Dynamic Research Journals (DRJ)

Journal of Economics and Finance (DRJ-JEF)

Volume 2 ~ Issue 9 (September, 2017) pp: 18-23
ISSN (Online): 2520-7490
www.dynamicresearchjournals.org

The Efficacy of Group Work as an Instructional Technique for

Pre-service Students at Great Zimbabwe University
Jeriphanos Makaye
Great Zimbabwe University, Box 1235, Masvingo,Zimbabwe. jmakaye2000@yahoo.com

Abstract: This quantitative study seeks to analyse pre-service student students attitudes and beliefs of the
efficacy of group work as an instructional and assessment technique. The study adopted a quasi-experimental
design in which the lecturer first used the group work approach during the semester and administered a
questionnaire to all the Early childhood development pre-service undergraduate students at Great Zimbabwe
university to establish their views about it. A total of 98 students responded to the questionnaire after
registering their consent. Results indicated that the majority of respondents affirmed that group work is an
effective technique if the lecturer employs tact particularly permitting individuals in a group to present. It
requires a lot of time to ensure that all group members participate as others may end up reaping where they
have not sown. The study recommends that lecturers consider using manageable groups and allocate adequate
time for both preparation and presentations.
Key words: Group Work, Instructional and Assessment Technique,

Introduction and Background

Institutions of higher education including universities are bestowed with the duty to impart knowledge,
skills and values. In their quest to do so several instructional techniques are employed ranging from learner
centred to lecturer centred. The thrust on the relevancy of university education however has led university
lecturers to engage students into deep learning strategies rather than lecture centred. Students should participate
into the construction of knowledge if ever they are to be relevant in the communities they are to serve. Thus,
universities and other institutions of higher and tertiary education have a mammoth task to transcend this. The
question of how they are to do this is the bone of contention of every nation in general and the institutions in
particular. Experience on the ground has shown that universities are grappling with very high enrolments to
ensure that students are given maximum attention. Lecturers are faced with a daunting task to lecture, supervise,
mark and record student marks. Group work has been commonly used as a pedagogical method for young pupils
but recently it has been widely used in institutions of higher learning with adults not necessarily for its intrinsic
value but as a relief to the lecturer who instead of marking a hundred individual assignments may end up
marking fifteen or less depending on the group sizes. Watkins (2004) asserts that if group assignment is used
effectively, it can be an efficient way of dealing with the increased growth in student numbers in higher
education, especially in regard to reducing time taken in assignment marking and allowing reduction in class
time. In addition, it can be a way of dealing with larger numbers of students in the same amount of class time.
Some university classes particularly university wide modules may comprise of above two hundred students. But
the overarching question remains, is group work effective and how do students perceive it? The use of group
working universities and institutions of higher education has triggered this study with a view to explore its
efficacy.
The researchers experience has shown that most lecturers employ group work as both an instructional
and assessment technique to serve time and energy. Students are allocated topics which they have to research on
in groups of 10 to 20 members. Some lecturers may require groups to produce a write-up of their presentation
whilst others may just require students to present their findings. One member of the group in most cases reports
to the whole class after which a discussion on the presentation ensued. A blanket mark is determined by the
lecturer to the group presentation and this becomes part of the continuous assessment or coursework assessment.
In most cases two group assignments are given and that constitute student course work. Students marks are
usually higher in group work but whether that is commensurate with the quality of the presentation needs further
inquiry (Makaye, Chimugoti & Mapetere,2017). Group work in most cases fails to discriminate high achievers
from low achievers in that group as students are bunched on one mark. The dilemma in most cases is that the
bully ones or loafers do not participate but demand that their names be on the list of group members. These
scenarios pose serious challenges on the effectiveness of group work employed at higher institution and
learning/teaching situations in general. How should lecturers capitalize on group work to ensure maximum
participation? A number of authors have advanced several strengths and challenges of group work.

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 18 | P a g e
 The Efficacy of Group Work as an Instructional Technique for Pre-service Students at Great Zimbabwe University

