-and-zero-trust/.

IEEE Citation

D. Schmidt, "The Latest Work from the SEI: an OpenAI Collaboration, Generative AI, and Zero Trust," Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute's Insights (blog) . Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute, 10-Apr-2024 [Online]. Available: https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/the-latest-work-from-the-sei-an-openai-collaboration-generative-ai-and-zero-trust/. [Accessed: 11-Apr-2024].

BibTeX Code

@misc{schmidt_2024, author={Schmidt, Douglas}, title={The Latest Work from the SEI: an OpenAI Collaboration, Generative AI, and Zero Trust}, month={Apr}, year={2024}, howpublished={Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute's Insights (blog)}, url={https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/the-latest-work-from-the-sei-an-openai-collaboration-generative-ai-and-zero-trust/}, note={Accessed: 2024-Apr-11} }

The Latest Work from the SEI: an OpenAI Collaboration, Generative AI, and Zero Trust

Douglas Schmidt (Vanderbilt University)

April 10, 2024, published in.

Software Engineering Research and Development

As part of an ongoing effort to keep you informed about our latest work, this blog post summarizes some recent publications from the SEI in the areas of large language models for cybersecurity , software engineering and acquisition with generative AI , zero trust , large language models in national security , capability-based planning , supply chain risk management , generative AI in software engineering and acquisition , and quantum computing .

These publications highlight the latest work of SEI technologists in these areas. This post includes a listing of each publication, author(s), and links where they can be accessed on the SEI website.

Considerations for Evaluating Large Language Models for Cybersecurity Tasks by Jeff Gennari, Shing-hon Lau, Samuel J. Perl, Joel Parish (OpenAI), and Girish Sastry (OpenAI)

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) have taken the world by storm. The ability of LLMs to perform tasks seemingly on par with humans has led to rapid adoption in a variety of different domains, including cybersecurity. However, caution is needed when using LLMs in a cybersecurity context due to the impactful consequences and detailed particularities. Current approaches to LLM evaluation tend to focus on factual knowledge as opposed to applied, practical tasks. But cybersecurity tasks often require more than just factual recall to complete. Human performance on cybersecurity tasks is often assessed in part on their ability to apply concepts to realistic situations and adapt to changing circumstances. This paper contends the same approach is necessary to accurately evaluate the capabilities and risks of using LLMs for cybersecurity tasks. To enable the creation of better evaluations, we identify key criteria to consider when designing LLM cybersecurity assessments. These criteria are further refined into a set of recommendations for how to assess LLM performance on cybersecurity tasks. The recommendations include properly scoping tasks, designing tasks based on real-world cybersecurity phenomena, minimizing spurious results, and ensuring results are not misinterpreted. Read the white paper .

The Future of Software Engineering and Acquisition with Generative AI by Douglas Schmidt (Vanderbilt University), Anita Carleton, James Ivers, Ipek Ozkaya, John E. Robert, and Shen Zhang

We stand at a pivotal moment in software engineering, with artificial intelligence (AI) playing a crucial role in driving approaches poised to enhance software acquisition, analysis, verification, and automation. While generative AI tools initially sparked excitement for their potential to reduce errors, scale changes effortlessly, and drive innovation, concerns have emerged. These concerns encompass security risks, unforeseen failures, and issues of trust. Empirical research on generative AI development assistants reveals that productivity and quality gains depend not only on the sophistication of tools but also on task flow redesign and expert judgment.

In this webcast, SEI researchers explore the future of software engineering and acquisition using generative AI technologies. They examine current applications, envision future possibilities, identify research gaps, and discuss the critical skill sets that software engineers and stakeholders need to effectively and responsibly harness generative AI’s potential. Fostering a deeper understanding of AI’s role in software engineering and acquisition accentuates its potential and mitigates its risks.

The webcast covers

• how to identify suitable use cases when starting out with generative AI technology
• the practical applications of generative AI in software engineering and acquisition
• how developers and decision makers can harness generative AI technology

View the webcast .

Zero Trust Industry Days 2024 Scenario: Secluded Semiconductors, Inc. by Rhonda Brown

Each accepted presenter at the SEI Zero Trust Industry Days 2024 event develops and proposes a solution for this scenario: A company is operating a chip manufacturing facility on an island where there may be loss of connectivity and cloud services for short or extended periods of time. There are many considerations when addressing the challenges of a zero trust implementation, including varying perspectives and philosophies. This event offers a deep examination of how solution providers and other organizations interpret and address the challenges of implementing zero trust. Using a scenario places boundaries on the zero trust space to yield richer discussions.

This year’s event focuses on the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), legacy systems, smart cities, and cloud-hosted services in a manufacturing environment. Read the white paper .

Using Large Language Models in the National Security Realm By Shannon Gallagher

At the request of the White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) began exploring use cases for large language models (LLMs) within the Intelligence Community (IC). As part of this effort, ODNI sponsored the Mayflower Project at Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute from May 2023 through September 2023. The Mayflower Project attempted to answer the following questions:

• How might the IC set up a baseline, stand-alone LLM?
• How might the IC customize LLMs for specific intelligence use cases?
• How might the IC evaluate the trustworthiness of LLMs across use cases?

In this SEI Podcast, Shannon Gallagher, AI engineering team lead, and Rachel Dzombak, former special advisor to the director of the SEI’s AI Division, discuss the findings and recommendations from the Mayflower Project and provide additional background information about LLMs and how they can be engineered for national security use cases. Listen/View the SEI Podcast .

Navigating Capability-Based Planning: The Benefits, Challenges, and Implementation Essentials By Anandi Hira and William Nichols

Capability-based planning (CBP) defines a framework that has an all-encompassing view of existing abilities and future needs for strategically deciding what is needed and how to effectively achieve it. Both business and government acquisition domains use CBP for financial success or to design a well-balanced defense system. The definitions understandably vary across these domains. This paper endeavors to consolidate these definitions to provide a comprehensive view of CBP, its potential, and practical implementation of its principles. Read the white paper .

Ask Us Anything: Supply Chain Risk Management By Brett Tucker and Matthew J. Butkovic

According to the Verizon Data Breach Report , Log4j-related exploits have occurred less frequently over the past year. However, this Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) flaw was originally documented in 2021. The threat still exists despite increased awareness. Over the past few years, the Software Engineering Institute has developed guidance and practices to help organizations reduce threats to U.S. supply chains. In this webcast, Brett Tucker and Matthew Butkovic, answer enterprise risk management questions to help organizations achieve operational resilience in the cyber supply chain. The webcast covers

• enterprise risk governance and how to assess organization’s risk appetite and policy as it relates to and integrates cyber risks into a global risk portfolio
• regulatory directives on third-party risk
• the agenda and topics to be covered in the upcoming CERT Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management Symposium in February

The Measurement Challenges in Software Assurance and Supply Chain Risk Management by Nancy R. Mead, Carol Woody, and Scott Hissam

In this paper, the authors discuss the metrics needed to predict cybersecurity in open source software and how standards are needed to make it easier to apply these metrics in the supply chain. The authors provide examples of potentially useful metrics and underscore the need for data collection and analysis to validate the metrics. They assert that defining metrics, collecting and analyzing data to illustrate their utility, and using standard methods requires unbiased collaborative work to achieve the desired results. Read the white paper .

The Cybersecurity of Quantum Computing: 6 Areas of Research

By Tom Scanlon

Research and development of quantum computers continues to grow at a rapid pace. The U.S. government alone spent more than $800 million on quantum information science research in 2022. Thomas Scanlon, who leads the data science group in the SEI CERT Division, was recently invited to be a participant in the Workshop on Cybersecurity of Quantum Computing, co-sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to examine the emerging field of cybersecurity for quantum computing. In this SEI podcast, Scanlon discusses how to create the discipline of cyber protection of quantum computing and outlines six areas of future research in quantum cybersecurity.

Listen to/view the podcast .

Additional Resources

View the latest SEI research in the SEI Digital Library . View the latest podcasts in the SEI Podcast Series . View the latest installments in the SEI Webcast Series .

Author Page

Digital library publications, send a message, more by the author, applying large language models to dod software acquisition: an initial experiment, april 1, 2024 • by douglas schmidt (vanderbilt university) , john e. robert, 10 benefits and 10 challenges of applying large language models to dod software acquisition, january 22, 2024 • by john e. robert , douglas schmidt (vanderbilt university), the latest work from the sei, january 15, 2024 • by douglas schmidt (vanderbilt university), the top 10 blog posts of 2023, january 8, 2024 • by douglas schmidt (vanderbilt university), applying generative ai to software engineering: navigating ethical and educational landscapes, december 11, 2023 • by john e. robert , douglas schmidt (vanderbilt university), more in software engineering research and development, applying the sei sbom framework, february 5, 2024 • by carol woody, get updates on our latest work..

