Advancing International Perspectives

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF GROUP WORK FROM

THE STUDENT PERSPECTIVE
Archie Zariski
Murdoch University
This paper reports the results of a survey of law students by written
questionnaire concerning the impact of group work on their perceptions of
learning, attitudes towards peers and approaches to learning. The research
is set in the context of previous studies of cooperative learning by Johnson,
Sharan, Slavin and others. Positive impacts of learning in groups are
reported by most respondents although some students' attitudes seem to
have been negatively affected. A possible "moderating" effect on attitudes
from working in groups is indicated. The results call attention to the need
for a better understanding of how group based learning has a negative
impact on some students and for further investigation of the question
whether group work tends to "moderate" student attitudes and beliefs.

Introduction
Small group work amongst students at all levels is almost universally praised for its positive effects. Slavins
conclusion is typical, to the effect that The use of cooperative learning strategies results in improvements both
in the achievement of students and in the quality of their interpersonal relationships (Slavin, 1991, p 71). A
recent volume written for Australian law teachers lists twelve distinct benefits which may flow from putting
students together to work in groups (LeBrun and Johnstone, 1994, pp. 291-292).
The term group work encompasses a wide range of experiences extending from brief discussions in class by
ad hoc buzz groups to complex problem-solving tasks or projects pursued by well-organised teams over
lengthy periods of time. Extensive research has evaluated positively organised student interaction of these and
a wide variety of other types (see Slavin, 1991, McKeachie, 1986, Kimber, 1996, Jaques, 1991, Leming, 1985,
Sharan, 1990, Sharan and Shachar, 1988, Nastasi and Clements, 1991, Hertz-Lazarowitz and Miller, 1992,
and Johnson, 1992). Although the group formats and teaching methods investigated in this body of research
differ greatly, most studies share a common feature: student perceptions of, and reactions to, group learning
processes are rarely explicitly questioned. In addition, most of these studies are of school children, not
students in higher education settings.
Sharan and Shachars work (Sharan and Shachar, 1988) is a good example of the type of research design often
used to investigate group work. They set out to examine the effect of cooperative learning on academic
achievement and oral interaction, paying particular attention to the behaviour of majority and minority ethnic
groups. To measure this in an experimental format they administered tests of academic achievement and
videotaped school student group discussions for subsequent analysis. Based upon this evidence they concluded
that pupil cooperation during small group study predicts a significant degree of their performance on written
tests of academic achievement (Sharan and Shachar, 1988, p. viii).
Ramsden (1992) and others have urged teachers and researchers also to question students directly for valuable
insight into their perceptions of educational environments and the influence those perceptions have on their
learning. Collier (1985) has called for an action research approach to investigating group learning processes
which would involve collaboration amongst investigators, practitioners and students. Thorley and Gregory
(1994, p. 185) remark that We now need, ... to become more inquisitive about the student experience on the
courses we offer, including the group-work element. Most of the research to date, however, has measured
achievement and change in interpersonal relations in experimental settings rather than focussing on reports by
students of their experiences of group work in natural teaching environments.
Some studies of group work have featured feedback gained through interviews with students (Williamson,
1990, Hunt et al 1995). One evaluation of a group approach to teaching law (Dick et al 1993, Godden and
LeBrun, 1994) used the convergent interviewing technique to gauge student views. There are also some
reports of systematic surveys of student experience of group work using a questionnaire (Johnson et al 1976,
Johnson et al 1978, Slavin, 1978, Rau and Heyl, 1990, Godden and LeBrun, 1994, Scott, 1995, Grant 1994,
Harris et al 1994). Godden and LeBrun (1994) surveyed law students who had participated in teacher-less

778

Research and Development in Higher Education

group work by means of a written questionnaire and Scott (1995) took the same approach in order to obtain
student reaction to doing group projects in college level technical writing classes. Although the results of these
two surveys were interpreted as favouring the use of group work they also indicated that there are problems
with group work from the student point of view. Grant (1994) discovered that reactions to group work
amongst university students tended to be divided between extremes of positivity and negativity. These studies
highlight the need for better understanding of students experience of group work particularly at the tertiary
level. The research reported on here was designed to assist in that task.

