A constant comparative approach was

A constant comparative approach was used after each interview was coded to ‘‘look for key issues, recurrent events, or activities in the data that become categories of focus’’ (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 67).
The promotion of validity and reliability in the first phase of this research design was attempted through multiple strategies: (a) Triangulation, which is ‘‘using mul- tiple investigators, sources of data, or data collection methods to confirm emerging findings’’ (Merriam, 2002, p. 31), was included in the design. In addition to both qualitative and quantitative data being collected, multiple investigators designed
the study, collected the data, and analyzed data; (b) peer review =examination as

Group Learning Pedagogy and Group Selection 39


‘‘discussions with colleagues regarding the process of study, the congruency of emerging findings with the raw data, and tentative interpretations’’ (Merriam,
2002. p. 31) was accomplished with co-authors and departmental colleagues; and (c) an audit trail as ‘‘a detailed account of the methods, procedures, and decision points in carrying out the study’’ (Merriam, 2002, p. 31) was created to facilitate the peer review.


Second Phase of the Research
The following semester in the same junior-level, Advanced Construction Systems, the groups were members of the student were either self-selected or purposefully- selected. The students were assigned the same term project at the beginning of the semester as the previous semester’s students and were told they would be working in groups of three or four. The students were required to submit a resume to the instructor. If they choose to be in a fully self-selected group the resumes were not utilized. If the group was partially self-selected the instructor evaluated the resumes of the students in the partial group and added as many group members as needed to meet the three or four member requirement. The purposeful-selection criteria were focused on putting individuals with diverse skill sets together in an effort to strengthen the group. Since the quantitative aspect of the first phase was deemed invalid, the second phase was limited to qualitative interviews.
Eleven students volunteered to be interviewed after the projects were completed. Three students were in self-selected groups, six students were in purposeful-selected groups and two students were in groups that were partially self-selected and partially purposeful-selected groups.
The independent researcher asked the same questions as were asked during the first phase, and we analyzed these data using the same methodology as was used for the first phase data.
The promotion of validity and reliability in the second phase of this research
design was limited to two strategies: (a) Peer review =examination as ‘‘discussions
with colleagues regarding the process of study, the congruency of emerging findings with the raw data, and tentative interpretations’’ (Merriam, 2002, p. 31) was accomplished with co-authors and departmental colleagues; and (b) an audit trail as ‘‘a detailed account of the methods, procedures, and decision points in carrying out the study’’ (Merriam, 2002, p. 31) was created to facilitate the peer review.


Results


First Phase Research Results
The quantitative data collected (i.e., the scores of the group projects) indicated that there is very little difference, if any, in the results of the groups based on group selection methodology. Table 1 summarizes group and individual member grades for students on the VA project in the groups.
The results of the interviews provided greater insight into the workings of the groups, providing valuable information which will be used to improve the project in future semesters. An assumption made by the researchers that the students would be familiar with their classmates from prior classes did not materialize. As a result, it was found that those students in the self-selected groups often knew no more than

40 D. E. Gunderson and J. D. Moore Table 1. Project grades for self-selected and randomly assigned groups
Score Self-selected groups Randomly assigned groups
Average group project score 85.80 of 100 possible 84.71 of 100 possible Average individual score 85.86 of 100 possible 86.13 of 100 possible Highest group score 102 102
Lowest group score 69 74
SD for group scores 7.61 8.91 SD individual scores 7.64 8.41
SD ¼ standard deviation.