Sign up to have the latest post sent to your inbox weekly.

Each week, our researchers write about the latest in software engineering, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. Sign up to get the latest post sent to your inbox the day it's published.

Clinical Research Coord Inter

How to apply.

A cover letter is required for consideration for this position and should be attached as the first page of your resume. The cover letter should address your specific interest in the position and outline skills and experience that directly relate to this position.

Highly motivated individual sought for a full-time clinical research coordinator healthcare position within the Department of Emergency Medicine Division of Critical Care at Michigan Medicine. The candidate will serve as a clinical research coordinator for multiple studies (including clinical trials and human subject?s studies), will work closely with Division of Critical Care leadership and faculty, and will support a robust and growing clinical and human studies research program.

This clinical research coordinator (CRC) position may provide study coordination for multiple clinical research studies of any complexity. Coordinator experience and mastery of all job duties from the CRC-Associate position on the Michigan Medicine CRC Career Ladder is required. This position demonstrates advanced skills and knowledge along with the ability to support, guide, train, and demonstrate the implementation of study related activities. This position applies critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills across a wide variety of clinical studies. This position contributes to the development of new processes, procedures, and tools to enhance clinical research activities across the competency domains and conducts quality assurance/quality control checks on their work. This level of CRC continues to build on their competency foundation by making greater investments in their ongoing continuing education and professional development. Key behavioral competency descriptors include: Design, demonstrate, develop, guide, and support.  

Mission Statement

Michigan Medicine improves the health of patients, populations and communities through excellence in education, patient care, community service, research and technology development, and through leadership activities in Michigan, nationally and internationally.  Our mission is guided by our Strategic Principles and has three critical components; patient care, education and research that together enhance our contribution to society.

Why Join Michigan Medicine?

Michigan Medicine is one of the largest health care complexes in the world and has been the site of many groundbreaking medical and technological advancements since the opening of the U-M Medical School in 1850. Michigan Medicine is comprised of over 30,000 employees and our vision is to attract, inspire, and develop outstanding people in medicine, sciences, and healthcare to become one of the world’s most distinguished academic health systems.  In some way, great or small, every person here helps to advance this world-class institution. Work at Michigan Medicine and become a victor for the greater good.

What Benefits can you Look Forward to?

• Excellent medical, dental and vision coverage effective on your very first day
• 2:1 Match on retirement savings

Responsibilities*

Characteristic Duties and Responsibilities Expert level knowledge, skills, and abilities within all 8 competency domains is expected:

•  Scientific Concepts and Research Design
• Ethical Participant Safety Considerations
• Investigational Products Development and Regulation
• Clinical Study Operations (GCPs)
• Study and Site Management
• Data Management and Informatics
• Leadership and Professionalism
• Communication and Teamwork  
• Responsible for all aspects of research regulatory compliance, such as preparation/writing of IRB protocols for submission and maintenance (including the initial applications, amendments, scheduled continuing reviews, progress reports, safety reports, adverse event reports, etc.), while ensuring effective routine communication with the IRB. 
• Create and maintain study standard operating procedures/protocols and research binders. 
• Perform literature reviews.
• Completion of study tracking documentation accurately and in a timely manner. 
• Create and routinely update project tracking systems. 
• Communicate and consult with investigators and study staff to ensure alignment with research protocols and regulatory requirements.
• Responsible for all aspects of research study coordination: Identifying/pre-screening potential subject records to ensure they meet study inclusion criteria, screening potential subjects, consenting and enrollment (using a variety of methods), interviewing subjects, collecting relevant clinical and demographic data, and conducting follow-up assessments.
• Coordination of specimen collection and storage. Monitor subjects for safety and compliance with protocols. Coordination/management of all daily study operations.
• Effectively update study sponsors on annual progress of research projects. Will be responsible for working with various groups to execute legal contracts (where appropriate). May reconcile study expenses, communicate/negotiate with study sponsor, the IRB, investigational pharmacy, referring doctors, CTSUs, and additional units (such as the Michigan Clinical Research Unit (MCRU) team). 
• This position will also assist with coordination of research meetings, additional research initiatives, and collaborating within Emergency Medicine and across Michigan Medicine. 
• May act as liaison with other departments, divisions, and organizations.
• Responsibility for the management/maintenance of large, secured research databases to include all subject data, records, and documentation, data entry/extraction, and routinely perform data-quality checks. Work closely with data analyst(s) to ensure data integrity and alignment with study protocols. Work with faculty and staff to efficiently manage multiple data capturing systems. 
• Create and organize data into easily manageable spreadsheets, tables, and graphs for periodic presentations to study staff and investigators, and for regulatory bodies including the NIH and IRBMED. May assist with data analyses/interpretation of results, in addition to preparing project reports or publications, and presenting updates as appropriate. 
• May develop, design, and conduct one or more small or moderately complex research projects according to plan; reviews progress and evaluates results. 
• Formulates research methods and suggests options for improving quality, identifies potential problems, recommends, and implements solutions. Consults with study staff to refine or adapt methodologies to fit research goals and specific aims. 
• Collaborates in development of new techniques and procedures/protocols.
• Staff members are expected to work well in a team setting, but also independently when appropriate and regularly exercise good judgment in setting priorities, resolving operational problems, and applying policies, procedures, and methods, while always maintaining the strictest of confidentiality. Regular active participation in research meetings will be expected.
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion ongoing education will be required, and demonstration of cultural awareness and humility will be always expected when interacting with faculty, study staff, research participants and families, from diverse backgrounds.
• This position will assist with clinical trials within the Michigan Medicine Department of Emergency Medicine. Due to the nature of our patient care, this position will routinely require covering some evening and weekend shifts. 
• Cross training with other staff will be required.
• Additional work-related tasks, not specifically outlined above, will be required of the candidate.  

Supervision Received This position reports directly to Administrator and Manager for the Department of Emergency Medicine's Division of Critical Care. Supervision Exercised Could provide functional supervision (likely in limited capacity such as training) of staff in titles within the CRC Career Ladder and learners.

Required Qualifications*

• Bachelor's degree in Health Science or an equivalent combination of related education and experience.
• Certification is required through Association of Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) as a Certified Clinical Research Coordinator (CCRC) or Society of Clinical Research Association (SOCRA) as a Certified Clinical Research Professionals (CCRP) or equivalent. Candidates must be eligible to register or take the exam at date of hire and the certification must be completed or passed etc. within six months of date of hire. (Please review eligibility criteria from SoCRA or ACRP )
• Minimum 3 years of directly related experience in clinical research and clinical trials is necessary. Please review SoCRA's Definition of a Clinical Research Professional qualifying experience prior to applying.
• Excellent interpersonal, oral, and written communication skills with exceptional attention to detail.
• Must be organized, efficient, self-motivated, and proficient in computer skills including Microsoft software applications.
• Ability to organize and manage multiple tasks/projects simultaneously, as well as prioritize and exercise good judgment.
• Ability to work independently with minimal supervision while maintaining effective collaborations and communication with a diverse team of individuals in a diplomatic, professional, collaborative, and effective manner.
• Candidate will be expected to prioritize multiple tasks, meet deadlines, and adhere to strict confidentiality policies.
• Must be comfortable working in the Emergency Department (following established protocols to facilitate social distancing and reduce COVID-19 transmission risks), interacting with diverse populations, and potentially discussing sensitive topics with study participants and families.

Desired Qualifications*

• Previous clinical research experience, clinic/hospital work or volunteer experience, and knowledge of the research protocols and processes are highly desired.
• The ideal candidate for this position will be able to work as a member of a collaborative team but have the ability to function independently with limited supervision after a period of on-boarding.
• Familiarity and experience with Epic, MiChart and eResearch applications. PEERS, regulatory compliance, IRB review and approval process, CITI or NIH Protection of
• Human Subjects Training Certification is preferred.
• Experience with REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), Qualtrics or a similar data capturing system and statistical methods background and responsibilities in previous employment is also preferable.

Work Schedule

This position will assist with clinical trials within the Michigan Medicine Department of Emergency Medicine. While the primary work schedule will be Monday through Friday 8am-5pm, due to the nature of our patient care, this position will require flexibility and will routinely require covering evening and weekend shifts.

Additional Information

Michigan Medicine is firmly committed to advancing inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility, and belonging, which are core to the culture and values of the Medical School Office of Research. Our community supports recruiting and cultivating a diverse workforce as a reflection of our commitment to serve the diverse people of Michigan and the world. We strive to create a work culture where each team member feels respected, valued, and safe.  

The Department of Emergency Medicine at Michigan Medicine is committed to creating an environment that is welcoming to all. We strive to value the unique contributions of individuals, and support a culture of inclusivity among our employees, learners, and larger community. This includes supporting the development of a diverse workforce across identities such as race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, citizenship, marital status, religion, language, disability, and Veteran status. We are proud to be an equal opportunity and an affirmative action employer. 

Background Screening

Michigan Medicine conducts background screening and pre-employment drug testing on job candidates upon acceptance of a contingent job offer and may use a third party administrator to conduct background screenings.  Background screenings are performed in compliance with the Fair Credit Report Act. Pre-employment drug testing applies to all selected candidates, including new or additional faculty and staff appointments, as well as transfers from other U-M campuses.

Application Deadline

Job openings are posted for a minimum of seven calendar days.  The review and selection process may begin as early as the eighth day after posting. This opening may be removed from posting boards and filled anytime after the minimum posting period has ended.

U-M EEO/AA Statement

The University of Michigan is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of group work

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in educational systems. There is strong scientific support for the benefits of having students learning and working in groups. Nevertheless, studies about what occurs in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking. Similarly, the question of why some group work is successful and other group work results in the opposite is still unsolved. The aim of this article is to add to the current level of knowledge and understandings regarding the essence behind successful group work in higher education. This research is focused on the students’ experiences of group work and learning in groups, which is an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work prior to the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work ends up being a positive experience resulting in successful learning, while in other cases, the result is the reverse, are of interest. Data were collected through a study-specific questionnaire, with multiple choice and open-ended questions. The questionnaires were distributed to students in different study programs at two universities in Sweden. The present result is based on a reanalysis and qualitative analysis formed a key part of the study. The results indicate that most of the students’ experiences involved group work that facilitated learning, especially in the area of academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that served as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions facilitate or hamper students’ learning, as well as impact their experiences with group work.

INTRODUCTION

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in most educational systems, from compulsory education to higher education. The overarching purpose of group work in educational practice is to serve as an incentive for learning. For example, it is believed that the students involved in the group activity should “learn something.” This prerequisite has influenced previous research to predominantly focus on how to increase efficiency in group work and how to understand why some group work turns out favorably and other group work sessions result in the opposite. The review of previous research shows that in the 20th century, there has been an increase in research about students’ cooperation in the classroom ( Lou et al., 1996 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). This increasing interest can be traced back to the fact that both researchers and teachers have become aware of the positive effects that collaboration might have on students’ ability to learn. The main concern in the research area has been on how interaction and cooperation among students influence learning and problem solving in groups ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ).

Two approaches concerning learning in group are of interest, namely cooperative learning and collaborative learning . There seems to be a certain amount of confusion concerning how these concepts are to be interpreted and used, as well as what they actually signify. Often the conceptions are used synonymously even though there are some differentiations. Cooperative group work is usually considered as a comprehensive umbrella concept for several modes of student active working modes ( Johnson and Johnson, 1975 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ), whereas collaboration is a more of an exclusive concept and may be included in the much wider concept cooperation ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Cooperative learning may describe group work without any interaction between the students (i.e., the student may just be sitting next to each other; Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ), while collaborative learning always includes interaction, collaboration, and utilization of the group’s competences ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ).

At the present time, there is strong scientific support for the benefits of students learning and working in groups. In addition, the research shows that collaborative work promotes both academic achievement and collaborative abilities ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to Gillies and Boyle (2011) , the benefits are consistent irrespective of age (pre-school to college) and/or curriculum. When working interactively with others, students learn to inquire, share ideas, clarify differences, problem-solve, and construct new understandings. Gillies (2003a , b ) also stresses that students working together are more motivated to achieve than they would be when working individually. Thus, group work might serve as an incentive for learning, in terms of both academic knowledge and interpersonal skills. Nevertheless, studies about what occur in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking in the literature, especially when it comes to addressing the students’ points of view, with some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Similarly, the question of why some group work turns out successfully and other work results in the opposite is still unsolved. In this article, we hope to contribute some new pieces of information concerning the why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while others result in the opposite.

GROUP WORK IN EDUCATION

Group work is frequently used in higher education as a pedagogical mode in the classroom, and it is viewed as equivalent to any other pedagogical practice (i.e., whole class lesson or individual work). Without considering the pros and cons of group work, a non-reflective choice of pedagogical mode might end up resulting in less desirable consequences. A reflective choice, on the other hand, might result in positive experiences and enhanced learning ( Galton et al., 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

GROUP WORK AS OBJECTIVE OR MEANS

Group work might serve different purposes. As mentioned above, the overall purpose of the group work in education is that the students who participate in group work “learn something.” Learning can be in terms of academic knowledge or “group knowledge.” Group knowledge refers to learning to work in groups ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare might be of equal importance as academic knowledge, or they may even be prerequisites for learning. Thus, the group and the group work serve more functions than just than “just” being a pedagogical mode. Hence, before group work is implemented, it is important to consider the purpose the group assignment will have as the objective, the means, or both.

From a learning perspective, group work might function as both an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities) and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement) or both ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). If the purpose of the group work is to serve as an objective, the group’s function is to promote students’ development of group work abilities, such as social training and interpersonal skills. If, on the other hand, group work is used as a means to acquire academic knowledge, the group and the collaboration in the group become a base for students’ knowledge acquisition ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). The group contributes to the acquisition of knowledge and stimulates learning, thus promoting academic performance. Naturally, group work can be considered to be a learning environment, where group work is used both as an objective and as the means. One example of this concept is in the case of tutorial groups in problem-based learning. Both functions are important and might complement and/or even promote each other. Albeit used for different purposes, both approaches might serve as an incentive for learning, emphasizing different aspect knowledge, and learning in a group within an educational setting.

WORKING IN A GROUP OR AS A GROUP

Even if group work is often defined as “pupils working together as a group or a team,” ( Blatchford et al., 2003 , p. 155), it is important to bear in mind that group work is not just one activity, but several activities with different conditions ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). This implies that group work may change characteristics several times during a group work session and/or during a group’s lifetime, thus suggesting that certain working modes may be better suited for different parts of a group’s work and vice versa ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). It is also important to differentiate between how the work is accomplished in the group, whether by working in a group or working as a group.

From a group work perspective, there are two primary ways of discussing cooperation in groups: working in a group (cooperation) or working as a group (collaboration; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Situations where students are sitting together in a group but working individually on separate parts of a group assignment are referred to as working in a group . This is not an uncommon situation within an educational setting ( Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ). Cooperation between students might occur, but it is not necessary to accomplish the group’s task. At the end of the task, the students put their separate contributions together into a joint product ( Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2010 , 2011a ). While no cooperative activities are mandatory while working in a group, cooperative learning may occur. However, the benefits in this case are an effect of social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) and are not caused by cooperation. In this situation, social facilitation alludes to the enhanced motivational effect that the presence of other students have on individual student’s performance.

Working as a group, on the other hand, causes learning benefits from collaboration with other group members. Working as a group is often referred to as “real group work” or “meaningful group work,” and denotes group work in which students utilizes the group members’ skills and work together to achieve a common goal. Moreover, working as a group presupposes collaboration, and that all group members will be involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, the utilization of the group’s competence, and the presence of problem solving and reflection. According to Granström (2006) , working as a group is a more uncommon activity in an educational setting. Both approaches might be useful in different parts of group work, depending on the purpose of the group work and type of task assigned to the group ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). Working in a group might lead to cooperative learning, while working as group might facilitate collaborative learning. While there are differences between the real meanings of the concepts, the terms are frequently used interchangeably ( Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH OF STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES

As mentioned above, there are a limited number of studies concerning the participants’ perspectives on group work. Teachers often have to rely upon spontaneous viewpoints and indications about and students’ experiences of group work in the form of completed course evaluations. However, there are some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). To put this study in a context and provide a rationale for the present research, a selection of studies focusing on pupils’ and/or students’ experiences and conceptions of group work will be briefly discussed below. The pupils’ and/or students inside knowledge group work may present information relevant in all levels of educational systems.

Hansen (2006) conducted a small study with 34 participating students at a business faculty, focusing on the participants’ experiences of group work. In the study different aspects of students’ positive experiences of group work were identified. For example, it was found to be necessary that all group members take part and make an effort to take part in the group work, clear goals are set for the work, role differentiation exists among members, the task has some level of relevance, and there is clear leadership. Even though Hansen’s (2006) study was conducted in higher education, these findings may be relevant in other levels in educational systems.