Several authors assert that group assignments can help students develop a host of skills needed in the
professional world (Caruso & Wooley, 2008, Baskin, 2001, Doel, 2000, Makaye et al. 2017). It promotes
active as opposed to passive learning (Nance & Mackey-Kallis,1997). Key attributes such as collective
perception, needs, shared aims, independence, social organisation, cohesiveness and membership (David
Jacques ,2001) help to develop group members as social beings. Group assignment is also one of the most
expedient ways, along with work placement, of ensuring that students develop transferable skills for life-long
learning thus teamwork, leadership, project management skills, communication skills. This has largely been in
response to industry demands for more flexible workers (Brooks& Ammons, 2003). Thus, benefits of group
assignments can be conceptualized in terms of social cohesion and skills development.
Teamwork skills where skills required for collaborative and multi-disciplinary work (UNSW Graduate
Attributes, 2003) are considered as an essential attribute of graduates from the employers perspective.
Additionally, a group assignment promotes experiential collaborative and cooperative learning (Ackermann
&Plummer, 1994; Mahenthiran & Rouse,2000). Group assignments can be justified on the grounds of
promoting the construction of knowledge and enhancement of problem-based learning among students
(Dolmans et al., 2001 and Hendry et al., 1999). Whilst these are some of the strengths of using group work there
is however, the need to ensure that strategies are put in place in order for the strength to be fully realised. The
overarching question is; how is group work organized? Is there a single approach to group work and how do
students perceive it? The current study sought to establish students perceptions of the efficacy of the strategies
employed by their lecturer during the semester. Thus, the major question to be addressed by the study was How
effective is the multi group member reporter? What are its strengths and limitations? How best can group work
be employed?

Methodology
The study established a quasi experimental design with a view to establish students preference with
regard to the use of a one member group reporter or all member reporter. Experiments are empirical and hence
are free from bias. The researcher does not influence the research as results are more objective than some
qualitative researches (Denscombe, 2003). Thus, the students were assigned into groups of not more than six
members. They were assigned topics to work on and the lecturer spelt out the expectations. Importantly, the
need for total contribution from all members and that each and every member was going to present and an extra
mark(s) was going to be awarded to group members who would have performed above others. Students were
allocated group topics after which they discussed on the layout, gave each other tasks to work on and compile a
write up. After a week they were asked to make their group presentation. Group members had to allocate each
other sections to present and after the presentations all group members would respond to questions or comments
by the class. The tutor assessed group presentation in terms of; report layout for both the write up and oral
presentation; organization of content, evidence of research. A general mark was given to the group members but
any extra mark (ranging from 1 to 5) would be given for outstanding work demonstrated on oral presentation as
well as on responding to class questions/comments. The idea was to debunch the group members as well as
discriminate high performers from low ones. The experiment ran for the whole semester, approximately 36
hours. Students were given the questionnaire after writing their semester examinations thus, allowing them to
reflect on the validity of the method with regard to its efficacy in skills equipping as well as content coverage.
From a total of 120 students only 83 responded to the evaluation instruments. These were distributed by the
group coordinator to avoid bias as the lecturer was thought to influence the results. It took not more than
30minutes to complete the questionnaire after which the class coordinator forwarded them to the
lecturer(researcher) for analysis. Results were computed into percentages and presented in tables for analysis.

Results
Biographical Data
Gender F %
male 15 18.1
Female 68 81.9
Total 83 100.0

Data indicated that the respondents were dominated by female students (81.9%). What is little known is
whether the programme demands a female environment. This implies that most of the groups could be biased
towards ladies.

Age
Age f %
<20 3 3.6

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 19 | P a g e
 The Efficacy of Group Work as an Instructional Technique for Pre-service Students at Great Zimbabwe University

21-30 32 38.6
31-40 42 50.6
41+ 6 7.2
Total 83 100.0
Academic Qualification
Olevel 46 55.4
ALevel 36 43.4
Other 1 1.2
Total 83 100.0

The ages of the respondents were varied but more than half were above 30 years implying that they
could have been enrolled through mature entry with Ordinary level as the entry qualification. The mature entry
age is 25. One can enroll on the basis of mature entry with a minimum of five Ordinary level passes. About 43%
were enrolled using the normal university entry of Advanced level. Results from these cosmopolitan grouping
were interesting as they tend to be balanced. Analysis of results did not however consider the views of students
by age and gender.

How do you rate Group work as teaching approach used in ECD?

Respondents were asked to rate the group work approach they had used during the semester. In this
regard students were to evaluate the approach as used during the semester. Emphasis was on how they were
allocated to group, that is; clear instruction on the assignment, allocation to group and group size. The maximum
number was six and group members did not choose who to work with but were assigned randomly. When it
comes to reporting findings, each member was to make a presentation. A mark was awarded to the overall
group. However, a member could earn an extra mark in the range 1-5 for outstanding performance thus,
discriminating low achievers from high achievers. This was the approach students were rating.

Response F %
Excellent 20 24.1
Good 46 55.4
Average 12 14.55
Poor 5 6.0
Total 83 100

The majority of the respondents (79.5%)rated the approach used during the semester as good to
excellentand only a few (6%) rated it poor. This implies that most of the students were in favour of the group
approach.

What was the strength of using group work?

