Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multidisciplinary Group Composition in the STEAM Classroom

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover STEAM Education

Abstract

This study examines collaborative learning environments with students from a variety of STEAM disciplines in a university-level course on beer and brewing. This course attracts students from a broad spectrum of academic fields of research who engage in multidisciplinary learning projects. For this reason, the course offers an interesting testing ground to examine the effects of heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping of students in collaborative learning environments. In particular, this study poses the question whether small groups that are made up of students who share the same academic major are more or less satisfied and collaborate more or less willingly with each other than those whose majors are diverse. Forty students in 21 different academic fields, including those in engineering, natural and physical sciences, business, and humanities, took part in 2 collaborative wiki projects in either homogeneous or heterogeneous groups based on their majors. Results of a survey with Likert scale and free response questions indicate that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups, although the heterogeneous groups tend to be slightly more satisfied with their learning experience and the homogeneous groups more willing to collaborate with each other. The implications for these findings are discussed in the context of research on group formation, collaborative learning, and the multidisciplinary nature of STEAM courses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alfonseca, E., Carro, R. M., Martín, E., Ortigosa, A., & Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: A case study. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16, 377–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekele, R. (2006). Computer-assisted learner group formation based on personality traits. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hamburg. http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2006/2759/

  • Bradley, J. H., & Hebert, F. J. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 16, 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranton, P. (1998). No one way: Teaching and learning in higher education. Toronto, ON: Wall & Emerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuseo, J. B. (1996). Cooperative learning: A pedagogy for addressing contemporary challenges & critical issues in higher education. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dascalu, M. I., Bodea, C. N., Lytras, M., De Pablos, P. O., & Burlacu, A. (2014). Improving e-learning communities through optimal composition of multidisciplinary learning groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 362–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1997). Group dynamics and foreign language teaching. System, 25, 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., & Dietz, E. J. (1998). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 469–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, J. L. (1994). Teacher as co-conspirator: Knowledge and authority in collaborative learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 59, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijlers, H., & De Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 264–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. (1992). Effects of peer interaction during computer-based mathematics instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 85, 180–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Structuring academic controversy. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 66–81). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 1017–1044). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in University Teaching, 25, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiraly, D. (2014). A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kizilcec, R. F. (2013). Collaborative learning in geographically distributed and in-person groups. In Z. Pardos, & E. Schneider (Eds.) AIED 2013 Workshops Proceedings Volume 1 (pp. 67–74). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1009/aied2013ws_volume1.pdf#page=72

  • Magnisalis, I., & Demetriadis, S. (2011). Modeling adaptation patterns in the context of collaborative learning: Case studies of IMS-LD based implementation. In Technology- enhanced systems and tools for collaborative learning scaffolding (pp. 279–310). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Manske, S., Hecking, T., Hoppe, U., Chounta, I. A., Werneburg, S. (2015). Using differences to make a difference: A Study in heterogeneity of learning groups. In 11th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL 2015). https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01206688/document

  • Millis, B. J., & Cottell. (1997). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razmerita, L. (2011). Collaborative learning in heterogeneous classes: towards a group formation methodology. In The 3rd international conference on computer supported education (CSEDU 2011) (pp. 189–194). http://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/8335

  • Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, W., Tseng, S., & Yang, C. (2008). Wiki-based rapid prototyping for teaching-material design in e-learning grids. Computers & Education, 51, 1037–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 1987, 58, 1161–1167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 10–26). University Park, PA: National Center on Post-Secondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A. (1996). Cooperative learning: Making “groupwork” work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundquist, J. D. (2015). Beer and brewing in German culture: Bridging the gaps within STEAM. The STEAM Journal, 2(1), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32, 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tudge, J. (1992). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155–172). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, G., Jindal, N., & Underwood, J. (1994). Gender differences and effects of co- operation in a computer-based language task. Educational Research, 36, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 943–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Prentice Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 987–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, B., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Wikis and collaborative learning in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24, 357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    John D. Sundquist

Authors
  1. John D. Sundquist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John D. Sundquist .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Myint Swe Khine  & Shaljan Areepattamannil  & 

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix A: Wiki Project Description

GER 280: Beer and Brewing in German Culture Group Wiki Project #1

There will be two “Wiki Projects” completed this semester in GER 280 (each worth 5% of the semester grade). You will work together in groups of three or four students (the groups will be assigned by the instructor). You will be put in groups with different students for the two assignments; you’ll have several opportunities to work together in class and encouraged to meet outside of class as well. Each group’s wiki page should end up being approximately 1000 words.

The goal of the project is that your group will get a chance to explore a topic that is covered in class in more depth, collaborate on research on this topic, and write up a page of information on the topic that other members of the class will be able to benefit from. Your instructor will provide the class with a list of possible topics to choose from.

Your group’s wiki page will be evaluated on the following criteria:

  • Informational content (relevant, thorough, and accurate information)

  • Clarity of the writing (easy to understand, written for nonspecialists)

  • Organization/structure of the wiki page

  • Level of collaboration (that all members of the group took part in the writing)

  • Proper citation methods and reference to sources

Each group member will also evaluate each other’s contributions to make sure that everyone collaborated.

Here are possible topics for Wiki Project #1 (note: the description of possible sub-topics is not exhaustive nor is it a required list of items to discuss):

  1. 1.

    Hops: its purpose, history, its effects, how it fits into the brewing process, different hops-growing regions

  2. 2.

    Malting: different grains, different techniques, steps, problems that can arise, types of barley, other cereals

  3. 3.

    Mashing: its purpose, different types, effects on beer styles and taste, different styles, different types of equipment

  4. 4.

    Wort: its purpose, different variables, ways that it affects taste and style, measuring techniques, equipment

  5. 5.

    Fermentation and yeast: historical aspects, different yeast strains, how it affects the final product, problems during fermentation, chemical processes

  6. 6.

    Water: different effects of water, different minerals, variables, how they affect the styles and taste of beer, boiling

  7. 7.

    Cooling: reasons for cooling during the brewing process, ways to cool beer at different breweries, refrigeration techniques, equipment; effect of temperature during steps of the brewing process

  8. 8.

    Lautering: its purpose, variables that affect it, problems, equipment

  9. 9.

    Conditioning: different techniques, purposes, historical techniques, equipment

  10. 10.

    Packaging: different techniques, purposes, historical techniques, equipment

If your group has another idea for a project topic, please feel free to check with your instructor.

Appendix B: List of Academic Majors of Students in GER 280

  • Aeronautical & Astronomical Engineering

  • Biological Engineering

  • Biomedical Engineering

  • Chemical Engineering

  • Chemistry

  • Civil Engineering

  • Communication

  • Computer Engineering

  • Computer Science

  • Electrical Engineering

  • Electrical Engineering Technology

  • Food Science

  • German

  • History

  • Industrial Design Prof Program

  • Marketing

  • Mechanical Engineering

  • Mechanical Engineering Technology

  • Pharmacy

  • Physics

  • Public Relations and Strategic Communication

Appendix C: Survey

  1. I.

    Evaluation of Your Own Wiki Page

Please respond to the following questions using the following scale:

  1. 1.

    Strongly disagree

  2. 2.

    Disagree

  3. 3.

    Neither disagree nor agree

  4. 4.

    Agree

  5. 5.

    Strongly agree

  6. Q1.

    Your group number:_________________________

  7. Q2.

    While working on my group’s wiki page, I learned a lot from my fellow group members.

  8. Q3.

    I am satisfied with the final version of my group’s wiki page.

  9. Q4.

    I was able to interact well with team members while we worked on the wiki page.

  10. Q5.

    All team members contributed equally to the group’s wiki page.

  11. Q6.

    I feel that I learned some new aspects about the topic that I did not know before.

  12. Q7.

    My level of interest in the topic increased after completing the wiki page.

  13. Q8.

    Group members collaborated well with each other.

  14. Q9.

    I benefited from other students’ contributions.

  15. Q10.

    I think the other team members’ contributions were excellent.

  16. Q11.

    I would like to work with the same group another time.

  17. Q12.

    I feel the final version of our wiki page is easy to understand and written for nonspecialists.

  18. Q13.

    I feel the final version of our wiki page is well-organized and easy to follow.

  19. Q14.

    Comment on your learning experience in working with your group (positive and negative experiences).

  20. Q15.

    Comment on the amount of collaboration with your fellow group members (note: please do not refer to specific group members).

    1. II.

      Evaluation of Another Group’s Wiki Page

Look over another group’s wiki page on a topic different from your group’s and fill out the following survey questions using the same scale:

  1. 1.

    Strongly disagree

  2. 2.

    Disagree

  3. 3.

    Neither disagree nor agree

  4. 4.

    Agree

  5. 5.

    Strongly agree

  6. Q16.

    What group number’s wiki page did you read? _________________________

  7. Q17.

    Overall, the content of this wiki page’s information is relevant.

  8. Q18.

    The page is organized well, and the content is easy to follow.

  9. Q19.

    I learned something new and interesting about the topic.

  10. Q20.

    The page is easy to understand and written for nonspecialists.

  11. Q21.

    Comment on any aspects of the wiki page that you read (e.g., content, organization of page, layout, accuracy, level of interest).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sundquist, J.D. (2019). Multidisciplinary Group Composition in the STEAM Classroom. In: Khine, M.S., Areepattamannil, S. (eds) STEAM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04002-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04003-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation