Group Learning Pedagogy and Group S

Group Learning Pedagogy and Group Selection


DAVID E. GUNDERSON, P H.D., CPC
Washington State University, Pullman, Washington
JENNIFER D. MOORE, P H.D.
Hensel Phelps Construction Company, Greeley, Colorado


Collaborative learning, cooperative learning, and group work are similar terms that describe ‘‘students working together in a group small enough that everyone can par- ticipate on a collective task’’ (Cohen, 1994, p. 3). The literature clearly states that group learning is superior to individual learning. In the construction industry work- ingin groupstocomplete projectsisthenorm. Therearethree primarymethodsthat aninstructorcanutilizetoaccomplishgroupselection:self-selection,randomassign- ment, and criterion-based selection. This two-phase research project was designed to first compare self-selection and random assignment, and then compare purposeful- selection and self-selection. The results, although very valuable, did not find any differentiation between the group selection methods. It was discovered that the groups formed by each of the group selection methods have the potential to excel either beyond expectation or to perform at a level far below average. It was discov- ered that, in general, the students enjoyed the project, learned a lot about value analysis (a.k.a. value engineering), and almost always had one or more group
members who did not participate at expected levels. This paper discusses the mixed
methods research results and makes recommendations for group learning pedagogy.
Keywords collaborative learning, cooperative learning, group learning, member selection, mixed method research, value analysis




Introduction
Terms that are synonymous with group learning include collaborative learning, cooperative learning, peer learning, and group work (McKeachie, 2002; Timpson &Bendel-Simso, 1996). This pedagogy has been shown to be superior over individ- ual learning.
McKeachie (2002) states:


The best answer to the question: What is the most effective method of teaching? is that it depends on the goal, the student, the content, and the teacher. But the next best answer may be: Students teaching other students. There is a wealth of evidence that peer learning and teaching is extremely effective for a wide range of goals, content, and students
Address correspondence to David E. Gunderson, Ph.D., CPC, School of Architecture and Construction Management, Washington State University, P.O. Box 642220, Pullman, WA 99164-2220. E-mail: [e-mail]
34


Group Learning Pedagogy and Group Selection


of different levels and personalities (Johnson & Johnson, 1975: Johnson et al., 1981). (p. 188; italics added for emphasis)

35

However, the literature does not distinguish one method of group selection as being superior over any other method. The first phase of this research was a quasi-experi- mental mixed-method research project designed to determine which of two selection methods is better: self-selection or random assignment. The second phase was a qualitative research project designed to determine which of two selection methods is better: self-selection or purposeful-selection. The subject of the group learning pro- ject was value analysis, also known as value engineering. Teaching students about value analysis seems to be a method of teaching students how to be creative although this learning objective was not testing in this research project.
Based on existing literature, the merits of group learning pedagogy will be described and discussed. The research methodology and results will be presented along with conclusions and recommendations for collaborative learning group selection.


Group Learning Pedagogy
Rau and Heyl (1990) assert, ‘‘Collaborative learning clearly establishes its superior- ity over individualistic and competitive modes of learning. Isolated students do not learn as much or as well as students who are embedded in a network of informal social relations’’ (p. 144; italics in original). Similarly, Springer et al. (1999) say, ‘‘The mess- age is clear: What students learn is greatly influenced by how they learn, and many students learn best through active, collaborative, small-group work inside and out- side the classroom’’ (p. 22). In the field of construction management, teams and the ability to work in groups are the central component of a successful project and organization. Group work in the classroom is a way to empower students and facilitate participation in decision-making (Meyer, 1994), thereby preparing them for such experiences in the construction industry upon graduation.
Collaborative learning, cooperative learning, and group work are similar terms to describe ‘‘students working together in a group small enough that everyone can participate on a collective task that has been clearly assigned’’ (Cohen, 1994, p. 3). Each refers to a variety of instructional practices which encourage students to work together as they apply course material to answer questions, solve problems, or create aproduct (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). In cooperative learning environments, stu- dents work in a structured group to perform a well defined task or to understand aparticular concept with the purpose of every individual within the group develop- ing his or her academic and social skills to the maximum. A student’s grade depends not only on how well he or she understands the material or completes the task, but also on how well other members of the group do the same (Bartlett, 1995). Previous research on the effects of group work have shown that such environ- ments give to students socio-emotional benefits from interpersonal relationships; added psychological health by learning to see the perspective of others, taking on more positive attitudes toward peers, and developing higher self-esteem; the ability to probe more deeply and critically into course material; and often greater academic success and more positive attitudes about learning (Bartlett, 1995; Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1978; Johnson et al., 1998; Springer et al., 1999). As example of this, Rau and Heyl (1990) tested three hypotheses in their study: 1) that students

36 D. E. Gunderson and J. D. Moore


would test better on questions from readings discussed in group meetings than on other questions; 2) that students in collaborative learning groups would become highly interconnected, more so than those not in these learning groups; and 3) that students would endorse the use of group work and speak to its positive aspects. All three hypotheses were supported in their study.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Kelompok belajar pedagogi dan kelompok pilihan BPK DAVID E. GUNDERSON, P H.D.,Washington State University, Pullman, WashingtonJENNIFER D. MOORE, P H.D.Perusahaan konstruksi Hensel Phelps, Greeley, Colorado Pembelajaran kolaboratif, pembelajaran kooperatif dan kerja kelompok adalah istilah yang serupa yang menggambarkan '' siswa bekerja sama dalam sebuah kelompok kecil cukup bahwa setiap orang dapat par-ticipate pada tugas kolektif '' (Cohen, 1994, halaman 3). Literatur jelas menyatakan bahwa belajar dalam kelompok menjadi lebih unggul dari pembelajaran individual. Dalam konstruksi industri bekerja-ingin projectsisthenorm groupstocomplete. Therearethree primarymethodsthat aninstructorcanutilizetoaccomplishgroupselection:self-pilihan, randomassign-ment dan berdasarkan kriteria seleksi. Proyek penelitian dua fasa ini dirancang untuk pertama membandingkan pilihan diri dan tugas acak, dan kemudian membandingkan tujuan-seleksi dan pemilihan diri sendiri. Hasil, meskipun sangat berharga, tidak menemukan perbedaan apapun antara metode seleksi grup. Ditemukan bahwa kelompok-kelompok yang dibentuk oleh masing-masing metode seleksi grup memiliki potensi untuk berprestasi baik melebihi harapan atau untuk tampil di tingkat yang jauh di bawah rata-rata. Itu adalah bahwa, secara umum, siswa menikmati proyek, belajar banyak tentang nilai analisis discov-ered (alias nilai teknik), dan hampir selalu punya satu atau lebih kelompokanggota yang tidak berpartisipasi pada tingkat yang diharapkan. Karya ini membincangkan campuranmethods research results and makes recommendations for group learning pedagogy.Keywords collaborative learning, cooperative learning, group learning, member selection, mixed method research, value analysis IntroductionTerms that are synonymous with group learning include collaborative learning, cooperative learning, peer learning, and group work (McKeachie, 2002; Timpson &Bendel-Simso, 1996). This pedagogy has been shown to be superior over individ- ual learning.McKeachie (2002) states: The best answer to the question: What is the most effective method of teaching? is that it depends on the goal, the student, the content, and the teacher. But the next best answer may be: Students teaching other students. There is a wealth of evidence that peer learning and teaching is extremely effective for a wide range of goals, content, and studentsAddress correspondence to David E. Gunderson, Ph.D., CPC, School of Architecture and Construction Management, Washington State University, P.O. Box 642220, Pullman, WA 99164-2220. E-mail: [e-mail]34 Group Learning Pedagogy and Group Selection of different levels and personalities (Johnson & Johnson, 1975: Johnson et al., 1981). (p. 188; italics added for emphasis) 35 However, the literature does not distinguish one method of group selection as being superior over any other method. The first phase of this research was a quasi-experi- mental mixed-method research project designed to determine which of two selection methods is better: self-selection or random assignment. The second phase was a qualitative research project designed to determine which of two selection methods is better: self-selection or purposeful-selection. The subject of the group learning pro- ject was value analysis, also known as value engineering. Teaching students about value analysis seems to be a method of teaching students how to be creative although this learning objective was not testing in this research project.Based on existing literature, the merits of group learning pedagogy will be described and discussed. The research methodology and results will be presented along with conclusions and recommendations for collaborative learning group selection. Group Learning PedagogyRau and Heyl (1990) assert, ‘‘Collaborative learning clearly establishes its superior- ity over individualistic and competitive modes of learning. Isolated students do not learn as much or as well as students who are embedded in a network of informal social relations’’ (p. 144; italics in original). Similarly, Springer et al. (1999) say, ‘‘The mess- age is clear: What students learn is greatly influenced by how they learn, and many students learn best through active, collaborative, small-group