Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Group work forms the foundation for much of student learning within higher education, and has many educational, social and professional benefits. This study aimed to explore the determinants of success or failure for undergraduate student teams and to define a ‘good group’ through considering three aspects of group success: the task, the individuals, and the team. We employed a mixed methodology, combining demographic data with qualitative observations and task and peer evaluation scores. We determined associations between group dynamic and behaviour, demographic composition, member personalities and attitudes towards one another, and task success. We also employed a cluster analysis to create a model outlining the attributes of a good small group learning team in veterinary education. This model highlights that student groups differ in measures of their effectiveness as teams, independent of their task performance. On the basis of this, we suggest that groups who achieve high marks in tasks cannot be assumed to have acquired team working skills, and therefore if these are important as a learning outcome, they must be assessed directly alongside the task output.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adair, J. (1973). Action centred leadership. USA: McGraw-Hill Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, D. R. (2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(2), 248–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Silver, W. S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23, 467–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, T. F., Dixon, A. L., & Gassenheimer, J. B. (2005). Exploring the “Lone Wolf” phenomenon in student teams. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BBC. (1994). Team working. London: BBC for Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbin, M. (1981). Management teams. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendersky, C., & Hayes, N. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23, 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollinger, L. C. (2003). The need for diversity in higher education. Academic Medicine, 78(5), 431–436.

  • Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, E. (2007). Role balance and team development: A study of team role characteristics underlying high and low performing teams. Journal of Behavioural and Applied Management, 8, 202–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, K. K. (2008). Faculty expectations of veterinary students in clinical rotations. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Education, 35(1), 11–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Grave, W. S., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2001). Student perceptions about the occurrence of critical incidents in the tutorial group. Medical Teacher, 23, 49–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Grave, W. S., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2002). Student perceptions on critical incidents in the tutorial group. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 7, 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delany, C., Miller, K. J., El-Ansary, D., Remedios, L., Hosseini, A., & McLeod, S. (2015). Replacing stressful challenges with positive coping strategies: A resilience program for clinical placement. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(5), 1303–1324.

  • Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better a meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32, 507–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P. (2005). Complex interactions between tutor performance, tutorial group productivity and the effectiveness of PBL units as perceived by students. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10, 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, T. (2011). Learner-centred teaching. Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonson, A. (2012). Teamwork on the fly. Harvard Business Review. April Issue. Accessed 1 October 2015. https://hbr.org/2012/04/teamwork-on-the-fly-2#.

  • Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 821–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27, 1103–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaudet, A. D., Ramer, L. M., Nakonechny, J., Cragg, J. J., & Ramer, M. S. (2010). Small-group learning in an upper level university biology class enhances academic performance and student attitudes towards group work. PLoS ONE, 5(12), e15821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, L. L., Caruso, H. M., & Jehn, K. A. (2011). The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 116, 116–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gully, S., Incalcaterra, K., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence, and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. (Ed.). (1990). Groups that work [and those that don’t]: Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 934–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, G. D., Ryan, G., & Harris, J. (2003). Group problems in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher, 25, 609–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, S. M., & Stevens, T. K. (1999). Using Belbin’s leadership role to improve team effectiveness: An empirical investigation. Journal of Systems and Software, 44, 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heslin, R. (1964). Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 248–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, S. (2004). Medical professionalism: How can we encourage it in our students? The Clinical Teacher, 1(2), 69–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houlden, R. L., Collier, C. P., Frid, P. J., John, S. L., & Pross, H. (2001). Problems identified by tutors in a hybrid problem based learning curriculum. Academic Medicine, 76, 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, M., & Land, R. (2000). Assigning students in group work projects. Can we do better than random? Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz-Navon, T., & Erez, M. (2005). When collective- and self-efficacy affect team performance: The role of task interdependence. Small Group Research, 36, 437–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayes, D. (2004). The 1996 Mount Everest climbing disaster: The breakdown of learning in teams. Human Relations, 57, 1263–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindler, P., Grant, C., Kulla, S., Poole, G., & Godolphin, W. (2009). Difficult incidents and tutor interventions in problem based learning tutorials. Medical Education, 43, 866–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, S. (2006). Collaborative group work and individual development of metacognition in the early years. Research in Science Education, 36, 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., & Campbell, J. (2008). Asian students’ perceptions of group work and group assignments in a New Zealand tertiary institution. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2005). Self-managed learning groups in higher education: Student’ perceptions of processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 373–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHarg, J., Kay, E. J., & Coombes, L. R. (2012). Students’ engagement with their group in a problem-based learning curriculum. European Journal of Dental Education, 16, e106–e110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J. A. (2001). In pursuit of meaningful learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 25, 145–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of PBL. A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67, 557–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Theory, practice and paper darts. Medical Education, 34, 721–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overbeck, J. R., Correll, J., & Park, B. (2003). Internal status sorting in groups: The problem of too many stars. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 7, 171–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partington, D., & Harris, H. (1999). Team role balance and team performance: An empirical study. Journal of Management Development, 18(8), 694–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porath, C. L., Overbeck, J. R., & Pearson, C. M. (2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1945–1980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prewett, M. S., Walvoord, A. A. G., Stilson, F. R. B., Rossi, M. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2009). The team personality—team performance revisited: The impact of criterion choice, pattern of workflow, and method of aggregation. Human Performance, 22, 273–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51(6), 869–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhee, J., Parent, D., & Basu, A. (2013). The influence of personality and ability on undergraduate teamwork and team performance. Springerplus, 2, 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M. (2010). The formation of effective work groups within an FE classroom. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15(2), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivasubramaniam, N., Muray, W., Aviolo, B., & Jung, D. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group Organisation Management, 27(1), 66–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sockalingham, N., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Characteristics of problems in problem based learning: The students’ perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 5(1), 6–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1999). Measuring the success of small group learning in college level SMET teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stajovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(814), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinert, Y. (2004). Student perceptions of effective small group learning. Medical Education, 38, 286–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaab, M., Anicich, E. M., Ronay, R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1581–1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeny, A., Weaven, S., & Herrington, C. (2008). Multicultural influences on group learning: A qualitative higher education study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, B. M., Haider, P., Borges, N. J., Carchedi, L. R., Roman, B. J. B., Townsend, M. H., et al. (2015). Team cohesiveness, team size and team performance in team-based learning teams. Medical Education, 49, 370–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topham, P., & Russell, G. (2012). Social anxiety in higher education. The Psychologist, 25(4), 280–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2005). Development and validation of a questionnaire to identify learning-oriented group interactions in PBL. Medical Teacher, 27(4), 375–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., & Zgourides, G. D. (2002). The influence of ethnic diversity on leadership, group process and performance: An examination of learning teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Cartoon drawings in Fig. 4 were kindly provided by Julia Sands. We would like to thank Ruth Serlin, Maria O’Conor and Jo Fisher for their help with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London, NW1 0TU, UK

    S. B. Channon & N. T. Goode

  2. Department of Academic Support and Development, The Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, UK

    R. C. Davis

  3. Department of Clinical Sciences and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, UK

    S. A. May

Authors
  1. S. B. Channon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. C. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. T. Goode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. A. May
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. B. Channon.

Appendix: Sample group work task (term 2)

Appendix: Sample group work task (term 2)

Cat metabolism

George, a 6 month old Persian kitten, is presented at surgery with a complicated history of periods of listlessness, and sometimes he walks in circles. On closer questioning, the owner says that these episodes occur after meals, and have occurred for several months, but are getting worse. On examination, George appears dazed, but has normal functional cranial nerve tests. He is small for his age and in poor condition.

  1. a.

    Which organ system do you think is dysfunctional, producing the clinical signs of listlessness and circling? Give reasons for your answer.

  2. b.

    Blood biochemistry tests reveal blood ammonia levels of 270 μmol/l (normal <40 μmol/l). Does this information suggest another organ that is deficient in function, causing the disease?

  3. c.

    How are ammonia levels kept low in the normal animal? Blood ammonia concentrations also rise to toxic levels when cats are fed an arginine deficient diet: why is arginine an essential amino acid? Is it essential to other animals?

  4. d.

    Another abnormal result from George’s blood tests is a fasting bile acid level of 76 μM (normal <2 μM). Does this help in deciding on the primary defect?

  5. e.

    Given the age of the kitten, is there a likely inherited anatomical cause in this case?

  6. f.

    What is the treatment?

  7. g.

    What is the prognosis in this case? Why is the prognosis poorer in the cat than in a dog with the same condition?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Channon, S.B., Davis, R.C., Goode, N.T. et al. What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups. Adv in Health Sci Educ 22, 17–41 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9680-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9680-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation