Advertisement

Multidisciplinary Group Composition in the STEAM Classroom

  • John D. SundquistEmail author
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Collaborative learning Wikis Group formation homogenous and heterogeneous group composition 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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/
  4. Bradley, J. H., & Hebert, F. J. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 16, 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cranton, P. (1998). No one way: Teaching and learning in higher education. Toronto, ON: Wall & Emerson.Google Scholar
  8. Cuseo, J. B. (1996). Cooperative learning: A pedagogy for addressing contemporary challenges & critical issues in higher education. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dörnyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1997). Group dynamics and foreign language teaching. System, 25, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flannery, J. L. (1994). Teacher as co-conspirator: Knowledge and authority in collaborative learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 59, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hooper, S. (1992). Effects of peer interaction during computer-based mathematics instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 85, 180–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Kiraly, D. (2014). A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Millis, B. J., & Cottell. (1997). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  25. Shih, W., Tseng, S., & Yang, C. (2008). Wiki-based rapid prototyping for teaching-material design in e-learning grids. Computers & Education, 51, 1037–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Slavin, R. E. Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 1987, 58, 1161–1167.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Smith, K. A. (1996). Cooperative learning: Making “groupwork” work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sundquist, J. D. (2015). Beer and brewing in German culture: Bridging the gaps within STEAM. The STEAM Journal, 2(1), 7.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zheng, B., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Wikis and collaborative learning in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations