Literature Review

Topic: PROBLEMS RELATED TO GROUP TYPES ENCOUNTERED BY SECOND

YEAR STUDENTS IN FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER
EDUCATION – ULIS WHEN WORKING IN GROUPS

1. Definition of group work

Group work may be defined in many ways. This term is also known as collaborative
group, cooperative group.

Konopka (1963) defines group work as a method of social work that is utilised in order to
“help individuals to enhance their social functioning through purposeful group
experiences, and to cope more effectively with their personal, group or community
problems”. This definition shows a tradition within group work of helping individuals
with problems.

Brown also provides a modernised and more comprehensive definition of group work
(1994, p.8). He states that “group work provides a context in which individuals help each
other; it is a method of helping groups as well as helping individuals; and it can enable
individuals and groups to influence and change personal, group, organisational and
community problems”.

For the purpose and the scope of the research and clearly be consistent with the two
definition above, we consider the following definition of group work as the base of this
research: “ group work is a discussion of academic work that affords students the
opportunity to organize their thinking by comparing ideas and interpretation with each
other and to give expression and hence form to their understanding of a subkect.”
(Dunkin’s 1987, p.288).

2. Types of group work in English classes

Teachers are knowledgeable about theories of peer learning and about designing
instructional contexts that promote collaboration among their students (Chase & Doan,
1994; Hoffman, 2001; Marshak, 1994). Flexible grouping strategies are common in this
kind of setting and are found to be the most effective way to meet the instructional needs
of students and allow collaborative opportunities to occur (Chapman, 1995; McClay,
1996; Stone, 1994/1995). While students participate in collaborative group work or
individual work at centers, teachers are able to monitor small group interactions and
provide specific skill instruction.

According to Jennifer Wagaman (Sep 13, 2008 ), the four most predominant types of
group work in English classrooms are:

Grouping Students by Interest

Grouping Students by Ability

Random Student Groupings

Grouping by Student Choice

2.1 Grouping Students by Interest: allow students who are interested in the same topic
work together.

Students form small groups by their interest subjects as they work through instructional.
Deliberate use of Vygotskian principles related to the apprenticeship in a community of
learning is evident in multiage classrooms. Small groups of four or five students are
purposely set up by teachers to be heterogeneous with respect to ability, gender, and age.
Projects are designed to capitalize on the heterogeneity of the group. The students
participate in activities that require different abilities within the same task.

The deliberate grouping of students with different abilities is a choice that can be made
from various theoretical perspectives on peer learning. The cognitive/elaborative
perspective (O'Donnell, 1999) suggests that students who rehearse their strength (e.g.,
addition skills) are provided with an opportunity to more deeply process their own
understanding. The possibility that the more able students can model a skill and perhaps
provide scaffolded support to a less-able student is what might be expected to happen
from a Vygotskian perspective.

2.2 Grouping Students by Ability: look at the ability of each student, and place the
student in a group with other students with the same ability.
- Heterogeneous: are those in which each group has students with a range of abilities ->
is identified both as a strength and as a problem. The students had different knowledge
levels, study techniques, ways of thinking and study experiences. This hetegeneity
obstructed the learning. The students with as higher ability worried about becoming
invisible in the group, not being able to fulfill their potential and not being credited for
their efforts.
On the other hand, it was hard for students with lesser ability to keep up with higher
ability. These differences have led to a non-creative group climate and non-effective
learning for both students with higher ability and for those with lower ability. Too many
ways of thinking and too many opinions have also resulted in delays in reaching an
agreement.
- Homogeneous: in which students in each group are evenly matched, avoid some of the
difficulties of heterogeneous groupings
2.3 Random Student Groupings: group the students by chance.
Also according to Forsyth (2006) and Federman and Hurd (2000) ,with the first kind of
group - Random allocation ( usually the ‘call-off’ method of 1,2,3 etc, or A,B,C etc
where groups are formed based on the allocated number. The other random method is
drawing names from the hat or allocating names from the class list )
2.4 Grouping by Student Choice: allow students to choose their group partners.
Student choice is a key factor in supporting autonomous learning, and the opportunity to
exercise choice is rewarding in and of itself. Piagetian theory (De Lisi & Golbeck, 1999)
suggests that learning and conceptual development is more likely to occur in contexts
where there is mutuality of power and influence, as is the case when students choose
groups based on common interest. Because group members may differ in ability (even
though linked by common interest), some students may provide scaffolding for other
students. Vygotskian theory (Hogan & Tudge, 1999) can be drawn on to explain how
differences in ability translate into learning. When one student helps another accomplish
something he or she could not do without assistance (as is often the case in the multiage
classroom), the more able student is operating in the other's zone of proximal
development. The kind of group that is explained by Vygotskian theory (i.e., students of
different abilities) seems to require the antithesis of what might be expected from
Piagetian theory (a group of equal peers). Within the multiage classroom, differences in
ability do not have the salience that they have in single-grade classrooms. Students expect
and accept differences, and such differences do not make students unequal. Thus, within
this kind of classroom, Piagetian and Vygotskian theory do not necessarily result in
different kinds of groups.

