1 / 21

What Kind of Groups and Individuals SUCCEED in Collaborative Projects?

This study examines the factors that contribute to the success of collaborative projects. It explores the impact of individual characteristics, group dynamics, and attitudes towards technology and group work. The results highlight the importance of personality traits, openness to experience, and contribution to group activities in achieving positive outcomes. The findings suggest potential future directions for project design and student involvement.

everettparsons
Download Presentation

What Kind of Groups and Individuals SUCCEED in Collaborative Projects?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What Kind ofGroups and IndividualsSUCCEEDin Collaborative Projects? John A. Johnson Penn State DuBois j5j@psu.edu

  2. Nature of the Project Students in a large (~180) introductory psychology class were assigned to groups of 7-8 students. Each group was to write an annotated list of web sites that helped answer 8 general questions about psychology. Each student wrote his or her own answers to the questions.

  3. Goals of Project • To restore thoughtful exploration of ideas • To increase internet literacy • To assess how well students learn this way • for the class, overall • for different types of students

  4. Observational Aside • Witness the long string of trends and fads in teaching • Yesterday, Total Quality Management • Today, technology and collaboration • Each hailed as THE ANSWER • THE answers deny learning styles • Bottom line: Does technique work?

  5. For Missing Details • Full report available at:http://cac.psu.edu/~j5j/persona/courses/courses.html#Empower96

  6. Setup Logistics • Assess computer attitudes and literacy on first day of class • Enter scores in spreadsheet; sort to distribute talent in groups • Result: ~180 students in 25 groups of 7-8 students • Signs labeled A-Y hung around auditorium perimeter

  7. Assignments & Activities • 50% each class allotted to group meetings and training for 3 weeks • Meeting 1: Informal, introductions • Meeting 2: 8 research questions;½ supportive, ½ supportive skills • Meeting 3: Detailed description of expectations

  8. Expected Product • One annotated list of web sites for entire group • Each member writes own answers to eight questions • Annotated list & answers emailed • Each student rates contribution of each group member

  9. Criteria of Individual Success • Score on ungraded multiple-choice test • Score on research project • Contribution rating from group • Specific + and - behaviors • Post-test of attitudes/literacy

  10. Criteria for Group Success • Equality of rated contributions • # of valid web addresses • # of questions adequately answered • % of students who contributed • Open-ended comments

  11. Multiple Choice Test Scores • Difference between scores on 19 questions not lectured on and 21 questions lectured on not statistically different • Overall performance (52%) lower than previous year (69%) • Scores correlated • r = .24 (p<.01) with project score • r = .45 (p<.01) with contribution score

  12. Reports (N=166) • 33 excellent (deep comprehension) • 58 good (MC-test level) • 54 okay (rote; mistakes & copying) • 6 problems (marginal functioning) • 15 failed to turn in anything • Scores correlated r = .23 (p<.01) with rated group contribution)

  13. Correlates of Individual Project Scores • Low Neuroticism • (depression, self-consciousness) • High Extraversion • (assertiveness) • High Openness to Experience • (openness to aesthetics & ideas) • High Conscientiousness • (competence, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline)

  14. Distribution of Group Contribution Scores

  15. Correlates of Contribution to Group • High Extraversion • (assertiveness and activity) • High Openness to Experience • (openness to feelings) • High Conscientiousness • (dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline)

  16. Correlates of Positive and Negative Behaviors • High Conscientiousness • competence • order • dutifulness • achievement striving • self-discipline • deliberation

  17. Follow-up Attitude Questions

  18. Correlates of Attitudes • Who likes web searching? • Unpredictable from personality scores • Who likes group work? Students with high scores on: • emotional stability • gregariousness & excitement-seeking • and low scores on • openness to aesthetics • openness to feelings

  19. Indices of Group Success

  20. Correlates of Group Success • % of Students Contributing related to • higher scores on multiple choice test • higher levels ofimpulsivity, activity, immodesty • receiving the supportive rather than directive skill handout • Number of sites/answers related to • higher levels of openness to aesthetics

  21. Future Directions • I’ve eliminated group projects as a uniform requirement • Future projects will involve individual tailoring • Projects will be an optional alternative • Groups can choose their members • Students can choose research topics that interest them • Personality self-assessment may help estimate suitability for projects

More Related