Research design and implementation

Approximately 120 law students were identified who had participated in group work as part of the course
design in at least one of three subjects offered at the Murdoch University Law School. Some students in this
category had taken two and some all three of these courses. In two of the courses student groups were required
to prepare team projects; in one the project was assessed by the instructor and a single mark given, in the other
the project was critiqued by another group but no mark was given. In the third subject groups were required to
prepare for intergroup exercises in which only two members of each team would participate. Performance of
these students was individually assessed by other students in the class.
The researchers prepared a written questionnaire which was distributed to all of these students in classes for
completion on their own time. A box for deposit of the completed questionnaires was provided in the law
school. Each copy of the questionnaire had a cover sheet attached on which students were requested to place
their name and deposit in a separate box to indicate they had responded. This procedure allowed for personal
follow-up with non-responders.
The survey instrument was designed to allow students to express their attitudes and beliefs in relation to doing
group work and their views as to how the experience of group work had affected them as learners. Most
questions took the form of Likert-type items providing for a range of answers from poles of strongly agree to
strongly disagree, or similar scales. One section asked the students to recall their attitudes and levels of
skills before doing group work in the law subjects and then to report any change in them. Another section
investigated the extent to which students agreed with a range of goals teachers might have for setting group
work. Students were also asked what they found most helpful as support in doing group work, and what
impact they thought group work had on their learning and their grades. A number of open-ended questions
were also included, for instance inviting students to express their general feelings about group work. (The
survey instrument may be found on the world wide web using the url
http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/~zariski/grpsur.html)
Responses were analysed using SPSS and correlations investigated. Since the sample obtained was not
probability-based no tests of significance will be reported.

Results
Following up with non-responders resulted in 85 out of the possible 120 students completing the questionnaire.
Most responders also answered the open-ended questions.
Several positive impacts of group work which are in line with previous studies were reported by majorities of
students. In response to the statement Having completed group projects, I feel I am more cooperative in my
approach 78% of responders agreed or strongly agreed and 92% disagreed or strongly disagreed with its
contrary, that they became more competitive. In reaction to the statement that they were more confident with
people after doing group work 72% of responders agreed or strongly agreed. Students were also presented
with the statement that group projects enabled them to use skills which individual assessments do not and
87% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed.
Two important aspects of the experience of working in groups are the possibility of conflict between members
and perhaps related to this, the possibility of unequal contribution to group work. A strong majority of
respondents to this survey (83%) disagreed when asked whether their experience was that all group members
contribute equally to the project. Nevertheless, an almost equally strong majority (80%) denied that there had
been significant conflict between students in their groups. This suggests perhaps suppressed feelings of
frustration or anger when dealing with free riders which are not manifested in overt conflict but may be
linked to other attitude changes noted below.
Many respondents also reported an impact of group work on their attitudes towards their peers which the
researchers believe to be positive. Students were asked whether, after doing group work, there was a change in
their level of appreciation of the value of other students in contributing towards [their] own learning and
66% of respondents replied that it had increased. In response to a statement concerning change in their

779

Advancing International Perspectives

ability to learn from other students 53% of those responding said it had increased. For a number of
questions regarding changes in attitude toward peers, in level of skills, and in approach to learning the mode
response was not changed.
The questionnaire gave students the opportunity to draw a distinction between the effect of group work on their
grades and on their learning and many students chose to do so. When asked whether group work caused them
to receive higher marks than they received on individual work 75% of respondents disagreed or strongly
disagreed. On the other hand, when asked whether doing group work helped them to learn more than they
would on an individual project 60% agreed or strongly agreed.
More troubling were the numbers reporting a decrease in what the researchers believed to be indicators of a
positive learning environment. While 39% of respondents reported an increase in their level of trust towards
other students after doing group work, 13% said the opposite and 48% replied no change. This variation
was also reflected in responses to an item concerning their level of respect for other students where the
results were: increased - 32%; decreased - 14%; and no change - 54%. Change in approach to learning was
probed by presenting the statement After doing group work, my desire to learn more about course content has
... in answer to which respondents said: increased - 25%; decreased - 13%; no change - 62%. Asked
whether they felt more responsible for [their] own learning having completed group projects there was a
significant split of responses with 59% saying they agreed or strongly agreed and the rest disagreeing or
strongly disagreeing.
In order to get a clearer picture of changes in attitude which might be associated with doing group work an
exploration of correlations between past states and subsequent changes was undertaken. Some interesting
associations seem to be suggested by the data. Students were asked to report whether their feelings or beliefs
were at a high, medium or low level before doing group work and then to indicate if there had been an
increase, decrease or no change. Table 1 summarises the post group work change in students level of trust
toward their peers in relation to their pre group work state. Table 2 does the same for desire to learn more than
minimum required course content.
Table 1 Percent of students with changes in trust by pre-existing trust level*
High pre-existing trust

