GROUP WORK AND STUDENT

PERFORMANCE IN BIOLOGY:
A META-ANALYSIS

Emily P. Driessen, Sara Beth Ramsey, Sara Wood, Alan E.

Wilson, and Cissy J. Ballen
Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849

Contact Information
Email: epd0016@auburn.edu
Twitter: @driessen_paige
Website: https://emilydriessen.weebly.com/
PRIMARY MODE OF INSTRUCTION:
LECTURE

Brockliss (1996); Stains et al. (2018)

 DESPITE CONSTRUCTIVISM THEORY

The idea that learners need to construct their own

understanding for it to be meaningful.

The basis of active learning.

Piaget (1932)
 AND DESPITE THE EVIDENCE…

• Group Work

• Group Exams

• Pre-class Readings

• Clicker questions

Carmichael (2009); Chaplin (2009); Daniel (2016); Donovan, Connell & Grunspan (2018); Knight & Wood (2005); Marbach-Ad et al. (2016); Weir et al. (2019); Yapici, (2016)
 INTRODUCTION

• Lecture is still the main form of instruction.

Why is this case?
 INTRODUCTION

• Lecture is still the main form of instruction. Why is this case?

• Lack of robust information
 INTRODUCTION

• Lecture is still the main form of instruction. Why is this case?

• Lack of robust information?
• Meta-analysis
 INTRODUCTION

• Lecture is still the main form of instruction. Why is this case?

• Lack of robust information?
• Meta-analysis
• Freeman et al. (2014) and Theobald et al. (2020) demonstrated active
Learning increases performance for students on average and
disproportionately increases student performance for
underrepresented students
 INTRODUCTION

• Lecture is still the main form of instruction. Why is this case?

• Lack of robust information?
• Meta-analysis
• Freeman et al. (2014) and Theobald et al. (2020).
• Active learning strategies evaluated holistically
 INTRODUCTION

• Lecture is still the main form of instruction. Why is this case?

• Lack of robust information?
• Meta-analysis
• Freeman et al. (2014) and Theobald et al. (2020).
• Active learning strategies evaluated holistically
• Group Work Meta-Analysis
 INTRODUCTION

• Lecture is still the main form of instruction. Why is this case?

• Lack of robust information?
• Meta-analysis
• Freeman et al. (2014) and Theobald et al. (2020).
• Active learning strategies evaluated holistically
• Group Work Meta-Analysis
• Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998 – (K-college; 1924-1998: Not STEM or Bio)
• Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999 (Undergraduate STEM; 1980-1999; No Bio)
 INTRODUCTION

• Lecture is still the main form of instruction. Why is this case?

• Lack of robust information?
• Meta-analysis
• Freeman et al. (2014) and Theobald et al. (2020).
• Active learning strategies evaluated holistically
• Group Work Meta-Analysis
• Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998
• Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999
• Group work (Driessen, Knight, Smith, & Ballen, 2020)
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the effect of group work on academic

performance in post-secondary biology courses?

2. How is this effect moderated by class size, class level, or

group size?
 METHODS

Databases
 METHODS

Databases Search Terms

(“Collaborative Learning” OR “Group Work”
OR “Team-Based Learning” OR “Team Based
Learning” or “small group” or “small-group”)
AND
(“college students” or “university students” or
“undergraduate*”)
AND
(“biology” or “biological sciences”)
AND
(“achievement” OR “test” OR “performance”
or “outcomes” or “failure rates” or “learning
gains” or science achievement”)
 METHODS

Databases Search Terms

(“Collaborative Learning” OR “Group Work”
OR “Team-Based Learning” OR “Team Based
Learning” or “small group” or “small-group”)
AND
(“college students” or “university students” or
“undergraduate*”)
AND
(“biology” or “biological sciences”)
AND
(“achievement” OR “test” OR “performance”
or “outcomes” or “failure rates” or “learning
gains” or science achievement”)
 METHODS

Inclusion Criteria

1. Examined post-secondary students in a

biological science course
 METHODS

Inclusion Criteria

1. Examined post-secondary students in a

biological science course
2. Incorporated some type of group work
 METHODS

Inclusion Criteria

1. Examined post-secondary students in a

biological science course
2. Incorporated any type of group work
3. Conducted inside the classroom
 METHODS

Inclusion Criteria

1. Examined post-secondary students in a

biological science course
2. Incorporated any type of group work
3. Conducted inside the classroom
4. Reported statistical information that could be
used to estimate hedges’ g for student
performance
 METHODS

Inclusion Criteria

1. Examined post-secondary students in a

biological science course
2. Incorporated any type of group work
3. Conducted inside the classroom
4. Reported statistical information that could be
used to estimate hedges’ g for student
performance
5. Used the same concept inventory, similar or
the same exams, or course grade to evaluate
the two groups
METHODS

• 134 articles returned

• 107 articles fully read
• 32 articles fit our inclusion criteria
• 63 estimates gleaned
 METHODS

Effect Size: Hedge’s G

 METHODS

Effect Size: Hedge’s G Group Work increases

student performance
as compared to
lecture
 METHODS

Effect Size: Hedge’s G Group Work increases

student performance
as compared to
lecture

Lecture increases
student performance
as compared to group
work

(Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Durlak, 2009)

 METHODS

• Random meta-analysis, controlling for author as a random

effect
• rma.mv(yi, vi, data, random = ~ 1 |Author)

• Forest plot
• forest(data)

Metafor package • Moderators

• Individual meta-analyses for each subgroup
• rma.mv(yi, vi, data, random = ~ 1 |Author)

