group work vs individual work research

• Inspiration

Group work vs individual work: the pros and cons compared

Some people prefer to work alone. Some people are more productive in a team. Some people actually need a perfect balance of both.

What category do you fall into? In today’s in-depth article, we analyse the pros and cons of the two extremes mentioned above.

Group work: pros and cons

Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships. Michael Jordan

Group work and, in general, adopting a company policy that encourages socialisation and exchange between staff has been a growing trend, with results that are sometimes surprising. Spending the best part of the day in an office with a calm and friendly atmosphere and where swapping ideas with others allows you to improve your work performance can make the difference. Many companies have focused with increasing intensity on building a collaborative, cohesive team that can achieve goals together.

Sharing has a pivotal role in group work because it includes workload and responsibility, but also successes and failures.

When a team functions well and there is trust between its members , the positive results, in terms of individual efficiency and project productivity , and also creativity, are immediately visible.

Sometimes, comparing ideas with other people also entails risking confrontation with colleagues resulting in bad feeling, especially when there is inefficient organisation or differences emerge in commitment or responsibility among the various members of the group.

Here is a summary of the pros and cons of teamwork.

• Shared workload
• Increased productivity
• Opportunity for comparison and growth
• Support in difficult times
• Increased creative flow through sharing ideas
• Different skill levels
• Possible clashes
• Increased risk of distraction
• More defined schedules

Individual work: pros and cons

Better to be alone than in bad company.

Working alone is not actually the prerogative of people who have opted to work for themselves. Specific projects and roles in a team may also require one person to manage their activity without the support of others. Examples that come to mind are the work of an analyst or writing a press release but there are plenty of other examples.

The pros and cons in this case are the clear opposites of group work. People who work alone can organise their time as they wish, without external distractions. In terms of cons, lone workers must take on greater responsibility, without being able to brainstorm with colleagues if they have a creative block .

Here’s a summary of the pros and cons of working alone.

• Independent organisation of work
• More immediate possibility of remote working
• Greater concentration and fewer distractions
• Responsibility and workload fall to one person
• No comparison of ideas
• Experiences limited

Be positive, always

As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in-between the two extremes. Neither individual or group work is a better option, there are simply activities and occasions that require either the input of one or many people.

Whatever the role or profession, the important thing is to be positive  whether you work in a team or alone, constantly striving to achieve your goals,  both work and personal ones. Fights and arguments are common and natural if you work in a group, but it is important to share different ideas because that generates  constructive growth . It is always a good idea to respect other people’s ideas, regardless of your respective work roles.

Extroverts  tend to prefer  to work in a group , while  introverts   tend to seek out solitary roles . By respecting reciprocal attitudes and tendencies, you can think of allowing the option that best suits someone’s personality, putting people in the circumstances where they perform best.

Alone and in a team: how to design an integrated environment

Smart office design allows purpose-driven functional spaces to be created, based on requirements: individual and group workspaces, open spaces or sectioned off with walls, for when greater privacy is necessary. Integrated and modular furniture collections create a harmonious and pleasant work environment, allowing space for stylish design yet fully meeting the needs of workers.

Let's keep in touch!

Receive all the news and the magazine’s latest articles in your inbox every week.

Subscribe to the newsletter

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Knowledge at Wharton Podcast

Are teams better than individuals at getting work done, october 12, 2021 • 9 min listen.

Whether teams or individuals are better at accomplishing tasks depends on the complexity of the work, according to a new study co-authored by Wharton’s Duncan Watts.

Wharton’s Duncan Watts talks with Wharton Business Daily on SiriusXM about his research on whether teams or individuals are better at accomplishing tasks.

When it comes to getting work done, two heads are better than one. Except when they aren’t.

A new study from Wharton professor of operations, information and decisions Duncan Watts digs into the question of whether it’s better for employees to work in teams or alone — and the answer may be surprising for managers trying to figure out the best way to assign tasks.

In their research, Watts and his co-authors found that the answer depends on the complexity: Simple tasks are best accomplished by individuals, while difficult ones are more efficiently completed by a group.

“Groups are as fast as the fastest individual and more efficient than the most efficient individual when the task is complex but not when the task is simple,” the researchers wrote in their paper titled, “ Task Complexity Moderates Group Synergy ,” which was published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The co-authors are Abdullah Almaatouq , information technology professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Mohammed Alsobay , doctorate student at the MIT Sloan School of Management; and Ming Yin , computer science assistant professor at Purdue University.

Watts, who is a Penn Integrates Knowledge Professor and director of the Computational Social Science Lab at Penn , said the study is unique because it’s the first to make an “apples to apples” comparison in a lab setting. The scholars created an experiment that allowed them to manipulate the complexity of the same task, rather than simply giving the participants different kinds of tasks, as most previous studies have done.

“A manager is kind of stuck a little bit because they don’t really know how to evaluate the complexity of the task that they’re looking at. In this research, we got around that by identifying a class of tasks where we could vary complexity in a nice, systematic, principled way without changing anything else,” Watts said during an interview with Wharton Business Daily on SiriusXM. (Listen to the podcast above.)

Team Efficiency

In their experiment, participants — both individuals and groups — were given a real-world problem of assigning students to dorm rooms. What started out as an easy job became more complicated as the researchers added constraints such as more students, fewer rooms, students who could not be neighbors or live in the same room, and students who must be neighbors or live in the same room.

At the end of the experiment, it became clear that all participants needed more time as the work became more difficult. But groups were ultimately more efficient at getting it done, even if they arrived at the same result as the individual.

“Interestingly, what we found is that where teams really shine is in terms of efficiency,” Watts said. “Teams for a complex task could do almost as well as the very best individual, but they were able to do it much quicker. That’s because they were much faster, they generated more solutions, they generated faster solutions, and they explored the space of possibilities more broadly.”

“Interestingly, what we found is that where teams really shine is in terms of efficiency.” –Duncan Watts

That’s not to say that groups don’t suffer from certain negative dynamics.

“When you get together in a group, you waste time, you compete with each other, you fall into bad habits like groupthink,” Watts said. “So, there are quite good reasons why you might take seriously that individuals can [be better than] a team.”

One way for managers to circumvent negative group dynamics is to assign a group leader who can keep everyone moving in the right direction, the co-authors noted. They also said managers may want to store the best group solutions so they can be “reloaded and potentially modified in subsequent steps,” much like what happens in personal productivity software.

Teams are elevated in today’s workplaces, but the study shows that managers shouldn’t assume that teams are the optimal solution for every problem. Sometimes, Watts said, a single employee can be just as effective.

“Depending on whether your task is simple or complex, and depending on whether what you care about is getting the absolute best possible score or getting something that’s pretty close to the best possible score but getting it efficiently, you’re going to make a different decision as a manager,” he said.

More From Knowledge at Wharton

Three Things All New Managers Should Be Doing

How Will AI Impact the Supply Chain?

Life After Prison: Why Returning Citizens Become Entrepreneurs

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

When Teamwork Is Good for Employees — and When It Isn’t

• Chidiebere Ogbonnaya

It doesn’t always make the dream work.

Teamwork can be stressful. Conflicts arise, people become too dependent on each other, some don’t get their fair share of credit– there are numerous coordination costs that come with making teams work well. Research finds that a lot of this stress stems from the pressure that managers put on employees. While some pressure is necessary to get employees to perform at their best, pushing a team too hard can cause big problems, such as poor performance, low productivity, and high turnover.

Most work today is done in teams. While teamwork can lead to innovative ideas and strong performance, it can also be stressful. Conflicts arise, people become too dependent on each other, some don’t get their fair share of credit– there are numerous coordination costs that come with making teams work well.

• CO Chidiebere Ogbonnaya is a Senior Lecturer at University of Sussex Business School and a co-investigator for the ESRC-funded Work, Learning and Wellbeing evidence programme. His research focuses on employment relations, job quality, employee well-being, and business research methods.

Partner Center

Conjunctive and additive group work reduce academic procrastination: insights from a vignette study

• Open access
• Published: 16 February 2023
• Volume 43 , pages 997–1010, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Markus Koppenborg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6441-9378 1 ,
• Katrin B. Klingsieck   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9549-3762 2 &
• Joachim Hüffmeier   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0490-7035 3  

2404 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

Group work can increase individual effort, performance, and positive affect, if group members perceive their own contribution as indispensable for the group product. A vignette methodology was applied to investigate whether group work may also reduce procrastination. The vignettes described a typical academic assignment, while varying the task structure (individual work vs. conjunctive group work vs. additive group work) and group member ability (high vs. low). For each vignette, student participants ( N  = 443) provided ratings on their perceived indispensability, procrastination of the assignment, and affect. When group member ability was high, procrastination was lower in additive group work as compared to individual work. When group member ability was low, procrastination was lower in conjunctive group work as compared to both individual work and additive group work. As predicted, perceived indispensability mediated the difference in procrastination between conjunctive and additive group work. Moderation analyses further revealed that the effects were more pronounced for high trait procrastinators. Further, both types of group work led to increases in task-related positive affect as compared to individual work. By demonstrating the relevance of group work as a social factor, the results should be useful for the extension of existing programs targeting procrastination, and may inspire measures for preventing procrastination by changes in the study environment.

Similar content being viewed by others

Understanding procrastination: A case of a study skills course

T. Hailikari, N. Katajavuori & H. Asikainen

Theory of Human Motivation—Abraham Maslow

Work–Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and Consequences

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Procrastination, defined as “the voluntary delay of an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay” (Steel, 2007 , p. 66), is common among students, with negative consequences for academic performance (e.g., Kim & Seo, 2015 ) and psychological well-being (e.g., Çelik & Odaci, 2020 ). Much research has been conducted on person-related antecedents and correlates of procrastination, such as personality traits and motivational variables (e.g., Steel, 2007 ). Programs against procrastination typically address strategies concerning participants’ cognitions, emotions, motivation, and self-control (cf. van Eerde & Klingsieck, 2018 ). Because human behavior is commonly explained not only by individual factors, but also by situational factors as well as their interaction (e.g., Furr & Funder, 2021 ; Lewin, 1951 ), the question arises whether procrastination could also be reduced by changes in the social context (i.e., by situation-related variables). In light of the finding that group work can lead to increased individual effort and performance (e.g., Johnson et al., 2007 ; Torka et al., 2021 ), this study investigates whether different forms of group work can reduce procrastination as compared to individual work. Because procrastination has been explained by high negative or low positive task-related affect (e.g., Sirois & Pychyl, 2013 ), measures aiming at the reduction of procrastination should closely monitor their influence on task-related affect. Thus, this study also investigates positive and negative affect. In a vignette study, the task structure (individual work vs. two types of group work) and relative ability (high vs. low) were manipulated to investigate their combined effects on procrastination as well as on task-related affect. The results should be informative for the theoretical understanding of procrastination as a self-regulation failure that may not only be explained by dispositions of the individual, but can also be reduced (or amplified) by social factors. Further, the results should be informative for the improvement of existing programs.

Literature review and hypotheses

Procrastination in higher education.

As a common self-regulation failure, procrastination is characterized by a voluntary and unnecessary discrepancy between an intended action and the implementation of this action Footnote 1 (Steel, 2007 ). Such discrepancies are often coined intention-action gap (Steel, 2007 ; cf. Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2016 ). Procrastinators do not differ from non-procrastinators in the amount of effort they intend to exert (Sirois & Giguère, 2018 , Study 2; Steel, 2007 ; Steel et al., 2018 ), however, procrastinators do not put their intentions into action. Students reporting high levels of procrastination show decrements in academic performance (Kim & Seo, 2015 ) and in psychological well-being (Çelik & Odaci, 2020 ). More specifically, procrastination is associated with increased stress (Argiropoulou & Patra, 2020 ), and feelings of shame (Giguère et al., 2016 ), and regret (Ferrari et al., 2009 ). Further, procrastinators report higher levels of self-consciousness about procrastinating, especially in social contexts (cf. Ferrari et al., 2007 ), whereas findings regarding guilt seem inconsistent (e.g., Fee & Tangney, 2000 ; Giguère et al., 2016 ; Pychyl et al., 2000 ).

Studies on the antecedents of procrastination have identified a number of variables that are located within the individual, such as higher neuroticism, lower conscientiousness, as well as aspects of motivation, and self-control (for an overview, see Steel, 2007 ). Only recently have researchers started to focus more on situational factors that affect procrastination (cf. Bäulke & Dresel, 2021 ; Klingsieck 2013 ; Svartdal et al., 2020 ). Higher levels of procrastination have been associated with distraction by peers (Nordby et al., 2017 ), task-related stereotype-threat by peers (Deemer et al., 2014 ), and with a lack of social networks or a lack of peer support (Patrzek et al., 2012 ). Lower levels of procrastination have been associated with social norms, such as the norm of starting assignments promptly (Ackerman & Gross, 2016 ). These findings demonstrate that procrastination may not be fully explained by person-related variables, but may also be influenced by situational and especially social factors. This notion is supported by both theoretical and empirical work stressing the importance of the social environment on self-regulation (e.g., Bandura, 1991 ; Sassenberg & Woltin, 2008 ), and on self-regulated learning (e.g., Hadwin et al., 2017 ; Zimmerman, 2000 ). Moreover, especially factors inherent in group work are theoretically promising for reducing procrastination: For instance, perceiving that the own performance is indispensable for the performance of a whole group and, thus, perceiving responsibility for others may counterbalance or even exceed the tendency to procrastinate. However, little research exists on social variables such as group work that may have a (beneficial) effect on procrastination as a prevalent form of unsuccessful self-regulation.

Interventions against procrastination

The strong focus on personal antecedents may have shaped an understanding of procrastination as a problem that is caused mainly by the individuals themselves. Consequently, interventions against procrastination have mostly focused on changing person-related variables, e.g., by supporting the identification and correction of dysfunctional thoughts or the enhancement of planning skills (cf. van Eerde & Klingsieck, 2018 ), or by training emotion regulation skills (Eckert et al., 2016 ; Schuenemann et al., 2022 ). Meta-analytic evidence suggests that these programs are effective in reducing procrastination (van Eerde & Klingsieck, 2018 ). However, heterogeneity of the effects points towards the need to refine programs, e.g., by considering situational and social factors.

When investigating means to reduce procrastination, it is fruitful to distinguish between procrastination as a habit or tendency that is relatively stable (i.e., trait procrastination) and procrastination behavior as a discrete episode, during which an intended activity is delayed (i.e., state procrastination). High trait-procrastinators exhibit more state procrastination, as indicated by relationships between trait and state measures (e.g., Gadosey et al., 2021 ; Krause & Freund, 2014 ; Sirois & Giguére, 2018 ). Because high trait-procrastinators also report more negative consequences due to their procrastination (e.g., Kim & Seo, 2015 ), interventions are needed that effectively reduce state procrastination in this group. One factor that may help to reduce state procrastination is group work where group members depend on each other. This has been suggested before (Heath & Anderson, 2010 ; Klingsieck et al., 2013 ) and first evidence exists in support of this notion (Koppenborg & Klingsieck, 2022a ; Koppenborg & Klingsieck, 2022b ).

Group work, effort gains and procrastination

According to Social Interdependence Theory, group as compared to individual work can increase individual effort and performance when there is interdependence between group members (i.e., members depend on each other’s resources, roles, or contributions to reach a group goal; Johnson et al., 2007 ; Johnson & Johnson, 2015 ). Findings from Social Psychology show that group as compared to individual work can lead either to gains or losses in individual effort and performance (Karau & Williams, 1993 ; Torka et al., 2021 ). The Team member Effort Expenditure Model (TEEM; Torka et al., 2021 ) explains under which circumstances individuals exhibit effort gains in group as compared to individual work. TEEM is based on expectancy-value theories of motivation by Shepperd ( 1993 ) and Vroom ( 1964 ) and postulates three components that are multiplicatively linked. They comprise (i) the relationship between one’s own behavior and the outcome (i.e., the expectancy component), (ii) the value of the outcome, and (iii) the cost/benefit ratio of effort expenditure. If individuals perceive any of the three components to be stronger in group as compared to individual work, they should exhibit gains in effort and performance (i.e., individual effort and performance should be higher in group as compared to individual work).

Indispensability perceptions reliably lead to such effort gains. They arise when group members perceive that “their performance not only affects their own personal outcome as during individual work, but also the outcome of other persons” (Hertel et al., 2008 , p. 1332). When perceived indispensability is high, an individual’s effort and performance can have more of an effect, because the own performance affects both the own outcome and other members’ outcomes. Thus, TEEM postulates that high perceived indispensability is tantamount with an increased expectancy component. This, in turn, should lead to increased individual effort expenditure and performance in group as compared to individual work. Meta-analytic evidence supports the prediction of TEEM across many different types of tasks and settings (Torka et al., 2021 ).

TEEM shares central features with current expectancy-value theories of motivation in educational contexts such as the Situated Expectancy-Value Theory (SEVT; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ). One of the differences between both theories is that indispensability perceptions are linked to the expectancy component in TEEM, but to the value component in SEVT. According to the latter, indispensability perceptions should increase the utility value of a given task, which refers to a task’s usefulness to reach personal goals. In other words, if the individual aspires a positive outcome for the other group members, then higher perceived indispensability should imply higher usefulness of the task. Despite this difference between TEEM and SEVT, both models would make the same prediction, namely that indispensability perceptions should result in gains in individual effort. TEEM also predicts losses in individual effort and performance in group as compared to individual work. Perceived dispensability of the own contribution for the group product results in effort losses in group as compared to individual work (for meta-analytic results, see Torka et al., 2021 ; see also the Collective Effort Model by Karau & Williams, 1993 ).