To gain more knowledge and understand about the essence behind high-quality group work, Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) turned their focus toward students’ experiences and conceptions of group work in higher education. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating their students’ points of view and how the students assess working in groups. Do the students’ appreciate group projects or do they find it boring and even as a waste of time? Would some students prefer to work individually, or even in “the other group?” The study was a part of a larger research project on group work in education and only a small part of the data corpus was analyzed. Different critical aspects were identified as important incitements for whether the group work turned out to be a success or a failure. The students’ positive, as well as negative, experiences of group work include both task-related (e.g., learning, group composition, participants’ contribution, time) and socio-emotional (e.g., affiliation, conflict, group climate) aspects of group work. The students described their own group, as well as other groups, in a realistic way and did not believe that the grass was greener in the other group. The same data corpus is used in this article (see under Section The Previous Analysis). According to Underwood (2003) and Peterson and Miller (2004) , the students’ enthusiasm for group work is affected by type of task, as well as the group’s members. One problem that recurred frequently concerned students who did not contribute to the group work, also known as so-called free-riders ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Students are, in general, reluctant to punish free-riders and antipathy toward working in groups is often associated with a previous experience of having free-riders in the group ( Peterson and Miller, 2004 ). To accomplish a favorable attitude toward group work, the advantages of collaborative activities as a means for learning must be elucidated. Furthermore, students must be granted a guarantee that free-riders will not bring the group in an unfavorable light. The free-riders, on the other hand, must be encouraged to participate in the common project.

Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) were also interested in students’ experiences and conceptions of high-quality and low-quality group work in school and how students aged 13–16 describe good and bad group work? Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) show that the students seem to have a clear conception of what constitutes group work and what does not. According to the students, genuine group work is characterized by collaboration on an assignment given by the teacher. They describe group work as working together with their classmates on a common task. The students are also fully aware that successful group work calls for members with appropriate skills that are focused on the task and for all members take part in the common work. Furthermore, the results disclose what students consider being important requisites for successful versus more futile group work. The students’ inside knowledge about classroom activities ended up in a taxonomy of crucial conditions for high-quality group work. The six conditions were: (a) organization of group work conditions, (b) mode of working in groups, (c) tasks given in group work, (d) reporting group work, (e) assessment of group work, and (f) the role of the teacher in group work. The most essential condition for the students seemed to be group composition and the participants’ responsibilities and contributions. According to the students, a well-organized group consists of approximately three members, which allows the group to not be too heterogeneous. Members should be allotted a reasonable amount of time and be provided with an environment that is not too noisy. Hence, all six aspects are related to the role of the teacher’s leadership since the first five points concern the framework and prerequisites created by the teacher.

Näslund (2013) summarized students’ and researchers’ joint knowledge based on experience and research on in the context of shared perspective for group work. As a result, Näslund noticed a joint apprehension concerning what constitutes “an ideal group work.” Näslund (2013) highlighted the fact that both students and researchers emphasized for ideal group work to occur, the following conditions were important to have: (a) the group work is carried out in supportive context, (b) cooperation occurs, (c) the group work is well-structured, (d) students come prepared and act as working members during the meetings, and (e) group members show respect for each other.

From this brief exposition of a selection of research focusing on students’ views on group work, it is obvious that more systematic studies or documentations on students’ conceptions and experiences of group work within higher education are relevant and desired. The present study, which is a reanalysis of a corpus of data addressing the students’ perspective of group, is a step in that direction.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The overarching knowledge interest of this study is to enhance the body of knowledge regarding group work in higher education. The aim of this article is to add knowledge and understanding of what the essence behind successful group work in higher education is by focusing on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups , an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work until the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, are of interest.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To capture university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, an inductive qualitative approach, which emphasizes content and meaning rather than quantification, was used ( Breakwell et al., 2006 ; Bryman, 2012 ). The empirical data were collected through a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire and a qualitative content analysis was performed ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

PARTICIPANTS

All participating students attended traditional university programs where group work was a central and frequently used pedagogical method in the educational design. In addition, the participants’ programs allowed the students to be allocated to the same groups for a longer period of time, in some cases during a whole semester. University programs using specific pedagogical approaches, such as problem-based learning or case method, were not included in this study.

The participants consisted of a total of 210 students, 172 female and 38 male, from two universities in two different cities (approximately division: 75 and 25%). The students came from six different populations in four university programs: (a) The Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology, (b) The Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program, (c) Social Work Program, and (d) The Bachelor’s Programs in Biology. The informants were studying in their first through eighth terms, but the majority had previous experiences from working in other group settings. Only 2% of the students had just started their first term when the study was conducted, while the vast majority (96%) was participating in university studies in their second to sixth semester.

The teacher most frequently arranged the group composition and only a few students stated that they have had any influence on the group formation. There were, with a few exceptions, between 6 and 10 groups in each of the programs included in this study. The groups consisted of between four to eight members and the differences in sizes were almost proportionally distributed among the research group. The groups were foremost heterogeneous concerning gender, but irrespective of group size, there seems to have been a bias toward more women than men in most of the groups. When there was an underrepresented sex in the group, the minority mostly included two students of the same gender. More than 50% of the students answered that in this particularly group, they worked solely with new group members, i.e., students they had not worked with in previous group work during the program.

To collect data about students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire approached the students’ experiences regarding the specific group work they were working in at the time of the data collection (spring 2006), not their experiences of group work in general. The questionnaire contained a total of 18 questions, including both multiple choice and open-ended questions. The multiple choice questions concerned background variables and information about the present group. The seven open-ended questions were designed to gather data about the students’ experiences and perceptions of group work in higher education. The questionnaires were distributed to the different populations of students (some populations studied at the same program) at two universities in Sweden. During the time the questionnaires were completed, the researcher or an assistant was present to answer possible questions. In all, 210 students answered the questionnaire.

The previous analysis

As described above (Section Previous Research of Students’ Experiences) a previous analysis based on the same data corpus revealed that most of the students included in the study found group work to be an enjoyable and stimulating working method ( Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ). The data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis based on three different research questions. There were two main criticisms of the previous study presented from other researchers. The criticism conveyed applied mostly to the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group and second to the fact that the results were mostly descriptive. To counter this criticism and to elaborate on the analysis, a further analysis was conducted.

The present analysis

The present analysis (or reanalysis) was conducted by using an inductive qualitative content analysis based on three open-ended research questions:

(1) In what ways does group work contribute to your learning?

(2) What positive experiences have you had while working in your present group?

(3) What negative experiences have you had while working in your present group?

Each question corresponds to one aspect of the research’s objective, but together, they might support and enrich each other and unravel new information based on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work. Research question 1, listed above, was not included in the first analysis and is being investigated for the first time in this study, while the other two questions are being reanalyzed. An inductive, qualitative content analysis is applicable when the aim of the research is a description of the meaning or of a phenomenon in conceptual form ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

The analysis was carried out over several steps, following the basic principles of an inductive, qualitative content analysis ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). The steps included three phases: preparation, organizing, and reporting ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Each question was treated as a unit of analysis and was thus analyzed separately. In the preparation phase, the researcher tried to make sense of the data by becoming familiar with the data corpus. In the current study, this included transcription and thorough reading of the answers. An open coding system composed of marginal notes and headings began the second phase, which included organizing the data. This second phase, in turn, included open coding, creating categories, and abstraction. The notes and the headings from the open coding were transferred to coding sheets and then grouped into categories. Categories were formed through the interpretation of the codes that described the same meaning or phenomenon. Finally, an abstraction process began, where a general description of the grouped categories formed an abstraction (see Table ​ Table1 1 ). An abstraction was denominated using the content-characteristic words for this paper: learning, study-social function, and organization . The third phase, reporting , addressed the presentation of the process of analysis and the results.

Examples from the organization phase of the coding process.

The final aim of this study is to present the phenomenon studied in a model or conceptual map of the categories ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). In following these procedures, we aim to expand our understanding of the existing work and to counter the second part of the criticisms, which included criticisms stating that the results were mostly descriptive in nature. To counter the criticisms regarding the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group, the qualitative abstraction that emerged from the qualitative content analysis was compared to background information by using SPSS. Three background variables were used: gender, cities, and programs.

ETHICS AND QUALITY

The ethical principles provided by the British Psychology Society have formed a guideline [ British Psychology Society (BPS), 2006 ] for the present study. The ethical principles, which emphasize the concern for participants’ interest, have been applied throughout the study [ American Psychological Association (APA), 2002 ; British Psychology Society (BPS), 2004 ; Barett, 2007 ]. To facilitate trustworthiness, a thorough description of the analysis process has been presented ( Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Translated citations are also included to increase trustworthiness.

