Engaged Learning/Groups & Teams

Students learn best when they are actively engaged in the processing of information. One way to involve students in active learning is to have them learn from each other in small groups or teams. Research shows that students working in small groups tend to learn more of what is taught, retain it longer than when the same content is presented in other instructional formats, and appear more satisfied with their classes (Davis 1993; Barkley et al. 2005; Mello & Less 2013; Freeman et al. 2014). This may occur because students are motivated in specific ways by group work. For example, group work leverages peer accountability, motivating students to engage because others are counting on them. In addition, group work builds classroom community, which can build the feeling of belonging essential to students’ motivation to learn (Svinicki 2016). Finally, when students work in groups, they “are exposed to other perspectives and alternatives” and “they share and exchange ideas,” (Tang 1996). This is beneficial because students can recognize the complexity of what they are learning and be involved in the construction of knowledge.

Resistance to Group Work

What if you face student resistance to group work? That’s normal! As a starting point, consider the origins of the resistance. Your students may have preconceived notions about how classroom teaching should look based on their prior experiences. That model might involve them sitting passively absorbing information from their instructor. It may take time for them to see the learning benefits that come from their active engagement. You can preempt this resistance with transparency about your learning goals. Before you jump into a group activity or assign a group project, take the time to explain why you chose the group format and what the students can gain from the experience (Svinicki 2016; Seidel & Tanner 2013; Felder 2007).

Some students may be hesitant to join group activities because they have negative experiences with “social loafing,” when some group members do not contribute equally in group work. You can address this concern by building your activities to promote fairness (Seidel & Tanner 2013). Some strategies we will discuss to promote individual accountability in groups include:

• grading systems
• individual pre-work
• peer evaluations
• group contracts

Of course, designing and implementing a thoughtful, evidence-based group activity or project can have a big impact on students’ opinions of group work. In the following pages, we will discuss how to accomplish this in three contexts of group work: <Informal, In-class Group Activities [Create Link to Page]>; <In-class Group Activities with Standing Groups or Teams [Create Link to Page]>; and <Project-based Groups or Teams [Create Link to Page]>.

Sources

Barkley, E., Cross, P., & Major, C. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Felder R.M.(2007). “Random thoughts: Sermons for grumpy campers.” Chemical Engineering Education, 41 (3), 183–184.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Mello, D. and Less, C. A. (2013). "Effectiveness of active learning in the arts and sciences." Humanities Department Faculty Publications & Research. 45.

Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013). "What if students revolt?"--considering student resistance: origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE life sciences education, 12(4), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190

Svinicki, M. D. (2016). Motivation: An updated analysis (Report No. 59). IDEA Center, Inc.

Tang, C. (1998). Effects of collaborative learning on the quality of assignments. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 102–123). Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Education Research Ltd.

Another way to work collaboratively is through group projects. With a group project, students collaborate on a graded assignment that unfolds over weeks of a course. These projects may take place entirely in-class, such as extended in-class simulations; students may work on them entirely outside-of-class; or you may ask students to work both in-class and outside-of-class. The challenges you face with group projects include: forming heterogeneous groups that are attuned to practical challenges of group projects, promoting productive group interactions, and encouraging equal work through your assessment strategy.

Designing the Assignment

As with any assignment, we encourage you to develop a well-defined project with clear connections to the learning objectives of your class. Provide clear, written instructions to the groups. Communicate milestones so groups can monitor and reflect on their progress and performance. Additionally, you can ask for deliverables at each milestone.

Students appreciate group assignments related to real-world issues and the complexity they entail. That complexity can build group interdependence, as students draw on each other’s strengths, perspectives, and knowledge bases to complete the assignment. Authentic projects may resemble what a professional in the field does, which enhances the relevance to students. For example, you can ask students to advise on a policy, create a product or resource, develop an exhibit, or recommend a solution.

Successful group projects require collaboration–they cannot simply be divided up among the members. Nevertheless, they also include some independent tasks for individual accountability. For example, decisions may need to be made in collaboration, while the information needed to make a decision could be gathered independently.

Group Formation

We recommend that the instructor create groups. We suggest a few basic principles related to the size and composition of these groups.

Group Size

We suggest a few basic principles of group formation. Form teams of three to six members. Use smaller teams if you want to prioritize individual accountability and allow for more flexible scheduling when out-of-class activities are required. On the other hand, use larger teams if it's important for teams to bring more resources, ideas, and points of view to the problem.