Indispensability perceptions can be induced by certain combinations of task structure and relative member ability. The structure of a task defines how the individual members’ contributions relate to the group’s performance (Steiner, 1972 ). In conjunctive tasks, the group product depends on the contribution of the least capable member (Steiner, 1972 ) and effort gains occur among these least capable members. Such effort gains in conjunctive tasks have been replicated in many studies across different types of tasks and settings (i.e., physical and mental tasks, in the lab and in the field; Torka et al., 2021 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ). For example, in conjunctive group work, weaker participants expended more effort and performed better in a physical persistence task (Messé et al., 2002 ) and a cognitive task (Hertel et al., 2003 ) as compared to individual work. In both cases, these increases can be explained by the higher perceived indispensability of the weaker member in conjunctive as compared to individual work (Hertel et al., 2003 ; Messé et al., 2002 ).

In additive tasks, that is, where the group product is determined by all members’ contributions (Steiner, 1972 ), effort gains can also occur. For example, in professional sports, relay swimmers starting in later positions exhibit increasing effort gains compared to the effort spent in individual races (i.e., they swim increasingly faster in the relay as compared to the individual competition). Similar to conjunctive tasks, this can be explained by the higher perceived indispensability that is associated with these later positions (e.g., Hüffmeier et al., 2020 ).

Individual members with low relative ability do not always exhibit effort gains in additive tasks, because a relatively weak performance can be compensated by better performances from high-ability members (Hertel et al., 2000 ). By contrast, individual members with high relative ability should exhibit effort gains in additive tasks, as these members should perceive their contributions as more instrumental for the group product. Taken together, these findings raise the question whether group as compared to individual work can help to reduce procrastination when the task structure of group work facilitates indispensability perceptions.

Because the individual’s behavior not only affects the own outcome but also the outcome of other group members, indispensability perceptions may activate prosocial motives, that is, aspirations to have a positive impact on other peoples’ lives (cf. Yeager et al., 2014 ), or social norms of altruism and social responsibility, which require to help and not cause harm to others (cf. Penner et al., 2005 ). Procrastinating the intended action during group work would jeopardize the group product and result in the non-satisfaction of prosocial motives and transgression of salient norms. In contrast, implementing the action as intended (i.e., working on the group task) contributes to the group product and should, thus, result in the satisfaction of prosocial motives and compliance with norms. Indirect support for these notions is provided by the relationship between social norms and procrastination (Ackerman & Gross, 2016 ), and by procrastinators’ concerns about their public image (Ferrari, 1991 ). Thus, for students who have to work on an academic assignment, perceiving their contribution as indispensable to their group’s product should result in lower procrastination as compared to a situation, in which the contribution is not perceived as indispensable (e.g., individual work).

Two studies exist that demonstrate that interdependence in group work can lead to reduced procrastination of an individual group member (Koppenborg & Klingsieck, 2022a ; Koppenborg & Klingsieck, 2022b ). These studies compared an individual task with a consecutive group task, meaning that the other group members depended on the timely and accurate contribution of the focal participant to start their own work. The current study extends the previous findings by shedding light on the role of indispensability perceptions, which have been a blind spot in the previous studies. As described above, indispensability perceptions result from certain combinations of task structure and member’s relative ability (cf. Torka et al., 2021 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ). The current study considers relative ability as a moderator of the expected effect of group work on procrastination and includes conjunctive group work as another task structure. It also analyzes the underlying mechanism by including indispensability perceptions as a potential mediator, and social comparison as a control variable. This approach is relevant for theoretical reasons because it allows to attribute differences in procrastination on indispensability perceptions that result from combinations of task structures (as independent variable) and relative ability (as moderator variable). It is further relevant for the design of group work in practical settings. Such settings may require different forms of group work and groups typically consist of members with different levels of ability.

Group work and affect

One prominent explanation conceptualizes procrastination as a dysfunctional form of mood regulation with the purpose to escape negative emotions associated with the intended activity by pursuing an alternative activity instead of the intended activity (e.g., Sirois & Pychyl, 2013 ). Indeed, procrastination episodes are preceded by lower positive affect (Sirois & Giguère, 2018 ), higher negative affect (Pollack & Herres, 2020 ), or a failure to modify negative affect (e.g., Eckert et al., 2016 ). However, empirical evidence also shows that the attempt to regulate negative emotions by procrastinating is ineffective, as indicated by unchanged or even higher negative affect during procrastination episodes (e.g., Gadosey et al., 2021 ; Gort et al., 2021 ). These findings underline the importance of considering positive and negative affect when investigating measures designed to reduce procrastination.

Perceived indispensability as a central psychological mechanism of motivating teamwork does not only increase effort and performance, but also influences affect (i.e., the subjective feeling that accompanies emotional reactions; Watson et al., 1988 ). Perceived indispensability may enhance an individual’s feeling of self-worth, and, thus, increase positive affect (e.g., Johnson et al., 2007 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ). Theoretical assumptions from other fields of research support the idea that a higher significance of an individual’s activities results in increased satisfaction (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1975 ). Further, positive relationships have been reported between indispensability perceptions and positive mood (Hertel et al., 2018 ) and task enjoyment (Hertel et al., 2003 ).

Indispensability perceptions may also result in higher negative affect. This might be the case when perceived indispensability is felt as a burden (i.e., a group member fears that they may disappoint the other members by not showing a good individual performance; cf. Weber & Hertel, 2007 ). So far, no quantitative evidence has been reported on the effect of indispensability perceptions on negative affect.

The present study

This study is motivated by the recent turn to situational and social factors of procrastination (e.g., Klingsieck, 2013 ; Nordby et al., 2017 ; Svartdal et al., 2020 ), by initial evidence on the effects of interdependent group work (Klingsieck et al., 2013 ; Koppenborg & Klingsieck, 2022a ; Koppenborg & Klingsieck, 2022b ) as well as by the need to extend current programs against procrastination (cf. van Eerde & Klingsieck, 2018 ). Given the theoretical arguments made above and the related empirical evidence (Torka et al., 2021 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ), we expect that, when a group members’ relative ability is low, their individual contribution has a larger instrumentality in conjunctive as compared to individual work and to additive group work. Therefore, when a group member’s ability is low, his/her state procrastination is lower in conjunctive group work as compared to individual work (Hypothesis 1a) Footnote 2 . Further, when a group member’s relative ability is low, his/her state procrastination is lower in conjunctive group work as compared to additive group work (Hypothesis 1b). Group as compared to individual work can also lead to losses in effort and performance when the own contribution is perceived as dispensable (Karau & Williams, 1993 ). Therefore, when a group member’s relative ability is high, his/her state procrastination is higher in conjunctive group work as compared to individual work (Hypothesis 1c). An additive task structure can also cause perceptions of indispensability and effort gains as compared to an individual task (e.g., Hüffmeier et al., 2020 ), especially among group members with high relative ability. Therefore, when a group member’s relative ability is high, his/her state procrastination is lower in additive group work as compared to individual work (Hypothesis 1d) Footnote 3 . Regarding indispensability perceptions as our central underlying mechanism, we assume the following: When a group member’s relative ability is low, indispensability perceptions are higher in conjunctive group work as compared to additive group work (Hypothesis 2a); and perceived indispensability mediates the difference in state procrastination between conjunctive and additive group work (Hypothesis 2b) Footnote 4 .

Theoretical accounts and empirical findings show that indispensability perceptions are related to higher positive affect (Hackman & Oldham, 1975 ; Johnson et al., 2007 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ). For members with low relative ability, a conjunctive task structure renders these members’ contributions indispensable for the group. Therefore, when a group member’s relative ability is low, positive affect is higher in conjunctive group work as compared to individual work (Hypothesis 3a). For members with high relative ability, an additive task structure renders these members’ contributions indispensable for the group. Therefore, when a group member’s relative ability is high, positive affect is higher in additive group work as compared to individual work (Hypothesis 3b). Turning to the idea that indispensability may sometimes also be perceived as a burden (cf. Weber & Hertel, 2007 ), we ask the following research questions: When a group member’s relative ability is low, is there a difference in negative affect between conjunctive group work and individual work (RQ1a)? And, when a group member’s relative ability is high, is there a difference in negative affect between additive group work and individual work (RQ1b)?

Finally, because students who report a stronger tendency to procrastinate (i.e., who are high in trait procrastination) also exhibit more procrastination behavior (i.e., state procrastination; cf. Gadosey et al., 2021 ; Wieland et al., 2018 ), and, thus, experience more negative consequences (e.g., Argiropoulou & Patra, 2020 ; Kim & Seo, 2015 ), we pay special attention to this group by investigating the following research questions: Are the differences in procrastination as postulated in Hypothesis 1a and 1d larger for high as compared to low trait procrastinators (RQ2a and RQ2b)?

To test our hypotheses, we conducted a vignette study, which we preregistered under https://osf.io/9h8b3?view_only=0e0eb3a2d9384323aef7d77e55fc6337 . Previous research has demonstrated the utility of vignettes for investigating procrastination (cf. Krause & Freund, 2016 ), motivation (cf. Dietz et al., 2007 ), and effort gains (cf. Hüffmeier et al., 2013 ) as well as the comparability of results from vignette studies, behavioral experiments, and field studies for the domain of motivation research (see Hüffmeier et al., 2022 ). Six different vignettes described a typical academic assignment. Participants immersed themselves into each of the six situations and rated their state procrastination of the assignment as well as positive and negative affect with regard to each situation. In pretests using cognitive interviews (cf. Presser et al., 2004 ), students of social science majors had indicated that they perceived the vignettes as very comprehensible, realistic, and easy to imagine, and indicated confidence in their ability to accurately rate their procrastination in each scenario. The study had a 3 (task structure: individual work vs. conjunctive group work vs. additive group work) by 2 (relative ability: low vs. high) design. Following pertinent recommendations (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014 ) we used a within-subjects design. In such designs, participants can directly compare different stimuli with each other. They are thereby provided with rich context information, and, thus, these designs are “useful in terms of uncovering judgment processes of a single individual” (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014 , p. 361).

Participants

A priori power analyses revealed that a minimum of 210 participants was required to test our hypotheses (all α = 0.05; all 1 - β = 0.05; smallest assumed effect size d  = 0.25). Students at a large German public university participated in our online survey within regular lectures. Participants provided informed consent. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The study followed ethical standards as well as institutional guidelines of the university. Footnote 5 Participants were blind to the purpose of the study, and filled out the survey using their own devices (e.g., smart phones or personal computers). Four hundred ninety-six students participated in the study and 443 of them met the inclusion criteria (365 females, M age = 22.31, SD age = 3.95; for a description of the inclusion criteria, see below). Most were enrolled in Bachelor programs Footnote 6 ( n  = 410) in the humanities and social sciences (232 first-year students; 111 second-year; 100 third-year or above).

Participants were informed that the study investigated how university students study. First, participants answered items on trait procrastination. Next, instructions asked participants to immerse themselves into the vignettes and to fill out the items listed below the text of each vignette as honestly as possible. Instructions further explained that ratings should reflect participants’ typical behavior in situations as described in the vignette. At the end, participants provided their sociodemographic information. Upon finishing the survey, we offered participants the opportunity to take part in a lottery for a cash prize of € 50.

Vignettes varied in their task structure (individual work vs. conjunctive group work vs. additive group work) and in the ability regarding the assignment (low vs. high ability). As baseline conditions (cf. Torka et al., 2021 ), we first presented the two individual work vignettes (low vs. high ability) in a randomized order before presenting the four group work vignettes (our experimental conditions) in a randomized order. After reading each vignette, participants rated their (relative) ability to check whether they had processed the information on (relative) ability correctly. After each of the four group work vignettes, participants also rated their perceived indispensability (as our hypothesized mediator) and social comparisons with their fellow members (as control variable; cf. Weber & Hertel, 2007 ). As our primary dependent variables, after each vignette, participants rated their state procrastination as well as their positive and negative affect.

Procrastination is more likely for tasks that are perceived as boring (e.g., Ackerman & Gross, 2016 ; Blunt & Pychyl, 2000 ), or tedious and difficult (e.g., Pychyl et al., 2000 ; Senécal et al., 1997 ) and this relationship seems stronger for short-term tasks (Lay, 1990 ). Therefore, vignettes described an assignment of short duration that is likely to be perceived as boring and tedious (i.e., compiling a bibliography), that is common in all academic disciplines, and that can be completed regardless of prior knowledge. Vignettes are reported in Table  1 . Each vignette asked participants to imagine taking part in an obligatory course for which they had to compile and submit a bibliography as assignment. Because the intention-action gap is a defining characteristic of procrastination (Steel, 2007 ), all scenarios described participants’ intention to work on and finish the assignment in a defined time span (i.e., until the evening of the same day).

Variables and measures

Independent variables, task structure.

Task structure had three levels. The task was either an individual task to be completed alone (as a baseline condition, see Torka et al., 2021 ), a group task with a conjunctive task structure, or a group task with an additive task structure.

Ability had two levels. The vignette described the participant’s ability either as low or as high.

Dependent variables

State procrastination.

We assessed state procrastination with regard to each vignette with a short version the Academic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI; Schouwenburg, 1995 ; German: Patzelt & Opitz, 2014 ). It measures core characteristics of state procrastination with four items on a five-point scale ranging from never (1) to constantly (5). We adapted the wording of the four items to the task of compiling a bibliography (“You would… put off the completion of the bibliography”; “…prepare to start with the bibliography at some point of time but then would not get any further”; “…do so many other things that there would be insufficient time left for the bibliography”; “…think that you had enough time left, so that there would really be no need to start working on the bibliography”). Cronbach’s α ranged between 0.70 and 0.85 across the six vignettes.

Positive and negative affect

We assessed participants’ affect with regard to each vignette with a short version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988 ; German: Krohne et al., 1996 ). The short version (Thompson, 2007 ) comprises 10 items (e.g., “nervous”, “active”), which participants rated on a five-point scale ranging from not at all (1) to extremely (5). Cronbach’s α ranged between 0.85 and 0.91 for positive affect and between 0.77 and 0.82 for negative affect across the six vignettes.

Mediator and moderator variables

Perceived indispensability.

As our mediator variable, in the group work vignettes, we assessed perceived indispensability of the own contribution to the group product with two items (“According to how you understood the situation: How dispensable or indispensable is your contribution for the group result?” and “According to how you understood the situation: How unimportant or important is your contribution for the group result?”). Participants rated both items on a five-point scale ranging from completely dispensable ( very unimportant ) (1) to completely indispensable ( very important ) (5). Correlations between the two items ranged between 0.55 and 0.73 across the four group work vignettes (all ps  < 0.001).

Trait procrastination

As potential moderator variable, we assessed trait procrastination with the short German Version of the General Procrastination Scale (GPS; Klingsieck & Fries, 2012 ). This scale comprises nine items (α = 0.90; e.g., “I often find myself performing tasks that I had intended to do days before”), which participants rated on a four-point scale ranging from very untypical (1) to very typical (4).

Manipulation check and control variables

Perceived relative ability.

As a manipulation check for relative ability, we assessed participant ratings with regard to each vignette with one item (“According to how you understood the situation: How are your skills in the task [compared to the other group members]?”). Participants rated this item on a five-point scale ranging from very low (1) to very high (5).

To gauge the quality of all ratings, at the end of the survey, participants rated their immersion with one item (“How well could you immerse yourself into the situations described above?”) on a five-point scale ranging from very bad (1) to very good (5). Mean ratings were M  = 3.97 ( SD  = 0.78). A one-sample bootstrapped t -test showed that the mean score for immersion significantly differed from the scale midpoint (i.e., 3), M Diff = 0.97, 95% CI [0.89, 1.04], t (442) = 26.11, p  < .001, d  = 1.24. The results, thus, confirm that participants were able to immerse themselves into the vignettes.

Social comparison

Social comparison is another source for effort gains in group as compared to individual work (e.g., Seta, 1982; see also Weber & Hertel, 2007 ). As control variable in the group work vignettes, we therefore assessed the extent to which participants compared their own performance to the performance of their fellow members. We used one item that was introduced by Hertel et al. ( 2018 ; “How important would it be for you to be better or at least not worse than the other group members?”), which participants rated on a five-point scale ranging from very unimportant (1) to very important (5).

Inclusion criteria

Check for honesty.

As inclusion criterion (see also our preregistration under https://osf.io/9h8b3?view_only=0e0eb3a2d9384323aef7d77e55fc6337 ), at the end of the survey, we assessed participants’ honesty with regard to all previous questions with one item (“How likely is it that, in reality, you would act in the way you indicated in the answers above?”) on a five-point scale ranging from very unlikely (1) to very likely (5). In accordance with our preregistration, we excluded participants from our analysis if their rating was below 3 (i.e., the scale midpoint; n  = 22).

Check for attention

Further, we indirectly assessed participants’ attention (cf. Oppenheimer et al., 2009 ; see again our preregistration) by asking them to mark a specific point on a five-point scale ranging from very unlikely (1) to very likely (5). The item formulation was “For this question, please chose option ‘rather unlikely (2)’”. Again, in accordance with our preregistration, we excluded participants from our analysis if their rating was not 2 ( n  = 31).

Data analysis

We conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs with planned contrasts to test our hypotheses. Shapiro-Wilk tests showed violations of the assumption of normality for all dependent variables (i.e., state procrastination, positive and negative affect), the mediator variable (i.e., perceived indispensability), and all control variables (i.e., relative ability, immersion, social comparison). Therefore, we report Friedman ANOVAs and robust bootstrapped t-tests (4000 samples) with bias corrected and accelerated 95% CIs.

To test our mediation hypothesis, we adopted the analytic procedure by Montoya and Hayes ( 2017 ) for mediation analysis in within-subjects designs Footnote 7 . We used the MEMORE macro for SPSS (Montoya & Hayes, 2017 ) with bootstrapped 95% CI (5000 samples). To answer our questions regarding moderation, and in accordance with our preregistration, we divided the sample along the median of trait procrastination ( Md  = 2.78). This resulted in two sub-samples of n  = 221 low trait procrastinators and n  = 222 high trait procrastinators. We then compared the differences between conditions across these two groups. For all analyses, we report effect sizes for all significant results and interpret them according to Cohen ( 1988 ) as small ( d  = 0.2), medium ( d  = 0.5), and large ( d  = 0.8).

