What is group work?

The challenge in defining group work or answering the question ‘what is group work’ is that it is multi-faceted not only in terms of approach and pedagogical strategies, but also in the conceptualisation of what constitutes a group. There are many definitions and social scientists often disagree on key aspects (Jaques & Salmon, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Nevertheless, in reviewing various working definitions of groups, some consistencies can be identified.

Theorists agree for example, that the nature of group member interactions helps to differentiate between small and large groups; and the connection through a social relationship distinguishes a group from a random collective of individuals gathered in one place (Forsyth, 2010; Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Whether groups are primary21,

43 secondary22_{, planned or an emergent circumstantial type of group, the central features} that are common across the different theoretical positions include: that people in groups must interact (on a task level and through interpersonal relationships); the interaction experience is governed by group structures (roles, norms and relationships); cohesion determines the level of unity; and interdependence and goals are created among group members. What is more, the underlying fundamental research assumptions are that groups and group processes are real; groups are dynamic systems that are more than the sum of their individual parts; and groups are influential and not only shape society, but are also psychologically significant for individual members (Forsyth, 2010; Johnson & Johnson, 2013).

In the Organisational Behaviour (OB) literature, groups and teams are differentiated by reference to performance outcomes. For example, a work group is defined as ‘a group that interacts primarily to share information and to make decisions to help each group member perform within his or her area of responsibility’(Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2008, p. 334), whereas a team is ‘a group whose individual efforts result in a performance that is greater than the sum of the individual inputs’ (p. 334). Similarly, Bell and Smith (2011) align the characteristics of a work team to that of sporting teams, whose prime purpose is to achieve performance goals. Jaques and Salmon (2007, p. 6) also distinguish groups as ‘people who come together to share knowledge, for personal development or to learn from each other through discussion’, as opposed to teams who are ‘engaged in a task or project geared towards an end product or decision’.

3.1.1 Product or process?

The group work task, product and/or outcome have tended to dominate the literature in accounting education and more broadly in higher education, as alluded to in Chapter 2. For many students, the success of group work encounters is measured by proxy based on task achievement; similarly many academics simply assess the end product of a group work task. Jaques and Salmon (2007) suggest that this disproportionate focus on the product of group work has evolved because it is more easily defined and examinable. Process, on the other hand, which includes the emotional, intellectual and behavioural aspects of working together, has received little attention in the higher education arena,

22 _{More complex, organised, social groups that ‘influence members’ attitudes, beliefs, and} actions, but as a supplement to the influence of smaller primary groups’ (Forsyth, 2010, p. 6), such as work groups or clubs.

44 despite its direct impact on the effectiveness of group work outcomes (Jaques & Salmon, 2007), and its relationship to environmental and contextual factors, also identified earlier in Chapter 2.

Biggs’ (2003) well known 3P (presage, process, product) model demonstrates how teaching and learning is portrayed as a system of antecedent presage factors such as personal attributes and teaching context, interacting through a process of learning-focused activities to influence certain learning outcomes (or products). In this model, process is described as the interpretation of the context and metacognitive activity that informs students’ motives and strategies in a learning situation (Biggs, 1989). Process therefore is the combination of motive and strategy and is referred to as the students’ approach to learning (SAL) (Duff & McKinstry, 2007). In reviewing the literature for this research, little evidence was found to suggest this model has been used in group work studies other than where the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) was used either to measure changes in deep and surface learning approaches before and/or after the introduction of group work activities (Hall, Ramsay & Raven, 2004; Wynn-Williams et al., 2016), or to select participants to be interviewed about group work (Wang, 2012). However, Biggs (2003, p. 17) elaborates further stating that process is about students’ ‘interactions between the personal and the contextual’. He identifies the positive feelings of interest, a sense of importance, pleasure and exhilaration that accompanies deep learning and what he refers to in the 3P model as ‘appropriate’ processes. Other theorists (Duff & McKinstry, 2007; Marton & Säljö, 1976; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 2003; Trigwell & Prosser, 1997) have similarly documented the importance of the affective elements in the process stage. Duff and McKinstry (2007) suggest that to improve the process and quality of accounting student approaches to learning generally (not just for group work) ‘accounting education must determine students’ perceptions of the assessment, the curriculum, and the teaching and support they receive’ (p. 186).

3.1.2 Is it more about the people?

Humans are social beings. We live, work, learn, and play in groups. However, the knowledge and skills to work effectively together are not necessarily something that comes naturally. Groups can be destructive as much as they can be constructive (Johnson & Johnson, 2003). It follows then that knowledge of team work skills and group processes is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of collaborations within higher education. Nevertheless, Baker et al. (2013) point out that it is often taken for

45 granted that the primary purpose and the overall objective of group work is to achieve effective outcomes in various ways. They argue however, that in making such assumptions, many educationalists, researchers, and theorists overlook the affective or emotional outcomes that impact directly on students. As individuals, we are to a large extent a product of our group memberships and these interactions inevitably influence our successes and failures; our values and beliefs; our physical, emotional, and psychological well-being (Johnson & Johnson, 2003). Groups are recognised as a critical source of knowledge construction (Bandura, 1977b; Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers & Kirschner, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978), and their importance to learning in the educational setting cannot be overemphasised (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 2013; Slavin, 1995). Therefore it is critical that the people (the students) themselves and the associated feelings and emotions aroused through group work interactions are better understood and considered more holistically as an integral part of collaborative learning approaches (Baker et al., 2013). Baker et al. (2013, p. 3) suggest that the question that needs to be answered is ‘what is going on from the students’ points of view?’ This study aims to address this question, among others.