Heterogeneity

When it comes to long-term, standing teams, we recommend that the instructor create them because the instructor can make them heterogeneous. Heterogeneity is an important characteristic for effective groups and teams. Teams that have a broad range of abilities and problem-solving perspectives among members tend to be more successful than those that are homogeneous in this regard (Brewer & Mendelson, 2003; Heller & Hollabaugh, 1992). Hong and Page (2004) suggest that such functional diversity, or “differences in how people represent problems and how they go about solving them” can be an important attribute of high-performing teams (p. 16385). Similarly, groups that are heterogeneous with respect to students’ social identities can build skills for dialogue across differences, career skills for collaborating in diverse group settings, and introduce students to new perspectives informed by others’ experiences (Finley, 2023; Zúñiga, 2014). Finally, other researchers have also demonstrated that working with peers of different abilities offers benefits to students at all levels—the more capable students become more aware of their thinking processes, while the less capable student learns from an advanced peer (Oakley et al., 2004; Wankat & Oreovicz, 1993).

While diverse groups are valuable for many reasons, one should not assume that just because a group has diverse members that it will work well. For example, some research suggests that when individuals from underrepresented backgrounds are isolated, their team participation can be negatively affected because their opinions may not be considered valid by their teammates, or they may be assigned unimportant tasks (Ingram & Parker, 2002; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008). Therefore, it is essential to teach teamwork skills to increase the likelihood that all students are able to contribute their ideas and perspectives and no students are excluded or assigned lower-level tasks. Strategies to develop teamwork skills and encourage equitable participation include assigning roles that rotate, developing team contracts, and implementing mechanisms for peer feedback, which can help identify problems with feelings of exclusion. See sections on Group Dynamics and Assessment and Accountability on this site.

You may want to gather data* from students to help you form groups. Important legal note: Protected identity characteristics (such as race, ethnicity, sex, etc.) cannot be used to assign students to teams/groups and must not be collected via team formation surveys. If you have any questions, please reach out to the U-M Office of the General Counsel.

Consider practical issues when creating teams

The length of the team project and expectations for meetings outside class should be considered when forming teams because even the best heterogeneous team is likely to fail if the team cannot find a common meeting time. Thus, when students need to work together outside class, instructors should consider out-of-class availability when forming the teams. One way to do this is to query the students about their schedules and use this information in conjunction with other criteria in forming teams (Oakley et al., 2004).

Additionally, we recommend allocating some class time to team meetings because it may be difficult for teams to meet outside of class. It also allows you an opportunity to observe how groups are functioning and to answer questions as they arise. Be sure to offer this in-class time at the beginning of the project so that teams can do some initial planning and set up times for out-of-class work.

Group Dynamics

The ability of team members to work effectively together can evolve over time as students acquire important skills. It is important for students to know that their teams are likely to experience conflict as they work together and for instructors to provide students with ways to deal with those conflicts. The suggestions offered in this section highlight good practices for teaching teamwork skills.

Have teams develop contracts

Another way to foster teamwork skills is to have each team develop a contract, which involves discussing the team’s purpose or mission, defining appropriate roles for each team member, and setting norms for conduct. Having – and using – a contract gives students ways to mediate team conflict and negotiate agreements on their own, enhancing team productivity (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2007). You can require student teams to develop a team charter (i.e., a shared set of team rules) as one of their first course assignments. The charter is intended to help the team plan for managing cases in which a team member does not do his or her fair share of the work, doesn’t attend team meetings or shows up late, exhibits disrespectful or unprofessional behavior, is excessively demanding, or is overly reserved. The team drafts a charter that everyone signs (indicating agreement with the principles) and gives a signed copy to the instructor. Then, when conflicts arise, the instructor can remind students about the contract, asking them to work together to define the source of the conflict, communicate feelings and positions, take the other person’s perspective, and reach an agreement that is satisfactory to all team members (Smith & Imbrie, 2007). If the team needs it, the instructor can intervene to address unresolved conflicts.

You might find this sample group contract worksheet helpful as you develop your group project.

Monitor teams

Groups often need support while individuals learn to interact with a diverse set of their peers. Monitoring groups is fundamental to detecting and correcting problematic dynamics in a timely way (Fredrick, 2008). You may find that students need coaching to understand the value of collaboration, to take ownership of and speak confidently about their ideas, to give constructive feedback, and to listen thoughtfully to their classmates.

Instructors should periodically check in with the teams, perhaps by scheduling times to meet with each team during office hours or being present when the team works together. During these meetings, the instructor should determine the extent to which the group is on track and observe the group dynamics. As needed, the instructor can ask refocusing questions such as, “Michael, please summarize what the team has done thus far,” or “Madison, please describe the team’s plan for completing the task,” and reiterate expectations about both individual accountability and interdependent work.

Another way to monitor a group’s progress is to ask them to submit weekly progress reports. Students can outline what the group discussed or accomplished that week, who participated, and the goals they set for the next week.