Descriptive statistics regarding all dependent measures, mediator and moderator variables as well as control variables are shown in Table  2 .

Manipulation check

A Friedman’s ANOVA revealed a significant main effect between conditions regarding perceived (relative) ability, Χ (5) = 1767.64, p  < .001. Post-hoc contrasts that compared perceived (relative) ability between the three conditions of low ability and the three conditions of high ability revealed a mean difference in (relative) ability of M Diff = 2.20, 95% CI [2.13, 2.28], F (1, 442) = 3612.15, p  < .001, d  = 5.72. The results confirm that the manipulation of (relative) ability was successful.

Main findings

A Friedman’s ANOVA revealed significant overall differences across the six experimental conditions, Χ (5) = 529.93, p  < .001. Supporting Hypothesis 1a, in the low relative ability condition, state procrastination was lower during conjunctive group work than during individual work, with a large effect size, M Diff = 0.61, 95% CI [0.54, 0.67], t (442) = 18.27, p  < .001, d  = 0.88 (see Fig.  1 ). Supporting Hypothesis 1b, in the low relative ability condition, state procrastination was lower during conjunctive group work than during additive group work, with a small effect size, M Diff = 0.15, 95% CI [0.10, 0.20], t (442) = 6.0, p  < .001, d  = 0.22. Contrary to Hypothesis 1c, in the high relative ability condition, state procrastination was also lower during conjunctive group work than during individual work, although this effect was only small, M Diff = 0.1, 95% CI [0.04, 0.16], t (442) = 3.17, p  < .01, d  = 0.16. Supporting Hypothesis 1d, in the high relative ability condition, state procrastination was lower during additive group work than during individual work, with a medium effect size, M Diff = 0.29, 95% CI [0.24, 0.34], t (442) = 12.0, p  < .001, d  = 0.52.

State procrastination across conditions of task structure and relative ability. (Note: Error bars show standard deviations ( SD ). *** p  < .001)

Mediation analysis: Perceived indispensability

A Friedman’s ANOVA revealed significant overall differences in perceived indispensability across the four group work conditions, Χ (3) = 255.12, p  < .001. Supporting Hypothesis 2a, in the low relative ability condition, perceived indispensability was higher during conjunctive group work than during additive group work with a small to medium effect size, M Diff = 0.34, 95% CI [0.24, 0.44], t (442) = 6.66, p  < .001, d  = 0.31.

Drawing on the analytic procedure by Montoya and Hayes ( 2017 ), and supporting Hypothesis 2b, the difference in state procrastination between both conditions was mediated by perceived indispensability. This was indicated by a significant indirect effect, a 1 b 1  = − 0.04, 95% CI [− 0.06, − 0.02], p s < 0.001, while controlling for the indirect effect of social comparison (i.e., our control variable) on state procrastination. This indicates that perceived indispensability mediated the effect on state procrastination, even when considering social comparison as a concurrent mediator that, however, also turned out to be significant, a 2 b 2  = − 0.02, 95% CI [− 0.04, − 0.01], p s < 0.001.

With regard to positive affect, a Friedman’s ANOVA revealed significant overall differences across the six conditions, Χ (5) = 480.40, p  < .001. Supporting Hypothesis 3a, under low relative ability conditions, positive affect was higher during conjunctive group work than during individual work with a large effect size, M Diff = 0.73, 95% CI [0.65, 0.81], t (442) = 18.34, p  < .001, d  = 0.78 (see Fig.  2 ). Supporting Hypothesis 3b, under high relative ability conditions, positive affect was higher during additive group work than during individual work with a small to medium effect size, M Diff = 0.27, 95% CI [0.19, 0.34], t (442) = 7.08, p  < .001, d  = 0.29.

Positive affect across conditions of task structure and relative ability. (Note: Error bars show standard deviations ( SD ). *** p  < .001)

As to our research questions regarding negative affect, two post-hoc tests revealed significant differences between conditions. Under low relative ability conditions, negative affect was higher during conjunctive group work than during individual work, with a small effect size, M Diff = 0.22, 95% CI [0.14, 0.29], t (442) = 5.84, p  < .001, d  = 0.24. Under high relative ability conditions, negative affect was higher during additive group work than during individual work, with a medium effect size, M Diff = 0.35, 95% CI [0.27, 0.42], t (442) = 8.94, p  < .001, d  = 0.47. These results provide a first answer to our research questions RQ1a and RQ1b. Compared to the appropriate individual work baselines, these results show that negative affect was higher in conjunctive group work where the focal group member had a low relative ability, and in additive group work where the focal member had a high relative ability.

Moderation analysis: Trait procrastination

In accordance with our preregistration, two bootstrapped t -tests for independent means tested whether differences between experimental conditions differed between the groups of low and high trait procrastinators (see Table  3 for the descriptive statistics). The difference between individual work and conjunctive group work under low ability conditions was more pronounced for high trait procrastinators than for low trait procrastinators with a medium effect size, M Diff = 0.1, 95% CI [0.07, 0.32], t (436.24) = 2.91, p  < .01, d  = 0.28. Further, the difference between individual work and additive group work under high ability conditions was more pronounced for high trait procrastinators than for low trait procrastinators, also with a medium effect size, M Diff = 0.16, 95% CI [0.07, 0.25], t (416.46) = 3.33, p  < .01, d  = 0.32. These results provide a first answer to our research questions RQ2a and RQ2b. They show that the positive effect in conjunctive group work where the focal group member had a low relative ability, and the positive effect in additive group work where the focal group member had a high relative ability were larger for the group of high trait procrastinators.

The results of our preregistered study show that group as compared to individual work can lead to reduced state procrastination of an academic assignment and to increased task-related positive affect. When a group member’s relative ability was low, state procrastination was lower and positive affect was higher in conjunctive group work as compared to individual work. Further, differences in state procrastination were found between conjunctive and additive group work. When a group member’s relative ability was low, state procrastination was lower in conjunctive group work as compared to additive group work. This difference was mediated by perceived indispensability. Importantly, this mediation occurred when controlling for the indirect effect of social comparison. This is relevant because social comparison was a significant mediator in this study and is also another prominent source of effort gains in group as compared to individual work (Torka et al., 2021 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ).When a group member’s relative ability was high, state procrastination was lower and positive affect was higher in additive group work as compared to individual work. These results converge with theoretical accounts and empirical findings on the effects of indispensability perceptions on effort gains (Torka et al., 2021 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ) and on positive affect (Hertel et al., 2003 , 2018 ; Johnson et al., 2007 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ), and expand these findings to the phenomenon of procrastination.

When the focal group member’s ability is high, conjunctive group work should lead to perceptions of dispensability , and thus, lower effort, and higher procrastination. Against our prediction, this relationship could not be found. However, a recent meta-analysis showed that, while self-reports provide valid measures of effort gains , this does not necessarily apply to effort losses (Torka et al., 2021 ). Put differently, even when objective (i.e., behavioral) data showed effort losses in this meta-analysis, this was not mirrored by subjective (i.e., self-reported) data. Therefore, it is possible that the postulated increase in procrastination could be found when using behavioral measures of procrastination, instead of self-reported measures.

Because procrastination episodes are often preceded by negative task-related affect (Pollack & Herres, 2020 ; Sirois & Pychyl, 2013 ), consideration of negative affect is important. When a group member’s relative ability was low, negative affect was higher in conjunctive group work as compared to individual work; and when a group member’s relative ability was high, negative affect was higher in additive group work as compared to individual work. This supports our notion that perceived indispensability not only leads to higher positive affect, but may also induce negative affect. Finally, the reducing effects of group work on procrastination were even more pronounced for the group of high trait procrastinators, adding to the relevance of our results for intervention and prevention practice.

Theoretical and practical implications

Our results have implications for the understanding of procrastination, for the literature on indispensability perceptions, and for interventions. By emphasizing the relevance of social factors in explaining procrastination, the results provide support for the understanding of academic procrastination as a self-regulation failure that is (partly) induced or at least amplified by aspects of the learning context (cf. Bäulke & Dresel, 2021 ; Klingsieck, 2013 ; Svartdal et al., 2020 ). This aligns with the notion that human behavior is a product of personal and situational factors (Furr & Funder, 2021 ; Lewin, 1951 ), and it expands the theoretical understanding of procrastination to also include group work as a relevant factor. This may lead to more nuanced research questions. For example, besides identifying the degree of individuals’ procrastination it may be worthwhile to also identify the situational aspects that they respond to with procrastination. Further, while ample evidence describes the effects of group work and indispensability perceptions on effort and performance (Torka et al., 2021 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ), our results expand this literature to effect on procrastination. Also, the results indicate that affective reactions to perceived indispensability may not be purely positive.

If corroborated by experimental research involving actual behavior, teachers and counsellors may promote group work with perceived indispensability of individual contributions that in turn leads to higher effort and lower procrastination of individual members. However, creating groups with substantial differences in members’ ability can have negative effects on the academic self-concept of the member with the lowest relative ability (cf. Trautwein et al., 2009 ; Wolff et al., 2018 ). Therefore, indispensability perception could be induced by other means such as composing groups that consist of members with unique roles, skills, or contributions (cf. Weber & Hertel, 2007 ). Techniques from the field of collaborative learning offer targeted measures to achieve this, such as the jigsaw puzzle (cf. Barkley et al., 2014 ). Further, integrating social factors into existing intervention programs against procrastination may improve their impact, especially for high trait procrastinators. Finally, our results may inspire new approaches in intervention practice that, in addition to treating procrastination, seek to prevent it. This may result in programs with a larger reach that require less intensive adjustments by students, as compared to small-scale interventions aimed at individuals (cf. Frieden, 2010 ).

Limitations and future research

Five limitations are worth mentioning. The first limitation concerns the ecological validity of our findings. Vignette studies and behavioral studies have yielded comparable results in research on procrastination (e.g., Krause & Freund, 2016 ) and on indispensability effects (e.g., Hüffmeier et al., 2022 ). Nevertheless, field experiments are needed to corroborate the current results. Second, our study was based on the assumption that procrastinators do not differ from non-procrastinators in the amount of effort they intend to exert (Sirois & Giguère, 2018 , Study 2; Steel, 2007 ; Steel et al., 2018 ). However, other research shows that procrastination is associated with higher levels of work-avoidance motivation (Wolters, 2003 ), mastery-avoidance goal orientation (Howell & Watson, 207 ), and performance-avoidance goal orientation (Seo, 2009 ). This could be addressed in future research by including these variables as control variables. Third, our sample consisted by the majority of female participants. This may have led to stronger effects because females may show stronger indispensability effects (Weber & Hertel, 2007 ; although this was not replicated in a recent meta-analysis, Torka et al., 2021 ). This question could be investigated by including gender as a moderator variable. Fourth, future research could consider other potential moderator variables to further qualify the results of this study, for example, collectivistic cultural norms (cf. Torka et al., 2021 ; Weber & Hertel, 2007 ) or the relationships between group members. Finally, using a median split for analysis of moderators has been criticized for the loss of information and power. Although studies have demonstrated the robustness of this method (e.g., Iacobucci et al., 2015 ), future investigations could conduct moderation analyses using a continuous measure of trait procrastination to avoid dichotomization.

This research shows that group work can reduce procrastination among students via their perceived indispensability, and that group work can increase task-related positive affect. The results may carry implications for our understanding of procrastination by demonstrating the relevance of factors beyond the individual, such as group work. Further, the results may inspire refinements of interventions to include situational and social aspects to a higher extent. In the long run, the results may contribute to the development of preventive approaches to procrastination.

Data, materials and/or code availability

Data, materials and code will be made available upon request.

Some researchers also include negative affect or subjective discomfort as a typical element of procrastination (cf. Klingsieck, 2013 ).

Due to an anonymous reviewer comment, we changed the ordering of hypotheses to increase comprehensibility. Note that the order of hypotheses now diverges from our preregistration. The content of all hypotheses, however, remains unchanged.

Although group member’s relative ability is technically a moderator in our study, we are not interested in studying the whole interaction pattern for theoretical reasons. We accordingly do not test some possible comparisons (e.g., individual work and additive group work under low ability conditions, or conjunctive and additive group work under high ability conditions).

Note that we marginally adapted the formulation of Hypothesis 2b from our preregistered formulation to increase comprehensibility. However, we did not change content of the prediction.

In Germany, such studies are exempt from institutional review board approval.

Of the 443 participants, n  = 33 were enrolled in Master programs or did not report their program. Sensitivity analyses showed no differences in the results when we excluded these participants from analysis. For this reason, all results reported below are based on the total sample of N  = 443.

Contrary to our preregistration, we did not use the procedure by Judd et al. ( 2001 ). Unlike the Judd et al. procedure, the procedure by Hayes and Montoya ( 2017 ) allows for testing multiple indirect effects with a single test in a path-analytic framework, yielding estimates for direct and indirect effects (Montoya & Hayes, 2017 ). This allowed us to estimate the indirect effect of task structure and relative ability on procrastination via perceived indispensability, while controlling for a potential indirect effect via social comparison (i.e., our control variable). Using this procedure yielded results that did not differ substantially from the results when using the procedure by Judd et al. ( 2001 ).

References

Ackerman, D. S., & Gross, B. L. (2016). My instructor made me do it: Task characteristics of procrastination. Journal of Marketing Education , 27 (1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304273842

Article   Google Scholar  

Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods , 17 (4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952

Argiropoulou, M., & Patra, V. (2020). The role of psychological distress as a potential route through which procrastination may confer risk for reduced life satisfaction. Current Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00739-8

Bäulke, L., & Dresel, M. (2021, August 2). A multivariate two-level analysis of higher-education course characteristics relating to academic procrastination. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/75w4r

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and human decision making processes , 50 , 248–287.

Barkley (2014). Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blunt, A. K., & Pychyl, T. A. (2000). Task aversiveness and procrastination: a multi-dimensional approach to task aversiveness across stages of personal projects. Personality and Individual Differences , 28 , 153–167.

Çelik, Ç. B., & Odaci, H. (2020). Subjective well-being in university students: what are the impacts of procrastination and attachment styles? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2020.1803211

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar  

Deemer, E. D., Smith, J. L., Carroll, A. N., & Carpenter, J. P. (2014). Academic procrastination in STEM: interactive effects of stereotype threat and achievement goals. The Career Development Quarterly , 62 , 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00076.x

Dietz, F., Hofer, M., & Fries, S. (2007). Individual values, learning routines and academic procrastination. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 77 (4), 893–906. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X169076

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: a developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , Article 101859 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859

Eckert, M., Ebert, D. D., Lehr, D., & Berking, M. (2016). Overcome procrastination: enhancing emotion regulation skills reduce procrastination. Learning and Individual Differences , 52 , 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.001

Fee, R. L., & Tangney, J. P. (2000). Procrastination: a means of avoiding shame or guilt? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 15 (5), 167–184.

Ferrari, J. R. (1991). A preference for a favorable public impression by procrastinators: selecting among cognitive and social tasks. Personality and Individual Differences , 12 (11), 1233–1237.

Ferrari, J. R., Driscoll, M., & Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2007). Examining the self of chronic procrastinators: actual, ought, and undesired attributes. Individual Differences Research , 5 (2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.30.3.163

Ferrari, J. R., Barnes, K. L., & Steel, P. (2009). Life regrets by avoidant and arousal procrastinators. Why put off today what you will regret tomorrow? Journal of Individual Differences , 30 (3), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.30.3.163

Frieden, T. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: the health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health , 100 (4), 590–595.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. (2021). Persons, situations, and person-situation interactions, In O. P. John & R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (4th edition) (pp. 667–685). New York: Guilford.

Gadosey, C. K., Schnettler, T., Scheunemann, A., Fries, S., & Grunschel, C. (2021). The intraindividual co-occurrence of anxiety and hope in procrastination episodes during exam preparations: an experience sampling study. Learning and Individual Differences , 88 , 102013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102013

Giguère, B., Sirois, F. M., & Vaswani, M. (2016). Delaying things and feeling bad about it? A norm-based approach to procrastination. In F. M. Sirois, & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination, health, and well-being . London: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802862-9.00009-8

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2016). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 38 , 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

Gort, C., Marcusson-Clavertz, D., & Kuehner, C. (2021). Procrastination, affective state, rumination, and sleep quality: investigating reciprocal effects with ambulatory assessment. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy , 39 , 58–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-020-00353-4

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology , 60 (2), 159–170.

Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2017). Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. Schunk, & J. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 83–106). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-6

Heath, J., & Anderson, J. (2010). Procrastination and the extended will. In C. Andreou, & M. D. White (Eds.), The thief of time (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79 (4), 580–601. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.4.580

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hertel, G., Deter, C., & Konradt, U. (2003). Motivation gains in computer-supported groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 33 (10), 2080–2105.

Hertel, G., Niemeyer, G., & Clauss, A. (2008). Social indispensability or social comparison: the why and when of motivation gains of inferior group members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 38 (5), 1329–1363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00350.x

Hertel, G., Nohe, C., Wessolowski, K., Meltz, O., Pape, J., Fink, J., & Hüffmeier, J. (2018). Effort gains in occupational teams - the effects of social competition and social indispensability. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 , 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00769

Howel, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination:Associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43 ,167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017

Hüffmeier, J., Dietrich, H., & Hertel, G. (2013). Effort intentions in teams: Effects of task type and teammate performance. Small Group Research , 44 (1), 62–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412472242

Hüffmeier, J., Hertel, G., Torka, A. K., Nohe, C., & Krumm, S. (2022). In field settings group members (often) show effort gains instead of social loafing. European Review of Social Psychology , 33 (1), 131–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1959125

Hüffmeier, J., Schleu, J. E., & Nohe, C. (2020). The strength of the situation: disentangling the situational explanation for effort gains in swimming relays from person-related accounts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology , 42 , 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2020-0036

Iacobucci, D., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., Schneider, M. J., & Popovich, D. L. (2015). The median split: robust, refined, and revived. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 25 , 690–704.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2015). Cooperation and competition. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 856–861). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24051-8

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review , 19 , 15–29.

Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. A. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods , 6 (2), 115–134.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65 (4), 681–706.

Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic performance: a meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences , 82 , 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038

Klingsieck, K. (2013). Procrastination. When good things don’t come to those who wait. European Psychologist , 18 (1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000138

Klingsieck, K. B., Grund, A., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2013). Why students procrastinate: a qualitative approach. Journal of College Student Development , 54 (4), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0060

Klingsieck, K. B., & Fries, S. (2012). Allgemeine Prokrastination: Entwicklung und Validierung einer deutschsprachigen Kurzskala der General Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986). [General procrastination: development and validation of the german short scale of the General Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986)]. Diagnostica , 58 (4), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000060

Koppenborg, M., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2022a) Social factors of procrastination: group work can reduce procrastination among students. Social Psychology of Education, 25 (1) 249-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09682-3

Koppenborg, M., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2022b) Group work and student procrastination. Learning and Individual Differences , 94 , 102117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102117

Krause, K., & Freund, A. M. (2014). Delay or procrastination – a comparison of self-report and behavioral measures of procrastination and their impact on affective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences , 63 , 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.050

Krause, K., & Freund, A. M. (2016). It’s in the means: process focus helps against procrastination in the academic context. Motivation and Emotion , 40 , 422–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9541-2

Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C. W., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchung mit einer deutschen Version der „Positive and negative affect Schedule“ (PANAS) [Investigation with the german version of the ‚Positive and negative affect Schedule‘ (PANAS)]. Diagnostica , 42 (2), 139–156.

Lay, C. H. (1990). Working to schedule on personal projects : An assessment of person-project characteristics and trait procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(3), 91–103.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Messé, L. A., Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., Lount, R. B., & Park, E. S. (2002). Knowledge of partner’s ability as a moderator of group motivation gains: an exploration of the Köhler discrepancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82 (6), 935–946. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.935

Montoya, A. K., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: a path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods , 22 (1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000086

Nordby, K., Klingsieck, K. B., & Svartdal, F. (2017). Do procrastination-friendly environments make students delay unnecessarily? Social Psychology of Education , 20 (3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9386-x

Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 45 (4), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009

Patrzek, J., Grunschel, C., & Fries, S. (2012). Academic procrastination: the perspective of university counsellors. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling , 34 (3), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-012-9150-z

Patzelt, J., & Opitz, I. (2014). Deutsche Version des Academic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI-d). [German version of the academic procrastination state inventory (APSI-d)] . Köln: Gesis.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: multilevel perspectives. Annual Reviews of Psychology , 56 , 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141

Pollack, S., & Herres, J. (2020). Prior day negative affect influences current day procrastination: a lagged daily diary analysis. Anxiety Stress and Coping . https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1722573

Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating Survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly , 68 (1), 109–130.

Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: an experience sampling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 15 (5), 239–254.

Sassenberg, K., & Woltin, K. A. (2008). Group-based self-regulation: the effects of regulatory focus. European Review of Social Psychology , 9 , 126–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280802201894

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination. Theoretical notions, measurement, and research. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance. Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 71–98). New York: Plenum Press.

Schuenemann, L., Scherenberg, V., Salisch, M., & Eckert, M. (2022). “I’ll worry about it tomorrow” – fostering emotion regulation skills to overcome procrastination. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 780675. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.780675

Senécal, C., Lavoie, K., & Koestner, R. (1997). Trait and situational factors in procrastination: an interactional model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 12 (4), 889–903.

Seo, E. H. (2009). The relationship of procrastination with a mastery goal versus an avoidance goal. Social Behavior and Personality , 37 (3), 911–920. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.7.911

Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: a motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 113 (1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.67

Sirois, F. M., & Giguère, B. (2018). Giving in when feeling less good: procrastination, action control, and social temptations. British Journal of Social Psychology , 57 (2), 404–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12243

Sirois, F. M., & Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood regulation: consequences for future self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 7 (2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12011

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin , 133 (1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Steel, P., Svartdal, F., Thundiyil, T., & Brothen, T. (2018). Examining procrastination across multiple goal stages: a longitudinal study of temporal motivation theory. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 (327), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00327

Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity . New York: Academic Press.

Svartdal, F., Dahl, T. I., Gamst-Klaussen, T., Koppenborg, M., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2020). How study environments foster academic procrastination: overview and recommendations. Frontiers in Psychology , 11 , 540910. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.540910

Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 38 (2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301

Torka, A., Mazai, J., & Hüffmeier, J. (2021). Together, everyone achieves more—or, less? An interdisciplinary meta-analysis on effort gains and losses in teams. Psychological Bulletin , 147 (5), 504–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000251

Trautwein, U., Lüdke, O., Marsh, H. W., & Nagy, G. (2009). Within-school social comparison: how students perceive the standing of their class predicts academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology , 101 (4), 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016306

Van Eerde, W., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2018). Overcoming procrastination? A meta-analysis of intervention studies. Educational Research Review , 25 , 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.002

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . Wiley.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 (6), 1063–1070.

Weber, B., & Hertel, G. (2007). Motivation gains of inferior group members: a meta-analytical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93 (6), 973–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.973

Wieland, L. M., Grunschel, C., Limberger, M. F., Schlotz, W., Ferrari, J. R., & Ebner-Priemer, U. W. (2018). The ecological momentary assessment of procrastination in daily life: psychometric properties of a five-item short scale. North American Journal of Psychology , 20 (2), 315–339.

Wolff, F., Helm, F., Zimmermann, F., Nagy, G., & Möller, J. (2018). On the effects of social, temporal, and dimensional comparisons on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology , 110 (7), 1005–1025. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000248

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology , 95 (1), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179

Yeager, D. S., Henderson, M. D., Paunesku, D., Walton, M., D’Mello, S., Spitzer, B. J., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Boring but important: a self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 107 (4), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037637

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. In: Handbook of self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Cologne, Vice-Rectorate for Teaching and Studies, Albertus- Magnus-Platz, 50923, Köln, Germany

Markus Koppenborg

Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Psychology, Paderborn University, Educational- Psychological Assessment and Intervention, Paderborn, Germany

Katrin B. Klingsieck

Department of Social, Work, and Organizational Psychology, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany

Joachim Hüffmeier

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Markus Koppenborg. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Markus Koppenborg and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Koppenborg .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval

APA standards were followed in the conduct of the study. Approval by an ethics committee was not necessary.

Participants provided informed consent.

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Koppenborg, M., Klingsieck, K.B. & Hüffmeier, J. Conjunctive and additive group work reduce academic procrastination: insights from a vignette study. Curr Psychol 43 , 997–1010 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04294-w

Download citation

Received : 08 June 2022

Revised : 18 January 2023

Accepted : 20 January 2023

Published : 16 February 2023

Issue Date : January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04294-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic procrastination
• Conjunctive and additive group work
• Effort gains
• Indispensability perceptions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of group work.

• Division of Psychology, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in educational systems. There is strong scientific support for the benefits of having students learning and working in groups. Nevertheless, studies about what occurs in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking. Similarly, the question of why some group work is successful and other group work results in the opposite is still unsolved. The aim of this article is to add to the current level of knowledge and understandings regarding the essence behind successful group work in higher education. This research is focused on the students’ experiences of group work and learning in groups, which is an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work prior to the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work ends up being a positive experience resulting in successful learning, while in other cases, the result is the reverse, are of interest. Data were collected through a study-specific questionnaire, with multiple choice and open-ended questions. The questionnaires were distributed to students in different study programs at two universities in Sweden. The present result is based on a reanalysis and qualitative analysis formed a key part of the study. The results indicate that most of the students’ experiences involved group work that facilitated learning, especially in the area of academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that served as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions facilitate or hamper students’ learning, as well as impact their experiences with group work.

Introduction

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in most educational systems, from compulsory education to higher education. The overarching purpose of group work in educational practice is to serve as an incentive for learning. For example, it is believed that the students involved in the group activity should “learn something.” This prerequisite has influenced previous research to predominantly focus on how to increase efficiency in group work and how to understand why some group work turns out favorably and other group work sessions result in the opposite. The review of previous research shows that in the 20th century, there has been an increase in research about students’ cooperation in the classroom ( Lou et al., 1996 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). This increasing interest can be traced back to the fact that both researchers and teachers have become aware of the positive effects that collaboration might have on students’ ability to learn. The main concern in the research area has been on how interaction and cooperation among students influence learning and problem solving in groups ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ).

Two approaches concerning learning in group are of interest, namely cooperative learning and collaborative learning . There seems to be a certain amount of confusion concerning how these concepts are to be interpreted and used, as well as what they actually signify. Often the conceptions are used synonymously even though there are some differentiations. Cooperative group work is usually considered as a comprehensive umbrella concept for several modes of student active working modes ( Johnson and Johnson, 1975 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ), whereas collaboration is a more of an exclusive concept and may be included in the much wider concept cooperation ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Cooperative learning may describe group work without any interaction between the students (i.e., the student may just be sitting next to each other; Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ), while collaborative learning always includes interaction, collaboration, and utilization of the group’s competences ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ).

At the present time, there is strong scientific support for the benefits of students learning and working in groups. In addition, the research shows that collaborative work promotes both academic achievement and collaborative abilities ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to Gillies and Boyle (2011) , the benefits are consistent irrespective of age (pre-school to college) and/or curriculum. When working interactively with others, students learn to inquire, share ideas, clarify differences, problem-solve, and construct new understandings. Gillies (2003a , b ) also stresses that students working together are more motivated to achieve than they would be when working individually. Thus, group work might serve as an incentive for learning, in terms of both academic knowledge and interpersonal skills. Nevertheless, studies about what occur in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking in the literature, especially when it comes to addressing the students’ points of view, with some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Similarly, the question of why some group work turns out successfully and other work results in the opposite is still unsolved. In this article, we hope to contribute some new pieces of information concerning the why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while others result in the opposite.

Group Work in Education

Group work is frequently used in higher education as a pedagogical mode in the classroom, and it is viewed as equivalent to any other pedagogical practice (i.e., whole class lesson or individual work). Without considering the pros and cons of group work, a non-reflective choice of pedagogical mode might end up resulting in less desirable consequences. A reflective choice, on the other hand, might result in positive experiences and enhanced learning ( Galton et al., 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

Group Work as Objective or Means

Group work might serve different purposes. As mentioned above, the overall purpose of the group work in education is that the students who participate in group work “learn something.” Learning can be in terms of academic knowledge or “group knowledge.” Group knowledge refers to learning to work in groups ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare might be of equal importance as academic knowledge, or they may even be prerequisites for learning. Thus, the group and the group work serve more functions than just than “just” being a pedagogical mode. Hence, before group work is implemented, it is important to consider the purpose the group assignment will have as the objective, the means, or both.

From a learning perspective, group work might function as both an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities) and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement) or both ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). If the purpose of the group work is to serve as an objective, the group’s function is to promote students’ development of group work abilities, such as social training and interpersonal skills. If, on the other hand, group work is used as a means to acquire academic knowledge, the group and the collaboration in the group become a base for students’ knowledge acquisition ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). The group contributes to the acquisition of knowledge and stimulates learning, thus promoting academic performance. Naturally, group work can be considered to be a learning environment, where group work is used both as an objective and as the means. One example of this concept is in the case of tutorial groups in problem-based learning. Both functions are important and might complement and/or even promote each other. Albeit used for different purposes, both approaches might serve as an incentive for learning, emphasizing different aspect knowledge, and learning in a group within an educational setting.

Working in a Group or as a Group

Even if group work is often defined as “pupils working together as a group or a team,” ( Blatchford et al., 2003 , p. 155), it is important to bear in mind that group work is not just one activity, but several activities with different conditions ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). This implies that group work may change characteristics several times during a group work session and/or during a group’s lifetime, thus suggesting that certain working modes may be better suited for different parts of a group’s work and vice versa ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). It is also important to differentiate between how the work is accomplished in the group, whether by working in a group or working as a group.

From a group work perspective, there are two primary ways of discussing cooperation in groups: working in a group (cooperation) or working as a group (collaboration; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Situations where students are sitting together in a group but working individually on separate parts of a group assignment are referred to as working in a group . This is not an uncommon situation within an educational setting ( Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ). Cooperation between students might occur, but it is not necessary to accomplish the group’s task. At the end of the task, the students put their separate contributions together into a joint product ( Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2010 , 2011a ). While no cooperative activities are mandatory while working in a group, cooperative learning may occur. However, the benefits in this case are an effect of social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) and are not caused by cooperation. In this situation, social facilitation alludes to the enhanced motivational effect that the presence of other students have on individual student’s performance.

Working as a group, on the other hand, causes learning benefits from collaboration with other group members. Working as a group is often referred to as “real group work” or “meaningful group work,” and denotes group work in which students utilizes the group members’ skills and work together to achieve a common goal. Moreover, working as a group presupposes collaboration, and that all group members will be involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, the utilization of the group’s competence, and the presence of problem solving and reflection. According to Granström (2006) , working as a group is a more uncommon activity in an educational setting. Both approaches might be useful in different parts of group work, depending on the purpose of the group work and type of task assigned to the group ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). Working in a group might lead to cooperative learning, while working as group might facilitate collaborative learning. While there are differences between the real meanings of the concepts, the terms are frequently used interchangeably ( Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

Previous Research of Students’ Experiences

As mentioned above, there are a limited number of studies concerning the participants’ perspectives on group work. Teachers often have to rely upon spontaneous viewpoints and indications about and students’ experiences of group work in the form of completed course evaluations. However, there are some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). To put this study in a context and provide a rationale for the present research, a selection of studies focusing on pupils’ and/or students’ experiences and conceptions of group work will be briefly discussed below. The pupils’ and/or students inside knowledge group work may present information relevant in all levels of educational systems.

Hansen (2006) conducted a small study with 34 participating students at a business faculty, focusing on the participants’ experiences of group work. In the study different aspects of students’ positive experiences of group work were identified. For example, it was found to be necessary that all group members take part and make an effort to take part in the group work, clear goals are set for the work, role differentiation exists among members, the task has some level of relevance, and there is clear leadership. Even though Hansen’s (2006) study was conducted in higher education, these findings may be relevant in other levels in educational systems.

To gain more knowledge and understand about the essence behind high-quality group work, Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) turned their focus toward students’ experiences and conceptions of group work in higher education. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating their students’ points of view and how the students assess working in groups. Do the students’ appreciate group projects or do they find it boring and even as a waste of time? Would some students prefer to work individually, or even in “the other group?” The study was a part of a larger research project on group work in education and only a small part of the data corpus was analyzed. Different critical aspects were identified as important incitements for whether the group work turned out to be a success or a failure. The students’ positive, as well as negative, experiences of group work include both task-related (e.g., learning, group composition, participants’ contribution, time) and socio-emotional (e.g., affiliation, conflict, group climate) aspects of group work. The students described their own group, as well as other groups, in a realistic way and did not believe that the grass was greener in the other group. The same data corpus is used in this article (see under Section The Previous Analysis). According to Underwood (2003) and Peterson and Miller (2004) , the students’ enthusiasm for group work is affected by type of task, as well as the group’s members. One problem that recurred frequently concerned students who did not contribute to the group work, also known as so-called free-riders ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Students are, in general, reluctant to punish free-riders and antipathy toward working in groups is often associated with a previous experience of having free-riders in the group ( Peterson and Miller, 2004 ). To accomplish a favorable attitude toward group work, the advantages of collaborative activities as a means for learning must be elucidated. Furthermore, students must be granted a guarantee that free-riders will not bring the group in an unfavorable light. The free-riders, on the other hand, must be encouraged to participate in the common project.

Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) were also interested in students’ experiences and conceptions of high-quality and low-quality group work in school and how students aged 13–16 describe good and bad group work? Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) show that the students seem to have a clear conception of what constitutes group work and what does not. According to the students, genuine group work is characterized by collaboration on an assignment given by the teacher. They describe group work as working together with their classmates on a common task. The students are also fully aware that successful group work calls for members with appropriate skills that are focused on the task and for all members take part in the common work. Furthermore, the results disclose what students consider being important requisites for successful versus more futile group work. The students’ inside knowledge about classroom activities ended up in a taxonomy of crucial conditions for high-quality group work. The six conditions were: (a) organization of group work conditions, (b) mode of working in groups, (c) tasks given in group work, (d) reporting group work, (e) assessment of group work, and (f) the role of the teacher in group work. The most essential condition for the students seemed to be group composition and the participants’ responsibilities and contributions. According to the students, a well-organized group consists of approximately three members, which allows the group to not be too heterogeneous. Members should be allotted a reasonable amount of time and be provided with an environment that is not too noisy. Hence, all six aspects are related to the role of the teacher’s leadership since the first five points concern the framework and prerequisites created by the teacher.

Näslund (2013) summarized students’ and researchers’ joint knowledge based on experience and research on in the context of shared perspective for group work. As a result, Näslund noticed a joint apprehension concerning what constitutes “an ideal group work.” Näslund (2013) highlighted the fact that both students and researchers emphasized for ideal group work to occur, the following conditions were important to have: (a) the group work is carried out in supportive context, (b) cooperation occurs, (c) the group work is well-structured, (d) students come prepared and act as working members during the meetings, and (e) group members show respect for each other.

From this brief exposition of a selection of research focusing on students’ views on group work, it is obvious that more systematic studies or documentations on students’ conceptions and experiences of group work within higher education are relevant and desired. The present study, which is a reanalysis of a corpus of data addressing the students’ perspective of group, is a step in that direction.

Aim of the Study

The overarching knowledge interest of this study is to enhance the body of knowledge regarding group work in higher education. The aim of this article is to add knowledge and understanding of what the essence behind successful group work in higher education is by focusing on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups , an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work until the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, are of interest.

