To Let Students Self-Select or Not

When students can self-select their group members, a common assumption is that students prefer to select friends from similar cultural backgrounds. However, when teachers randomize students in groups from different cultural backgrounds, students are “forced” to work together. The prime goal of this study is to understand the impact of two group selection methods on how students from diverse cultural backgrounds build learning and work relations, using an innovative quantitative method of Social Network Analysis in a pre–post test manner. In a quasi-experimental study of 2 × 69 students, in one condition the students were randomly allocated to groups by staff and in the other, students were allowed to self-select their group members. The results indicate that students in the self-selected condition primarily selected their friends from a similar cultural background. The learning networks after 14 weeks were primarily predicted by the group allocation and initial friendships. However, students in the random condition developed equally strong internal group relations but more “knowledge spillovers” outside their group, indicating that the random condition led to positive effects beyond the group.

[1]  Keith J. Topping,et al.  Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education , 2008 .

[2]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  Informal Networks and Organizational Crises: An Experimental Simulation , 1988 .

[3]  S. Volet,et al.  Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: an opportunity for inter-cultural learning , 2012 .

[4]  Simon Heilesen,et al.  The Design, Experience and Practice of Networked Learning , 2014 .

[5]  Piet Kommers,et al.  Understanding academic performance of international students: the role of ethnicity, academic and social integration , 2012 .

[6]  L. Leach,et al.  Integration and adaptation , 2005 .

[7]  Bart Rienties,et al.  Understanding social learning relations of international students in a large classroom using social network analysis , 2013, Higher Education.

[8]  Linda Argote,et al.  Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[9]  Doreen Rosenthal,et al.  The international student experience: three styles of adaptation , 2010 .

[10]  Kenneth J. Chapman,et al.  Can’t We Pick our Own Groups? The Influence of Group Selection Method on Group Dynamics and Outcomes , 2006 .

[11]  David Lazer,et al.  Network Theory and Small Groups , 2004 .

[12]  J. Kennedy,et al.  Culture , Leadership , and Organizations : The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies , 2022 .

[13]  B. Rienties,et al.  Student Experiences of Self-Reflection and Peer Assessment in Providing Authentic Project-Based Learning to Large Class Sizes , 2013 .

[14]  Y. Y. Kim.  Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation , 2000 .

[15]  F. Dochy,et al.  Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations , 2010 .

[16]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. , 2000 .

[17]  S. Volet,et al.  Cultural Transitions in Higher Education: Individual Adaptation, Transformation and Engagement , 2012 .

[18]  Simon Ville,et al.  SOCIAL CAPITAL RENEWAL AND THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN AUSTRALIA , 2008 .

[19]  D. Boud,et al.  Rethinking assessment in higher education : learning for the longer term , 2007 .

[20]  S. Myers.  Students' Perceptions of Classroom Group Work as a Function of Group Member Selection , 2012 .

[21]  Bart Rienties,et al.  Understanding Emerging Knowledge Spillovers in Small-Group Learning Settings: A Networked Learning Perspective , 2014 .

[22]  B. Rienties,et al.  The Role of Cultural Background and Team Divisions in Developing Social Learning Relations in the Classroom , 2013 .

[23]  A. Bakker,et al.  Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects , 2011 .

[24]  Klaes Eringa,et al.  Chinese Students’ Perceptions of the Intercultural Competence of Their Tutors in PBL , 2009 .

[25]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[26]  Ruey‐Lin Hsiao,et al.  Collaborative Knowing: The Adaptive Nature of Cross‐Boundary Spanning , 2012 .

[27]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[28]  Devan Rosen,et al.  An analysis of friendship networks, social connectedness, homesickness, and satisfaction levels of international students , 2011 .

[29]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Team learning: building shared mental models , 2011 .

[30]  S. Volet,et al.  Socio-emotional challenges in international education , 2008 .

[31]  Catherine Montgomery,et al.  A Decade of Internationalisation , 2009 .

[32]  B. Richards,et al.  COMMENTARY: Drawing Conclusions from the Team-Learning Literature in Health-Sciences Education: A Commentary , 2005, Teaching and learning in medicine.

[33]  N. Harrison,et al.  Cultural distance, mindfulness and passive xenophobia: using Integrated Threat Theory to explore home higher education students’ perspectives on ‘internationalisation at home’ , 2009 .

[34]  Bart Rienties,et al.  A Longitudinal Analysis of Knowledge Spillovers in the Classroom , 2012 .

[35]  L. McDowell,et al.  Social Networks and the International Student Experience , 2009 .

[36]  A. Scherpbier,et al.  Visualising the invisible: a network approach to reveal the informal social side of student learning , 2012, Advances in Health Sciences Education.

[37]  B. Rienties,et al.  Academic and Social Integration of International and Local Students at Five Business Schools, a Cross-Institutional Comparison , 2011 .

[38]  D. Gašević,et al.  “Choose Your Classmates, Your GPA Is at Stake!” , 2013 .