Medium pre-existing trust

Low pre-existing trust

Increased trust

0%

42%

57%

Decreased trust

60%

8%

0%

Number of cases
10
60
*(percentage of students with no change omitted)

14

Table 2 Percent of students with changes in approach to learning by pre-existing state*

High pre-existing deep
learning approach

Medium pre-existing deep

learning approach

Low pre-existing deep

learning approach

Increased

8%

25%

45%

Decreased

36%

3%

5%

Number of cases
25
40
*(percentage of students with no change omitted)

20

The data collected in Tables 1 and 2 appear to suggest that students at either end of the spectrum of attitudes
and beliefs may exhibit the greatest impact of engaging in group work.

Discussion
The results of this survey research seem to confirm the findings of previous studies that group work can have a
positive impact on students in a variety of ways, but it also highlights the existence of negative impacts of
group learning which should not be ignored.

780

Research and Development in Higher Education

Previous studies of school children in group learning situations have usually focussed on: achievement effects
(Slavin, 1991) the differential reward structures of group processes (Slavin, 1980), the impact of group
processes on acceptance of racial and other differences in peers (Johnson et al 1978, Sharan, 1980) or changes
in social relations amongst students (Slavin, 1991). Only a few of such studies have considered the nexus
between student attitudes and learning (Johnson et al 1976, Slavin, 1978). More recent studies of group work
amongst college students have tended to emphasise the impact of group work on attitudes towards study and
learning (Godden and LeBrun, 1994, Rau and Heyl, 1990, Scott, 1995). This survey continues the latter work
by investigating student dispositions which have been associated with approaches to learning as described by
Ramsden (1992, pp. 38-61). The item in this survey which has been labelled as indicative of a deep learning
approach reflects one of the hallmarks of that approach listed by Ramsden (I spend a lot of my free time
finding out more about interesting topics which have been discussed in classes: Biggs cited in Ramsden,
1992, p. 52). It may be suggested that greater exposure to the ideas of others in group work opens vistas of
inquiry into the subject being studied as well as challenging students to engage in synthesis of conflicting ideas
resulting in greater understanding. This effect may occur through a process of cognitive conflict amongst
group members which is resolved through interaction (Nastasi and Clements, 1991). In order for the
maximum advantage to be gained however, it may be necessary to form groups which do not include extremes
of ability or prior knowledge as suggested by Nastasi and Clements (1991). Failure to do this may contribute
to a decrease in deep learning approach experienced by some students as noted above.
The data on changes in trust and deep learning approach set out in Tables 1 and 2 suggest the existence of a
kind of moderating impact of group work on pre-existing attitudes in which students at extreme poles are
brought to a more central position. An early study of college student attitudes after experience of learning in
student-centred groups may give some insight into such a phenomenon. Anderson and Kell (1954, p. 265)
found some evidence to support the argument that student interaction tended to facilitate changes in the
direction of developing a common core of positive attitudes. The positive attitudes they found included selfconfidence, lack of anxiety about expressing ideas, evaluating ideas for oneself and willingness to change ones
ideas and desiring to participate without anxiety about doing so. The present survey results give some
indication that strong positive attitudes may also be eroded as a result of group learning.
Rau and Heyl (1990, p. 151) reported that 67 of 101 students completing a course evaluation questionnaire
listed some problems with group work but nevertheless concluded that When one-third of the students
volunteer that this classroom format [collaborative learning groups], which demands much of them, presents
no problems, they are giving strong approval indeed. Scott (1995) found that many students were uncertain
about whether group projects were superior to what they could produce individually and that they appreciated
group work more for helping them learn to work together than for helping them learn to write. The present
survey found a similar split amongst students regarding some impacts of group learning such as the response
by 40% of the sample who indicated group work did not help them learn more. Rather than focus on the
positive majority view expressed by students perhaps it is time to inquire further into the causes of complaint
about group work and its failure to stimulate learning for some.
Godden and LeBruns (1994) study of law students who experienced group work as an integral part of their
curriculum is probably the most comparable to the present research. Their survey however did not focus on
many of the same variables as the present one such as indicators of approaches to learning or report any tests of
correlation amongst the items they included. One of the questions Godden and LeBrun asked about the
learning process in group work with reference to the range of factors (not limited to teaching method or
style, but otherwise left unspecified) which students considered facilitated their learning. They found that on a
five point scale from extremely effective to not effective the response mode was 3, or neutral, while more
students indicated ineffectiveness than effectiveness. In answer to a question whether group work was useful
in providing a support network 42% of respondents replied no or were undecided. These results,
although not related to comparably worded items, appear to parallel the results of the present survey in
illustrating that group work is not universally appreciated by students.