Materials and Methods

To capture university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, an inductive qualitative approach, which emphasizes content and meaning rather than quantification, was used ( Breakwell et al., 2006 ; Bryman, 2012 ). The empirical data were collected through a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire and a qualitative content analysis was performed ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

Participants

All participating students attended traditional university programs where group work was a central and frequently used pedagogical method in the educational design. In addition, the participants’ programs allowed the students to be allocated to the same groups for a longer period of time, in some cases during a whole semester. University programs using specific pedagogical approaches, such as problem-based learning or case method, were not included in this study.

The participants consisted of a total of 210 students, 172 female and 38 male, from two universities in two different cities (approximately division: 75 and 25%). The students came from six different populations in four university programs: (a) The Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology, (b) The Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program, (c) Social Work Program, and (d) The Bachelor’s Programs in Biology. The informants were studying in their first through eighth terms, but the majority had previous experiences from working in other group settings. Only 2% of the students had just started their first term when the study was conducted, while the vast majority (96%) was participating in university studies in their second to sixth semester.

The teacher most frequently arranged the group composition and only a few students stated that they have had any influence on the group formation. There were, with a few exceptions, between 6 and 10 groups in each of the programs included in this study. The groups consisted of between four to eight members and the differences in sizes were almost proportionally distributed among the research group. The groups were foremost heterogeneous concerning gender, but irrespective of group size, there seems to have been a bias toward more women than men in most of the groups. When there was an underrepresented sex in the group, the minority mostly included two students of the same gender. More than 50% of the students answered that in this particularly group, they worked solely with new group members, i.e., students they had not worked with in previous group work during the program.

To collect data about students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire approached the students’ experiences regarding the specific group work they were working in at the time of the data collection (spring 2006), not their experiences of group work in general. The questionnaire contained a total of 18 questions, including both multiple choice and open-ended questions. The multiple choice questions concerned background variables and information about the present group. The seven open-ended questions were designed to gather data about the students’ experiences and perceptions of group work in higher education. The questionnaires were distributed to the different populations of students (some populations studied at the same program) at two universities in Sweden. During the time the questionnaires were completed, the researcher or an assistant was present to answer possible questions. In all, 210 students answered the questionnaire.

The previous analysis

As described above (Section Previous Research of Students’ Experiences) a previous analysis based on the same data corpus revealed that most of the students included in the study found group work to be an enjoyable and stimulating working method ( Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ). The data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis based on three different research questions. There were two main criticisms of the previous study presented from other researchers. The criticism conveyed applied mostly to the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group and second to the fact that the results were mostly descriptive. To counter this criticism and to elaborate on the analysis, a further analysis was conducted.

The present analysis

The present analysis (or reanalysis) was conducted by using an inductive qualitative content analysis based on three open-ended research questions:

(1) In what ways does group work contribute to your learning?

(2) What positive experiences have you had while working in your present group?

(3) What negative experiences have you had while working in your present group?

Each question corresponds to one aspect of the research’s objective, but together, they might support and enrich each other and unravel new information based on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work. Research question 1, listed above, was not included in the first analysis and is being investigated for the first time in this study, while the other two questions are being reanalyzed. An inductive, qualitative content analysis is applicable when the aim of the research is a description of the meaning or of a phenomenon in conceptual form ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

The analysis was carried out over several steps, following the basic principles of an inductive, qualitative content analysis ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). The steps included three phases: preparation, organizing, and reporting ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Each question was treated as a unit of analysis and was thus analyzed separately. In the preparation phase, the researcher tried to make sense of the data by becoming familiar with the data corpus. In the current study, this included transcription and thorough reading of the answers. An open coding system composed of marginal notes and headings began the second phase, which included organizing the data. This second phase, in turn, included open coding, creating categories, and abstraction. The notes and the headings from the open coding were transferred to coding sheets and then grouped into categories. Categories were formed through the interpretation of the codes that described the same meaning or phenomenon. Finally, an abstraction process began, where a general description of the grouped categories formed an abstraction (see Table 1 ). An abstraction was denominated using the content-characteristic words for this paper: learning, study-social function, and organization . The third phase, reporting , addressed the presentation of the process of analysis and the results.

TABLE 1. Examples from the organization phase of the coding process.

The final aim of this study is to present the phenomenon studied in a model or conceptual map of the categories ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). In following these procedures, we aim to expand our understanding of the existing work and to counter the second part of the criticisms, which included criticisms stating that the results were mostly descriptive in nature. To counter the criticisms regarding the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group, the qualitative abstraction that emerged from the qualitative content analysis was compared to background information by using SPSS. Three background variables were used: gender, cities, and programs.

Ethics and Quality

The ethical principles provided by the British Psychology Society have formed a guideline [ British Psychology Society (BPS), 2006 ] for the present study. The ethical principles, which emphasize the concern for participants’ interest, have been applied throughout the study [ American Psychological Association (APA), 2002 ; British Psychology Society (BPS), 2004 ; Barett, 2007 ]. To facilitate trustworthiness, a thorough description of the analysis process has been presented ( Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Translated citations are also included to increase trustworthiness.

As described above, the analysis resulted in three abstraction emerging: learning, study-social function , and organization . Each abstraction includes both a positive variant (i.e., facilitating learning, study-social function, and/or organization) as well as a negative alternative (i.e., hampering learning, study-social function, and/or organization). The results will be presented in three different sections, with each section corresponding to one abstraction. However, we would like to call attention to the fact that one fifth (20%, including missing value 8%) of the students included in this study did not perceive and/or mention any negative experiences at all in their present group. From a general point of view, there is no difference with respect to gender or city regarding the distribution of positive and negative experiences concerning the abstractions, neither concerning different programs nor the distribution of negative experiences (all p > 0.05). In contrast, there is a difference between the various programs and the distribution of positive experiences (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). The students from the social work program display a higher amount of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with the other programs.

The majority of the students (97%) responded that working in group somehow facilitated learning, academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both. They learned more or different things when working in groups than they would have if working alone. By discussing and questioning each other’s points of view and listening to their fellow students’ contributions, thus obtaining different perspectives, the participants experienced an enhanced academic learning, compared to working alone. “I learn much more by working in groups than working individually. I obtain more through interaction with the other group members.” Academic knowledge is not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gain advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work in group courses strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus learning about groups by working in groups. “Through practical knowledge demonstrate several of the phenomena we read about in theory (group psychology and sociology).”

The results show no difference when considering either gender or city. However, when comparing the four programs included in the study and the types of learning, a difference occurs (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). A division into two parts seems to generate the difference. On the one hand, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program emphasize academic knowledge. On the other hand, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities single handed, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning.

Even though the participants did not expressly report that group work hampered learning, they often mentioned that they perceived group work as being ineffective due to loss of focus and the presence of conflicts, thereby hampering conceivable learning. One respondent stated, “that you sometimes are out of focus in the discussion and get side-tracked instead of considering the task.” Another offered the following perspective: “Occasionally, it is too little task related and feels unnecessary sometimes. Individual work is, in certain situations, preferable.” Group work might be perceived as ineffective and time consuming considering long working periods with tedious discussions. One participant stated, “The time aspect, everything is time consuming.” The absence or presence of conflicts in the group affects students’ experiences, and conflicts not handled may influence learning in a negative way. The students perceived that it was difficult to come to an agreement and experience those conflicts and the need to compromise hampered individual learning. Accordingly, the absence of conflicts seemed to be an important incitement for learning. However, fear of conflicts can lead to reduced learning and cause negative experiences, but to a considerably lesser extent than does the presence of actual conflicts. “A great fear of conflicts sometimes raises an oppressive atmosphere.” “Fear of conflicts leads to much not made known.”

A Study-Social Function

Group work also has an important study - social function according to the students. They describe their membership in groups as an important aspect of affiliation. In general, the total number of students at a program is approximately 60–80 or more. In contexts with a large population of students, the smaller group gives the participants an opportunity to feel affiliated with the group and to each other. “Feels safe to have a certain group to prepare oneself together with before, for instance, an upcoming seminar.” The group gives the individual student a platform of belonging, which might serve as an important arena for learning ( facilitate ) and finding friends to spend leisure time with. Many of the participants also reported feeling a positive atmosphere in the group, which is important for the satisfaction of being in the group together with the fellow students.

To be a member of a group may also serve as a function of relief, both academically and socially, for the individual student. The participants reported that many of the tasks assigned by the university teachers are difficult to handle on their own. “The others explain to me. We help one another.” However, the students reported that they helped and supported each other, even if the task did not demand cooperation. “As a student, you get more active. You help one another to extract the groups’ common knowledge. Forward info if somebody is missing.” Being a member of a group also affects students’ motivation to study. They prepare themselves by reading texts and other material before the next group session. Group work may also have positive effects on achievement. Students’ total amount of time and effort on their work may also increase. Through group work, the participants also get confirmation of who they are and what their capacities are.

Being a member of a group also has its downside, which often has to do with the group climate and/or group processes, both of which have multiple and complex features. Many students reported that both the group climate and group processes might be the source of negative conceptions of the group and hamper learning. “Process losses.” The respondents described negative conceptions based on the feeling of not having enough time to get to know each other in the group or being in situations where no cooperation occurred. Other students referred to the fact that the group’s life is too long, which may lead to group members not only wearing each other out, but also having a negative effect on each other’s mood. “Influenced by each other’s mood.” Examples of negative experiences are process losses in general, including insufficient communication, unclear roles, and problems with one group member. As mentioned above, the students from the Social Work Program display a higher number of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with students from the other programs.

Organization

O rganization concerns the structure of group work and includes different aspects, all describing group work from different angles. The aspects are relevant no matter how the participants perceive the group work, whether as positive or negative. Unlike the other two abstractions (learning and study-social function), organization includes the same aspects no matter what the experiences are, namely group composition , group structure , way of working and contributions.

Whether the group is composed in a homogeneous or heterogeneous way seems to be experienced in both a positive and negative sense. A well-thought-out group composition , including both group size and mix of members, is essential. A just large-enough group for the task, consisting of a population of members that is not too heterogeneous, facilitates a joyful experience and learning. A homogeneous mix of members might be perceived as positive, as the students feel that they have similar life situations, opinions, and skills, thereby causing positive conditions for collaboration within the group. Conversely, in a group with a heterogeneous mix, different members contribute with different knowledge and/or prior experiences, which can be used in the group for collective and collaborative learning. “Good group composition, distribution of age groups that leads to fruitful discussions.”

An additional facilitating prerequisite is that the group develops adequate ways of working together, which includes a well-organized group structure . Well-working groups are characterized as having developed adequate ways of working together, while groups that work less well together lack a developed way of cooperation. “Well-organized working group with clear and distinct rules and structure.” Preparation and attendance for group work are aspects mentioned as facilitating (and hampering) incitements. Group work in educational settings sometimes entails that you, as a student, are forced to read and learn within a certain period of time that is beyond your control. Some participants find the pressure positive, hence “increase the pressure to read chapters in time.” The members’ contribution to the group is also a central factor for the students’ apprehension of how the group works. This is, in short, about how much each member ought to contribute to the group and to the work. Groups considered to be well-working are ones where all members contribute to the group’s work, but the content of the contribution may vary according to the single member’s qualifications. “We work well together (most of us). Everybody participates in different ways and seems committed.” “Good, everybody participates the same amount. We complement each other well.”

The same prerequisites can lead to the reverse result, i.e., hampering learning and stirring up negative experiences. If the group members are too identical (a homogeneous group composition ), it might lead to a lack of opinions, which several participants perceived as being negative. “That we do not get a male perspective about the subject. We are all girls, at the age of 20, which also means that we have pretty much the same experiences that may be seen as both positive and negative. The negative is the lack of opinion.” If the group is considered to be too small, students seems to find it troublesome, as the relationships are few, but there are also few people who are available to handle the workload allotted to the group. Nevertheless, a group that is too large could also lead to negative experiences. “It is far too large a group.”

A lack of group structure might lead to a lower degree of satisfaction with the group’s way of working . A commonly expressed point of view seen in the students’ answers involved the occurrences of when all members did not attend the meetings (absence). In these cases, it was also viewed that the work in the group often was characterized as unstructured. “Sometimes a bit unclear structures, some students have difficulties with coming in time.” Not attending or coming unprepared or badly prepared to the group work is other aspect that is commented on. “Low degree of fellowship, punctuality is a problem, an insecure group.” Some students find it frustrating to prepare for a certain time decided that is beyond their control. “A necessity to read certain chapters within a specific period of time is never stimulating.”

One characteristic of groups that are not working well is that contribution varies among the members. In group work, students with different levels of ambition are assembled, which may result in different levels of interest and commitment, as well as differences in the willingness to take on responsibilities or part of the workload of the group’s work. Some members are active and do much of the work, while others barely contribute at all. “Some don’t do anything while others pull the heaviest burden. Two out of three prepare before the meeting, the rest think that they are able to read during the group work and do not supply the group with anything else other than delays and frustration.” A common answer seen in the questionnaires that concerns negative experiences of group work as they relate to contribution is: “Everybody does not contribute just as much.” or “There is always someone who just glides along and doesn’t take part.”

Summary of the Results

The results are summarized in a model illustrating the relationship between abstractions (i.e., learning, study-social function, and organization) and result (i.e., enhanced or reduced learning), as well as positive or negative experiences (see Figure 1 ).

FIGURE 1. A model illustrating the relationship between abstractions and result .

The figure shows that all three abstractions may facilitate or hamper learning as well as the experiences of group work. To piece together, the difficult and extensive jigsaw puzzle concerning why some group work result in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases the result is the reverse is still not solved. In this article, we propose that the prerequisites learning, study-social function, and organization influence learning and experiences of working in group, thus, providing additional pieces of information to the jigsaw puzzle (Figure 2 ).

FIGURE 2. Pieces of jigsaw puzzle influence learning and experiences.

The current study focuses on university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view, as well as how the students’ assess learning when working in groups. The analysis resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations. Each abstraction also included a positive and a negative variant. In other words, all three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work.

Learning in Group Work

The result shows that the majority of the students (97%) experience that working in group facilitated learning, either academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both, accordingly confirming previous research ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to the students, they learn more or different things when working in groups compared with working individually. Academic knowledge was not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gained advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work might strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus the students were learning about groups by working in groups. This implies that group work, from a learning perspective, serves several functions for the students ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Group work also seems to have an important study-social function for the university students, hence confirming that group work serves more functions than just being a pedagogical mode.

Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare seem to be highly important, and may even be essential prerequisites for learning. Accordingly, group work functions as both as an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities), and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement), or both, for the students ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). Moreover, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Program for Human Resources seem to use group work more as means for obtaining academic knowledge. In contrast, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities alone, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning, thus using group work as an objective, as a means, or as a combination of both. One interpretation might be that the type of task assigned to the students differs in various programs. This can be valid both concerning the purpose of group work (group work as objective or as the means), but also arrangement (working in a group or as a group; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Another possible explanation might be that the main emphasis in the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the Program for Human Resources is on product and academic knowledge, while in the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program, the process is more articulated and demanded. However, this is only speculation and further research is needed.

Even though the participants did not explicitly state that group work hampered learning, they mentioned that they perceived group work to be ineffective due to the loss of focus and/or the presence of conflicts with other group members, thereby hampering conceivable learning. This may also be an effect of the purpose or arrangement of the group work ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

Experiences of Group Work

The results revealed that several aspects of group work are important incentives for learning. In addition, this study revealed students’ experiences of group work (i.e., facilitating or hampering positive/negative experiences), which is in line with the previous studies on students’ experiences of working in groups ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Group composition, group structure, ways of working, and participants’ contributions are aspects put forward by the university students as either facilitating or hampering the positive experience of group work ( Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

Several of the aspects bear reference to whether the group members work in a group or as a group ( Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, utilization of the group’s competence, and includes problem solving and reflection. All group members are involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). According to the results, not all groups are working as a group but rather working in a group, which, according to Granström (2006) , is common in an educational setting.

Due to problems with group composition, members’ contributions, and group structure, including rules and ways of cooperation, some students end up with negative experiences of group work. Additionally, the university students allude to the fact that a well-functioning supportive study-social context is an essential prerequisite not only for positive experiences of group work, but also for learning ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Both working in a group and working as group might be useful in different parts of the group work ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ) and cause learning. Hence working in a group causes cooperative learning based on social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) while working as group causes learning benefits through collaboration with other group members. Although both approaches might cause positive or negative experiences, a conceivable interpretation is that working as a group has a greater potential to enhance positive experiences. The findings suggest a need for further research to fully understand why some group work causes positive experiences and other instances of group work cause negative experiences.

The findings in the current study develop the findings from Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) . First, it shows that it is possible to assemble all groups in to a joint research group (see below). Second, a thorough reanalysis, using an inductive qualitative content analysis, resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations as either facilitating or hampering learning, and experiences.

Methodological Considerations

There are some limitations in the current study and most of them have to do with the construction of the study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire. First, the questions do not discriminate between (a) the type of group work, (b) the purpose with the group work, (c) the structure of the group work (i.e., extent and/or time); or (d) ways of working in the group (i.e., cooperation or collaboration). Second, the design of the questionnaire does not facilitate comparison between the populations included in the group. The questionnaire treated group work as one activity and did not acknowledge that group work can serve different functions and include various activities ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). This simplification of the phenomena group work causes criticism concerning whether or not it is possible to assemble these populations into a joint research group. An elaborated description of the analysis process and the comparison to three background variables has been used to counter this criticism. The thin results from the comparison, indicate that based on the question used in the study-specific questionnaire, it is possible to assemble the results into a corpus of joint results.

Conclusion/Concluding Remarks

The results indicate that most of the students’ experienced that group work facilitated learning, especially concerning academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that serve as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work. By listening to the university students’ voices and elucidating their experiences and conceptions, we have been able to add new knowledge and understanding of what the essence is behind successful group work in higher education. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, can be of use for further development of group work as a pedagogical practice.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges Ph.D. Faculty Program Director, Charlotta Einarsson, for her contribution to the design of this study and contribution to early stages of the data analysis and manuscript.

American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct . Available at: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Baines, E., Blatchford, P., and Chowne, A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: effects on science attainment. Br. Educ. Res. J. 33, 663–680. doi: 10.1080/01411920701582231

CrossRef Full Text

Barett, M. (2007). “Practical and ethical issues in planning research,” in Research Methods in Psychology , eds G. Breakell, S. Hammond, C. Fife-Schaw, and J. A. Smith (London: Sage Publications), 24–48.

Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: progress and problems. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19, 1–40. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60211-7

Bennet, N., and Dunne, E. (1992). Managing Classroom Groups. Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Schuster Education.

Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., and Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39, 153–172. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8

Breakwell, G. M., and Hammond, F., Fife-Schaw, C., and Smith, J. A. (eds). (2006). Research Methods in Psychology . London: Sage Publications.

British Psychology Society (BPS). (2004). Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles, and Guidelines . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download.cfm?file_uuid=6D0645CC-7E96-C67F-D75E2648E5580115&ext=pdf

British Psychology Society (BPS). (2006). Code of Ethics and Conduct . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/the-society/code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct_home.cfm

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods . Oxford: University Press.

Cantwell, R. H., and Andrews, B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students’ feeling towards group work. Educ. Psychol. 22, 75–91. doi: 10.1080/01443410120101260

Elo, S., and Kyngäs, H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62, 107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text

Galton, M., and Williamson, J. (1992). Group Work in the Primary Classroom . London: Routledge.

Galton, M. J., Hargreaves, L., and Pell, T. (2009). Group work and whole-class teaching with 11–14-years-old compared. Cambridge J. Educ . 39, 119–147. doi: 10.1080/03057640802701994

Gillies, R. M. (2003a). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 137–147. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.137

Gillies, R. M. (2003b). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39, 35–49. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7

Gillies, R. M., and Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26, 933–940. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034

Gillies, R. M., and Boyle, M. (2011). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning (CL): a two-year follow-up. Teach. Educ. 1, 63–78. doi: 10.1080/10476210.2010.538045

Graneheim, U. H., and Lundman, B. (2003). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ. Today 24, 105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Granström, K. (2006). “Group phenomena and classroom management in Sweden,” in Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues , eds C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 1141–1160.

Hammar Chiriac, E. (2008). A scheme for understanding group processes in problem-based learning. High. Educ. 55, 505–518. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9071-7

Hammar Chiriac, E. (2010). “Group work is not one, but a great many processes – understanding group work dynamics,” in Group Theory: Classes, Representation and Connections, and Applications , ed. C. W. Danellis (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.), 153–166.

Hammar Chiriac, E. (2011a). Research on Group Work in Education . New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Hammar Chiriac, E. (2011b). “Research on group work in education,” in Emerging Issues in Compulsory Education [Progress in Education. Volume 20 ], ed R. Nata (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.), 25–44.

Hammar Chiriac, E., and Einarsson, C. (2007). “Is the grass greener in the other group? Students’ experiences of group-work” [“Är gräset grönare i den andra gruppen? Studenters erfarenheter av grupparbete”] [Published in Swedish], in Interaction on the Edge 2. Proceedings from the 5th GRASP Conference , ed. J. Näslund (Linköping: Linköping University).

Hammar Chiriac, E., and Granström, K. (2012). Teachers’ leadership and students’ experience of group work. Teach. Teach. Theor. Pract. 3, 345–363. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2012.629842

Hammar Chiriac, E., and Hempel, A. (2013), Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] . Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: suggestions for improving team projects. J. Educ. Bus. 82, 11–19. doi: 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing Students in Groups: Promoting Group Responsibility and Individual Accountability . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kutnick, P., and Beredondini, L. (2009). Can the enhancement of group work in classrooms provide a basis for effective communication in support of school-based cognitive achievement in classrooms of young learners? Cambridge J. Educ . 39, 71–94. doi: 10.1080/03057640902836880

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., and d’Apllonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 423–458. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004423

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1:2. Available at: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm_140309

Näslund, J. (2013). “Pupils’ and students’ view on group work” [Published in Swedish: Elevers och studenters syn på grupparbete] in Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] , eds E. Hammar Chiriac and A. Hempel (Lund: Studentlitteratur), 233–242.

Peterson, S, and Miller, J. A. (2004). Quality of college students’ experiences during cooperative learning. Soc. Psychol. Learn. 7, 161–183.

Underwood, J. D. M. (2003). Student attitudes towards socially acceptable and unacceptable group working practices. Br. J. Psychol. 94, 319–337. doi: 10.1348/000712603767876253

Uziel, L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: a review and meta-analysis. J. Res. Person. 41, 579–601. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008

Webb, N. M., and Palincsar, A. S. (1996). “Group processes in the classroom,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology , eds D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee (New York: Macmillan), 841–873.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). “Compresence,” in Psychology of Group Influence , ed. P. B. Paulus (New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum), 35–60.

Keywords : group work, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, higher education, students’ perspectives, qualitative research

Citation: Hammar Chiriac E (2014) Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of group work. Front. Psychol. 5 :558. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00558

Received: 30 Mar 2014; Accepted: 20 May 2014; Published online: 05 June 2014.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2014 Hammar Chiriac. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Eva Hammar Chiriac, Division of Psychology, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of group work

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in educational systems. There is strong scientific support for the benefits of having students learning and working in groups. Nevertheless, studies about what occurs in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking. Similarly, the question of why some group work is successful and other group work results in the opposite is still unsolved. The aim of this article is to add to the current level of knowledge and understandings regarding the essence behind successful group work in higher education. This research is focused on the students’ experiences of group work and learning in groups, which is an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work prior to the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work ends up being a positive experience resulting in successful learning, while in other cases, the result is the reverse, are of interest. Data were collected through a study-specific questionnaire, with multiple choice and open-ended questions. The questionnaires were distributed to students in different study programs at two universities in Sweden. The present result is based on a reanalysis and qualitative analysis formed a key part of the study. The results indicate that most of the students’ experiences involved group work that facilitated learning, especially in the area of academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that served as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions facilitate or hamper students’ learning, as well as impact their experiences with group work.

INTRODUCTION

Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in most educational systems, from compulsory education to higher education. The overarching purpose of group work in educational practice is to serve as an incentive for learning. For example, it is believed that the students involved in the group activity should “learn something.” This prerequisite has influenced previous research to predominantly focus on how to increase efficiency in group work and how to understand why some group work turns out favorably and other group work sessions result in the opposite. The review of previous research shows that in the 20th century, there has been an increase in research about students’ cooperation in the classroom ( Lou et al., 1996 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). This increasing interest can be traced back to the fact that both researchers and teachers have become aware of the positive effects that collaboration might have on students’ ability to learn. The main concern in the research area has been on how interaction and cooperation among students influence learning and problem solving in groups ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ).

Two approaches concerning learning in group are of interest, namely cooperative learning and collaborative learning . There seems to be a certain amount of confusion concerning how these concepts are to be interpreted and used, as well as what they actually signify. Often the conceptions are used synonymously even though there are some differentiations. Cooperative group work is usually considered as a comprehensive umbrella concept for several modes of student active working modes ( Johnson and Johnson, 1975 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ), whereas collaboration is a more of an exclusive concept and may be included in the much wider concept cooperation ( Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Cooperative learning may describe group work without any interaction between the students (i.e., the student may just be sitting next to each other; Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ), while collaborative learning always includes interaction, collaboration, and utilization of the group’s competences ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ).

At the present time, there is strong scientific support for the benefits of students learning and working in groups. In addition, the research shows that collaborative work promotes both academic achievement and collaborative abilities ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to Gillies and Boyle (2011) , the benefits are consistent irrespective of age (pre-school to college) and/or curriculum. When working interactively with others, students learn to inquire, share ideas, clarify differences, problem-solve, and construct new understandings. Gillies (2003a , b ) also stresses that students working together are more motivated to achieve than they would be when working individually. Thus, group work might serve as an incentive for learning, in terms of both academic knowledge and interpersonal skills. Nevertheless, studies about what occur in groups during group work and which factors actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking in the literature, especially when it comes to addressing the students’ points of view, with some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Similarly, the question of why some group work turns out successfully and other work results in the opposite is still unsolved. In this article, we hope to contribute some new pieces of information concerning the why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while others result in the opposite.

GROUP WORK IN EDUCATION

Group work is frequently used in higher education as a pedagogical mode in the classroom, and it is viewed as equivalent to any other pedagogical practice (i.e., whole class lesson or individual work). Without considering the pros and cons of group work, a non-reflective choice of pedagogical mode might end up resulting in less desirable consequences. A reflective choice, on the other hand, might result in positive experiences and enhanced learning ( Galton et al., 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

GROUP WORK AS OBJECTIVE OR MEANS

Group work might serve different purposes. As mentioned above, the overall purpose of the group work in education is that the students who participate in group work “learn something.” Learning can be in terms of academic knowledge or “group knowledge.” Group knowledge refers to learning to work in groups ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare might be of equal importance as academic knowledge, or they may even be prerequisites for learning. Thus, the group and the group work serve more functions than just than “just” being a pedagogical mode. Hence, before group work is implemented, it is important to consider the purpose the group assignment will have as the objective, the means, or both.

From a learning perspective, group work might function as both an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities) and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement) or both ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). If the purpose of the group work is to serve as an objective, the group’s function is to promote students’ development of group work abilities, such as social training and interpersonal skills. If, on the other hand, group work is used as a means to acquire academic knowledge, the group and the collaboration in the group become a base for students’ knowledge acquisition ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). The group contributes to the acquisition of knowledge and stimulates learning, thus promoting academic performance. Naturally, group work can be considered to be a learning environment, where group work is used both as an objective and as the means. One example of this concept is in the case of tutorial groups in problem-based learning. Both functions are important and might complement and/or even promote each other. Albeit used for different purposes, both approaches might serve as an incentive for learning, emphasizing different aspect knowledge, and learning in a group within an educational setting.

WORKING IN A GROUP OR AS A GROUP

Even if group work is often defined as “pupils working together as a group or a team,” ( Blatchford et al., 2003 , p. 155), it is important to bear in mind that group work is not just one activity, but several activities with different conditions ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). This implies that group work may change characteristics several times during a group work session and/or during a group’s lifetime, thus suggesting that certain working modes may be better suited for different parts of a group’s work and vice versa ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 , 2010 ). It is also important to differentiate between how the work is accomplished in the group, whether by working in a group or working as a group.

From a group work perspective, there are two primary ways of discussing cooperation in groups: working in a group (cooperation) or working as a group (collaboration; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Situations where students are sitting together in a group but working individually on separate parts of a group assignment are referred to as working in a group . This is not an uncommon situation within an educational setting ( Gillies and Boyle, 2011 ). Cooperation between students might occur, but it is not necessary to accomplish the group’s task. At the end of the task, the students put their separate contributions together into a joint product ( Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2010 , 2011a ). While no cooperative activities are mandatory while working in a group, cooperative learning may occur. However, the benefits in this case are an effect of social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) and are not caused by cooperation. In this situation, social facilitation alludes to the enhanced motivational effect that the presence of other students have on individual student’s performance.

Working as a group, on the other hand, causes learning benefits from collaboration with other group members. Working as a group is often referred to as “real group work” or “meaningful group work,” and denotes group work in which students utilizes the group members’ skills and work together to achieve a common goal. Moreover, working as a group presupposes collaboration, and that all group members will be involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, the utilization of the group’s competence, and the presence of problem solving and reflection. According to Granström (2006) , working as a group is a more uncommon activity in an educational setting. Both approaches might be useful in different parts of group work, depending on the purpose of the group work and type of task assigned to the group ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). Working in a group might lead to cooperative learning, while working as group might facilitate collaborative learning. While there are differences between the real meanings of the concepts, the terms are frequently used interchangeably ( Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH OF STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES

As mentioned above, there are a limited number of studies concerning the participants’ perspectives on group work. Teachers often have to rely upon spontaneous viewpoints and indications about and students’ experiences of group work in the form of completed course evaluations. However, there are some exceptions ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). To put this study in a context and provide a rationale for the present research, a selection of studies focusing on pupils’ and/or students’ experiences and conceptions of group work will be briefly discussed below. The pupils’ and/or students inside knowledge group work may present information relevant in all levels of educational systems.

Hansen (2006) conducted a small study with 34 participating students at a business faculty, focusing on the participants’ experiences of group work. In the study different aspects of students’ positive experiences of group work were identified. For example, it was found to be necessary that all group members take part and make an effort to take part in the group work, clear goals are set for the work, role differentiation exists among members, the task has some level of relevance, and there is clear leadership. Even though Hansen’s (2006) study was conducted in higher education, these findings may be relevant in other levels in educational systems.

To gain more knowledge and understand about the essence behind high-quality group work, Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) turned their focus toward students’ experiences and conceptions of group work in higher education. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating their students’ points of view and how the students assess working in groups. Do the students’ appreciate group projects or do they find it boring and even as a waste of time? Would some students prefer to work individually, or even in “the other group?” The study was a part of a larger research project on group work in education and only a small part of the data corpus was analyzed. Different critical aspects were identified as important incitements for whether the group work turned out to be a success or a failure. The students’ positive, as well as negative, experiences of group work include both task-related (e.g., learning, group composition, participants’ contribution, time) and socio-emotional (e.g., affiliation, conflict, group climate) aspects of group work. The students described their own group, as well as other groups, in a realistic way and did not believe that the grass was greener in the other group. The same data corpus is used in this article (see under Section The Previous Analysis). According to Underwood (2003) and Peterson and Miller (2004) , the students’ enthusiasm for group work is affected by type of task, as well as the group’s members. One problem that recurred frequently concerned students who did not contribute to the group work, also known as so-called free-riders ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Students are, in general, reluctant to punish free-riders and antipathy toward working in groups is often associated with a previous experience of having free-riders in the group ( Peterson and Miller, 2004 ). To accomplish a favorable attitude toward group work, the advantages of collaborative activities as a means for learning must be elucidated. Furthermore, students must be granted a guarantee that free-riders will not bring the group in an unfavorable light. The free-riders, on the other hand, must be encouraged to participate in the common project.

Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) were also interested in students’ experiences and conceptions of high-quality and low-quality group work in school and how students aged 13–16 describe good and bad group work? Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) show that the students seem to have a clear conception of what constitutes group work and what does not. According to the students, genuine group work is characterized by collaboration on an assignment given by the teacher. They describe group work as working together with their classmates on a common task. The students are also fully aware that successful group work calls for members with appropriate skills that are focused on the task and for all members take part in the common work. Furthermore, the results disclose what students consider being important requisites for successful versus more futile group work. The students’ inside knowledge about classroom activities ended up in a taxonomy of crucial conditions for high-quality group work. The six conditions were: (a) organization of group work conditions, (b) mode of working in groups, (c) tasks given in group work, (d) reporting group work, (e) assessment of group work, and (f) the role of the teacher in group work. The most essential condition for the students seemed to be group composition and the participants’ responsibilities and contributions. According to the students, a well-organized group consists of approximately three members, which allows the group to not be too heterogeneous. Members should be allotted a reasonable amount of time and be provided with an environment that is not too noisy. Hence, all six aspects are related to the role of the teacher’s leadership since the first five points concern the framework and prerequisites created by the teacher.

Näslund (2013) summarized students’ and researchers’ joint knowledge based on experience and research on in the context of shared perspective for group work. As a result, Näslund noticed a joint apprehension concerning what constitutes “an ideal group work.” Näslund (2013) highlighted the fact that both students and researchers emphasized for ideal group work to occur, the following conditions were important to have: (a) the group work is carried out in supportive context, (b) cooperation occurs, (c) the group work is well-structured, (d) students come prepared and act as working members during the meetings, and (e) group members show respect for each other.

From this brief exposition of a selection of research focusing on students’ views on group work, it is obvious that more systematic studies or documentations on students’ conceptions and experiences of group work within higher education are relevant and desired. The present study, which is a reanalysis of a corpus of data addressing the students’ perspective of group, is a step in that direction.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The overarching knowledge interest of this study is to enhance the body of knowledge regarding group work in higher education. The aim of this article is to add knowledge and understanding of what the essence behind successful group work in higher education is by focusing on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups , an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work until the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, are of interest.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To capture university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, an inductive qualitative approach, which emphasizes content and meaning rather than quantification, was used ( Breakwell et al., 2006 ; Bryman, 2012 ). The empirical data were collected through a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire and a qualitative content analysis was performed ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

PARTICIPANTS

All participating students attended traditional university programs where group work was a central and frequently used pedagogical method in the educational design. In addition, the participants’ programs allowed the students to be allocated to the same groups for a longer period of time, in some cases during a whole semester. University programs using specific pedagogical approaches, such as problem-based learning or case method, were not included in this study.

The participants consisted of a total of 210 students, 172 female and 38 male, from two universities in two different cities (approximately division: 75 and 25%). The students came from six different populations in four university programs: (a) The Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology, (b) The Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program, (c) Social Work Program, and (d) The Bachelor’s Programs in Biology. The informants were studying in their first through eighth terms, but the majority had previous experiences from working in other group settings. Only 2% of the students had just started their first term when the study was conducted, while the vast majority (96%) was participating in university studies in their second to sixth semester.

The teacher most frequently arranged the group composition and only a few students stated that they have had any influence on the group formation. There were, with a few exceptions, between 6 and 10 groups in each of the programs included in this study. The groups consisted of between four to eight members and the differences in sizes were almost proportionally distributed among the research group. The groups were foremost heterogeneous concerning gender, but irrespective of group size, there seems to have been a bias toward more women than men in most of the groups. When there was an underrepresented sex in the group, the minority mostly included two students of the same gender. More than 50% of the students answered that in this particularly group, they worked solely with new group members, i.e., students they had not worked with in previous group work during the program.