one other member of their group, selecting the others out of convenience (e.g., seated next to them) or chance (e.g., only student left looking for a group).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Pendekatan perbandingan konstan digunakan setelah setiap wawancara dikodekan untuk '' mencari isu-isu kunci, peristiwa-peristiwa yang berulang, atau kegiatan dalam data yang menjadi kategori fokus '' (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, ms. 67).Promosi berlaku dan kehandalan dalam fasa pertama desain penelitian ini dilakukan melalui beberapa strategi: Triangulasi (), yang '' menggunakan penyidik mul-tiple, sumber data, atau metode pengumpulan data untuk mengkonfirmasi temuan muncul '' (Merriam, 2002, hal. 31), termasuk dalam desain. Selain kualitatif dan kuantitatif data yang dikumpulkan, beberapa peneliti dirancangpenelitian, data yang dikumpulkan, dan menganalisis data; (b) peer review = pemeriksaan sebagai Kelompok belajar pedagogi dan kelompok pilihan 39 '' diskusi dengan rekan-rekan mengenai proses studi, kompatibilitas temuan-temuan yang muncul dengan data mentah, dan interpretasi tentatif '' (Merriam,2002. ms. 31) dilakukan dengan co-penulis dan kolega Departemen; dan (c) audit trail sebagai '' rinci tentang metode, prosedur, dan keputusan poin dalam melaksanakan studi '' (Merriam, 2002, hal. 31) telah dibuat untuk memudahkan peer review. Tahap kedua dari penelitianThe following semester in the same junior-level, Advanced Construction Systems, the groups were members of the student were either self-selected or purposefully- selected. The students were assigned the same term project at the beginning of the semester as the previous semester’s students and were told they would be working in groups of three or four. The students were required to submit a resume to the instructor. If they choose to be in a fully self-selected group the resumes were not utilized. If the group was partially self-selected the instructor evaluated the resumes of the students in the partial group and added as many group members as needed to meet the three or four member requirement. The purposeful-selection criteria were focused on putting individuals with diverse skill sets together in an effort to strengthen the group. Since the quantitative aspect of the first phase was deemed invalid, the second phase was limited to qualitative interviews.Eleven students volunteered to be interviewed after the projects were completed. Three students were in self-selected groups, six students were in purposeful-selected groups and two students were in groups that were partially self-selected and partially purposeful-selected groups.The independent researcher asked the same questions as were asked during the first phase, and we analyzed these data using the same methodology as was used for the first phase data.The promotion of validity and reliability in the second phase of this researchdesign was limited to two strategies: (a) Peer review =examination as ‘‘discussionswith colleagues regarding the process of study, the congruency of emerging findings with the raw data, and tentative interpretations’’ (Merriam, 2002, p. 31) was accomplished with co-authors and departmental colleagues; and (b) an audit trail as ‘‘a detailed account of the methods, procedures, and decision points in carrying out the study’’ (Merriam, 2002, p. 31) was created to facilitate the peer review. Results First Phase Research ResultsThe quantitative data collected (i.e., the scores of the group projects) indicated that there is very little difference, if any, in the results of the groups based on group selection methodology. Table 1 summarizes group and individual member grades for students on the VA project in the groups.The results of the interviews provided greater insight into the workings of the groups, providing valuable information which will be used to improve the project in future semesters. An assumption made by the researchers that the students would be familiar with their classmates from prior classes did not materialize. As a result, it was found that those students in the self-selected groups often knew no more than 40 D. E. Gunderson and J. D. Moore Table 1. Project grades for self-selected and randomly assigned groupsSkor dipilih sendiri kelompok ditugaskan secara acak kelompokProyek kelompok rata-rata Skor 85.80 84.71 kemungkinan 100 dari 100 mungkin individu Skor rata-rata 85.86 dari 100 mungkin 86.13 100 kelompok tertinggi mungkin Skor 102 102Skor terendah kelompok 69 74SD untuk kelompok nilai 7,61 8.91 SD individu Skor 7.64 8.41SD ¼ deviasi standar. satu anggota lain dari kelompok mereka, memilih yang lain dari kenyamanan (misalnya, duduk di sebelah mereka) atau kesempatan (misalnya, siswa hanya kiri mencari grup).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Pendekatan komparatif konstan digunakan setelah setiap wawancara diberi kode untuk '' mencari isu-isu kunci, peristiwa berulang, atau kegiatan dalam data yang menjadi kategori fokus '' (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, hal. 67).