Assessment and Accountability

A common student complaint about group activities is that individuals in the group contribute unequally without penalty, especially if a single assignment is to be submitted by the team. This concern may be heightened when groups and teams work together in an ongoing relationship because the stakes may be higher than a one-time, in-class activity. Here we’ll share some strategies to address this concern, but we also want to point you to the CRLT Occasional Paper No. 35 for more ideas and resources to assess collaborative work.

You can encourage individual accountability through a grading system. First, make sure that the project accounts for enough of their grade to be worth the time and effort necessary to coordinate a group project. In addition, remember that a grading system should include:

1. individual performance/products;
2. group performance/products;
3. each member’s contribution to team success (e.g., peer evaluation).

Here is a resource to help you develop a grading scheme for group projects. Be sure to plan in advance how you will evaluate each of these three aspects and how you will communicate your expectations and/or grading criteria to students. Finally, incorporate opportunities for formative assessment, so groups know how they are doing on the criteria while they still have time to course correct.

Use peer evaluations

Because students have the most knowledge about individual contributions to the team, peer evaluations are an important ingredient in an instructor’s team assessment (Cestone et al., 2008; Loughry et al., 2007; Williams et al. 2002). When effectively facilitated, the benefits of peer evaluation are many. Soliciting students’ perspectives of their peers can help an instructor identify “free riders” who fail to contribute to the team and rely on others to get the work done (Glenn, 2009; Slavin, 1995). Students are challenged to think more critically about the process of teamwork (Fredrick, 2008), they reflect on the goals and objectives of a course (Cestone et al., 2008), and they are more motivated to produce high-quality work when their peers evaluate them than when their instructor does (Searby & Ewers, 1997). Research also shows that students who participate in peer evaluation have an increased awareness of the quality of their own work and increased confidence in their abilities (Dochy et al. 1999). On the whole, students find peer evaluation to be a fair method of assessment (Gatfield, 1999) and are generally very satisfied with the process (Cestone et al., 2008).

Peer evaluation can also be useful to improve team interactions while the teamwork is in progress. To accomplish the first objective, instructors should distribute peer evaluations at multiple points during the term so students can learn how to score their teammates and get used to sharing their (anonymous) ratings with teammates. And at the end of the term, the instructor can factor the students’ ratings into the overall grade or adjust each student’s team score by a multiplier based on the ratings to reflect their team contributions (Kaufman et al., 2000). Though it is important to make peer ratings count, if the course becomes overly dependent on them, students may start to feel as if they have not received appropriate credit for their individual efforts, and the peer feedback may become counterproductive.

Consider whether you will ask students to self-assess their own participation in the group when they complete peer evaluations. Self-assessment provides students with an opportunity to practice reflection and self-monitoring, encourages academic integrity, and helps students develop as independent learners. Adding self-assessment, however, is not without challenges. For example, lower performing and less experienced students may overestimate their contributions. Students may need guidance and time to become more accurate with their assessment.

University centers for teaching and learning have created some helpful resources to support faculty using peer assessment of group working including:

• Using Peer Assessment to Make Teamwork Work: A Resource Document for Instructors by Teaching and Learning Services at McGill University.
• Peer Assessment of Group Work by the Center for Teaching and Learning at Columbia University.
• Sample Peer Assessment Form #1 by the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University.
• Sample Peer Assessment Form #2 by the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University.

Works Cited

Barkley, E., Cross, P., & Major, C. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, W., & Mendelson, M. I. (2003). Methodology and metrics for assessing team effectiveness. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6), 777-787.

Cestone, C. M., Levine, R. E., & Lane, D. R. (2008, Winter). Peer assessment and evaluation of team-based learning. In L. K. Michaelsen, M. Sweet, & D. X. Parmelee (Eds.), Team-based learning: Small group learning’s next big step (pp. 69-78). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 116. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fredrick, T. A. (2008). Facilitating better teamwork: Analyzing the challenges and strategies of classroom-based collaboration. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(4), 439-455.

Finley, A. P. (2023). The career-ready graduate: What employers say about the difference college makes. American Association of Colleges and Universities.

Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365-377.

Glenn, D. (2009, June 8). Students give group assignments a failing grade. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637-644.

Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385-16389.

Ingram, S., & Parker, A. (2002). Gender and modes of collaboration in an engineering classroom: A profile of two women on student teams. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(1), 33-68.

Kaufman, D. B., Felder, R. M., & Fuller, H. (2000). Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 133-140.

Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Moore, D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 505-524.

Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. In L. K. Michaelsen, M. Sweet, & D. X. Parmelee (Eds.), Team-based learning: Small group learning’s next big step (pp. 7-27). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 116. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9-34.

Searby, M., & Ewers, T. (1997). An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher education: A case study in the School of Music, Kingston University. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 371-383.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sweet M., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2012). Team-based learning in the social sciences and humanities: Group work that works to generate critical thinking and engagement. Sterling, Va. : Stylus Publishing.

Tonso, K. L. (2006). Teams that work: Campus culture, engineering identity, and social interactions. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 25-37.

Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (1993). Teaching engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Williams, D., Foster, D., Green, B., Lakey, P., Lakey, R., Mills, F., & Williams, C. (2002). Effective peer evaluation in learning teams. In C. Wehlburg & S. Chadwick-Blossey (Eds.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development, Vol. 22 (pp. 251-267). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Zúñiga, X., Lopez, G. E., & Ford, K. A. (2014). Intergroup dialogue: Critical conversations about difference. In X. Zúñiga, G. E. Lopez, & K. A. Ford (Eds.), Intergroup dialogue: Engaging difference, social identities and social justice. Routledge.

In this type of collaborative work, a group or team of students work together over more than one class period, sometimes over an entire semester. The phrase team-based learning sometimes refers to a very specific and structured form of this work. You can learn more about the formal Team-Based Learning technique at the Team-Based Learning Collaborative website. We use the term team-based learning more generally, referring to any in-class group activities where the same teams work together over more than one class session. If you’d like to delve into team-based learning in greater depth, be sure to check out the University of Michigan’s occasional paper on the topic.

Why use ongoing or standing teams rather than forming groups ad hoc with each activity? There can be several advantages. An ongoing team gets to know each other well, building a sense of community and belonging that can be particularly valuable in large classes. Ongoing teams may be more efficient because students learn how to work with each other. Finally, instructors may design ongoing teams because this design resembles dynamics in the workplace.

Designing Activities

In-class group activities should include work that is best done as part of a collaboration. Design activities around questions or exercises that are complex or open-ended. A complex problem may have one answer, but it is difficult to reach and would benefit from multiple minds on the task. An open-ended question has no single correct answer, could be controversial, and students may have a variety of perspectives or viewpoints on it.

Let’s take a look at formal Team-Based Learning as a model for how an instructor could incorporate standing teams into their course design. This model is more commonly implemented in STEM fields, but applications in the humanities and social sciences are growing (see Sweet & Michaelsen 2012). Prior to working in teams, individual students complete short quizzes to ensure their understanding of material. In formal Team-Based Learning, these quizzes are referred to as Individual Readiness Assurance Tests. These quizzes may take place before class or at the beginning of class. When students turn to work with their teams, the first activity they complete is the same quiz as a group (the Group Readiness Assurance Test). Then they work with their ongoing team actively solving difficult, applied problems, perhaps using a team whiteboard. All teams work on the same problem and report their results simultaneously.

Of course instructors need not utilize this particular model. In writing-intensive courses, there are rich opportunities for ongoing peer feedback. Online courses can build community by assigning small standing groups to their own boards or forums for asynchronous class discussion.

Group Formation

We recommend that the instructor create groups. We suggest a few basic principles related to the size, composition, and duration of these groups.

Group Size

We suggest a few basic principles of group formation. Form teams of three to six members. Use smaller teams if you want to prioritize individual accountability and allow for more flexible scheduling when out-of-class activities are required. On the other hand, use larger teams if it's important for teams to bring more resources, ideas, and points of view to the problem.

Heterogeneity

When it comes to long-term, standing teams, we recommend that the instructor create them because the instructor can make them heterogeneous. Heterogeneity is an important characteristic for effective groups and teams. Teams that have a broad range of abilities and problem-solving perspectives among members tend to be more successful than those that are homogeneous in this regard (Brewer & Mendelson, 2003; Heller & Hollabaugh, 1992). Hong and Page (2004) suggest that such functional diversity, or “differences in how people represent problems and how they go about solving them” can be an important attribute of high-performing teams (p. 16385). Similarly, groups that are heterogeneous with respect to students’ social identities can build skills for dialogue across differences, career skills for collaborating in diverse group settings, and introduce students to new perspectives informed by others’ experiences (Finley, 2023; Zúñiga, 2014). Finally, other researchers have also demonstrated that working with peers of different abilities offers benefits to students at all levels—the more capable students become more aware of their thinking processes, while the less capable student learns from an advanced peer (Oakley et al., 2004; Wankat & Oreovicz, 1993).

While diverse groups are valuable for many reasons, one should not assume that just because a group has diverse members that it will work well. For example, some research suggests that when individuals from underrepresented backgrounds are isolated, their team participation can be negatively affected because their opinions may not be considered valid by their teammates, or they may be assigned unimportant tasks (Ingram & Parker, 2002; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008). Therefore, it is essential to teach teamwork skills to increase the likelihood that all students are able to contribute their ideas and perspectives and no students are excluded or assigned lower-level tasks. Strategies to develop teamwork skills and encourage equitable participation include assigning roles that rotate, developing team contracts, and implementing mechanisms for peer feedback, which can help identify problems with feelings of exclusion. See sections on Group Dynamics and Assessment and Accountability on this site.