3. Problems of each group type

3.1 Grouping Students by Interest: over subscription to a topic, selection bias
3.2 Grouping Students by Ability: lecturer bias, different effects with high and low
achievers
Heterogenous: Still, heterogeneous groupings suffer from some significant failings.
Stronger students can become frustrated with weaker students, and take over the
work. When faced with a task to be completed in a short class period, stronger
students often become impatient: “Class is almost over. Just let me write it up,
OK?” Defenders of heterogeneous groupings point out that stronger students can
learn by teaching weaker students. Some teachers even explicitly give some of
their stronger students roles like group leader, or student instructor. While
stronger students may learn some content by adopting an instructional role, one
must sincerely ask whether such students are well-served in this role, or whether
such procedures substitute the learning of social skills for course content. Strong
students in heterogeneous groups can feel slighted by the undeserved pressure to
adopt a pedagogical role, or to carry the brunt of the group’s work. Indeed, I had
to overcome memories of my own such feelings when I started using cooperative
learning in my classes.

Conversely, weaker students, when grouped with stronger students, often become
frustrated with themselves and embarrassed, and, feeling that they have little to
contribute, turn off. In classes with heterogeneous groups, I always find some
students feeling excluded from their groups, having little to contribute. In a
lecture class, weaker students can quietly pay attention and take notes. In a
cooperative- learning exercise, their weaknesses are made evident, to themselves
and their peers.

Homogenous: While homogeneous groupings avoid some of the problems of

heterogeneous groupings, they lead to other difficulties. I have found it tempting,
especially in classes with homogeneous groups, to admire the work done by
stronger students. Such groups can serve as models to the other students. For
some students, watching the stronger students engaging in serious debate, or
working out a difficult problem, can be as exciting as it is for the instructor. But,
I have found that many students are intimidated by their stronger peers, and
dismiss their work as irrelevant to their own.
 Weaker groups have difficulty getting started on an assigned task. Low-achieving groups
tend to drop out of the lesson. The instructor who wants to circulate and work a
bit with all the students finds her/himself spending most of the class time with the
weaker groups, ignoring the stronger students who could benefit from further
challenges. Also, if the tasks for each group are roughly the same level of
difficulty, the stronger groups will complete their work quickly, while the weaker
groups struggle, and lag. Often, a weaker group will abandon all hope of
completing an assigned task, and attempt to use the time for remedial instruction.

3.3 Random Student Groupings:

Random groupings, which are often the default option for instructors who do not take the
time to prepare groupings of either other sort, seem to have little besides spontaneity in
their favor. If students are grouped randomly, some groups will be more homogeneous
and some will be more homogeneous. The instructor of a cooperative lesson with
random groupings is faced with a confusing assortment of group types and must manage
the problems of both kinds of groups, without being able to ensure the benefits of either.

3.4 Grouping by Student Choice: unfairness to the whole class

4. Factors that motivate Ss to work in groups in foreign language class