Conclusion
The survey reported here has a number of methodological weaknesses including absence of a control group,
inclusion of several different group work formats within the study and lack of a measure of academic success
or of extent of learning other than self-report. Nevertheless it serves to highlight the need for further research
into the student experience of group work in tertiary education given our knowledge that student perceptions of
the academic environment affect approaches to learning.

781

Advancing International Perspectives

The results direct attention to the need for a better understanding of how learning in groups exerts a negative
impact on some students and for further investigation of the question whether group work tends to "moderate"
student attitudes and beliefs. In pursuing these lines of inquiry it may be fruitful to try to build on existing
research into "pathologies" of group processes described in Veiga (1991).

References
Anderson , Robert P., and Kell, Bill L., (1954) Student Attitudes About Participation in Classroom Groups,
Journal of Educational Research, 48: 255-267.
Brubacher, Mark, Payne, Ryder, and Rickett, Kemp, (1990) Perspectives on Small Group Learning: Theory
and Practice, Oakville (Ont): Rubicon.
Bruffee, Kenneth A., (1993) Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority
of Knowledge, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Coleman, Mary Ruth, et al, (1993) Cooperative Learning and Gifted Students: Report on Five Case Studies,
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina (ERIC document ED365008).
Collier, K. Gerald, (1985) Teaching Methods in Higher Education: The Changing Scene, with Special
Reference to Small-group Work, Higher Education Research and Development, 4: 3-27.
Dick, B., Godden, L., Healy, K., and LeBrun, M. J., (1993) A Case Study of the Offices Project (TeacherLess Cooperative Learning Groups) At Griffith University: Implementing Educational Theory, Legal
Education Review, 4: 273-297.
Godden, L., and LeBrun, M. J., (1994) Transforming the Undergraduate Into the Graduate: Resource Tools
for Introducing Teacher-Less Group Work in Law, Nathan (Qld): Griffith University.
Godden, L., Lamb, D., and LeBrun, M. J., (1994) The Offices Project at Griffith University Law School and
the Use of Video as a Tool for Evaluation, Journal of Professional Legal Education, 12: 149-157.
Grant, Annie, (1994) Group-project Work: Two Enterprise Case Studies, Chapter 18 in Thorley and Gregory
(1994).
Harris, R. G., Bramhall, M. D., and Robinson, I. M., (1994) Development of Group Skills Using a Linked
Assignment, Chapter 19 in Thorley and Gregory (1994).
Hertz-Lazarowitz, Rachel, and Miller, Norman, (eds) (1992) Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The
Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning, New York: Cambridge University.
Hunt, Russell A., McKendy, John, and Parkhill, Thom (1995) The Truth in Society Section of the Aquinas
Program, 1994-1995: A Preliminary Report, WWW document:
http://www.stthomasu.ca/hunt/aqreport/report.htm .
Imel, Susan, (1992) Small Groups in Adult Literacy and Basic Education, ERIC document ED350490.
Jaques, David, (1991) Learning In Groups (2nd edn), London: Kogan Page.
Johnson, David W., (1993) Reaching Out : Interpersonal Effectiveness and Self-Actualization (5th edn),
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, David W., and Johnson, Frank P., (1994) Joining Together : Group Theory and Group Skills, (5th
edn) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, David W., and Johnson, Roger T., (1975) Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition,
and Individualization, Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, David W., Johnson, Roger T., Johnson, Jeanette, and Anderson, Douglas, (1976) Effects of
Cooperative Versus Individualized Instruction on Student Prosocial Behavior, Attitudes Toward
Learning, and Achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 68: 446-452.
Johnson, David W., Johnson, Roger T., and Scott, Linda, (1978) The Effects of Cooperative and Individualized
Instruction on Student Attitudes and Achievement, Journal of Social Psychology, 104: 207-216.
Johnson, David W., et al, (1992) Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional
Productivity, ERIC document ED347871.
Katz, Lilian G., (1993) Dispositions as Educational Goals, ERIC document EDO-PS-93-10.
Kimber, David (1996) Collaborative Learning in Management Education: Issues, benefits, problems and
solutions: A literature review, ultiBASE: WWW document
http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/kimbe1.html .
Kutnick, Peter, and Rogers, Colin, (eds) (1994) Groups in Schools, London: Cassell.
Lander, Denis, Walta, Andrew, McCorriston, Mary, and Birchall, Greg, (1995) A Practical Way of Structuring
Teaching for Learning, Higher Education Research and Development, 14: 47-59.

