Article2011

Collaborative group work: Effects of group size and assignment structure on learning gain, student satisfaction and perceived participation

Jan G.M. Kooloos · Mayke W. C. Vereijken · Sascha M. H. F. Van Kuppeveld · Sanneke M. Bolhuis · Marc A.T.M. Vorstenbosch

93 citations0/0 files storedMedical Teacher

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods Problem and Project Based Learning Innovative Teaching Methods

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Collaborative group sessions in Nijmegen include 15 students who work all together on a group assignment. Sometimes, the group is split-up in three and every subgroup elaborates a part of the assignment. At the end, they peer-teach each other. It is believed that the split-up enhances participation and therefore learning gain. AIMS: To establish the effect of group size and structure of the assignment on the perceived participation, the satisfaction and learning gain of collaborative group sessions. METHODS: In this study, 27 groups of 15 students were equally divided into: A-group: all 15 students working on the complete assignment. B-group: subgroups of 5 students working on the complete assignment. C-group: subgroups of 5 students working on a smaller part, and peer-teaching each other at the end of the group session. All students took a pre-test, a post-test and a follow-up test and completed a questionnaire. Questionnaires were analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc by multiple comparisons. Learning gain was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: A group size effect is observed in favor of working in subgroups. Perceived participation of the students differs between A and B (p ≤ 0.001) and between A and C (p ≤ 0.001), but not between B and C. Also, an assignment effect is found in favor of the smaller assignment combined with peer-teaching. The students' satisfaction differs between A and C (p ≤ 0.003) and between B and C (p ≤ 0.001), but not between A and B. The C-group also shows higher test results (p ≤ 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: The students prefer smaller groups as well as smaller assignments including peer-teaching. A possible larger learning gain of this format needs to be re-investigated.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 93 citations exist upstream.

References

1994Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups 1996Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know 2000Problem-based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions 2004Team‐based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course 2010Twelve tips for doing effective Team-Based Learning (TBL)2006What Do We Know About Cognitive and Motivational Effects of Small Group Tutorials in Problem-Based Learning?2002Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of Research 1996Problem based learning: Cognitive and metacognitive processes during problem analysis

Cited by

2019Computer-Based Scaffolding Targeting Individual Versus Groups in Problem-Centered Instruction for STEM Education: Meta-analysis

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.