As described above, the analysis resulted in three abstraction emerging: learning, study-social function , and organization . Each abstraction includes both a positive variant (i.e., facilitating learning, study-social function, and/or organization) as well as a negative alternative (i.e., hampering learning, study-social function, and/or organization). The results will be presented in three different sections, with each section corresponding to one abstraction. However, we would like to call attention to the fact that one fifth (20%, including missing value 8%) of the students included in this study did not perceive and/or mention any negative experiences at all in their present group. From a general point of view, there is no difference with respect to gender or city regarding the distribution of positive and negative experiences concerning the abstractions, neither concerning different programs nor the distribution of negative experiences (all p > 0.05). In contrast, there is a difference between the various programs and the distribution of positive experiences (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). The students from the social work program display a higher amount of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with the other programs.

The majority of the students (97%) responded that working in group somehow facilitated learning, academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both. They learned more or different things when working in groups than they would have if working alone. By discussing and questioning each other’s points of view and listening to their fellow students’ contributions, thus obtaining different perspectives, the participants experienced an enhanced academic learning, compared to working alone. “I learn much more by working in groups than working individually. I obtain more through interaction with the other group members.” Academic knowledge is not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gain advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work in group courses strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus learning about groups by working in groups. “Through practical knowledge demonstrate several of the phenomena we read about in theory (group psychology and sociology).”

The results show no difference when considering either gender or city. However, when comparing the four programs included in the study and the types of learning, a difference occurs (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). A division into two parts seems to generate the difference. On the one hand, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program emphasize academic knowledge. On the other hand, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities single handed, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning.

Even though the participants did not expressly report that group work hampered learning, they often mentioned that they perceived group work as being ineffective due to loss of focus and the presence of conflicts, thereby hampering conceivable learning. One respondent stated, “that you sometimes are out of focus in the discussion and get side-tracked instead of considering the task.” Another offered the following perspective: “Occasionally, it is too little task related and feels unnecessary sometimes. Individual work is, in certain situations, preferable.” Group work might be perceived as ineffective and time consuming considering long working periods with tedious discussions. One participant stated, “The time aspect, everything is time consuming.” The absence or presence of conflicts in the group affects students’ experiences, and conflicts not handled may influence learning in a negative way. The students perceived that it was difficult to come to an agreement and experience those conflicts and the need to compromise hampered individual learning. Accordingly, the absence of conflicts seemed to be an important incitement for learning. However, fear of conflicts can lead to reduced learning and cause negative experiences, but to a considerably lesser extent than does the presence of actual conflicts. “A great fear of conflicts sometimes raises an oppressive atmosphere.” “Fear of conflicts leads to much not made known.”

A STUDY-SOCIAL FUNCTION

Group work also has an important study - social function according to the students. They describe their membership in groups as an important aspect of affiliation. In general, the total number of students at a program is approximately 60–80 or more. In contexts with a large population of students, the smaller group gives the participants an opportunity to feel affiliated with the group and to each other. “Feels safe to have a certain group to prepare oneself together with before, for instance, an upcoming seminar.” The group gives the individual student a platform of belonging, which might serve as an important arena for learning ( facilitate ) and finding friends to spend leisure time with. Many of the participants also reported feeling a positive atmosphere in the group, which is important for the satisfaction of being in the group together with the fellow students.

To be a member of a group may also serve as a function of relief, both academically and socially, for the individual student. The participants reported that many of the tasks assigned by the university teachers are difficult to handle on their own. “The others explain to me. We help one another.” However, the students reported that they helped and supported each other, even if the task did not demand cooperation. “As a student, you get more active. You help one another to extract the groups’ common knowledge. Forward info if somebody is missing.” Being a member of a group also affects students’ motivation to study. They prepare themselves by reading texts and other material before the next group session. Group work may also have positive effects on achievement. Students’ total amount of time and effort on their work may also increase. Through group work, the participants also get confirmation of who they are and what their capacities are.

Being a member of a group also has its downside, which often has to do with the group climate and/or group processes, both of which have multiple and complex features. Many students reported that both the group climate and group processes might be the source of negative conceptions of the group and hamper learning. “Process losses.” The respondents described negative conceptions based on the feeling of not having enough time to get to know each other in the group or being in situations where no cooperation occurred. Other students referred to the fact that the group’s life is too long, which may lead to group members not only wearing each other out, but also having a negative effect on each other’s mood. “Influenced by each other’s mood.” Examples of negative experiences are process losses in general, including insufficient communication, unclear roles, and problems with one group member. As mentioned above, the students from the Social Work Program display a higher number of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with students from the other programs.

ORGANIZATION

O rganization concerns the structure of group work and includes different aspects, all describing group work from different angles. The aspects are relevant no matter how the participants perceive the group work, whether as positive or negative. Unlike the other two abstractions (learning and study-social function), organization includes the same aspects no matter what the experiences are, namely group composition , group structure , way of working and contributions.

Whether the group is composed in a homogeneous or heterogeneous way seems to be experienced in both a positive and negative sense. A well-thought-out group composition , including both group size and mix of members, is essential. A just large-enough group for the task, consisting of a population of members that is not too heterogeneous, facilitates a joyful experience and learning. A homogeneous mix of members might be perceived as positive, as the students feel that they have similar life situations, opinions, and skills, thereby causing positive conditions for collaboration within the group. Conversely, in a group with a heterogeneous mix, different members contribute with different knowledge and/or prior experiences, which can be used in the group for collective and collaborative learning. “Good group composition, distribution of age groups that leads to fruitful discussions.”

An additional facilitating prerequisite is that the group develops adequate ways of working together, which includes a well-organized group structure . Well-working groups are characterized as having developed adequate ways of working together, while groups that work less well together lack a developed way of cooperation. “Well-organized working group with clear and distinct rules and structure.” Preparation and attendance for group work are aspects mentioned as facilitating (and hampering) incitements. Group work in educational settings sometimes entails that you, as a student, are forced to read and learn within a certain period of time that is beyond your control. Some participants find the pressure positive, hence “increase the pressure to read chapters in time.” The members’ contribution to the group is also a central factor for the students’ apprehension of how the group works. This is, in short, about how much each member ought to contribute to the group and to the work. Groups considered to be well-working are ones where all members contribute to the group’s work, but the content of the contribution may vary according to the single member’s qualifications. “We work well together (most of us). Everybody participates in different ways and seems committed.” “Good, everybody participates the same amount. We complement each other well.”

The same prerequisites can lead to the reverse result, i.e., hampering learning and stirring up negative experiences. If the group members are too identical (a homogeneous group composition ), it might lead to a lack of opinions, which several participants perceived as being negative. “That we do not get a male perspective about the subject. We are all girls, at the age of 20, which also means that we have pretty much the same experiences that may be seen as both positive and negative. The negative is the lack of opinion.” If the group is considered to be too small, students seems to find it troublesome, as the relationships are few, but there are also few people who are available to handle the workload allotted to the group. Nevertheless, a group that is too large could also lead to negative experiences. “It is far too large a group.”

A lack of group structure might lead to a lower degree of satisfaction with the group’s way of working . A commonly expressed point of view seen in the students’ answers involved the occurrences of when all members did not attend the meetings (absence). In these cases, it was also viewed that the work in the group often was characterized as unstructured. “Sometimes a bit unclear structures, some students have difficulties with coming in time.” Not attending or coming unprepared or badly prepared to the group work is other aspect that is commented on. “Low degree of fellowship, punctuality is a problem, an insecure group.” Some students find it frustrating to prepare for a certain time decided that is beyond their control. “A necessity to read certain chapters within a specific period of time is never stimulating.”

One characteristic of groups that are not working well is that contribution varies among the members. In group work, students with different levels of ambition are assembled, which may result in different levels of interest and commitment, as well as differences in the willingness to take on responsibilities or part of the workload of the group’s work. Some members are active and do much of the work, while others barely contribute at all. “Some don’t do anything while others pull the heaviest burden. Two out of three prepare before the meeting, the rest think that they are able to read during the group work and do not supply the group with anything else other than delays and frustration.” A common answer seen in the questionnaires that concerns negative experiences of group work as they relate to contribution is: “Everybody does not contribute just as much.” or “There is always someone who just glides along and doesn’t take part.”

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

The results are summarized in a model illustrating the relationship between abstractions (i.e., learning, study-social function, and organization) and result (i.e., enhanced or reduced learning), as well as positive or negative experiences (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

A model illustrating the relationship between abstractions and result .