782

Research and Development in Higher Education

LeBrun, M. J., (1992) Law at Griffith University: The First Year of Study, Griffith Law Review 1: 15-33.
LeBrun, M. J., and Johnstone, R., (1994) The Quiet (R)evolution: Improving Student Learning in Law,
Sydney: Law Book.
Leming, James S., (1985) Cooperative Learning in Social Studies Education: What Does the Research Say?,
ERIC document ED264162.
McKeachie, Wilbert T., et al, (1986) Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom : A Review of the
Research Literature, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
McKeachie, Wilbert, et al, (1994) Teaching Tips : Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and
University Teachers, (9th edn) Lexington (Mass): D. C. Heath.
Moore, I., (1997) Groupwork in engineering courses, WWW document:
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/engineering/approaches/grpwk.html .
Nastasi, Bonnie K., and Clements, Douglas H., (1991) Research on Cooperative Learning: Implications for
Practice, School Psychology Review, 20: 110-131.
Ramsden, Paul, (1992) Learning To Teach In Higher Education, London: Routledge.
Rau, William, and Heyl, Barbara Sherman, (1990) Humanzing the College Classroom: Collaborative Learning
and Social Organization Among Students, Teaching Sociology, 18: 141-155.
Reynolds, Michael, (1994) Groupwork in Education and Training: Ideas in Practice, London: Kogan Page.
Scott, Ann Martin, (1995) Collaborative Projects in Technical Communication Classes: A Survey of Student
Attitudes and Perceptions, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 25: 181-200.
Sharan, Shlomo, (1980) Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement,
Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations, Review of Educational Research, 50: 241-271.
Sharan, Shlomo, (1990) Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research, New York: Praeger.
Sharan, Shlomo, (ed) (1994) Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods, Westport (Conn): Greenwood.
Sharan, Shlomo, and Shachar, Hana, (1988) Language and Learning in the Cooperative Classroom, New
York: Springer.
Sharan, Yael, and Sharan, Shlomo, (1992) Expanding Cooperative Learning Through Group Investigation,
New York: Teachers College.
Slavin, Robert E., (1980) Cooperative Learning, Review of Educational Research, 50: 315-342.
Slavin, Robert E., (1991) Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning, Educational Leadership, 48: 71-82.
Slavin, Robert E., (1978) Student Teams and Comparison Among Equals: Effects on Academic Performance
and Student Attitudes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 70: 532-538.
Slavin, Robert E., Sharan, Shlomo, Kagan, Spencer, Hertz-Lazarowitz, Rachel, Webb, Clark, and Schmuck,
Richard, (eds) (1985) Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn, New York: Plenum.
Stahl, Robert J., (1994) The Essential Elements of Cooperative Learning in the Classroom, ERIC document
ED370881.
Thorley, Lin, and Gregory, Roy, (eds) (1994) Using Group-based Learning in Higher Education, London:
Kogan Page.
Veiga, John F., (1991) The Frequency of Self-Limiting Behavior in Groups: A Measure and an Explanation,
Human Relations, 44: 877-895.
Williamson, John, (1990) Co-operative Learning in Western Australia: Some Preliminary Data, Education
Research and Perspectives 17: 66-75.

783