work inside and out- side the classroom’’ (p. 22). In the field of construction management, teams and the ability to work in groups are the central component of a successful project and organization. Group work in the classroom is a way to empower students and facilitate participation in decision-making (Meyer, 1994), thereby preparing them for such experiences in the construction industry upon graduation.Collaborative learning, cooperative learning, and group work are similar terms to describe ‘‘students working together in a group small enough that everyone can participate on a collective task that has been clearly assigned’’ (Cohen, 1994, p. 3). Each refers to a variety of instructional practices which encourage students to work together as they apply course material to answer questions, solve problems, or create aproduct (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). In cooperative learning environments, stu- dents work in a structured group to perform a well defined task or to understand aparticular concept with the purpose of every individual within the group develop- ing his or her academic and social skills to the maximum. A student’s grade depends not only on how well he or she understands the material or completes the task, but also on how well other members of the group do the same (Bartlett, 1995). Previous research on the effects of group work have shown that such environ- ments give to students socio-emotional benefits from interpersonal relationships; added psychological health by learning to see the perspective of others, taking on more positive attitudes toward peers, and developing higher self-esteem; the ability to probe more deeply and critically into course material; and often greater academic success and more positive attitudes about learning (Bartlett, 1995; Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1978; Johnson et al., 1998; Springer et al., 1999). As example of this, Rau and Heyl (1990) tested three hypotheses in their study: 1) that students 36 D. E. Gunderson and J. D. Moore would test better on questions from readings discussed in group meetings than on other questions; 2) that students in collaborative learning groups would become highly interconnected, more so than those not in these learning groups; and 3) that students would endorse the use of group work and speak to its positive aspects. All three hypotheses were supported in their study.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Kelompok Belajar Pedagogi dan kelompok Seleksi DAVID E. Gunderson, P HD, BPK Washington State University, Pullman, Washington JENNIFER D. Moore, P HD Hensel Phelps Construction Company, Greeley, Colorado Collaborative learning, pembelajaran kooperatif, dan kerja kelompok adalah istilah serupa yang menggambarkan '' siswa bekerja sama dalam kelompok cukup kecil bahwa setiap orang dapat-partai ticipate pada tugas kolektif '' (Cohen, 1994, hal. 3). Literatur jelas menyatakan bahwa belajar kelompok lebih unggul pembelajaran individu. Dalam industri konstruksi dengan pekerjaan Ingin groupstocomplete projectsisthenorm. Therearethree aninstructorcanutilizetoaccomplishgroupselection primarymethodsthat: seleksi diri, ment randomassign-, dan seleksi berbasis kriteria. Proyek penelitian dua-tahap ini dirancang untuk pertama membandingkan diri seleksi dan tugas acak, dan kemudian membandingkan pilihan purposeful- dan seleksi mandiri. Hasilnya, meskipun sangat berharga, tidak menemukan perbedaan antara metode seleksi kelompok. Hal ini ditemukan bahwa kelompok yang dibentuk oleh masing-masing metode seleksi kelompok memiliki potensi untuk berprestasi baik di luar harapan atau untuk tampil di tingkat jauh di bawah rata-rata. Itu ered discov- bahwa, secara umum, siswa menikmati proyek, belajar banyak tentang analisis nilai (value engineering alias), dan hampir selalu memiliki satu atau lebih kelompok anggota yang tidak ikut pada tingkat yang diharapkan. Makalah ini membahas campuran hasil penelitian metode dan membuat rekomendasi untuk pedagogi pembelajaran kelompok. Kata kunci pembelajaran kolaboratif, pembelajaran kooperatif, belajar kelompok, pemilihan anggota, metode penelitian campuran, analisis nilai Pendahuluan Istilah yang identik dengan belajar kelompok meliputi pembelajaran kolaboratif, pembelajaran kooperatif, rekan belajar, dan kerja kelompok (McKeachie, 2002; Timpson & Bendel-Simso, 1996). Pedagogi ini telah terbukti lebih unggul lebih individ- UAL belajar. McKeachie (2002) menyatakan: Jawaban terbaik untuk pertanyaan: Apa adalah metode yang paling efektif mengajar? adalah bahwa hal itu tergantung pada tujuan, siswa, konten, dan guru. Tapi jawaban terbaik berikutnya