Value of Group Projects — Australian and Asian Students Compared

  • Tekle Shanka
  • Julie Napoli
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)

Abstract

This study explores Australian and Asian students’ perceptions of the value and usefulness of group projects. Factor analysis of 17 items measuring perceptions revealed three main factors - Project Process, Group Interaction, and Group Tolerance. Significant differences were noted along all dimensions. Implications of these findings are discussed, limitations noted and directions for future research addressed.

Keywords

Group Project Academic Dishonesty Asian Student Group Tolerance Australian Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adrian, CM. and Palmer, G.D. 1999. “Toward a Model for Understanding and Improving Educational Quality in the Principles of Marketing Course”. Journal of Marketing Education, April, 21(1): 25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alreck, P. L. and Settle, R. B. 1995 The Survey Research Handbook, 2nd edition. Chicago: Irwin.Google Scholar
  3. Colbeck, C.L., Campbell S.E. and Bjorklund, S.A. 2000. "Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects". The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1): 60–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. 1994. "Naming Men as Men: Implications for Work, Organization and Management". Gender, Work and Organization, 1(1): 2–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A. and Wu, M. 1993. “Peer Assessment of an Individual’s Contribution to a Group Project”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 18(1): 45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dommeyer, C.I. 1986. “A Comparison of the Individual Proposal and the Team Project in the Marketing Research Course”. Journal of Marketing Education. 8 (Spring): 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferguson, K. 1984. The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy, Temple University Press: Philadelphia USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Floyd, CJ. and Gordon, M.E. 1998. “What Skills are most Important? A Comparison of Employer, Student and Staff Perceptions”. Journal of Marketing Education. 20 (Summer): 103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gremler, D.D., Hoffman, K.D., Keaveney, S.M. and Wright, L.K. 2000. “Experiential Learning Exercises in Services Marketing Courses”. Journal of Marketing Education, April, 22(1): 35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. 1998 Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edition. Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Healey, M., Matthews, H., Livingstone, I. and Foster, I. 1996. “Learning in Small Groups in University Geography Courses: designing a core module around group projects”. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 20(2): 167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. Ivins, J.R. 1997. “Interdisciplinary Project Work: Practice Makes Perfect?” IEEE Transactions on Education, August 40(3).: 179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kolb, J.A. 1998. “The relationship between self-monitoring and leadership in student project groups”. The Journal of Business Communication, April, 25(2): 264–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leedy, P. D. 1997 Practical Research Planning and Design, 6th edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Marshall, J. 1993. "Organizational Communication from a Feminist Perspective". In S. Deetz (ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol 16), Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. McCorkle, D.E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C. and Iyer, V. 1999. “Undergraduate Marketing Students, Group Projects, and Teamwork: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?” Journal of Marketing Education, August 21 (2): 106–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McLean, C, Reid, C. and Scharf, F. 1998/99. “The development of transferable skills in business studies degrees”. WAR: 19/20Google Scholar
  19. Rugman, A. M. and Hodgetts, R. M. 1995 International Business: a Strategic Management Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Schibrowsky, J.A. and Peltier, J.W. 1995. “The Dark Side of Experiential Learning Activities”. Journal of Marketing Education. 17 (Spring): 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sekaran, U. 2000. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons. New York: USA.Google Scholar
  22. Stanier, L. 1997. “Peer Assessment and Group Work as Vehicles for Student Empowerment: a module evaluation”. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21(1): 95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Triandis, H.C. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Westview Pres: Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  24. Williams, J.E. and Best, D.L. 1990. Sex and Psyche: Gender and Self Viewed Cross Culturally, Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tekle Shanka
    • 1
  • Julie Napoli
    • 1
  1. 1.MississippiUSA

Personalised recommendations