Viechtbauer (2010)
 What is the effect of group
RESEARCH work on academic
QUESTION
1 performance in post-
secondary biology courses?
 Lecture Favored Group Work Favored

RESULTS

0.76 [0.47, 1.05] Overall

0 4 6
Springer, Stanne, & Donovan (1999); Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1998);
Hedges and Hedberg (2007),
 Lecture Favored Group Work Favored

RESULTS

0.76 [0.47, 1.05] Overall

0 4 6
Springer, Stanne, & Donovan (1999); Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1998);
Hedges and Hedberg (2007),
 63 Estimates
18,128 students

Lecture Favored Group Work Favored

RESULTS

0.76 [0.47, 1.05] Overall

0 4 6
Springer, Stanne, & Donovan (1999); Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1998);
Hedges and Hedberg (2007),
 63 Estimates
18,128 students

Lecture Favored Group Work Favored

RESULTS

0.76 [0.47, 1.05] Overall

0 4 6
Springer, Stanne, & Donovan (1999); Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1998);
Hedges and Hedberg (2007),
 What is the effect of group
ANSWER
TO
work on academic
RESEARCH performance in post-
QUESTION secondary biology courses?
1
 What is the effect of group
work on academic
ANSWER performance in post-
TO
RESEARCH secondary biology courses?
QUESTION
1 The effect of group work is an increase of
0.76 SD on academic performance,
making group work a strategy of interest
to instructors and university policy-
makers.

Hedges & Hedberg (2007)

 How is the effect of group
RESEARCH
QUESTION
on academic performance
2 moderated by class size,
class level, or group size?
 Class Size
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Hedges' g

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 Small Medium Large
 Class Size
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Hedges' g

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 Small Medium Large

Freeman et al., (2014); Cuseo (2007); Dillon et al. (2002); Maringe & Sling (2014)
 Class Size Class Level
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Hedges' g

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 Small Medium Large Lower Upper

Freeman et al., (2014)

 Class Size Class Level Group Size
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Hedges' g

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 Small Medium Large Lower Upper Small Medium Large

Wheelan & Hochberger, 1996)

 ANSWER How is this effect
TO moderated by class size,
RESEARCH group size, or class time
QUESTION
2 devoted to groupwork?
 How is this effect moderated by
class size, group size, or class time
ANSWER devoted to groupwork?
TO
RESEARCH
QUESTION All class sizes, class levels, and group sizes of
2 demonstrated the effect of group work on
student performance is significantly different
from the effect of lecture on student
performance.
 CONCLUSIONS

• Group work increased student performance in

biology courses by 0.76 standard deviations.
Lecture Favored Group Work Favored

0.76 [0.47, 1.05] Overall

0 4 6
 CONCLUSIONS

• Group work increased student performance in

biology courses by 0.76 standard deviations.
Lecture Favored Group Work Favored
• Group work is effective in lower and upper
undergraduate courses, class sizes ranging from 21-
500+, and group sizes ranging from 2-12

0.76 [0.47, 1.05] Overall

0 4 6
 CONCLUSIONS

• Group work increased student performance in

biology courses by 0.76 standard deviations.
Lecture Favored Group Work Favored

• Group work is effective in lower and upper

undergraduate courses, class sizes ranging from 21-
500+, and group sizes ranging from 2-12

• Group work is therefore a strategy of

interest to instructors and university policy-
makers.
0.76 [0.47, 1.05] Overall

0 4 6
 LIMITATIONS

• Not necessarily representative of underrepresented

students
 LIMITATIONS

• Not necessarily representative of underrepresented

students

• Represents quantitative outcomes only, but does not speak

to student affect

Deslauriers et al. (2019)

FUTURE WORK
 SHOUT OUTS

Cissy Ballen Sara Beth Ramsey Sara Wood Brandon Dye Alan Wilson
QUESTIONS
 REFERENCES

Brockliss, L. (1996). Curricula. A History of the University in Europe, ed de Ridder-Symoens

Carmichael, J. (2009). Team-based learning enhances performance in introductory biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(4), 54.
Chaplin, S. (2009). Assessment of the impact of case studies on student learning gains in an introductory biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(1), 72.
Daniel, K. L. (2016). Impacts of active learning on student outcomes in large-lecture biology courses. The American Biology Teacher, 78(8), 651-655.
Donovan, D. A., Connell, G. L., & Grunspan, D. Z. (2018). Student learning outcomes and attitudes using three methods of group formation in a nonmajors biology class. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 17(4), ar60.
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251-19257.
Driessen, E. P., Knight, J. K., Smith, M. K., & Ballen, C. J. (2020). Demystifying the meaning of active learning in postsecondary biology education. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(4), ar52.’
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What Evidence Is There That It Works? Change, 30(4), 26–35
Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell biology education, 4(4), 298-310.
Marbach-Ad, G., Rietschel, C. H., Saluja, N., Carleton, K. L., & Haag, E. S. (2016). The use of group activities in introductory biology supports learning gains and uniquely benefits high-achieving
students. Journal of microbiology & biology education, 17(3), 360.
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., ... & Levis-Fitzgerald, M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American
universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468-1470.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of educational
research, 69(1), 21-51.
Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(3), 608.
Yapici, İ. Ü. (2016). Effectiveness of Blended Cooperative Learning Environment in Biology Teaching: Classroom Community Sense, Academic Achievement and Satisfaction. Journal of Education and
Training Studies, 4(4), 269-280.