Teachers and Students A sourcebook for UT- Austin faculty Center for Teaching Effectiveness University of Texas at Austin Using Small Groups to Promote Learning Marilla D. Svinicki Center for Teaching Effectiveness University of Texas at Austin

One of the important components of learning is the opportunity for active practice and feedback. As classes get larger and larger, the availability of such opportunities grows less and less. One solution to the problem is the use of small groups in the classroom.

Advantages

When students work in small groups, you as the instructor will find:

• students will be more likely to participate because a small group is less intimidating and much harder to hide in;
  
  
• students can learn a great deal from one another without your intervention, provided they are given clear instructions;
  
  
• the opportunity to work things out in a group can be a good source of motivation, especially for poorer students;
  
  
• you will be able to devote more time to those students or groups which need special attention;
  
  
• group solutions to problems are often far superior to individual solutions, a phenomenon known as synergy
  
  
• students begin to take more responsibility for their own learning, thus freeing the instructor from having to do it all.

You will undoubtedly find more advantages than those just listed, but these can give you an idea about how useful this technique can be.

Disadvantages

Of course, no teaching method is without its disadvantages and small groups are no exception. The primary difficulties with using small groups are:

• the activities are very difficult to evaluate for a grade;
  
  
• group work takes a lot of time in class;
  
  
• the instructor must be willing to give up control of the class temporarily and not interfere with group work;
  
  
• the instructor must plan the group activities carefully since he or she will not be in charge every minute;
  
  
• the instructor must be prepared to cope with the unexpected from the groups;
  
  
• sometimes one or two groups will not concentrate on the task at hand and will require more careful monitoring;
  
  
• classroom layouts often work against group structures since they have been designed primarily for lecture classes.

As with the advantages, you will probably find additional disadvantages of groups should you begin using them. On the whole, however, they offer a very attractive alternative to straight lecture in terms of their conformity to the principles of learning.

Types of Groups

Instructors who use groups in their classes have experimented with a wide range of alternative structures from he simplest buzz groups, a two or three minute discussion involving two or three minute discussion involving two or three people in a large lecture, to the elaborate designs discussed in the book Synergogy by Jane Mouton and Robert Blake (1984: Jossey-Bass, Inc.). The four designs they propose are briefly described in the accompanying table which type of group you choose will depend on the objective of the instruction. For example, most small group techniques focus on higher cognitive skills such as analysis or problem solving; however, the team effectiveness design and the team member teaching design can be used when the objectives are information transfer or factual knowledge. The clarifying attitudes design is aimed at opinions and attitudinal objectives, while the performance judging design can be used with psychomotor skills.

In all small group designs, however, the key to success will be in the instructor's directions to the group. They need to be clear on what they are to be doing. It helps to give the instructions in writing if prior planning is possible. Written instructions will always be clearer, if only because they can be reread in case of confusion. Sometimes, of course, your small groups will be spontaneous ones, such as buzz groups, where pre-written instructions are unlikely. In those cases, however, a clearly written question put up on the board or an overhead will serve as a reference for the group's work.

The Instructor's Role

The hardest part of using small groups in your teaching is learning the new role you must play. You are no longer the source of all information or control; you must give up that control to the students themselves, at least while they are working. Your primary tasks come before and after the group work. Beforehand you must plan the group activities and construct the instructions so that the task will be clear. You must decide how to structure the groups (randomly, by interest, by skill level, etc.) and arrange the environment to facilitate the group work. After the groups have done their work, you are responsible for the "debriefing," perhaps the most important part of group work. In this period the groups report back to the group at large on their conclusions. It is the instructor's task to highlight the major points being made, to bring out things which weren't considered and, in general, to sum up what was to be learned from the experience. This takes a great deal of skill and concentration and really forces the instructor to know the content thoroughly in order to fit some of the more bizarre group solutions into the course framework without ridiculing the individuals in the group. This can be a challenge worthy of your intellect.

In Summary

Small group work is an excellent alternative to the lecture, especially when higher order cognitive processes need to be practiced. It is fun for the students and a challenge to the instructor. One thing it won't be is boring.

Team Effectiveness Design*

Type of content: Facts, principles, applications where there is a best answer (Ex: Facts about drug effects)

Before class: Students read materials in preparation

In class:

1. Each student takes an individual quiz.
2. Students work in teams to answer the quiz questions.
3. Correct answers are distributed and students score their own and the team's answers
4. Team computes the following scores" a. high individual score b. low individual score c. team score d. team average e. efficiency score (team-average/perfect-average)
5. Interpret scores
6. Critique team work
7. Retest individually

*These designs are from the work of Jane Mouton and Robert Blake and are discussed in Synergogy (1984: Jossey-Bass, Inc.)

Clarifying Attitudes Design

Type of content: Attitudes or Evaluation activities (Ex: What should drug laws include?)

Before class: Possible reading but not necessary

In class:

1. Write a self-description of attitude on same topic
2. Rank alternative attitude statements according to degree of endorsement and mark the one closest to written description
3. Team works to rank attitude statements from sound to unsound
4. Individual reviews own attitude rankings against group
5. Large group comparison of rankings
6. Individual re-ranking of attitudes

Performance Judging Design

Type of content: Skill or application of knowledge (Eg. Writing a memo)

Before class: Prepare a sample of skill

In class:

1. Produce sample of skill or application
2. Team works to develop criteria for judging skill
3. Team compares their criteria with external criteria
4. Large group comparison of criteria to come to consensus
5. Performance samples are judged by other teams and critiques are summarized in written form.
6. Samples and critiques are returned to participant
7. Each participant discusses sample and critique with own team
8. Repeat sample performance and rejudge.

Team Member Teaching Design

Type of content: Information (Ex: Four different theories on development)

Before class: Each student prepares a part of the content

In class:

1. Each team member teaches his/her content to others
2. Team summarizes content overall
3. Individuals take test and score
4. Team computes the following:
• team average score
• average score on a part for the one who prepared it
• average score on parts for those prepared by others
5. Critique of team work.
   

Back to top

Back to Table of Contents

Home | Faculty Services | TA/AI Services | Publications | Resources | Research | About CTE

October 1, 2002
The University of Texas at Austin
Copyright © 2002 Center for Teaching Effectiveness
Contact CTE