To collect data about students’ experiences and conceptions of group work, a study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire approached the students’ experiences regarding the specific group work they were working in at the time of the data collection (spring 2006), not their experiences of group work in general. The questionnaire contained a total of 18 questions, including both multiple choice and open-ended questions. The multiple choice questions concerned background variables and information about the present group. The seven open-ended questions were designed to gather data about the students’ experiences and perceptions of group work in higher education. The questionnaires were distributed to the different populations of students (some populations studied at the same program) at two universities in Sweden. During the time the questionnaires were completed, the researcher or an assistant was present to answer possible questions. In all, 210 students answered the questionnaire.

The previous analysis

As described above (Section Previous Research of Students’ Experiences) a previous analysis based on the same data corpus revealed that most of the students included in the study found group work to be an enjoyable and stimulating working method ( Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson, 2007 ). The data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis based on three different research questions. There were two main criticisms of the previous study presented from other researchers. The criticism conveyed applied mostly to the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group and second to the fact that the results were mostly descriptive. To counter this criticism and to elaborate on the analysis, a further analysis was conducted.

The present analysis

The present analysis (or reanalysis) was conducted by using an inductive qualitative content analysis based on three open-ended research questions:

(1) In what ways does group work contribute to your learning?

(2) What positive experiences have you had while working in your present group?

(3) What negative experiences have you had while working in your present group?

Each question corresponds to one aspect of the research’s objective, but together, they might support and enrich each other and unravel new information based on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work. Research question 1, listed above, was not included in the first analysis and is being investigated for the first time in this study, while the other two questions are being reanalyzed. An inductive, qualitative content analysis is applicable when the aim of the research is a description of the meaning or of a phenomenon in conceptual form ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ).

The analysis was carried out over several steps, following the basic principles of an inductive, qualitative content analysis ( Mayring, 2000 ; Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). The steps included three phases: preparation, organizing, and reporting ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Each question was treated as a unit of analysis and was thus analyzed separately. In the preparation phase, the researcher tried to make sense of the data by becoming familiar with the data corpus. In the current study, this included transcription and thorough reading of the answers. An open coding system composed of marginal notes and headings began the second phase, which included organizing the data. This second phase, in turn, included open coding, creating categories, and abstraction. The notes and the headings from the open coding were transferred to coding sheets and then grouped into categories. Categories were formed through the interpretation of the codes that described the same meaning or phenomenon. Finally, an abstraction process began, where a general description of the grouped categories formed an abstraction (see Table ​ Table1 1 ). An abstraction was denominated using the content-characteristic words for this paper: learning, study-social function, and organization . The third phase, reporting , addressed the presentation of the process of analysis and the results.

Examples from the organization phase of the coding process.

The final aim of this study is to present the phenomenon studied in a model or conceptual map of the categories ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). In following these procedures, we aim to expand our understanding of the existing work and to counter the second part of the criticisms, which included criticisms stating that the results were mostly descriptive in nature. To counter the criticisms regarding the question of whether we could assemble these groups into a joint research group, the qualitative abstraction that emerged from the qualitative content analysis was compared to background information by using SPSS. Three background variables were used: gender, cities, and programs.

ETHICS AND QUALITY

The ethical principles provided by the British Psychology Society have formed a guideline [ British Psychology Society (BPS), 2006 ] for the present study. The ethical principles, which emphasize the concern for participants’ interest, have been applied throughout the study [ American Psychological Association (APA), 2002 ; British Psychology Society (BPS), 2004 ; Barett, 2007 ]. To facilitate trustworthiness, a thorough description of the analysis process has been presented ( Graneheim and Lundman, 2003 ; Elo and Kyngäs, 2007 ). Translated citations are also included to increase trustworthiness.

As described above, the analysis resulted in three abstraction emerging: learning, study-social function , and organization . Each abstraction includes both a positive variant (i.e., facilitating learning, study-social function, and/or organization) as well as a negative alternative (i.e., hampering learning, study-social function, and/or organization). The results will be presented in three different sections, with each section corresponding to one abstraction. However, we would like to call attention to the fact that one fifth (20%, including missing value 8%) of the students included in this study did not perceive and/or mention any negative experiences at all in their present group. From a general point of view, there is no difference with respect to gender or city regarding the distribution of positive and negative experiences concerning the abstractions, neither concerning different programs nor the distribution of negative experiences (all p > 0.05). In contrast, there is a difference between the various programs and the distribution of positive experiences (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). The students from the social work program display a higher amount of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with the other programs.

The majority of the students (97%) responded that working in group somehow facilitated learning, academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both. They learned more or different things when working in groups than they would have if working alone. By discussing and questioning each other’s points of view and listening to their fellow students’ contributions, thus obtaining different perspectives, the participants experienced an enhanced academic learning, compared to working alone. “I learn much more by working in groups than working individually. I obtain more through interaction with the other group members.” Academic knowledge is not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gain advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work in group courses strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus learning about groups by working in groups. “Through practical knowledge demonstrate several of the phenomena we read about in theory (group psychology and sociology).”

The results show no difference when considering either gender or city. However, when comparing the four programs included in the study and the types of learning, a difference occurs (χ 2 = 14.474; df: 6; p < 0.025). A division into two parts seems to generate the difference. On the one hand, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Human Resource Management and Work Sciences Program emphasize academic knowledge. On the other hand, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities single handed, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning.

Even though the participants did not expressly report that group work hampered learning, they often mentioned that they perceived group work as being ineffective due to loss of focus and the presence of conflicts, thereby hampering conceivable learning. One respondent stated, “that you sometimes are out of focus in the discussion and get side-tracked instead of considering the task.” Another offered the following perspective: “Occasionally, it is too little task related and feels unnecessary sometimes. Individual work is, in certain situations, preferable.” Group work might be perceived as ineffective and time consuming considering long working periods with tedious discussions. One participant stated, “The time aspect, everything is time consuming.” The absence or presence of conflicts in the group affects students’ experiences, and conflicts not handled may influence learning in a negative way. The students perceived that it was difficult to come to an agreement and experience those conflicts and the need to compromise hampered individual learning. Accordingly, the absence of conflicts seemed to be an important incitement for learning. However, fear of conflicts can lead to reduced learning and cause negative experiences, but to a considerably lesser extent than does the presence of actual conflicts. “A great fear of conflicts sometimes raises an oppressive atmosphere.” “Fear of conflicts leads to much not made known.”

A STUDY-SOCIAL FUNCTION

Group work also has an important study - social function according to the students. They describe their membership in groups as an important aspect of affiliation. In general, the total number of students at a program is approximately 60–80 or more. In contexts with a large population of students, the smaller group gives the participants an opportunity to feel affiliated with the group and to each other. “Feels safe to have a certain group to prepare oneself together with before, for instance, an upcoming seminar.” The group gives the individual student a platform of belonging, which might serve as an important arena for learning ( facilitate ) and finding friends to spend leisure time with. Many of the participants also reported feeling a positive atmosphere in the group, which is important for the satisfaction of being in the group together with the fellow students.

To be a member of a group may also serve as a function of relief, both academically and socially, for the individual student. The participants reported that many of the tasks assigned by the university teachers are difficult to handle on their own. “The others explain to me. We help one another.” However, the students reported that they helped and supported each other, even if the task did not demand cooperation. “As a student, you get more active. You help one another to extract the groups’ common knowledge. Forward info if somebody is missing.” Being a member of a group also affects students’ motivation to study. They prepare themselves by reading texts and other material before the next group session. Group work may also have positive effects on achievement. Students’ total amount of time and effort on their work may also increase. Through group work, the participants also get confirmation of who they are and what their capacities are.

Being a member of a group also has its downside, which often has to do with the group climate and/or group processes, both of which have multiple and complex features. Many students reported that both the group climate and group processes might be the source of negative conceptions of the group and hamper learning. “Process losses.” The respondents described negative conceptions based on the feeling of not having enough time to get to know each other in the group or being in situations where no cooperation occurred. Other students referred to the fact that the group’s life is too long, which may lead to group members not only wearing each other out, but also having a negative effect on each other’s mood. “Influenced by each other’s mood.” Examples of negative experiences are process losses in general, including insufficient communication, unclear roles, and problems with one group member. As mentioned above, the students from the Social Work Program display a higher number of positive experiences in connection with a study-social function and organizing in comparison with students from the other programs.

ORGANIZATION

O rganization concerns the structure of group work and includes different aspects, all describing group work from different angles. The aspects are relevant no matter how the participants perceive the group work, whether as positive or negative. Unlike the other two abstractions (learning and study-social function), organization includes the same aspects no matter what the experiences are, namely group composition , group structure , way of working and contributions.

Whether the group is composed in a homogeneous or heterogeneous way seems to be experienced in both a positive and negative sense. A well-thought-out group composition , including both group size and mix of members, is essential. A just large-enough group for the task, consisting of a population of members that is not too heterogeneous, facilitates a joyful experience and learning. A homogeneous mix of members might be perceived as positive, as the students feel that they have similar life situations, opinions, and skills, thereby causing positive conditions for collaboration within the group. Conversely, in a group with a heterogeneous mix, different members contribute with different knowledge and/or prior experiences, which can be used in the group for collective and collaborative learning. “Good group composition, distribution of age groups that leads to fruitful discussions.”

An additional facilitating prerequisite is that the group develops adequate ways of working together, which includes a well-organized group structure . Well-working groups are characterized as having developed adequate ways of working together, while groups that work less well together lack a developed way of cooperation. “Well-organized working group with clear and distinct rules and structure.” Preparation and attendance for group work are aspects mentioned as facilitating (and hampering) incitements. Group work in educational settings sometimes entails that you, as a student, are forced to read and learn within a certain period of time that is beyond your control. Some participants find the pressure positive, hence “increase the pressure to read chapters in time.” The members’ contribution to the group is also a central factor for the students’ apprehension of how the group works. This is, in short, about how much each member ought to contribute to the group and to the work. Groups considered to be well-working are ones where all members contribute to the group’s work, but the content of the contribution may vary according to the single member’s qualifications. “We work well together (most of us). Everybody participates in different ways and seems committed.” “Good, everybody participates the same amount. We complement each other well.”

The same prerequisites can lead to the reverse result, i.e., hampering learning and stirring up negative experiences. If the group members are too identical (a homogeneous group composition ), it might lead to a lack of opinions, which several participants perceived as being negative. “That we do not get a male perspective about the subject. We are all girls, at the age of 20, which also means that we have pretty much the same experiences that may be seen as both positive and negative. The negative is the lack of opinion.” If the group is considered to be too small, students seems to find it troublesome, as the relationships are few, but there are also few people who are available to handle the workload allotted to the group. Nevertheless, a group that is too large could also lead to negative experiences. “It is far too large a group.”

A lack of group structure might lead to a lower degree of satisfaction with the group’s way of working . A commonly expressed point of view seen in the students’ answers involved the occurrences of when all members did not attend the meetings (absence). In these cases, it was also viewed that the work in the group often was characterized as unstructured. “Sometimes a bit unclear structures, some students have difficulties with coming in time.” Not attending or coming unprepared or badly prepared to the group work is other aspect that is commented on. “Low degree of fellowship, punctuality is a problem, an insecure group.” Some students find it frustrating to prepare for a certain time decided that is beyond their control. “A necessity to read certain chapters within a specific period of time is never stimulating.”

One characteristic of groups that are not working well is that contribution varies among the members. In group work, students with different levels of ambition are assembled, which may result in different levels of interest and commitment, as well as differences in the willingness to take on responsibilities or part of the workload of the group’s work. Some members are active and do much of the work, while others barely contribute at all. “Some don’t do anything while others pull the heaviest burden. Two out of three prepare before the meeting, the rest think that they are able to read during the group work and do not supply the group with anything else other than delays and frustration.” A common answer seen in the questionnaires that concerns negative experiences of group work as they relate to contribution is: “Everybody does not contribute just as much.” or “There is always someone who just glides along and doesn’t take part.”

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

The results are summarized in a model illustrating the relationship between abstractions (i.e., learning, study-social function, and organization) and result (i.e., enhanced or reduced learning), as well as positive or negative experiences (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

A model illustrating the relationship between abstractions and result .

The figure shows that all three abstractions may facilitate or hamper learning as well as the experiences of group work. To piece together, the difficult and extensive jigsaw puzzle concerning why some group work result in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases the result is the reverse is still not solved. In this article, we propose that the prerequisites learning, study-social function, and organization influence learning and experiences of working in group, thus, providing additional pieces of information to the jigsaw puzzle ( Figure ​ Figure2 2 ).

Pieces of jigsaw puzzle influence learning and experiences .

The current study focuses on university students’ experiences and conceptions of group work and learning in groups. A primary aim was to give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view, as well as how the students’ assess learning when working in groups. The analysis resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations. Each abstraction also included a positive and a negative variant. In other words, all three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work.

LEARNING IN GROUP WORK

The result shows that the majority of the students (97%) experience that working in group facilitated learning, either academic knowledge, collaborative abilities or both, accordingly confirming previous research ( Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ). According to the students, they learn more or different things when working in groups compared with working individually. Academic knowledge was not the only type of knowledge learned through group work. In addition to academic knowledge, students also gained advanced knowledge about how groups work, how the students function as individual members of groups and how other members behave and work in groups. Some of the respondents also argued that group work might strengthen the combination between empirical and theoretical learning, thus the students were learning about groups by working in groups. This implies that group work, from a learning perspective, serves several functions for the students ( Kutnick and Beredondini, 2009 ; Gillies and Boyle, 2010 , 2011 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). Group work also seems to have an important study-social function for the university students, hence confirming that group work serves more functions than just being a pedagogical mode.

Affiliation, fellowship, and welfare seem to be highly important, and may even be essential prerequisites for learning. Accordingly, group work functions as both as an objective (i.e., learning collaborative abilities), and as the means (i.e., a base for academic achievement), or both, for the students ( Gillies, 2003a , b ; Johnson and Johnson, 2004 ; Baines et al., 2007 ). Moreover, the students from the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the students from the Program for Human Resources seem to use group work more as means for obtaining academic knowledge. In contrast, students from the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program more often mentioned learning collaborative abilities alone, as well as a combination of academic knowledge and group learning, thus using group work as an objective, as a means, or as a combination of both. One interpretation might be that the type of task assigned to the students differs in various programs. This can be valid both concerning the purpose of group work (group work as objective or as the means), but also arrangement (working in a group or as a group; Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Another possible explanation might be that the main emphasis in the Bachelor’s Program in Biology and the Program for Human Resources is on product and academic knowledge, while in the Psychologist Program/Master of Science in Psychology and Social Work Program, the process is more articulated and demanded. However, this is only speculation and further research is needed.

Even though the participants did not explicitly state that group work hampered learning, they mentioned that they perceived group work to be ineffective due to the loss of focus and/or the presence of conflicts with other group members, thereby hampering conceivable learning. This may also be an effect of the purpose or arrangement of the group work ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

EXPERIENCES OF GROUP WORK

The results revealed that several aspects of group work are important incentives for learning. In addition, this study revealed students’ experiences of group work (i.e., facilitating or hampering positive/negative experiences), which is in line with the previous studies on students’ experiences of working in groups ( Cantwell and Andrews, 2002 ; Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Group composition, group structure, ways of working, and participants’ contributions are aspects put forward by the university students as either facilitating or hampering the positive experience of group work ( Underwood, 2003 ; Peterson and Miller, 2004 ; Hansen, 2006 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ; Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ).

Several of the aspects bear reference to whether the group members work in a group or as a group ( Underwood, 2003 ; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012 ). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, utilization of the group’s competence, and includes problem solving and reflection. All group members are involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome ( Bennet and Dunne, 1992 ; Galton and Williamson, 1992 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a , b ). According to the results, not all groups are working as a group but rather working in a group, which, according to Granström (2006) , is common in an educational setting.

Due to problems with group composition, members’ contributions, and group structure, including rules and ways of cooperation, some students end up with negative experiences of group work. Additionally, the university students allude to the fact that a well-functioning supportive study-social context is an essential prerequisite not only for positive experiences of group work, but also for learning ( Hammar Chiriac and Hempel, 2013 ). Both working in a group and working as group might be useful in different parts of the group work ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ) and cause learning. Hence working in a group causes cooperative learning based on social facilitation ( Zajonc, 1980 ; Baron, 1986 ; Uziel, 2007 ) while working as group causes learning benefits through collaboration with other group members. Although both approaches might cause positive or negative experiences, a conceivable interpretation is that working as a group has a greater potential to enhance positive experiences. The findings suggest a need for further research to fully understand why some group work causes positive experiences and other instances of group work cause negative experiences.

The findings in the current study develop the findings from Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) . First, it shows that it is possible to assemble all groups in to a joint research group (see below). Second, a thorough reanalysis, using an inductive qualitative content analysis, resulted in the emergence of three different abstractions: learning, study-social function, and organizations as either facilitating or hampering learning, and experiences.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are some limitations in the current study and most of them have to do with the construction of the study-specific, semi-structured questionnaire. First, the questions do not discriminate between (a) the type of group work, (b) the purpose with the group work, (c) the structure of the group work (i.e., extent and/or time); or (d) ways of working in the group (i.e., cooperation or collaboration). Second, the design of the questionnaire does not facilitate comparison between the populations included in the group. The questionnaire treated group work as one activity and did not acknowledge that group work can serve different functions and include various activities ( Hammar Chiriac, 2008 ). This simplification of the phenomena group work causes criticism concerning whether or not it is possible to assemble these populations into a joint research group. An elaborated description of the analysis process and the comparison to three background variables has been used to counter this criticism. The thin results from the comparison, indicate that based on the question used in the study-specific questionnaire, it is possible to assemble the results into a corpus of joint results.

