Effects of gender grouping on students' group performance, individual achievements and attitudes in computer-supported collaborative learning

2M2F and 4F grouping are recommended; 1M3F grouping should be avoided.Males perform better in mix-gender groups; females perform equally in either group.Males prefer mix-gender, gender-balanced, and gender-majority grouping.Female students prefer single-gender grouping and gender-minority grouping.Gender differences mainly exist on attitude rather than learning achievement. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of gender grouping on students' group performance, individual learning achievements and attitudes in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). 588 undergraduate students enrolled in a digital design course were randomly divided into 147 four-student groups that fell into five categories according to the composition of group members' gender, namely 4M (four males), 3M1F (three males and one female), 2M2F (two males and two females), 1M3F (one male and three females) and 4F (four females). Results indicated that: (1) For group performance, 2M2F and 4F groups significantly outperformed the other groups. (2) For individual learning achievements, no significant difference was found in females among different gender grouping interventions; however, males in mixed-gender groups performed significantly better than those in single-gender groups. (3) In terms of individual attitudes, males preferred mixed-gender, gender-balanced, and gender-majority grouping; however, females preferred single-gender and gender-minority grouping. (4) The effect of gender grouping mainly influences students' attitudes, rather than performance. These findings provide evidence that female-only and balanced-gender grouping are two kinds of good grouping interventions that could be recommended for CSCL, and male-minority groups should be avoided because they led to the worst group performance and individual attitudes.

[1]  Luigi Sarti,et al.  A general framework for tracking and analysing learning processes in computer‐supported collaborative learning environments , 2007 .

[2]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  Gender Differences in Mathematics: An Integrative Psychological Approach , 2005 .

[3]  Qing Li,et al.  Gender and Computer-Mediated Communication: An Exploration of Elementary Students’ Mathematics and Science Learning , 2002 .

[4]  Bob Campbell,et al.  Talking Science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching , 2010 .

[5]  Melanie Agnew,et al.  Who's In, Who's Out: Examining Race, Gender and the Cohort Community , 2008 .

[6]  Na Liu,et al.  Joint effects of Gender Composition, Anonymity in Communication and Task Type on Collaborative Learning , 2007, PACIS.

[7]  Sonya R. Porter Draper.  The Effects of Gender Grouping and Learning Style on Student Curiosity in Modular Technology Education Laboratories , 2004 .

[8]  Fabian Homberg,et al.  The effects of gender on group work process and achievement: an analysis through self‐ and peer‐assessment , 2014 .

[9]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Effect of classroom gender composition on students’ development of self-regulated learning competencies , 2014 .

[10]  Sheng-Yi Wu,et al.  Analyzing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of an online synchronous collaborative discussion instructional activity using an instant messaging tool: A case study , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[11]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Perceptions and experiences of, and outcomes for, university students in culturally diversified dyads in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[12]  Pieter J. Beers,et al.  Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[13]  Bo Xie,et al.  Older adults, e-health literacy, and collaborative learning: An experimental study , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[14]  Miwha Lee,et al.  Gender, Group Composition, and Peer Interaction in Computer-Based Cooperative Learning , 1993 .

[15]  T. Busch,et al.  Gender, Group Composition, Cooperation, and Self-Efficacy in Computer Studies , 1996 .

[16]  Angel A. Juan,et al.  Providing effective feedback, monitoring and evaluation to on-line collaborative learning discussions , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[17]  Christine Howe,et al.  Gender and Classroom Interaction. A Research Review. SCRE Publication 138. Using Research Series 19. , 1997 .

[18]  Barbara Brown,et al.  Gender Composition and Small-Group Learning in Fourth-Grade Mathematics , 1994, The Elementary School Journal.

[19]  Ning Ding,et al.  Group composition and its effect on female and male problem-solving in science education , 2008 .

[20]  Scott J. Peters,et al.  Schoolwide Mathematics Achievement Within the Gifted Cluster Grouping Model , 2012 .

[21]  Stanley D. Stephenson.  The Use of Small Groups in Computer-Based Training: A Review of Recent Literature. , 1994 .

[22]  Jane Abbiss,et al.  Rethinking the ‘problem’ of gender and IT schooling: discourses in literature , 2008 .

[23]  Miguel Ángel Montero Alonso,et al.  Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Eileen Wood,et al.  Social Interaction During Computer-based Activities: Comparisons by Number of Sessions, Gender, School-level, Gender Composition of the Group, and Computer-child Ratio , 2009 .

[25]  David W. Dalton.  The effects of cooperative learning strategies on achievement and attitudes during interactive video , 1990 .

[26]  Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz,et al.  Adults in Cooperative Learning: Effects of Group Size and Group Gender Composition on Group Learning Behaviors (A Summary). , 1986 .

[27]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[28]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective , 2006 .

[29]  Jean Underwood,et al.  Gender Differences in a Cooperative Computer-Based Language Task. , 1990 .

[30]  Antonius H. N. Cillessen,et al.  Achievement versus maintenance of control in six‐year‐old children’s interactions with peers: an observational study , 2008 .

[31]  D. Stanley,et al.  Teaching and Learning Principles of Microeconomics Online: An Empirical Assessment , 2009 .

[32]  Tzu-Chien Liu,et al.  Gender Heterogeneous Groups in Cooperative Learning Applied in "Robots in Creative Course": A Pilot Study , 2009, Edutainment.

[33]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[34]  María Jesús Rodríguez-Triana,et al.  Monitoring Collaboration in Flexible and Personal Learning Environments , 2011, IxD&A.

[35]  Alan Durndell,et al.  Students' linguistic behaviour in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[36]  Regina Juchun Chu,et al.  How family support and Internet self-efficacy influence the effects of e-learning among higher aged adults - Analyses of gender and age differences , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Rohani Ahmad Tarmizi,et al.  Group Learning Effects and Gender Differences in Mathematical Performance , 2013 .

[38]  S. Vaughn,et al.  Grouping for Reading Instruction , 2000, Journal of learning disabilities.

[39]  Jean Underwood,et al.  When does gender matter?: Interactions during computer-based problem solving , 2000 .

[40]  J. Keller.  Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach , 2009 .

[41]  Julia Gil,et al.  Small-group, computer-mediated argumentation in middle-school classrooms: the effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. , 2012, The British journal of educational psychology.

[42]  Egbert G. Harskamp,et al.  Exploring gender and gender pairing in the knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer-supported collaborative learning , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[43]  N. Webb,et al.  The Development of Students' Helping Behavior and Learning in Peer-Directed Small Groups , 2003 .

[44]  Mariela Tovar,et al.  Collaborative Problem-Solving with Logo: Effects of Group Size and Group Composition , 1987 .

[45]  Shui-fong Lam,et al.  When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: the roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. , 2008, The British journal of educational psychology.

[46]  Montserrat Castelló,et al.  Prediction of success in teamwork of secondary students , 2013 .

[47]  Luigi Sarti,et al.  Monitoring collaborative activities in computer supported collaborative learning , 2010 .

[48]  Zehui Zhan,et al.  Effects of an online learning community on active and reflective learners' learning performance and attitudes in a face-to-face undergraduate course , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[49]  Zehui Zhan,et al.  Academic self-concept and social presence in face-to-face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students' learning achievement and satisfaction across environments , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[50]  Rolf Rossaint,et al.  Resuscitation training in small-group setting – gender matters , 2013, Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine.