warning

In Defense of Group-based Learning

Do students learn more in groups or alone?

This is a question that has dogged teachers for a long time, and it's interesting how such an individualistic culture like USA should embrace group-based learning so easily. The articles for this week discuss the research for and against group-based learning and try to generalize about its overall value.

"Construction of Knowledge and Group Learning" by Marcia C. Linn and Nicholas Burbules gives a critique of group-based learning by poking holes in its supposed advantages. But although the article raises many valid points and interesting anecdotes, it doesn't imply a repudiation; indeed, at times, the article oversimplifies the aims and intentions of group-based learning. Here are examples:

1)The authors say that it should not be necessary for a school to prepare students for social interactions in the world of work. After all, can't playing football after school accomplish the same thing? But Group learning proponents would point to this as an ancillary benefit, not a primary one. The Webb/Palincsar article for example seems to be concerned with its effectiveness as a learning method, not whether it acheives social goals.

2)The authors say that social interactions at work, in school and in a democratic society are often dysfunctional. But that doesn't amount to a reason to reject group-based learning. Possibly classroom-based dysfunctional social interactions might educate the students about "life" rather than "algebra." Even if this dysfunctional behavior impedes learning, it doesn't imply that individual learning is without distractions either. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that stereotyping would not occur in more individually-based learning environments. In fact, if given the choice between individual and group learning, that group learning might be more likely to expose a student to behavior from a person that is not stereotypical at all.

3)The authors say that certain activities are better suited to individual work. The example used here is computer programming, which the authors seem to feel doesn't succeed in team-based activities. First, group-learning proponents never argued that all learning activities should be individually-based. Instead, they point to how group-based learning can succeed at several levels instead of only one.

About the programming example, that is a special case. Programmers write in their own indecipherable syntax, and it takes a significant amount of time for another person to learn that new syntax. Second, even if there is a loss in productivity, there are compelling reasons for group-based projects. First, companies need redundant expertise among their programmers as a way to protect themselves from employee turnover. Second, a code review session after the initial writing of the program detects many problems in the code that the original coder would never have imagined. Third, if the project is modular, then the coders are working alongside each other on different tasks and have the opportunity to work on their own. But they need to make sure their interfaces all tie in seamlessly with one another.

Here's my take on the group-learning thing. Group-based learning works especially well in interpretive-based disciplines like art history, psychology, literature where the inquiry is sufficient, and the right outcome is not a requirement. In those disciplines, even a way-off base analysis can spark brainstorms in the minds of other students (and indeed, even the group-learning critics concede how group-based learning facilitates brainstorming). There have been numerous times when I've led a literature or literary theory class and a student will blurt out an insight that is so unexpected and profound that my heart literally stops beating and I rush to find my pencil. And I, the supposed literature expert, am supposed to know everything.

On the other hand, a large group environment is not a good environment for criticizing an individual's work. In writing workshops I've participated in, both as teacher and student, there have been times when criticisms have been excessive and unfair, and when the best thing that the student should do is to ignore these complaints altogether. Unless the participants have learned rare diplomatic skills, these sessions can be quite hurtful indeed. There are times when an individual's work cannot be properly assessed in a group-learning environment. (But is the teacher's evaluation always fair? ) And writing is in fact a solitary activity, so it's unclear whether this requires some sort of socializing component.

When I started teaching English as a foreign language, my teacher trainer said that the less time that teachers talk during class, the more the students are learning. With foreign languages, that is true, because one of the most important things to do is for students to practice and make mistakes. Foreign language instruction seems ideally suited to group and pair activities because it allows students to practice on their own without embarrassing themselves.

Here are some ways to handle the problems with group-based learning. First, groups should be changed frequently so the student is able to interact with a variety of people. Therefore, any dysfunctional relationships last for only a day or one project. Second, variety of methods is more important than any single method because it prevents students from learning the method and not the subject of instruction. It also prevents students from falling into a rut. Third, the "let's discuss in the bigger group" step (usually the last step of any group activity) can easily be omitted. In that way, there is not the redundancy of discussing again what you just talked about. Also, it allows students to discuss something without making it necessary for the large group to give its stamp of approval.

The main problem I have with group-based learning is that each student takes something different out of the project, especially if each student is expected to perform different tasks. In the jigsaw reading, if 4 students read different articles and then explain them to each other, the 3 students must rely on the 4th to serve as their conduit to the material. In the sciences, it would probably not do to have groups with varying levels of exposure to the material. Therefore, students in group-learning environment are all learning (and teaching) something different, and if a teacher is to evaluate progress, either the teacher has to judge on an individual basis (which is very difficult) or the teacher needs to go over the general points again to the group to make sure that the students were exposed to the material regardless of what group they were in. That would be redundant.

So what do you think? Find a partner and discuss it.