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

Data_Sheet_1_Biology in a social context: a comprehensive analysis of humanization in introductory biology textbooks.pdf

To grapple with the sterility and Whiteness of Western science, scholars have proposed a pedagogical shift to culturally relevant and/or culturally sustaining pedagogy. A key tenet of culturally relevant pedagogy is a focus on developing students’ ability to use the knowledge they obtain to identify, analyze, and solve real-world problems. Thus, the ability to foster this consciousness among students and make justice/injustice visible within biology curricula is an act of humanization. Here, we characterize and quantify the extent to which six prominent introductory biology US-based textbooks include humanizing content. First, we built consensus on what it means to humanize biology in a textbook by iteratively revising a coding protocol until we achieved a continuum of humanization. Our continuum evaluates the quantity, location, and the nature of the humanizing element within the textbook. Then, we used the continuum to collect data through qualitative coding: each chapter of each textbook was coded by two coders who came to consensus on the humanizing elements within. We find that in general, the inclusion of humanizing content in introductory biology textbooks is rare: of the 9,670 pages of textbooks that we analyzed, we found 1,352 humanizing passages but the vast majority of these were discussed in a single sentence (23%) or multiple sentences (61%), rarely multiple paragraphs (13%) or entire sections (2%). Similarly, of the 9,262 questions in the books (e.g., in section or chapter summaries), only 2.5% of them were humanizing and of those, only (64%) provided an answer, and of the ones that provided an answer, we only coded 42% of the answers as humanizing. In addition to quantifying the amount of humanization, we also describe the ways in which the passages were presented. For example, only about 9% of the humanizing passages included nuance, 5% discussed equity/inequity, and only 4% positioned biology as a means to accomplish justice. In all, we present what we believe is the most comprehensive assessment of humanizing elements in introductory biology textbooks and pair that with specific guidance to instructors who seek to include humanizing elements in their classes.</p