You may want to gather data* from students to help you form groups. *Important legal note: Protected identity characteristics (such as race, ethnicity, sex, etc.) cannot be used to assign students to teams/groups and must not be collected via team formation surveys.

Group Duration

A final consideration for group formation is how long the standing group will last. In formal Team-Based Learning, teams last the entire semester. Alternatively, you may decide to have standing teams that last for a few classes, a few weeks, or half a semester. The decision comes down to a tradeoff. Rotate groups more regularly if you want students to work with and build relationships with more of their classmates. They will have a wider range of experiences. On the other hand, maintain the same groups over the semester if you want to students to have more time to build social cohesion and learn to address group conflict.

Group Dynamics

The ability of team members to work effectively together can evolve over time as students acquire skills for working together. It is important for students to know that their teams are likely to experience conflict and for instructors to provide students with ways to deal with those conflicts. The suggestions offered in this section highlight good practices for teaching teamwork skills.

Start Strong

A productive group dynamic can start when you are first forming groups. Utilize activities that allow students to get to know each other, reflect on the benefits and challenges of working together, and focus on positive contributions each student brings to the group.

• One activity we recommend is creating a group resume. “The group resume is designed to help students share their skills, talents, knowledge, and experiences with their group members. They are building a resume together to highlight their collective experiences, discuss their contributions, and make visible their value to the group, ” (Barkley et al., 2014). This template might help you as you develop a group resume activity. A variation of this idea is to ask students to complete a skills inventory. You can design the inventory to identify the hard and soft skills you think will be valuable to the group. Students can then rate themselves on each skill. Afterwards, they share their inventories with their teammates and discuss their group’s strengths. The Eberly Center at Carnegie Mellon University created this sample skills inventory as a reference.
• Group reflections on work styles and conflict styles are another low-stakes activity that can promote productive group dynamics right off the bat. With this information, students can preempt conflicts that might arise while working together.
• Ask groups to discuss what makes a group function successfully. Or brainstorm the qualities of a good teammate. Have them use their answers to develop a set of ground rules or norms for their group. Norms can include expectations about how the group will communicate with each other and the process they’ll use to resolve disagreement. This process could lead into the formation of a group contract or charter.

Assign Roles

Individuals can learn about different ways to productively contribute to a group when you assign group members roles. For example, one group member can be the Facilitator, whose role is to moderate discussion and keep the group on task. Another member could be the Devil’s Advocate, whose role is to raise constructive objections and introduce possible counterarguments. These roles can be instructor-determined or established by the groups themselves, e.g., by giving teams a list such as the one below and asking them to decide on and delegate appropriate roles within their group.

The roles you – or your students – assign will depend on the goals of the assignment, the size of the team, etc. They can be fixed or rotating. Some research suggests that underrepresented and minoritized individuals are more likely to be assigned unimportant roles in groups. This is one reason for the instructor to assign roles and rotate them, so that everyone has a chance to develop these skills. Check out this resource for more ideas on possible roles you could assign.

Monitor Dynamics

Teams often need support while individuals learn to interact with a diverse group of their peers. You can monitor group interactions by circulating the room during group activities. Monitoring teams is fundamental to detecting and correcting problematic dynamics in a timely way (Fredrick, 2008). You may find that students need coaching to understand the value of collaboration, to take ownership of and speak confidently about their ideas, to give constructive feedback, and to listen carefully to their classmates. In addition, monitoring teams can help keep them on task. Lastly, when instructors periodically check in with the teams, they are available to answer questions that arise.

Instructors can periodically check-in with the teams, perhaps by scheduling times to meet with each team during office hours or being present when the team works together. During these meetings, the instructor can ask about group decision-making processes and group communication.

One more option for monitoring groups is to ask students to weigh in on group dynamics a few weeks into their collaboration, using a form such as this one from Carnegie Mellon's Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation. By reviewing these forms, you can identify groups that aren't functioning well and facilitate conversations and recommend strategies to promote teamwork.

Assessment and Accountability

A common student complaint about group activities is that individuals in the group contribute unequally without penalty. This concern may be heightened when groups and teams work together in an ongoing relationship because the stakes may be higher than a one-time activity. Here we’ll share some strategies to address this concern, but we also want to point you to the CRLT Occasional Paper No. 35 for more ideas and resources to assess collaborative work.