mungkin: Siswa mengajar siswa lainnya. Ada banyak bukti yang rekan belajar dan mengajar sangat efektif untuk berbagai tujuan, isi, dan mahasiswa Alamat korespondensi ke David E. Gunderson, Ph.D., BPK, Sekolah Arsitektur dan Manajemen Konstruksi, Washington State University , PO Box 642220, Pullman, WA 99164-2220. E-mail: [e-mail] 34 Kelompok Belajar Pedagogi dan Kelompok Seleksi tingkat yang berbeda dan kepribadian (Johnson & Johnson, 1975:. Johnson et al, 1981). (p 188;. huruf miring ditambahkan untuk penekanan) 35 Namun, literatur tidak membedakan satu metode seleksi kelompok sebagai lebih unggul di atas metode lain. Tahap pertama dari penelitian ini adalah sebuah proyek penelitian kuasi-eksperimen mental yang dicampur-metode yang dirancang untuk menentukan mana dari kedua metode seleksi yang lebih baik: seleksi mandiri atau tugas acak. Tahap kedua adalah proyek penelitian kualitatif dirancang untuk menentukan mana dari kedua metode seleksi yang lebih baik: seleksi mandiri atau tujuan-seleksi. Subjek dari kelompok belajar byek pro adalah analisis nilai, juga dikenal sebagai rekayasa nilai. Mengajar siswa tentang analisis nilai tampaknya menjadi metode mengajar siswa bagaimana menjadi kreatif meskipun tujuan pembelajaran ini tidak menguji dalam proyek penelitian ini. Berdasarkan literatur yang ada, manfaat pedagogi belajar kelompok akan diuraikan dan dibahas. Metodologi penelitian dan hasilnya akan disajikan bersama dengan kesimpulan dan rekomendasi untuk seleksi kelompok belajar kolaboratif. Kelompok Belajar Pedagogi Rau dan Heyl (1990) menegaskan, '' pembelajaran kolaboratif jelas menetapkan ity atasan-nya lebih mode individualistis dan kompetitif pembelajaran. Siswa yang terisolasi tidak belajar sebanyak atau juga siswa yang tertanam dalam jaringan hubungan sosial informal '(hal 144;. Miring di asli). Demikian pula, Springer dkk. (1999) mengatakan, '' Usia mess- jelas: Apa siswa belajar sangat dipengaruhi oleh bagaimana mereka belajar, dan banyak siswa belajar dengan baik melalui aktif, kolaboratif, kecil-kelompok kerja di dalam dan sisi keluar-kelas '' (p . 22). Di bidang manajemen konstruksi, tim dan kemampuan untuk bekerja dalam kelompok adalah komponen utama dari proyek yang sukses dan organisasi. Kerja kelompok di dalam kelas adalah cara untuk memberdayakan siswa dan memfasilitasi partisipasi dalam pengambilan keputusan (Meyer, 1994), dengan demikian mempersiapkan mereka untuk pengalaman seperti di industri konstruksi setelah lulus. Pembelajaran kolaboratif, pembelajaran kooperatif, dan kerja kelompok adalah istilah-istilah yang mirip dengan menggambarkan '' siswa bekerja sama dalam kelompok cukup kecil bahwa setiap orang dapat berpartisipasi pada tugas kolektif yang telah jelas ditetapkan '' (Cohen, 1994, hal. 3). Setiap mengacu pada berbagai praktik pembelajaran yang mendorong siswa untuk bekerja sama karena mereka menerapkan materi kursus untuk menjawab pertanyaan, memecahkan masalah, atau membuat aproduct (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Dalam lingkungan pembelajaran kooperatif, siswa bekerja dalam kelompok terstruktur untuk melakukan tugas didefinisikan dengan baik atau untuk memahami konsep aparticular dengan tujuan setiap individu dalam kelompok mengem- bangkan keterampilan akademik dan sosial-nya secara maksimal. Grade A siswa tidak hanya tergantung pada seberapa baik ia mengerti materi atau melengkapi tugas, tetapi juga pada seberapa baik anggota lain dari kelompok melakukan hal yang sama (Bartlett, 1995). Penelitian sebelumnya tentang efek kerja kelompok telah menunjukkan bahwa KASIH lingkungan seperti memberikan kepada siswa manfaat sosial-emosional dari hubungan interpersonal; menambahkan kesehatan psikologis dengan belajar untuk melihat perspektif lain, mengambil sikap yang lebih positif terhadap teman sebaya, dan mengembangkan lebih tinggi harga diri; kemampuan untuk menyelidiki lebih dalam dan kritis dalam materi kursus; dan sering lebih besar keberhasilan akademis dan sikap yang lebih positif tentang belajar (Bartlett, 1995; Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1978;. Johnson et al, 1998; Springer et al, 1999.). Sebagai contoh ini, Rau dan Heyl (1990) menguji tiga hipotesis dalam penelitian mereka: 1) bahwa siswa 36 DE Gunderson dan JD Moore akan menguji lebih baik pada pertanyaan dari bacaan yang dibahas dalam pertemuan kelompok dari pada pertanyaan lain; 2) bahwa siswa dalam kelompok belajar kolaboratif akan menjadi sangat saling berhubungan, lebih daripada mereka yang tidak dalam kelompok-kelompok belajar; dan 3) bahwa siswa akan mendukung penggunaan kerja kelompok dan berbicara dengan aspek positif. Ketiga hipotesis didukung dalam studi mereka.