Adaptive group formation to promote desired behaviours

Background: There is substantial literature that shows the benefits of collaborative work, though these benefits vary enormously with circumstances. Irrespective of their structure and composition, groups usually exist for a particular reason and implicitly or explicitly target one or more outcomes. The achievements of group outcomes depend on many factors, including the individual behaviour of each group member. These behaviours are, in turn, affected by the individual characteristics, the context and the group composition. Constructing groups in a way that maximises the achievement of a specific outcome is complex with the optimal group composition depending on the attributes of the group members. Previous work has in most cases considered group formation based on one particular attribute, such as learning style, gender, personality, etc. Less common are instances of group formation rules being adjusted systematically to accommodate changes in an individual's attributes or disposition. Purpose: This paper considers how the multi-factorial nature of group performance and the variations in desired behaviour across different circumstances can be addressed within a consistent framework. Design/Method: The methodology consisted of two main stages. In the first stage, a simulation was encoded in MatLab to assess the conceptual approach of progressively updating rules for group formation. The method uses an unsupervised learning algorithm and correlation factors between quantifiable group characteristics (average age, degree of motivation, etc.) and resultant behaviours of the groups that are actually formed (level of dialogue, interface interactions, etc.) to update the rules used for group formation, and hence progressively construct groups that are more likely to behave in desired ways. The second stage involved an evaluation of this approach in a real world scenario using remotely accessible laboratories where engineering students voluntarily participated in a study in April 2012. Results: The simulation results show that under certain conditions the desired behaviour chosen with the intention of improving specific learning outcomes can be optimized and that groups can be constructed that are more likely to exhibit desired behaviour. The paper also reports preliminary evidence that shows the feasibility of this approach in selecting group participants in an engineering class to promote a desired outcome in this case independent learning. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using a set of individual characteristics of group members to form groups that are more likely to have desired group behaviours and that these characteristics can be monitored and updated to dynamically alter group formation to account for changes in any individual's characteristics. This has potential to allow groups formation decisions to be made dynamically to achieve a desired outcome, for example promote collaborative learning.

[1]  Luís Gomes,et al.  Current Trends in Remote Laboratories , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics.

[2]  David Lowe,et al.  An architecture for automated group formation within remote laboratories , 2011 .

[3]  Tim S. Roberts Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning in Higher Education. , 2005 .

[4]  Kyparisia A. Papanikolaou,et al.  A Group Formation Tool in an E-Learning Context , 2007, 19th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence(ICTAI 2007).

[5]  Theodore Panitz,et al.  The Case for Student Centered Instruction via Collaborative Learning Paradigms. , 1999 .

[6]  D. Lowe,et al.  Unsupervised learning algorithm for adaptive group formation: Collaborative learning support in remotely accessible laboratories , 2012, International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2012).

[7]  Christophe Gravier,et al.  State of the Art About Remote Laboratories Paradigms - Foundations of Ongoing Mutations , 2008, Int. J. Online Eng..

[8]  H. Lenartowicz,et al.  Organisational behaviour. , 1989, Nursing times.

[9]  Donelson R. Forsyth,et al.  Group dynamics, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[10]  Neil Rubens,et al.  Automatic Group Formation for Informal Collaborative Learning , 2009, 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.

[11]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches , 1999 .

[12]  Yannis A. Pollalis,et al.  Using similarity measures for collaborating groups formation: A model for distance learning environments , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[13]  Carlos Delgado Kloos,et al.  An Algorithm for Peer Review Matching Using Student Profiles Based on Fuzzy Classification and Genetic Algorithms , 2005, IEA/AIE.

[14]  Danuta Zakrzewska,et al.  Cluster Analysis in Personalized E-Learning Systems , 2009, Intelligent Systems for Knowledge Management.

[15]  J. Gillon,et al.  Group dynamics , 1996 .

[16]  Arit Thammano,et al.  A new computational intelligence technique based on human group formation , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[17]  George D. Magoulas,et al.  Group Formation for Collaboration in Exploratory Learning Using Group Technology Techniques , 2010, KES.

[18]  Mitsuru Ikeda,et al.  How Can We Form Effective Collaborative Learning Groups? , 2000, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[19]  Enrique Alfonseca,et al.  The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: a case study , 2006, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[20]  J. Adair Effective Teambuilding: How to Make a Winning Team , 1986 .

[21]  Asma Ounnas,et al.  Towards Semantic Group Formation , 2007, Seventh IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2007).

[22]  Estefanía Martín,et al.  Using Learning Styles for Dynamic Group Formation in Adaptive Collaborative Hypermedia Systems , 2004, ICWE Workshops.