• Ask students to do individual work before entering their group. Require students to work individually first (i.e., have them complete a worksheet or assignment, answer questions, or make a choice) so that each member has something to contribute to the group. An individual assignment/assessment completed before class could be used as each student’s prerequisite “ticket” into the group activity.
• Provide clear instructions to the groups. Be sure to describe the task you’ve asked groups to perform, communicating milestones so groups can monitor and reflect on their progress and performance. Verbalize how much time groups have to complete the task. Include the product or deliverable you’ll ask for at the end of the task. For example, you may ask them to hand-in a worksheet or present their solution to the class.
• Encourage individual accountability through a grading system. If you decide to grade group work, a grading system should include (1) individual performance/products; (2) group performance/products; and (3) each member’s contribution to team success (e.g., peer evaluation). Be sure to plan in advance how you will evaluate each of these three aspects and how you will communicate your expectations and/or grading criteria to students. Here is a resource to help you develop a grading scheme for group work.

Use peer evaluations

Because students have the most knowledge about individual contributions to the team, peer evaluations are an important ingredient in an instructor’s team assessment (Cestone et al., 2008; Loughry et al., 2007; Williams et al. 2002). When effectively facilitated, the benefits of peer evaluation are many. Soliciting students’ perspectives of their peers can help an instructor identify “free riders” who fail to contribute to the team and rely on others to get the work done (Glenn, 2009; Slavin, 1995). Students are challenged to think more critically about the process of teamwork (Fredrick, 2008), they reflect on the goals and objectives of a course (Cestone et al., 2008), and they are more motivated to produce high-quality work when their peers evaluate them than when their instructor does (Searby & Ewers, 1997). Research also shows that students who participate in peer evaluation have an increased awareness of the quality of their own work and increased confidence in their abilities (Dochy et al. 1999). On the whole, students find peer evaluation to be a fair method of assessment (Gatfield, 1999) and are generally very satisfied with the process (Cestone et al., 2008).

Peer evaluation can also be useful to improve team interactions while the teamwork is in progress. To accomplish the first objective, instructors should distribute peer evaluations at multiple points during the term so students can learn how to score their teammates and get used to sharing their (anonymous) ratings with teammates. And at the end of the term, the instructor can factor the students’ ratings into the overall grade or adjust each student’s team score by a multiplier based on the ratings to reflect their team contributions (Kaufman et al., 2000). Though it is important to make peer ratings count, if the course becomes overly dependent on them, students may start to feel as if they have not received appropriate credit for their individual efforts, and the peer feedback may become counterproductive.

Consider whether you will ask students to self-assess their own participation in the group when they complete peer evaluations. Self-assessment provides students with an opportunity to practice reflection and self-monitoring, encourages academic integrity, and helps students develop as independent learners. Adding self-assessment, however, is not without challenges. For example, lower performing and less experienced students may overestimate their contributions. Students may need guidance and time to become more accurate with their assessment.

University centers for teaching and learning have created some helpful resources to support faculty using peer assessment of group working including:

• Using Peer Assessment to Make Teamwork Work: A Resource Document for Instructors by Teaching and Learning Services at McGill University.
• Peer Assessment of Group Work by the Center for Teaching and Learning at Columbia University.
• Sample Peer Assessment Form #1by the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University.
• Sample Peer Assessment Form #2by the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University.

Works Cited

Barkley, E., Cross, P., & Major, C. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, W., & Mendelson, M. I. (2003). Methodology and metrics for assessing team effectiveness. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6), 777-787.

Cestone, C. M., Levine, R. E., & Lane, D. R. (2008, Winter). Peer assessment and evaluation of team-based learning. In L. K. Michaelsen, M. Sweet, & D. X. Parmelee (Eds.), Team-based learning: Small group learning’s next big step (pp. 69-78). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 116. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fredrick, T. A. (2008). Facilitating better teamwork: Analyzing the challenges and strategies of classroom-based collaboration. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(4), 439-455.

Finley, A. P. (2023). The career-ready graduate: What employers say about the difference college makes. American Association of Colleges and Universities.

Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365-377.

Glenn, D. (2009, June 8). Students give group assignments a failing grade. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637-644.

Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385-16389.

Ingram, S., & Parker, A. (2002). Gender and modes of collaboration in an engineering classroom: A profile of two women on student teams. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(1), 33-68.

Kaufman, D. B., Felder, R. M., & Fuller, H. (2000). Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 133-140.

Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Moore, D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 505-524.

Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. In L. K. Michaelsen, M. Sweet, & D. X. Parmelee (Eds.), Team-based learning: Small group learning’s next big step (pp. 7-27). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 116. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9-34.

Searby, M., & Ewers, T. (1997). An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher education: A case study in the School of Music, Kingston University. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 371-383.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Sweet M., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2012). Team-based learning in the social sciences and humanities: Group work that works to generate critical thinking and engagement. Sterling, Va. : Stylus Publishing.

Tonso, K. L. (2006). Teams that work: Campus culture, engineering identity, and social interactions. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 25-37.

Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (1993). Teaching engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Williams, D., Foster, D., Green, B., Lakey, P., Lakey, R., Mills, F., & Williams, C. (2002). Effective peer evaluation in learning teams. In C. Wehlburg & S. Chadwick-Blossey (Eds.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development, Vol. 22 (pp. 251-267). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Zúñiga, X., Lopez, G. E., & Ford, K. A. (2014). Intergroup dialogue: Critical conversations about difference. In X. Zúñiga, G. E. Lopez, & K. A. Ford (Eds.), Intergroup dialogue: Engaging difference, social identities and social justice. Routledge.

The easiest entry-point for incorporating group work into a course is through informal, in-class group activities. You can utilize these activities in any class size and across disciplines. In this type of collaborative work, groups are often formed ad hoc, and they work together on a single question or problem. To make these activities effective, instructors should pay particular attention to the design of the activity, the process of group formation, and accountability mechanisms.

Designing the Activity

Group activities should include work that is best done as part of a collaboration. Design activities around a question or exercise that is complex or open-ended. A complex problem may have one answer, but it is difficult to reach and would benefit from multiple minds on the task. An open-ended question has no single correct answer, could be controversial, and students may have a variety of perspectives or viewpoints on it. See fig. 1 for some examples of open-ended or complex tasks.

There are a number of ways to design your group activity. In STEM courses, you might ask groups to collaborate on problem-solving or compare answers to a problem. This opens the door to informal peer instruction. Other complex activities include interpreting a graph and making a prediction from a demonstration. In writing-intensive courses, there are rich opportunities for peer feedback. Ask a pair of students to share a short portion of their writing, such as the literature review or the introduction, with their partner in-class.

Open-ended questions can be formatted as a think-pair-share activity. You would ask individuals to collect their own thoughts on the question. Then they would compare and synthesize their individual responses with a classmate to be shared with the larger class. Think-pair-share activities are valuable for a couple of reasons: first, they give students an opportunity to develop their own thoughts on a question. In addition, they allow students to feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts, having tested them out on a classmate first. Not to mention that pairs can learn from their partners and improve on their answers.

Another type of in-class group work is a jigsaw discussion. In this technique, a general topic is divided into smaller, interrelated pieces (similar to the way a puzzle is divided into pieces). The first step of a jigsaw activity involves creating groups of 3-5 people. In each of these groups, the members together become experts on a topic. For example, each group could be assigned a different article or case study. After the original groups become experts on their topic–their piece of the puzzle–they are reassigned to new groups. One expert from each topic area joins each new group. The experts teach the other group members about that puzzle piece. Finally, after each person has finished teaching, the puzzle has been reassembled, and everyone on the team knows something important about every piece of the puzzle. The figure above, created by Vanderbilt University's Center for Teaching, may help you visualize the stages of a jigsaw discussion. Jigsaw activities can be effective because they have both a mechanism for individual accountability and promote positive interdependence.

We’ve discussed a handful of designs for ad hoc group activities. Check out this resource for more ideas.

Group Formation

Group Size

How many students do you assign to each group? When deciding on the size of your student groups keep a couple factors in mind. First, smaller groups better facilitate individual accountability (Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008). Every member is more likely to participate. On the other hand, larger teams have the potential for more resources, ideas, and points of view to be brought to the problem. In general, we recommend teams of three to six students (Birmingham & McCord, 2004; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998).

Another advantage of larger groups is that they can help avoid isolating individuals from minoritized or underrepresented groups. Some research suggests that when individuals from underrepresented backgrounds are isolated, their team participation can be negatively affected because their opinions may not be considered valid by their teammates, or they may be assigned unimportant tasks (Ingram & Parker, 2002; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008). For this reason, you may also consider assigning students roles in their groups and rotating those roles.

Assigning Groups

We encourage you to assign students to groups even in large classes or under time constraints. When instructors create groups, it usually allows for more group heterogeneity, which is an important characteristic for effective groups. Groups that have a broad range of abilities and problem-solving perspectives among members tend to be more successful than those that are homogeneous in this regard (Brewer & Mendelson, 2003; Heller & Hollabaugh, 1992). Hong and Page (2004) suggest that such functional diversity, or “differences in how people represent problems and how they go about solving them” can be an important attribute of high-performing teams (p. 16385). Other researchers have also demonstrated that working with peers of different abilities offers benefits to students at all levels—the more capable students become more aware of their thinking processes, while the less capable student learns from an advanced peer (Oakley et al., 2004; Wankat & Oreovicz, 1993).

How can you quickly assign students to pairs or groups? One option is to assign groups randomly using one of the following approaches:

• Counting off by the number of groups
• Asking students to pick up a number or colored card as they enter the class.

