Group work is defined as “goal-directed activity with small treatment and task groups aimed at meeting socio-emotional needs and accomplishing tasks. Over the years, institutions of higher learning have used groups as a teaching/learning strategy (related to process and product). Universities have favored the use of group work because of the claimed benefits of such methods of collaborative learning which include the development of advanced thinking skills, increased engagement in learning tasks, and fostering social interaction and problem solving skills (Flint & Johnson, 2011).
In the education environment, group works can be subdivided into three types: formal learning groups, informal learning groups, and study groups. Informal groups are constituted by ad hoc clusters of students who work in class to test understanding or discuss an issue. Conversely, formal groups are formed to complete a particular task in a single class session or over several weeks. The work of such a group may or may not be assessed. Lastly, study groups are constituted to provide support for members; often for entire duration of a course.
Generally, collaborative learning in higher education faces a three-dimensional challenge in form of what the students learn in the groups, in the manner they learn it, and also in manner they are assessed (Thomley & Greg, 1994). Although many university lectures acknowledge it as an educational panacea, group work (together with exams) is the most problematic form of assessment from the perspective. Group work and exams are recognized as great triggers of high levels of anxiety as well as frustration among most students in institutions of higher learning. Group work as a collaborative approach to teaching and learning comes under heavy criticism for lacking consistency with highly competitive and individualized forms by which students are assessed in most other aspects of their university lives (Flint & Johnson, 2011).
The concern among university students is that the scope of group work assessment is overly limited in the sense that focus is laid solely on the end product. In this respect, a significant number of students harbor the belief that the score they attain for group work does not necessarily reflect the work they put in. This brings the contentious issue of social loafing, where some students are guilty of contributing less effort/input to collective work as compared to individual work (Wareham & Clark, 2003). Students feel the assessment of group work is not that fair given that while there is equal distribution of marks in utter disregard of the inequality of input among the group members. Consequently, most students only have positive attitudes towards group work in instances where their instructors discuss group management issues along with employing evaluation methods for individual performance within the group.
Furthermore, there is opinion to the effect that group work has equality issues where some students are somehow disadvantaged while others turn out disadvantaged. Those students with hard standards often work hard and strive to attain exemplary grades do not favor group work for the very reason that they despise working with those students of less motivation to achieve high marks. As such, there is immense pressure on low achieving students who often dislike being in the same groups with their high-achieving colleagues. In the same vein, majority of students regard group work as a strategy employed by the academic staff to cut on their work load and has little positive impact to students.
Difficult group dynamics is a big problem for students in a work group in most universities. This is especially the case because collaborative learning demands students to adjust their conventional learning styles meaning that they have to undertake new often difficult cognitive and social tasks. This is problematic because most students join higher education with pre-developed independent study habits and greatly oriented towards their personal achievement. Such students often hold little value for their individual learning in group work, or are easily frustrated by the requirement to negotiate in groups (Mclnnis & Devlin, 2002).
Group work organization is also a major source of concern for many students in universities. Many times students lack clear understanding of the learning advantages for group work and often under-skilled or ill-equipped for such work. More often than not, a group work is formed with the assumption that group skills will be attained merely by being a member of a group thus no formal or informal clarification on group behavior or interpersonal dynamics is offered (Burdett, 2003).
The experience of students in group work whilst in higher institutions of learning has an almost direct effect to their collaboration in future workplace. The tensions relating to the need for increased levels of coordination, communication and collaboration in decision making that students experience in group works often, in fact, foreshadow their experience in the workforce. This translates that group work takes toll on students emotionally and intellectually as individual characters are forced to with other strangers. Much time, skill and motivation is needed to navigate through the stages of ‘forming, norming, storming and performing’ (Wareham & Clark, 2003) on which group work is formed. In view of this difficult group dynamics due to the conflicting personas, there is always the imminent risk of a group never reaching the level of successfully executing a task through unified effort.
Group work does not also appeal to many students because of its apparent lack of connection to the future workplace. Anti group works arguments hold that employers do not focus on hiring a team rather an individual (Burdett, 2003). Related criticism is to the effect that the manner in which group work is conducted in universities is worlds apart with the way it is done in the real world of the workplace.
Multicultural teamwork faces a multiplicity of challenges ranging from miscommunication, minimal team cohesiveness, lack of cultural self-awareness, to perception issues (Groschl, 2011). This is because they are exposed to different cultures, attitudes, norms and behaviors which influence individual members of the multicultural team. However, multicultural teams as compared to homogenous teams have a greater potential to attain a higher level of productivity because of their increased productivity, ability to suit different group needs, and variety of skills drawn from the different members. Students who work in multicultural teams while in university stand a great chance to translate their experience in their future workplace (Groschl, 2011). This is because increasing globalization has meant that the workforce of business today is characterized by varied job profiles and organizational structures integrating multicultural teams. In summary, therefore, multicultural teamwork at the university level is a good training ground for students in their future job capacity as team players in organizations with diverse cultures. Students are able to learn how to efficiently and effectively operate in the inevitable cross-cultural surroundings at workplaces.
References:
Burdett, J. 2003. Making Groups Work: University Students’ Perceptions. Retrieved from: http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v4n3/Burdett/paper.pdf
Clark, G., & Wareham, T. (2003. Geography at University: Making the Most of Your Geography Degree and Courses. SAGE.
Flint, N., & Johnson, B. Towards Fairer University Assessment: Recognizing the Concerns of Students. UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groschl, S. 2011. Diversity in the Workplace: Multi-Disciplinary and International Perspectives. Farnham: Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Mclnnis, R. J., & Devlin, M. (2002). Assessing Learning in Australian Universities. Retrieved from: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/docs/Group.pdf
Thomas & Greg. (1994). USING GROUP-BASED LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION. London: Routledge.