The figure shows that all three abstractions may facilitate or hamper learning as well as the experiences of group work. To piece together, the difficult and extensive jigsaw puzzle concerning why some group work result in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases the result is the reverse is still not solved. In this article, we propose that the prerequisites learning, study-social function, and organization influence learning and experiences of working in group, thus, providing additional pieces of information to the jigsaw puzzle ( Figure ​ Figure2 2 ).

Pieces of jigsaw puzzle influence learning and experiences .

The current study focuses on university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view, as well as how the students’ assess learning when working in groups. The analysis resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations. Each abstraction also included a positive and a negative variant. In other words, all three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work.

LEARNING IN GROUP WORK

The result shows that the majority of the students (97%) experience that working in group facilitated learning, either academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both, accordingly confirming previous research ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to the students, they learn more or different things when working in groups compared with working individually. Academic knowledge was not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gained advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work might strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus the students were learning about groups by working in groups. This implies that group work, from a learning perspective, serves several functions for the students ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Group work also seems to have an important study-social function for the university students, hence confirming that group work serves more functions than just being a pedagogical mode.

Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare seem to be highly important, and may even be essential prerequisites for learning. Accordingly, group work functions as both as an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities), and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement), or both, for the students ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). Moreover, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Program for Human Resources seem to use group work more as means for obtaining academic knowledge. In contrast, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities alone, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning, thus using group work as an objective, as a means, or as a combination of both. One interpretation might be that the type of task assigned to the students differs in various programs. This can be valid both concerning the purpose of group work (group work as objective or as the means), but also arrangement (working in a group or as a group; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Another possible explanation might be that the main emphasis in the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the Program for Human Resources is on product and academic knowledge, while in the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program, the process is more articulated and demanded. However, this is only speculation and further research is needed.

Even though the participants did not explicitly state that group work hampered learning, they mentioned that they perceived group work to be ineffective due to the loss of focus and/or the presence of conflicts with other group members, thereby hampering conceivable learning. This may also be an effect of the purpose or arrangement of the group work ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

EXPERIENCES OF GROUP WORK

The results revealed that several aspects of group work are important incentives for learning. In addition, this study revealed students’ experiences of group work (i.e., facilitating or hampering positive/negative experiences), which is in line with the previous studies on students’ experiences of working in groups ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Group composition, group structure, ways of working, and participants’ contributions are aspects put forward by the university students as either facilitating or hampering the positive experience of group work ( Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

Several of the aspects bear reference to whether the group members work in a group or as a group ( Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, utilization of the group’s competence, and includes problem solving and reflection. All group members are involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). According to the results, not all groups are working as a group but rather working in a group, which, according to Granström (2006) , is common in an educational setting.

Due to problems with group composition, members’ contributions, and group structure, including rules and ways of cooperation, some students end up with negative experiences of group work. Additionally, the university students allude to the fact that a well-functioning supportive study-social context is an essential prerequisite not only for positive experiences of group work, but also for learning ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Both working in a group and working as group might be useful in different parts of the group work ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ) and cause learning. Hence working in a group causes cooperative learning based on social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) while working as group causes learning benefits through collaboration with other group members. Although both approaches might cause positive or negative experiences, a conceivable interpretation is that working as a group has a greater potential to enhance positive experiences. The findings suggest a need for further research to fully understand why some group work causes positive experiences and other instances of group work cause negative experiences.

The findings in the current study develop the findings from Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) . First, it shows that it is possible to assemble all groups in to a joint research group (see below). Second, a thorough reanalysis, using an inductive qualitative content analysis, resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations as either facilitating or hampering learning, and experiences.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are some limitations in the current study and most of them have to do with the construction of the study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire. First, the questions do not discriminate between (a) the type of group work, (b) the purpose with the group work, (c) the structure of the group work (i.e., extent and/or time); or (d) ways of working in the group (i.e., cooperation or collaboration). Second, the design of the questionnaire does not facilitate comparison between the populations included in the group. The questionnaire treated group work as one activity and did not acknowledge that group work can serve different functions and include various activities ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). This simplification of the phenomena group work causes criticism concerning whether or not it is possible to assemble these populations into a joint research group. An elaborated description of the analysis process and the comparison to three background variables has been used to counter this criticism. The thin results from the comparison, indicate that based on the question used in the study-specific questionnaire, it is possible to assemble the results into a corpus of joint results.

CONCLUSION/CONCLUDING REMARKS

The results indicate that most of the students’ experienced that group work facilitated learning, especially concerning academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that serve as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work. By listening to the university students’ voices and elucidating their experiences and conceptions, we have been able to add new knowledge and understanding of what the essence is behind successful group work in higher education. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, can be of use for further development of group work as a pedagogical practice.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges Ph.D. Faculty Program Director, Charlotta Einarsson, for her contribution to the design of this study and contribution to early stages of the data analysis and manuscript.

• American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct . Available at: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Baines E., Blatchford P., Chowne A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: effects on science attainment. Br. Educ. Res. J. 33 663–680 10.1080/01411920701582231 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barett M. (2007). “Practical and ethical issues in planning research,” in Research Methods in Psychology eds Breakell G., Hammond S., Fife-Schaw C., Smith J. A. (London: Sage Publications) 24–48 [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: progress and problems. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19 1–40 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60211-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennet N., Dunne E. (1992). Managing Classroom Groups . Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Schuster Education [ Google Scholar ]
• Blatchford P., Kutnick P., Baines E., Galton M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 153–172 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breakwell G. M, Hammond F., Fife-Schaw C., Smith J. A. (eds) (2006). Research Methods in Psychology . London: Sage Publications [ Google Scholar ]
• British Psychology Society (BPS). (2004). Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles, and Guidelines . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download.cfm?file_uuid=6D0645CC-7E96-C67F-D75E2648E5580115&ext=pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• British Psychology Society (BPS). (2006). Code of Ethics and Conduct . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/the-society/code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct_home.cfm [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. (2012). Social Research Methods . Oxford: University Press [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantwell R. H., Andrews B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students’ feeling towards group work. Educ. Psychol. 22 75–91 10.1080/01443410120101260 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elo S, Kyngäs H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 107–115 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galton M., Williamson J. (1992). Group Work in the Primary Classroom . London: Routledge [ Google Scholar ]
• Galton M. J., Hargreaves L., Pell T. (2009). Group work and whole-class teaching with 11–14-years-old compared. Cambridge J. Educ . 39 119–147 10.1080/03057640802701994 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M. (2003a). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 95 137–147 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M. (2003b). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 35–49 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M., Boyle M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26 933–940 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M., Boyle M. (2011). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning (CL): a two-year follow-up. Teach. Educ. 1 63–78 10.1080/10476210.2010.538045 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graneheim U. H., Lundman B. (2003). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ. Today 24 105–112 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granström K. (2006). “Group phenomena and classroom management in Sweden,” in Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues eds Evertson C. M., Weinstein C. S. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum) 1141–1160 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2008). A scheme for understanding group processes in problem-based learning. High. Educ. 55 505–518 10.1007/s10734-007-9071-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2010). “Group work is not one, but a great many processes – understanding group work dynamics,” in Group Theory: Classes, Representation and Connections, and Applications ed. Danellis C. W. (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) 153–166 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2011a). Research on Group Work in Education . New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2011b). “Research on group work in education,” in Emerging Issues in Compulsory Education [Progress in Education. Volume 20] ed Nata R. (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) 25–44 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E., Einarsson C. (2007). “Is the grass greener in the other group? Students’ experiences of group-work” [“är gräset grönare i den andra gruppen? Studenters erfarenheter av grupparbete”] [Published in Swedish], in Interaction on the Edge 2. Proceedings from the 5th GRASP Conference ed. Näslund J. (Linköping: Linköping University) [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E, Granström K. (2012). Teachers’ leadership and students’ experience of group work. Teach. Teach. Theor. Pract. 3 345–363 10.1080/13540602.2012.629842 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E., Hempel A. (2013), Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] . Lund: Studentlitteratur [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: suggestions for improving team projects. J. Educ. Bus. 82 11–19 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (1975). Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall) [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (2004). Assessing Students in Groups: Promoting Group Responsibility and Individual Accountability . Thousand Oaks: Sage [ Google Scholar ]
• Kutnick P., Beredondini L. (2009). Can the enhancement of group work in classrooms provide a basis for effective communication in support of school-based cognitive achievement in classrooms of young learners? Cambridge J. Educ . 39 71–94 10.1080/03057640902836880 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lou Y., Abrami P. C., Spence J. C., Poulsen C., Chambers B, d’Apllonia S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66 423–458 10.3102/00346543066004423 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayring P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1:2 . Available at: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm_140309 [ Google Scholar ]
• Näslund J. (2013). “Pupils’ and students’ view on group work” [Published in Swedish: Elevers och studenters syn på grupparbete] in Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] eds Hammar Chiriac E., Hempel A. (Lund: Studentlitteratur) 233–242 [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson S, Miller J. A. (2004). Quality of college students’ experiences during cooperative learning. Soc. Psychol. Learn. 7 161–183 [ Google Scholar ]
• Underwood J. D. M. (2003). Student attitudes towards socially acceptable and unacceptable group working practices. Br. J. Psychol. 94 319–337 10.1348/000712603767876253 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uziel L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: a review and meta-analysis. J. Res. Person. 41 579–601 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb N. M., Palincsar A. S. (1996). “Group processes in the classroom,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology eds Berliner D. C., Calfee R. C. (New York: Macmillan) 841–873 [ Google Scholar ]
• Zajonc R. B. (1980). “Compresence,” in Psychology of Group Influence ed. Paulus P. B. (New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum) 35–60 [ Google Scholar ]

Office of the Vice President for Research

Four clas faculty researchers secure prestigious early career awards.