Alternatively, you could assign groups based on some criterion. For example, you could assign students to groups based on:

• who read what article
• common interests
• birth month

In large classes, your GSI team may play a valuable role in the group-formation process. You can divide the classroom into sections and have a GSI assign groups in each section. They can clarify instructions about how to form groups. GSIs can also identify and guide students who are hesitant about which group to join.

Accountability

A common student complaint about group activities is that individuals in the group contribute unequally without penalty. Here are some strategies to address this concern.

• Ask students to do individual work before entering their group. Require students to work individually first (i.e., have them complete a worksheet or assignment, answer questions, or make a choice) so that each member has something to contribute to the group. An individual assignment/assessment completed before class could be used as each student’s prerequisite “ticket” into the group activity.
• Provide clear instructions to the groups. Be sure to describe the task you’ve asked groups to perform, communicating milestones so groups can monitor and reflect on their progress and performance. Verbalize how much time groups have to complete the task. Include the product or deliverable you’ll ask for at the end of the task. For example, you may ask them to hand-in a worksheet or present their solution to the class.
• Designate roles in the group. For example, one group member can be the Facilitator, whose role is to moderate discussion and keep the group on task. Another member could be the Devil’s Advocate, whose role is to raise constructive objections and introduce possible counterarguments. These roles can be instructor-determined or established by the groups themselves, e.g., by giving teams a list of potential rolesand asking them to decide on and delegate appropriate roles within their group.
• Establish reporting back or debriefing methods that encourage accountability. Remember it is best to establish and explain the procedure at the beginning of the activity to set the tone and expectations for group work. If you have established a safe learning environment, one way to ensure accountability is to call randomly on students to present their group’s progress or final product.

Reporting Out and Debriefing

After students complete a group activity, you may ask them to report out or debrief their work. Reporting out is valuable because, when a group reports out, they share the product of their time together so that groups can learn from each other. When they debrief, they think and reflect on the groups’ output and process. Reflection is important to learning because it gives students time to draw meaning and insights from their experiences.

Select a reporting out mechanism that promotes high-energy class discussions and reflections. Minimize the lecture mode of group sharing (i.e., a series of group presentations). Try not to ask groups to summarize everything they did or discussed during the activity. Instead keep the groups’ output for class discussion simple and focused. While it’s common to ask each group to share briefly aloud, there are a range of reporting out options that vary in complexity and time commitment. Here are a few:

No Report Out: Not all small-group discussions have to be reported out. Be selective about which ones need to have full-group processing.

Selective Report Out: Encourage groups to listen to their colleagues by asking them to only share ideas that haven’t already been mentioned or by asking them to compare their response to previous groups’ comments.

Index Card Sharing: Participants write one key take-away from the discussion on an index card. These can be read quickly by the instructor to identify key themes or questions to discuss as a large group. If the ideas can/should be shared, the cards can be passed back out to students for individuals to read and respond to another individual’s comment.

Theming via Post-Its or Collaborative Documents: Groups submit one or two key ideas from their discussion in a venue that all students have access to. This could be done online with Google Docs or Google Slides. Alternatively, they could write on post-it notes and put them on a white board. This has a built-in debriefing activity where ideas are sorted into categories by participants and instructors as they are placed.

Response systems: Polling or other classroom response systems could be used to vote on group submissions. For example, if groups are asked to generate an analogy that illustrates a course concept -- all submissions could be compiled as a candidate for "best analogy." This process can be low-tech too! Ask for a show of hands to get input.

After reporting out, consider asking your students to debrief. Debriefing is an opportunity for students to digest, process, compare and contrast, and evaluate the output of other groups. What are some ways to debrief the activity? You might ask groups to share what was challenging for their group or what strategies enabled their group.

You can debrief group activities with individual reflections as well. Here are a few questions you might pose with this approach to debriefing:

• Did something come up in your group that you haven’t thought about before—or that pushed you to think in a new way?
• What’s one thing you learned from one of your classmates in your group today?
• What remains unresolved?
• What perspectives are missing from this discussion so far?
• Based on our discussions today, what will you be thinking about after you leave?

Works Cited

Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social Loafing on Group Projects: Structural Antecedents and Effect on Student Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308322283

Birmingham, C., & McCord, M. (2004). Group process research: Implications for using learning groups. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching (pp. 73-93). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Brewer, W., & Mendelson, M. I. (2003). Methodology and metrics for assessing team effectiveness. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6), 777-787.

Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637-644.

Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385-16389.

Ingram, S., & Parker, A. (2002). Gender and modes of collaboration in an engineering classroom: A profile of two women on student teams. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(1), 33-68.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Maximizing instruction through cooperative learning. ASEE Prism, 8(2), 24-29.

Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. In L. K. Michaelsen, M. Sweet, & D. X. Parmelee (Eds.), Team-based learning: Small group learning’s next big step (pp. 7-27). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 116. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9-34.

Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (1993). Teaching engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.