Self-managed learning groups in higher education: students' perceptions of process and outcomes.

BACKGROUND Self-managed learning groups are increasingly used in higher education. There is a need for more systematic investigation of university students' perceptions of the processes and outcomes of this learning method. AIMS This study aimed to identify the domains of process issues that students perceive as relevant to their participation in self-managed learning groups, and how these processes are perceived to influence group outcomes. SAMPLE Participants were undergraduate psychology students who were members of self-managed learning groups. METHOD The first study employed qualitative methods (namely, students' written accounts, interviews, and observation) to study learning groups (N = 180 students) and identify the process domains. In the second study, first and second year students (N = 207) used a questionnaire (based on the domains identified in Study 1) to evaluate the processes and outcomes of their learning groups. RESULTS Analysis of qualitative data (Study 1) identified seven process domains: task focus, staff support, process learning, environmental fit, managing differences, equity and responsibility, and collaboration and cooperation. Factor analysis of students' responses (Study 2) identified an underlying structure of two process factors: personal responsibility and collaborative climate, and staff support and environmental fit. Both process factors were associated with the self-reported satisfaction and productivity of this group of students. CONCLUSIONS University students' perceptions of the processes of self-managed learning groups have a clear structure. These process factors are associated with perceived group outcomes in systematic and theoretically consistent ways.

[1]  J. K. Latting,et al.  Designing Student Work Groups for Increased Learning: An Empirical Investigation , 1991 .

[2]  L. Fredendall,et al.  Correlates of Team Success in Higher Education , 2001, The Journal of social psychology.

[3]  Susan Brown Feichtner,et al.  Why Some Groups Fail: a Survey of Students' Experiences with Learning Groups , 1984 .

[4]  Robert K. Conyne,et al.  Facilitator- and Self-Directed Groups , 1977 .

[5]  Diane H. Parente,et al.  Adaptation to Self-Managing Work Teams , 2002 .

[6]  Gerald E. Ledford,et al.  A Predictive Model of Self-Managing Work Team Effectiveness , 1996 .

[7]  G. Latham,et al.  Application of social-learning theory to training supervisors through behavioral modeling. , 1979 .

[8]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE WORK GROUPS , 1993 .

[9]  P. Ramsden,et al.  The development, validation and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire , 1997 .

[10]  L. James,et al.  rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. , 1993 .

[11]  Timothy T. Baldwin,et al.  The Social Fabric of a Team-Based M.B.A. Program: Network Effects on Student Satisfaction and Performance , 1997 .

[12]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[13]  K. G. Collier Teaching Methods in Higher Education: The Changing Scene, with Special Reference to Small‐group Work , 1985 .

[14]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[15]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION , 1996 .

[16]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[17]  D. Keats,et al.  Task-based small group learning in large classes: Design and implementation in a second year university botany course , 1994 .

[18]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[19]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment , 1999 .

[20]  P. Abrami,et al.  Students' Evaluations of University Teaching: Research Findings, Methodological Issues, and Directions for Future Research , 1987 .

[21]  D. W. Johnson,et al.  Effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction on the achievement of handicapped, regular, and gifted students. , 1982, The Journal of social psychology.

[22]  P. Ramsden A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire , 1991 .

[23]  R. Eisenberger,et al.  Perceived organizational support. , 1986 .

[24]  Kenny C. W. Tang,et al.  Spontaneous Collaborative Learning: A New Dimension in Student Learning Experience? , 1993 .

[25]  Alfred Joseph Lizzio,et al.  University Students' Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Academic Outcomes: Implications for theory and practice , 2002 .

[26]  R. Tindale,et al.  ‘Social Sharedness’ as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups , 2000 .

[27]  Student and Faculty Attitudes Concerning the Use of Group Projects , 1986 .

[28]  T. G. Cummings Self-Regulating Work Groups: A Socio-Technical Synthesis , 1978 .

[29]  Conrad N. Jackson,et al.  Curing Those Ol' "Omigod-Not-Another-Group-Class" Blues , 1986 .

[30]  Lucy MacLeod,et al.  Improving Groupworking Skills in Undergraduates Through Employer Involvement , 1999 .

[31]  N. Entwistle,et al.  EFFECTS OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS ON STUDENTS' APPROACHES TO STUDYING , 1981 .

[32]  C. Robert Borresen,et al.  Success in Introductory Statistics with Small Groups. , 1990 .