What can go wrong and why?

There are a number of risks associated with small group work, many of which can be reduced by good process design, constructive alignment of learning and assessment tasks, and a positive and supportive learning environment.

Institutional culture and resources

If the institutional culture is didactic, students (and staff?) may value group work less highly than more tutor directed methods. This is likely to be the case if assessment is heavily weighted towards exams or if the course has a heavy assessment burden. Moreover, if assessment evaluates the individual rather than the group, group work may be seen as incidental or add-on to the ‘real’ work. It may even be seen as counter productive to the individual student’s intellectual development.

Linked with culture is the question of resources. If the prevailing ethos is one of coverage, is there time and space available for students to carry out independent exploration, engage in reflection or to develop the skills of group working? Time, rooms, learning materials, ICT may be limited if group work is not rewarded or measured.

Insecurity with the method

Not all students cope well in tutorless groups, particularly if the method seems new and they aren’t prepared for it. Group work is more likely to be successful if members know what to expect and what is expected of them, and who to turn to for help. Moreover, it’s hard for some students to relinquish dependency – they think if the tutor isn’t telling them things, they aren’t learning. Some shy, unconfident ones and some surface learners can feel intimidated if asked to contribute to group work. That they feel much happier sitting in a lecture or at the back of the seminar room can be a reason for opting out of group work.

Teachers can be apprehensive about abandoning their expert status. Can we trust our students enough to let them organise activities for themselves, do the research properly, complete the task in time, conduct an oral presentation which is meaningful and interesting for everyone else? Fear of handing over control may determine that if we do group work at all, we do it strongly hands-on!

Students opting out

This can upset the most thoughtfully planned group activity, and is a source of frustration for us and our students. Indeed, another reason for choosing the co-operative model for group activities is to reduce the likelihood of this happening. As well as for the reasons discussed above, students may opt out owing to poor group relationships – personality clashes, inability to sort out disagreements, unequal power relations, bullying, different ways of working, and so on.

Some students simply prefer not to work in teams. They feel more in control of the task and their learning when working alone, at their own pace at times which suit them. Their progress is not impeded by freeloaders, social loafers or people they think aren’t as clever as they are, nor do they have to take on the extra work needed to complete the group task as a result of these others not pulling their weight. (Freeloaders are those who gain advantage from the work of the others while doing no work themselves. Social loafing is a loss of motivation as a result of working in a group. Social loafers ‘hide in the crowd’ (Johnson & Johnson 2008: 290-2). They lower their efforts because, for example, there is insufficient incentive to complete the task, or they realise – particularly in larger groups – that they have no identifiable contribution to make and no say in group decisions.)

Groupthink

Output of low quality may occur if a group has made poor decisions as a result of groupthink. This usually happens with well established and cohesive groups who have become used to doing things in a certain way. They are then unable to consider alternatives or to see the possible consequences of decisions they make. Irving Janis defined it as “the deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures”.

The more cohesive and successful the group, the greater the problem may be – a well bonded, talented group may get carried away after a series of successes, and individual members become reluctant to criticise. As a result, poor decisions are left unchallenged and become fiascos, as happened when the US decided to invade the Bay of Pigs in Cuba in 1961 (see Janis 1972).

Signs of groupthink are:

1. Pressure on members to conform and reach consensus. Dissent becomes suppressed and alternative views are not discussed.
2. The group considers itself invulnerable and so takes excessive risks.
3. An uncritical belief in the group’s morality leads it to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of decisions.

It is worth remembering that group work should encourage competing views and seeking after truth – individual enquiry and challenge to accepted ideas is an essential part of higher education. Unfortunately, on occasions this can get sidelined as a consequence of time restraints imposed by the nature of the task.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010