Continuing  an upward trend of University of Iowa faculty securing prestigious early-career grants, four investigators from the Departments of Physics and Astronomy and Computer Science have been awarded notable grant awards to advance their careers.

DeRoo, Hoadley advance space instrumentation with Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellowships in Astrophysics for Early Career Researchers

Casey DeRoo and Keri Hoadley , both assistant professors in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, each received a Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellowship in Astrophysics for Early Career Researchers. The NASA fellowship provides each researcher with $500,000 over two years to support their research in space-based instrumentation. 

Hoadley’s research is two-pronged. She will design and ultimately prototype a mirror-based vacuum ultraviolet polarizer, which will allow researchers to access polarized light from space below 120-nanometer wavelength. Polarizing light at such a low wavelength is crucial to building optics for NASA’s future Habitable World Observatory (HWO), the agency’s next flagship astrophysics mission after the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. 

“Our vacuum ultraviolet polarizer project is meant to help set up our lab to propose to NASA for one or more follow-up technology programs, including adapting this polarizer for use in vacuum systems, duplicating it and measuring its efficiency to measure additional flavors of polarized UV light, quantifying the polarization effects introduced by UV optical components that may be used on HWO, and building an astronomical instrument to measure the polarization of UV from around massive stars and throughout star-forming regions,” said Hoadley.

In addition, Hoadley and her team will build a facility to align, calibrate, and integrate small space telescopes before flight, using a vacuum chamber and wavelengths of light typically only accessible in space, which could help the university win future small satellite and suborbital missions from NASA. 

DeRoo will work to advance diffraction gratings made with electron beams that pattern structures on a nanometer scale.   Like a prism, diffraction gratings spread out and direct light coming from stars and galaxies, allowing researchers to deduce things like the temperature, density, or composition of an astronomical object.

The fellowship will allow DeRoo to upgrade the university’s Raith

 Voyager tool, a specialized fabrication tool hosted by OVPR’s Materials Analysis, Testing and Fabrication (MATFab) facility.

“These upgrades will let us perform algorithmic patterning, which uses computer code to quickly generate the patterns to be manufactured,” DeRoo said. “This is a major innovation that should enable us to make more complex grating shapes as well as make gratings more quickly.” DeRoo added that the enhancements mean his team may be able to make diffraction gratings that allow space instrument designs that are distinctly different from those launched to date.

“For faculty who develop space-based instruments, the Nancy Grace Roman Technology Fellowship is on par with the prestige of an NSF CAREER or Department of Energy Early Career award,” said Mary Hall Reno, professor and department chair. “Our track record with the program elevates our status as a destination university for astrophysics and space physics missions.”

Uppu pursues building blocks quantum computing with NSF CAREER Award

Ravitej Uppu, assistant professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, received a 5-year NSF CAREER award of $550,000 to conduct research aimed at amplifying the power of quantum computing and making its application more practical. 

Uppu and his team will explore the properties of light-matter interactions at the level of a single photon interacting with a single molecule, enabling them to generate efficient and high-quality multiphoton entangled states of light. Multiphoton entangled states, in which photons become inextricably linked, are necessary for photons to serve as practical quantum interconnects, transmitting information between quantum computing units, akin to classical cluster computers. 

“ In our pursuit of secure communication, exploiting quantum properties of light is the final frontier,” said Uppu. “However, unavoidable losses that occur in optical fiber links between users can easily nullify the secure link. Our research on multiphoton entangled states is a key building block for implementing ‘quantum repeaters’ that can overcome this challenge.”

Jiang tackles real-world data issues with NSF CAREER Award

Peng Jiang, assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science, received an NSF CAREER Award that will provide $548,944 over five years to develop tools to support the use of sampling-based algorithms. 

Sampling-based algorithms reduce computing costs by processing only a random selection of a dataset, which has made them increasingly popular, but the method still faces limited efficiency. Jiang will develop a suite of tools that simplify the implementation of sampling-based algorithms and improve their efficacy across wide range of computing and big data applications.

“ A simple example of a real-world application is subgraph matching,” Jiang said. “For example, one might be interested in finding a group of people with certain connections in a social network. The use of sampling-based algorithms can significantly accelerate this process.”

In addition to providing undergraduate students the opportunity to engage with this research, Jiang also plans for the project to enhance projects in computer science courses.

• Phone: +90 (212) 875 19 08
• E-Mail: [email protected]

• Company Profile
• Company Policy
• Mission and Vision
• Certificates
• Aluminium Windows
• Aluminium Doors
• Aluminium Sliding Elements
• Aluminium Curtain Walls
• Aluminium Skylight Elements
• Aluminium Frames for Safety and Security
• Aluminium Conservatories
• Metal Panel Sheet Claddings
• Aluminium Entrance Frames
• Glass Structures
• Complementary Items
• Lightweight Steel Structures
• Human Resources OPEN

Are you ready to view the world from our frame?

As an experienced specialist facade contractor, Mimsa and their group companies today has its headquarters and factory in Istanbul, office and a second factory in Moscow, office and a workshop in London (since 2016) and have expanded with an office in New York (in 2018).

This year share of exports accounts for more than 80% of the total work done. Our ability to adopt ourselves to International Standards & Building Regulations and working together with our clients to satisfy their highest requirements, have given us this opportunity. An example of this was our recently achieved “Secured by Design” Accreditation for the UK Market.

We undertake in house; the detailed design, engineering, fabrication and installation of aluminium windows, doors and curtain walls. As a group today, we have a total of more than 100 technical staff and over 550 workers working in collaboration with the high-end software and machinery. Since 2016, our BIM trained group (consisting of 15 designers and managers) are working for our BIM required projects in different levels worldwide.

Our team is working side by side with our main systems suppliers such as; Schueco, Reynaers, Sapa Group and able to work with most systems companies in Europe, UK and Russia. We also work with the major glass suppliers such as Guardian, Saint Gobain, Pilkington and their processors worldwide to provide a high quality, quick and affordable service to our customers. We as a group company, together with our extensive supply chain, have managed to achieve various levels of BREEAM and LEED Certificates in our international projects.

Our vision is to set up robust relations, through high quality works with the existing Clients and approach to the main players in the glazing market over the next years.

The browser you are using is no longer supported and for that reason you will not get the best experience when using our website.

You currently have JavaScript disabled in your web browser, please enable JavaScript to view our website as intended.

Over £2 million funding enables international collaboration for space research at University of Leicester

Two research groups from the University of Leicester have been boosted by support from the UK Space Agency to develop new technologies to power future space missions and to monitor carbon dioxide levels by satellite.

Projects that showcase the best of UK space expertise on the international stage have secured a funding boost from the UK Space Agency, as the global space industry lands in Colorado Springs for the 39th Space Symposium on Monday 8 April. 

More than £2 million funding has been awarded to two groups based at Space Park Leicester , the University of Leicester’s pioneering £100 million science and innovation park, from the UK Space Agency’s International Bilateral Fund, focused on supporting the UK space sector to work directly with international partners on exciting and innovative projects. The funding will enable both groups to establish and develop partnerships with organisations internationally to further their cutting-edge work into radioactive power systems and earth observation technology.

The Space Nuclear Power group at the University of Leicester have been developing radioisotope power systems for over a decade. These power systems use the heat generated from the decay of radioisotopes, and can be used to provide heat to spacecraft or converted to electricity to power key subsystems. The technology development has been funded by the European Space Agency (ESA) European Devices Using Radioisotope Energy (ENDURE) program, which has been heavily supported by the UKSA.

The key difference between the radioisotope power system technology being developed in Leicester compared to similar products around the world is that it uses americium fuel instead of plutonium. The americium fuel gives the power systems different properties. For example, americium-241 has a half-life of more than 400 years, which means it can provide stable power outputs to spacecraft for many decades. Meanwhile, the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) that use americium perform better in cold environments which makes them suitable for missions targeting icy moons or shadowed regions of planetary surfaces.

Over £783,000 from the International Bilateral Fund will be used to advance mission concepts and use-cases to demonstrate the breadth of the technology applications. Working with collaborating institutes and entities in the US, Japan, and Europe, the team aims to maximise the benefits that these technologies can provide to scientific and exploration missions. 

The space nuclear power team at Space Park Leicester.

Project lead Dr Hannah Sargeant from the University’s School of Physics and Astronomy said: “The radioisotope power technology that has been developed at the University of Leicester, in conjunction with National Nuclear Laboratory, is performing extremely well in our ongoing testing campaigns. In this project, we will be working with a number of international partners to establish mission opportunities that would only be possible with the continuous and reliable power on offer. We’re excited to receive this grant from the UK Space Agency to help us build key relationships with international partners.

“The first phase of funding was used to work with our international partners to understand their power needs and mission priorities. In Phase 2, we will be conducting both laboratory and concept studies to demonstrate the feasibility of the mission concepts. It will also provide an opportunity to highlight the technology to the civil and commercial space industry and show how it could be used to meet critical power needs for priority missions.”

The School of Physics and Astronomy’s Earth Observation Science (EOS) Group and Space Projects and Instrumentation Group  are leading a new international project at Space Park Leicester focused on high resolution quantification of CO2 emissions from new satellite instrumentation, with international partner Bahrain National Space Science Agency (NSSA), and UK SME partner Geospatial Insight, Ltd., (GSI) and the Industry and Energy Division, YBA Kanoo Group (Bahrain) as an industrial collaborator.

The £1.3 million project funded by the UK Space Agency will strengthen partnership and collaboration between UK and Bahrain. Building on the University of Leicester’s and Space Park Leicester’s track record in space technology, it will demonstrate novel technology while building the case for future mission investment.

Dr Joshua Vande Hey, Head of the EOS Group and overall project lead said: “This international bilateral funding from UK Space Agency enabled us to strengthen critical partnerships with the excellent NSSA team in Bahrain and with innovative local partner GSI in the first phase and move on ambitious technological and commercial development in the current phase. This exciting work to develop new technology for monitoring CO2 emissions from agile satellite platforms and realise deployment through new business models is an excellent example of the kind of collaborative work Space Park Leicester is enabling. We see this as the first step towards filling critical data gaps and improving understanding of progress towards net zero targets.”

Dr Mohamed Al Aseeri, NSSA CEO added: “Following the exceptional work conducted in Phase 1, the Kingdom of Bahrain’s National Space Science Agency (NSSA) is pleased to collaborate with the University of Leicester (UoL) as a supporting International Partner for Phase 2 of the UK Space Agency's (UKSA) International Bilateral Fund (IBF). NSSA is the central agency responsible for civil space activities in the Kingdom of Bahrain, and we see this as a great opportunity for collaboration to help strengthen our partnership with the United Kingdom in the field of space and showcase Bahrain’s commitment to accelerating the development of a civil space sector as a means of addressing sustainable economic development and the transition of economies to NetZero.”

Ms. Rasha Al Amad, Chief Strategic Planning at NSSA, added: “The project aims to address a challenge we face in securing data necessary for monitoring our industries, potentially to support our neighbouring countries, and determine compliance with policies that support international commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by developing and qualifying a CO2 sensor on a small satellite platform. We believe that working alongside experts from the University of Leicester and GSI is an excellent opportunity for knowledge sharing, serving the national and regions’ needs and further strengthens the international partnership and collaboration in the space sector.”

Dr Stephen Wright, METEOR Programme Manager at Space Park Leicester, added: “The METEOR programme began working with the NSSA just over a year ago with strategic development workshops in the NSSA offices in Bahrain, and in the UK at Space Park Leicester, and the Harwell campus. Follow-on workshops were completed last month in Bahrain to facilitate commencement of the delivery of direct local impact, with plans for more later this year. Securing the Bilateral funding from the UK Space Agency is a logical extension, allowing us to collaboratively deliver practical research and economic development aligned with the opportunities identified.”

This is the second phase of investment awarded through the UK Space Agency’s International Bilateral Fund, following the first phase in August 2023. Phase 1 funded 32 projects up to £75,000 each, all of whom entered into highly competitive process for further funding from Phase 2. 

Dr Paul Bate, Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency, said: “We want to draw on the best global talent to push the boundaries of new technology such as AI and space nuclear power, enhance our homegrown space capabilities and catalyse investment into the UK economy. 

“The projects supported by our International Bilateral Fund champion the best of British innovation, while strengthening our ties with the wider space community. Together we can break new ground, further our understanding of the Universe and use the vast power of space to protect and benefit lives on Earth.”

At the start of the year, University of Leicester scientists also received funding from the UK Space Agency’s Space Science and Exploration Bilateral Programme to deliver (with other UK and Spanish collaborators) a Raman spectroscopy instrument for commercial lunar rover and lander missions investigating minerals on the Moon, helping us to understand whether this is a resource that could be used for longer term lunar exploration.

• Earth and Environment
• Sustainability

Related stories

National planetary science conference to be hosted in leicester for first time, researcher scoops early career award to tackle female-specific susceptibility to diseases, findings of global study could aid stroke patient prognosis, leicester engineers work on power systems for lunar rovers, discovery of how limiting damage from an asthma attack could stop disease, artificial intelligence tool successfully predicts fatal heart rhythm.

Victor Mukhin

• Scientific Program

Title : Active carbons as nanoporous materials for solving of environmental problems

However, up to now, the main carriers of catalytic additives have been mineral sorbents: silica gels, alumogels. This is obviously due to the fact that they consist of pure homogeneous components SiO2 and Al2O3, respectively. It is generally known that impurities, especially the ash elements, are catalytic poisons that reduce the effectiveness of the catalyst. Therefore, carbon sorbents with 5-15% by weight of ash elements in their composition are not used in the above mentioned technologies. However, in such an important field as a gas-mask technique, carbon sorbents (active carbons) are carriers of catalytic additives, providing effective protection of a person against any types of potent poisonous substances (PPS). In ESPE “JSC "Neorganika" there has been developed the technology of unique ashless spherical carbon carrier-catalysts by the method of liquid forming of furfural copolymers with subsequent gas-vapor activation, brand PAC. Active carbons PAC have 100% qualitative characteristics of the three main properties of carbon sorbents: strength - 100%, the proportion of sorbing pores in the pore space – 100%, purity - 100% (ash content is close to zero). A particularly outstanding feature of active PAC carbons is their uniquely high mechanical compressive strength of 740 ± 40 MPa, which is 3-7 times larger than that of  such materials as granite, quartzite, electric coal, and is comparable to the value for cast iron - 400-1000 MPa. This allows the PAC to operate under severe conditions in moving and fluidized beds.  Obviously, it is time to actively develop catalysts based on PAC sorbents for oil refining, petrochemicals, gas processing and various technologies of organic synthesis.

Victor M. Mukhin was born in 1946 in the town of Orsk, Russia. In 1970 he graduated the Technological Institute in Leningrad. Victor M. Mukhin was directed to work to the scientific-industrial organization "Neorganika" (Elektrostal, Moscow region) where he is working during 47 years, at present as the head of the laboratory of carbon sorbents.     Victor M. Mukhin defended a Ph. D. thesis and a doctoral thesis at the Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia (in 1979 and 1997 accordingly). Professor of Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Scientific interests: production, investigation and application of active carbons, technological and ecological carbon-adsorptive processes, environmental protection, production of ecologically clean food.   

Quick Links

• Conference Brochure
• Tentative Program

• History of cooperation
• Areas of cooperation
• Procurement policy
• Useful links
• Becoming a supplier
• Procurement
• Rosatom newsletter

© 2008–2024Valtiollinen Rosatom-ydinvoimakonserni

• Rosatom Global presence
• Rosatom in region
• For suppliers
• Preventing corruption
• Press centre

Rosatom Starts Life Tests of Third-Generation VVER-440 Nuclear Fuel

• 16 June, 2020 / 13:00

This site uses cookies. By continuing your navigation, you accept the use of cookies. For more information, or to manage or to change the cookies parameters on your computer, read our Cookies Policy. Learn more