CONCLUSION/CONCLUDING REMARKS

The results indicate that most of the students’ experienced that group work facilitated learning, especially concerning academic knowledge. Three important prerequisites (learning, study-social function, and organization) for group work that serve as an effective pedagogy and as an incentive for learning were identified and discussed. All three abstractions either facilitated or hampered university students’ learning, as well as their experiences of group work. By listening to the university students’ voices and elucidating their experiences and conceptions, we have been able to add new knowledge and understanding of what the essence is behind successful group work in higher education. Furthermore, the students’ explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite, can be of use for further development of group work as a pedagogical practice.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges Ph.D. Faculty Program Director, Charlotta Einarsson, for her contribution to the design of this study and contribution to early stages of the data analysis and manuscript.

• American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct . Available at: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Baines E., Blatchford P., Chowne A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: effects on science attainment. Br. Educ. Res. J. 33 663–680 10.1080/01411920701582231 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barett M. (2007). “Practical and ethical issues in planning research,” in Research Methods in Psychology eds Breakell G., Hammond S., Fife-Schaw C., Smith J. A. (London: Sage Publications) 24–48 [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: progress and problems. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19 1–40 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60211-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennet N., Dunne E. (1992). Managing Classroom Groups . Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Schuster Education [ Google Scholar ]
• Blatchford P., Kutnick P., Baines E., Galton M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 153–172 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breakwell G. M, Hammond F., Fife-Schaw C., Smith J. A. (eds) (2006). Research Methods in Psychology . London: Sage Publications [ Google Scholar ]
• British Psychology Society (BPS). (2004). Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles, and Guidelines . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download.cfm?file_uuid=6D0645CC-7E96-C67F-D75E2648E5580115&ext=pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• British Psychology Society (BPS). (2006). Code of Ethics and Conduct . Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/the-society/code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct_home.cfm [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. (2012). Social Research Methods . Oxford: University Press [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantwell R. H., Andrews B. (2002). Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students’ feeling towards group work. Educ. Psychol. 22 75–91 10.1080/01443410120101260 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elo S, Kyngäs H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 107–115 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galton M., Williamson J. (1992). Group Work in the Primary Classroom . London: Routledge [ Google Scholar ]
• Galton M. J., Hargreaves L., Pell T. (2009). Group work and whole-class teaching with 11–14-years-old compared. Cambridge J. Educ . 39 119–147 10.1080/03057640802701994 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M. (2003a). The behaviours, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 95 137–147 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M. (2003b). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 35–49 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M., Boyle M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26 933–940 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M., Boyle M. (2011). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning (CL): a two-year follow-up. Teach. Educ. 1 63–78 10.1080/10476210.2010.538045 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graneheim U. H., Lundman B. (2003). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ. Today 24 105–112 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granström K. (2006). “Group phenomena and classroom management in Sweden,” in Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues eds Evertson C. M., Weinstein C. S. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum) 1141–1160 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2008). A scheme for understanding group processes in problem-based learning. High. Educ. 55 505–518 10.1007/s10734-007-9071-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2010). “Group work is not one, but a great many processes – understanding group work dynamics,” in Group Theory: Classes, Representation and Connections, and Applications ed. Danellis C. W. (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) 153–166 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2011a). Research on Group Work in Education . New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E. (2011b). “Research on group work in education,” in Emerging Issues in Compulsory Education [Progress in Education. Volume 20] ed Nata R. (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) 25–44 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E., Einarsson C. (2007). “Is the grass greener in the other group? Students’ experiences of group-work” [“är gräset grönare i den andra gruppen? Studenters erfarenheter av grupparbete”] [Published in Swedish], in Interaction on the Edge 2. Proceedings from the 5th GRASP Conference ed. Näslund J. (Linköping: Linköping University) [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E, Granström K. (2012). Teachers’ leadership and students’ experience of group work. Teach. Teach. Theor. Pract. 3 345–363 10.1080/13540602.2012.629842 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammar Chiriac E., Hempel A. (2013), Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] . Lund: Studentlitteratur [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: suggestions for improving team projects. J. Educ. Bus. 82 11–19 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (1975). Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall) [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (2004). Assessing Students in Groups: Promoting Group Responsibility and Individual Accountability . Thousand Oaks: Sage [ Google Scholar ]
• Kutnick P., Beredondini L. (2009). Can the enhancement of group work in classrooms provide a basis for effective communication in support of school-based cognitive achievement in classrooms of young learners? Cambridge J. Educ . 39 71–94 10.1080/03057640902836880 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lou Y., Abrami P. C., Spence J. C., Poulsen C., Chambers B, d’Apllonia S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66 423–458 10.3102/00346543066004423 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayring P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1:2 . Available at: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm_140309 [ Google Scholar ]
• Näslund J. (2013). “Pupils’ and students’ view on group work” [Published in Swedish: Elevers och studenters syn på grupparbete] in Handbook for Group Work [Published in Swedish: Handbok för grupparbete – att skapa fungerande grupper i undervisningen] eds Hammar Chiriac E., Hempel A. (Lund: Studentlitteratur) 233–242 [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson S, Miller J. A. (2004). Quality of college students’ experiences during cooperative learning. Soc. Psychol. Learn. 7 161–183 [ Google Scholar ]
• Underwood J. D. M. (2003). Student attitudes towards socially acceptable and unacceptable group working practices. Br. J. Psychol. 94 319–337 10.1348/000712603767876253 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uziel L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: a review and meta-analysis. J. Res. Person. 41 579–601 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb N. M., Palincsar A. S. (1996). “Group processes in the classroom,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology eds Berliner D. C., Calfee R. C. (New York: Macmillan) 841–873 [ Google Scholar ]
• Zajonc R. B. (1980). “Compresence,” in Psychology of Group Influence ed. Paulus P. B. (New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum) 35–60 [ Google Scholar ]

Module 9: Group Dynamics

Group vs. individuals, learning outcomes.

• Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of working as a group rather than as an individual

Managers are faced with these choices all the time. After reading all this, you may not understand how there can be a better choice than a cohesive, highly productive group to tackle any problem.

Let’s look at some comparisons.

Group vs. Individual Effort

In the late 1920s, Max Ringelmann, a German psychologist, set out to determine if individuals put forth the same level of effort in a group as they did when they were working alone. He set out to examine athletes engaged in a rope tug-o-war, and found that, in a one-on-one match, each player averaged an effort equal to 63 kilograms of force. In a group of three, that force dropped to 53 kilograms, and in a group of eight . . . only 31 kilograms of force.

This effect is referred to as social loafing, the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. What causes it? Well, for one, there may be a perception that some group members are not putting out their fair share of effort, and so others are purposely pulling back on their own contribution. Or, it may be attributed to the fact that the entire group shares responsibility for an outcome, so no one person is held accountable for work that is (or is not) done.

It’s worth noting that social loafing isn’t common across all cultures—it actually has a western bias. It’s pretty consistent in individualistic cultures like the US and Canada, but collective societies, like China, do not exhibit as many social loafing tendencies.

If managers want to make sure that individual effort among their group doesn’t drop, they need to provide means by which individual contributions can be measured.

Decision Making

There are pros and cons when it comes to group decision making as well. The benefits of a decision made by a group are following. Decisions are:

• made with more complete information and knowledge.
• improved by considering diverse points of view.
• efficient with groups because they almost always outperform an individual.
• leads to a wider acceptance of a solution, because the decision is already supported by a group of people.

What are the weaknesses of group decision making? Well, an individual can make a decision instantly. When she does, she only has herself to convince that she is right. This short video captures the process for group decision making:

As you can see, they go through a review of information, preferences, and alternatives and they go around in circles until decision fatigue comes into play. Decision fatigue is defined as the deteriorating quality of decisions made by an individual or group as time progresses. With this group, the participants couldn’t come to a decision and so individuals in the group began throwing in the towel in a “whatever!” frame of mind. In a work environment, when a group reaches this state, poor decisions can be made.

In group decision making, decision fatigue can arrive over one decision that’s been drawn out and reviewed over and over without coming to a consensus. An individual tends to experience decision fatigue when faced with a lot of decisions—for example, a study of judges showed that they made better decisions earlier in the day, and the quality of their decisions diminished as the day went on.

A company called Despair, Inc. made a series of posters that poked fun at those black-framed motivation posters that companies began hanging in offices in the 1980s. Posters with lion faces touted the qualities of “excellence” and a set of colorful hot air balloons promoted ideas about “diversity.” In this company’s parody of those posters, one of their best sellers showed a bunch of faceless, suited humans throwing their hands into the middle of a huddle. The poster says, “Meetings: None of us is as dumb as all of us.”

No doubt the poster may be referring to Groupthink, which is a group decision-making phenomenon that prevents a group from making good decisions. Groupthink occurs when the group is so enamored with the idea of agreement that the desire for consensus overrides and stifles the proposal and evaluation of realistic alternatives.

NASA’s Challenger

Perhaps the most famous and most studied example of Groupthink occurred when NASA launched the space shuttle Challenger in January of 1986. NASA had already canceled the launch due to weather once, and they were insistent that it go off without a hitch on its newly rescheduled date of January 28, 1986. The makers of a fuel system O-ring, Thiokol, warned NASA that, based on cold weather predicted, that part might fail and yield disastrous consequences.

NASA’s internal processes and applied pressure kept those people from speaking up, and in an isolated meeting of Thiokol group members, they weighed the possibilities. The company might not be allowed to work with NASA again if they made too much noise. The part might not fail. And so, they agreed to not make any noise, and to support NASA’s decision to launch. That morning, the Challenger exploded killing all seven crew members.

This tragedy and the mistakes made by NASA and Thiokol, may be an example consequence of Groupthink. High-stakes decision-making with a group of people can create a clear group identity. In this case, it was the internal pressure of members feeling protective of a positive group image that led to Groupthink with disastrous consequences.

To avoid Groupthink, managers can take the following steps to help their employers. Managers can:

• monitor the group size.
• play an impartial role.
• encourage a group member to challenge the opposite view of the group’s decision.
• discuss the negative consequences of the decision before talking about the positive aspects.

A manager’s role can help when a group is working on something that has high-level of risk for the organization. A subcategory of Groupthink is Groupshift. Groupshift is a phenomenon in which a group of people influence one another about the perception of risk. Group members tend to exaggerate their initial positions when presenting their ideas to the rest of the group. Sometimes, the group jumps in and pushes that decision to a conservative shift, but more often, the group tends to move toward the riskier option.

Why does this happen? It’s been argued that, as group members become more familiar with each other, they become more bold and daring. Another theory states that we admire individuals who aren’t afraid of risk, and those individuals who present risky alternatives are often admired by other members. Regardless, managers do well to remember that groups often shift toward riskier tendencies and can do their best to mitigate those results.

Introverts and Extraverts in Groups

It won’t come as much of a surprise to you to hear this: Introverts aren’t always delighted to work in groups.

Conversely, extraverts love being around other people, they love participating in groups and gain energy by doing so. They’re nearly always motivated and comfortable interacting in a group.

Managers need to draw out the best of both types of members. In her 2015 article for Harvard Business Review, behavioral scientist Francesca Gino stated that it was the type of leader that had the most impact on these group members. Interestingly, extraverted managers could very easily draw responses out of introverts, but had a tendency to shut down extraverts who proposed new visions and ideas. Introverted managers had the advantage, as they carefully considered all responses and suggestions.

Gino’s group performed a study on a set of stores, and found that when extraverted managers were paired with a passive set of employees, they yielded higher sales. When those same extraverted managers were paired with an extraverted set of employees, their sales were lower than expected. But in both tests, introverted managers yielded higher sales.

Of her findings, Gino noted:

These results suggest that introverts can use their strengths to bring out the best in others. Yet introverts’ strengths are often locked up because of the way work is structured. Take meetings. In a culture where the typical meeting resembles a competition for loudest and most talkative, where the workspace is open and desks are practically touching, and where high levels of confidence, charisma, and sociability are the gold standard, introverts often feel they have to adjust who they are to “pass.” But they do so at a price, one that has ramifications for the company as well.

Practice Question

In managing a group, it pays for the manager to consider how meetings are set up and run. If you are thinking about becoming a manager, then taking the time to get to know your team’s strength will help them thrive as an individual and as a team. Arriving at a meeting process that encourages introverts to speak up and extraverts to take time for reflection is a win-win for the group and the company.

Contribute!

Improve this page Learn More

• Group vs. Individuals. Authored by : Freedom Learning Group. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Untitled. Authored by : Brooke Cagle. Provided by : Unsplash. Located at : https://unsplash.com/photos/g1Kr4Ozfoac . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved . License Terms : Unsplash License
• Untitled. Authored by : Kimson Doan. Provided by : Unsplash. Located at : https://unsplash.com/photos/AZMmUy2qL6A . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved . License Terms : Unsplash License

Creating Curriculum

Group work vs. individual work.

Let's say today's agenda is learning about microbes.

We know it's exciting, but settle down.

Now, single out all your introverts and put them on one side of the room at individual desks to do a worksheet about different bacteria. Circle up the desks for your extroverts and have them fill out the worksheet together.

Easy as that, right?

Um. If that's what the distinction between individual work and group work were like, it would be a lot easier to set up—and a lot harder to get any benefits from.

Some classes may benefit from a larger emphasis on one of these tactics or the other, but we're guessing some sort of blend is going to be the best bet in most cases. Chances are your students will need some skills both working in a team and solving problems independently—whether that's now in fourth grade or a decade or two down the line in the professional world. So figuring out how and when to use each of these strategies can end up a great tool for your classroom.

Whether you think of it as collaborating with us as you read along or silently and solely reading a dead assemblage of words, power on along.

One is the loneliest number…but we're still going to talk group work first.

Group work can be a good idea when you want to get your students to think harder and dig deeper, and when some variety in skill levels and ways of thinking about things can be a benefit to all. Say a big math problem with lots of different steps; or a scene in Ulysses that could be interpreted in three or 300 different ways; or you're doing a unit on Ancient Egypt and you need your students to combine their knowledge of history with an ability to analyze and critique other civilizations. Things like that (and a million others) can be great places to institute some group work.

Let's throw out some bullet points. Group work can help hone your students' skills in

• listening to and respecting others' ideas;
• thinking about one problem in a variety of ways;
• getting to a deeper level understanding through having to explain a perspective and discuss it with folks with different perspectives;
• dividing up tasks and delegating responsibilities;
• sharing knowledge and abilities to get a better hold on a problem than they could individually;
• holding group members accountable—and being held accountable back.

Along with some of those and a whole bunch of other pros listed on Carnegie Mellon's page on group work , there's the possibility of assigning bigger, harder problems to work on, and an added element of unpredictability that can make for greater learning possibilities overall.

Sure, whatever the project may be, it'll have to be "designed, supervised, and assessed in a way that promotes meaningful teamwork and deep collaboration," as the Carnegie Mellon site says ( source ) . And all that can make for a fair amount more work for the teacher. But if you establish the exact goals of the project in advance, and have a sense of how your students should pursue it in a team, the benefits are worth it.

Individual work isn't just for those introverts out there. Sure, it is great for them to get a chance to think things through on their own, which is a comfier way to process new info for many introverts (which you can read a lot more about in this entire article about the needs of introverts and extroverts ).

Still, it can be just as helpful for those who prefer group work to learn how to cope with the prospect of sitting still, keeping that noisy mouth shut, and puzzling out some answers without giving in to any and every distraction that comes along.

Individual work can help students

Individual Work

Individual work isn't just for those introverts out there. Sure, it is great for them to get a chance to think things through on their own, which is a comfier way to process new info for many introverts (which you can read a lot more about in this entire article about the needs of introverts and extroverts).

• gain independence to think things through on their own;
• improve confidence in working through a problem, even when they don't feel certain about every step;
• work at their own level, rather than having to adapt to suit their group members;
• practice self-control—both in staying focused on the task at hand, and in having the willpower to avoid turning to a neighbor or asking the teacher for the answer;
• get more comfortable taking actions on their own;
• gain creativity and effective thinking processes that can apply to problem solving across a range of subjects and types of issues;

Plus, it can be easier for the teacher to assess an individual's work—at least, easier in a traditional sense, if you have an idea of the "norm" for the type of work you're looking for. Sure, it can be tough to assess an individual's skills and motivation all while being aware of inevitable comparisons with others (as this psychology article on group and individual performance describes). But be aware of those issues, and you'll be fine.

As for when to use it, individual work can be a good filler for a chunk of time when there's a set of problems or a big, hovering question that it would behoove everyone to ponder on their own. Plus, it can be a good way to re-focus or re-center a class, or get everyone on the same page (or at least, on their own personal parts of the same-ish page) before diving into a bigger project or discussion.

The Balance

In individual work, some students—especially those extroverts we talked about—may feel a bit isolated. For some kids, when the lonely monster bites, it bites hard. Plus, if some students finish an activity before the rest, you should be prepared with an add-on task or two.

And when students are doing individual work on a topic they might feel more comfortable tackling in a group or with you guiding the way, make sure you don't help too much—try to ask some questions that will start them off in the right direction and give them a sense of additional resources.

As for group work, every teacher knows the headache of a classroom that gets too loud or the fury of checking on groups only to find they're off task. It's always a gamble, but if you come up with very specific guidelines and a time frame for accomplishing some concrete tasks, that'll be a big help in keeping those groups focused.

Finally, when it comes to deciding whether to make a certain activity individual- or group-based, don't just think of the two tactics as diametric opposites. Maybe have some individual "think time" before setting them up in groups. This can help each student clarify the problem to himself or herself, which can lead to more successful collaboration once they're tackling the problem together. Not sure how to do it? Check out this video from the Teaching Channel about how to make it happen.

In most classes, it'll make sense to divide up your time between group work and individual work. Sure, and there are also those times when you'll need to talk for a while, or an all-class discussion will be in order. There are lots of iterations of individual-pair-group-teacher only-student only-everyone together, and so on, that you can use to fill your day. And for the most part, shaking it up keeps things interesting—and effective—for the students and for the teacher.

Tired of ads?

Logging out…, logging out....

You've been inactive for a while, logging you out in a few seconds...

W hy's T his F unny?