Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter

<div><p>Active learning in college classes and participation in the workforce frequently hinge on small group work. However, group dynamics vary, ranging from equitable collaboration to dysfunctional groups dominated by one individual. To explore how group dynamics impact student learning, we asked students in a large-enrollment university biology class to self-report their experience during in-class group work. Specifically, we asked students whether there was a friend in their group, whether they were comfortable in their group, and whether someone dominated their group. Surveys were administered after students participated in two different types of intentionally constructed group activities: 1) a loosely-structured activity wherein students worked together for an entire class period (termed the ‘single-group’ activity), or 2) a highly-structured ‘jigsaw’ activity wherein students first independently mastered different subtopics, then formed new groups to peer-teach their respective subtopics. We measured content mastery by the change in score on identical pre-/post-tests. We then investigated whether activity type or student demographics predicted the likelihood of reporting working with a dominator, being comfortable in their group, or working with a friend. We found that students who more strongly agreed that they worked with a dominator were 17.8% less likely to answer an additional question correct on the 8-question post-test. Similarly, when students were comfortable in their group, content mastery increased by 27.5%. Working with a friend was the single biggest predictor of student comfort, although working with a friend did not impact performance. Finally, we found that students were 67% less likely to agree that someone dominated their group during the jigsaw activities than during the single group activities. We conclude that group activities that rely on positive interdependence, and include turn-taking and have explicit prompts for students to explain their reasoning, such as our jigsaw, can help reduce the negative impact of inequitable groups.</p></div

Final models and associated estimates for predicting students’ performance on the post-test and which students report a dominator, being comfortable, and working with a friend.

<p>Coefficients are presented as odds (transformed from logodds); models were fit as cumulative link mixed models (postscore, dominator, comfort) or logistic regression (friend; see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0181336#sec002" target="_blank">methods</a> for details). Bolded coefficients represent statistical significance to α = 0.05. Grey cells indicate variables that were not included in the full model, empty cells indicate variables that were included in the full model and then were dropped during the model selection process. Superscripted notes indicate starting models and additional notes.</p

Raw means show that a carefully designed jigsaw in-class activity reduced the dominator report rate compared to a single-group activity.

<p>Error bars, which are present but subsumed by the point, indicate standard error. See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0181336#pone.0181336.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a> for final models and modeled estimates.</p

Raw means showing student performance on the post-test as a function of reporting a dominator, being comfortable in their group, and working with a friend.

<p>A) Controlling for pre-score, students who strongly agree there was a dominator in their group performed worse on the post-score than students who reported low levels of a dominator; B) Controlling for pre-score, students who report being comfortable in their groups score higher on the post-test; C) There is no effect of friend on performance (note that there is a difference in post-score, not controlling for pre-score wherein students who work with a friend score higher on the post-test (t = -2.6, p<0.05); this difference is noticeable in this figure). Error bars indicate standard error. Students answered the dominator and comfort questions on a 6-point Likert scale, from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (6). See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0181336#pone.0181336.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a> for final models and modeled estimates.</p

Questions on the survey and the percentage of responses.

<p>Results are aggregated across all three iterations of the survey, so students’ views are repeated.</p

Males over-nominate males; females are closer to equitable in their nominations.

<p>Model based predictions for a hypothetical class comprising 50% males and 50% females. To isolate the effect of gender bias this class was also modeled as having an equal grade distribution and level of outspokenness across genders. We plot the results from 100 simulations for each of the models; the main bars represent the mean, and the whiskers reflect the range in which the central 95% of the simulations fall. Even with equal performance and outspokenness in this hypothetical class across all three model predictions, the longitudinal increase in bias of male students to nominate males remains. Female students also demonstrate a pattern of moving from female to male nominations over the course of each class.</p

The most renowned students in each class tend to be male.

<p>Students with the five highest numbers of nominations are depicted for each class. The numbers above each student represent how many nominations that student received, while the numbers below each student represent their grade point average earned in the course out of 4 points. These data come from the last surveys administered in Classes A, B, and C, and represent our best estimate for the perceptions developed by the end of each class.</p