Promosi validitas dan kehandalan dalam tahap pertama desain penelitian ini berusaha melalui beberapa strategi: (a) Triangulasi, yang '' menggunakan peneliti tiple mul-, sumber data, atau metode pengumpulan data untuk mengkonfirmasi temuan yang muncul '' (Merriam 2002, p. 31), termasuk dalam desain. Selain kedua data kualitatif dan kuantitatif yang dikumpulkan, beberapa peneliti merancang
penelitian, mengumpulkan data, dan menganalisis data; (b) peer review = pemeriksaan sebagai Kelompok Belajar Pedagogi dan Grup Seleksi 39 '' diskusi dengan rekan-rekan mengenai proses studi, kongruensi temuan dengan data mentah, dan interpretasi tentatif muncul '' (Merriam, 2002. p. 31) dicapai dengan co-penulis dan rekan departemen; dan (c) audit trail sebagai '' rekening rinci metode, prosedur, dan poin keputusan dalam melaksanakan studi '' (Merriam, 2002, hal. 31) diciptakan untuk memfasilitasi peer review. Tahap Kedua dari Penelitian Semester berikut di junior-tingkat yang sama, Advanced Konstruksi Sistem, kelompok adalah anggota dari siswa yang baik dipilih sendiri atau purposefully- dipilih. Para siswa ditugaskan proyek jangka yang sama pada awal semester sebagai mahasiswa semester sebelumnya dan diberitahu mereka akan bekerja dalam kelompok tiga atau empat. Para siswa diminta untuk mengirimkan resume untuk instruktur. Jika mereka memilih untuk berada dalam kelompok sepenuhnya dipilih sendiri resume tidak dimanfaatkan. Jika kelompok itu sebagian dipilih sendiri instruktur mengevaluasi resume dari siswa dalam kelompok parsial dan ditambahkan sebagai banyak anggota kelompok yang diperlukan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan tiga atau empat anggota. Kriteria tujuan-pilihan yang difokuskan pada menempatkan individu dengan beragam keterampilan set bersama-sama dalam upaya untuk memperkuat kelompok. Sejak aspek kuantitatif tahap pertama dianggap tidak sah, tahap kedua hanya sebatas wawancara kualitatif. Sebelas siswa sukarela untuk diwawancarai setelah proyek selesai. Tiga siswa dalam kelompok dipilih sendiri, enam siswa dalam kelompok terarah-dipilih dan dua siswa dalam kelompok-kelompok yang sebagian dipilih sendiri dan kelompok sebagian tujuan yang dipilih. Peneliti independen ditanya pertanyaan yang sama seperti yang diminta selama fase pertama , dan kami menganalisis data ini menggunakan metodologi yang sama digunakan untuk data tahap pertama. Promosi validitas dan reliabilitas dalam tahap kedua penelitian ini desain terbatas pada dua strategi: (a) Peer review = pemeriksaan sebagai '' diskusi dengan rekan-rekan mengenai proses studi, kongruensi temuan dengan data mentah, dan interpretasi tentatif 'muncul' (. Merriam, 2002, hal 31) dicapai dengan co-penulis dan rekan departemen; dan (b) jejak audit sebagai '' rekening rinci metode, prosedur, dan poin keputusan dalam melaksanakan studi '' (Merriam, 2002, hal. 31) diciptakan untuk memfasilitasi peer review. Hasil Penelitian Tahap Pertama Hasil Data kuantitatif dikumpulkan (yaitu, nilai proyek kelompok) menunjukkan bahwa ada sedikit perbedaan, jika ada, dalam hasil dari kelompok berdasarkan metodologi seleksi kelompok. Tabel 1 merangkum kelompok dan nilai anggota individu untuk siswa pada proyek VA dalam kelompok. Hasil wawancara yang disediakan wawasan yang lebih besar kerja kelompok, memberikan informasi berharga yang akan digunakan untuk meningkatkan proyek di semester depan. Asumsi yang dibuat oleh para peneliti bahwa siswa akan akrab dengan teman sekelas mereka dari kelas sebelumnya tidak terwujud. Akibatnya, ditemukan bahwa para siswa dalam kelompok dipilih sendiri sering tahu tidak lebih dari 40 DE Gunderson dan JD Moore Tabel 1. nilai proyek untuk dipilih sendiri dan kelompok secara acak Self-karena kelompok Skor kelompok ditugaskan secara acak rata kelompok Proyek skor 85,80 dari 100 kemungkinan 84,71 dari 100 mungkin rata-rata individu skor 85,86 dari 100 kemungkinan 86,13 dari 100 kemungkinan kelompok tertinggi mencetak 102 102 kelompok terendah mencetak 69 74 SD untuk skor kelompok 7,61 8,91 SD nilai individu 7.64 8.41 SD ¼ standar deviasi. satu anggota lainnya dari kelompok mereka, memilih orang lain keluar dari kenyamanan (misalnya, duduk di samping mereka) atau kesempatan (misalnya, hanya siswa kiri mencari kelompok).