F %
We all contribute 15 18.1
We all contribute and report 21 25.3
Everyone has the opportunity to present 42 50.6
Only a few dominate 5 6.0
Any other strength: 0 0.0
Total 83 100.0

Respondents were asked to indicate the strength of the group work technique used. About half of the
respondents (50.6%) indicated that the approach gave everyone the opportunity to present before the class. This
implies that the technique ensured that there was active participation by all group members. Members were
opposed to the idea of dominance by a few especially when it comes to group presentation. Whilst all group
members could contribute what seems to be the most strength of the technique was on presentation by group
members. In many a case group presentations are done by the group reporter chosen by members but in this case
all members had to present.

What was its weakness/what did you dislike about it?

Response F %
We may score differently 17
20.5
Its time consuming 43 51.8

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 20 | P a g e
 The Efficacy of Group Work as an Instructional Technique for Pre-service Students at Great Zimbabwe University

Minimal /Few weaknesses 17 20.5

Several reporters 4 4.8
Any other weaknesses: 2 2.4
83 100.0

The question sought to establish the weaknesses or what respondents did not like about the group work
technique. The majority of them (51.8%) indicated that it was time consuming. Since each and every member
has to make a presentation this consumed much more time than the single group reporter. About 20.5% of the
respondents indicated that the technique had minimal weaknesses indicating that they were in support of the
idea of all group member presentation. Makaye et al. (2017) in his study revealed that students were worried
about those who reap where they have not sown. The study recommended for a stringent supervision approach
by lecturers to ensure maximum participation of all members, thus, all members if they know that they will
present will work hard. And since marks or individual assessment will be made all the members will be
compelled to work. However, almost a quarter of the participants indicated that the approachs main weakness
was that group members may earn different marks depending on how they would have presented their group
findings and how knowledgeable they would display of the topic. This may not be popular or in favour of group
loafers and free riders. However, the study did not solicit for respondents views on the extra mark that could
be earned by group members. This could be another study.

Which approach do you rate better, single reporter or all members reporting?
Response F %
Single member reporting 25 30.1
All group members reporting 58 69.9
Total 83 100.0

Participants were also asked to indicate their preference on single member or all group member
reporting. About seventy percent of respondents indicated in affirmation of the all member reporting. Thirty
percent preferred single member or one group reporter. The majority of these had previously pointed out on the
consumption of time by all group members. It can be implied that most students would prefer individual
presentations rather than one member group reporter.

Would you recommend the approach for further use?

Response F %
Strongly recommend 29 34.9
Recommend 42 50.6
Not recommended 12 14.5
Total 83 100.0

Participants were required to indicate on whether they would recommend the approach for future use.
The majority (85%) indicated in affirmation. About 35% said that they strongly recommended for the use of the
approach. The responses indicated that students prefer small member group tasks, with very clear instructions
where each member would contribute in the final group presentation. However, the study did not explore on the
nature of supervision students would need nor how lecturers would go about the group presentation.

Any comment
No comment 3 3.6
Excellent 26 31.3
Extremely good 28 33.7
Better/good 7 8.4
Poor 2 2.4
Time consuming 17 20.5
Total 83 100.0

Lastly, students were asked to make comments with regard to the approach. Most of the comments
ranged from good to excellent. This may mean that most students were in favour of the approach. Only 2%
indicated it as poor and 20% commended on it being time consuming. How time may be managed and how it
can be overcome could be another grey area of study.

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 21 | P a g e
 The Efficacy of Group Work as an Instructional Technique for Pre-service Students at Great Zimbabwe University

Discussion of findings
Results from the study gleaned interesting views from students about the use of group work as a
teaching technique. In many a case lecturers and/ or teachers employed group work but never bother to find out
on the efficacy of the approach, how the approach tastes and its effectiveness. This was what this study
attempted to do. The results are based on how students felt about working in groups which they were allocated
to after clear instruction on how the topic and how they would work and report the findings. Students were to
come up with a group write-up and report of findings was done by each and every group member. Group
members were to choose parts of the group presentation they would present. There was a basic mark for the
group but a group member would earn an extra mark for outstanding contribution and presentation. This was
between 1-5 marks. The tutor would judge on how the student would have presented and responded to questions
posed/raised by the class on the presented topic. The discussion below is based on the students perspectives of
this group work technique.

How students rate the technique.

The technique was rated as good by most students. This implies that students were in favour of a group
work where after working together they would all present their findings before the class. This approach is
different from other approaches where after the group work a reporter for the group would be chosen. This
single reporter approach does not promote other important skills needed for presentation. Thus, confidence,
courage, public speaking, language skills inherent in presentation may only be a preserve of the presenter. Thus,
the all group member presentation technique will ensure that all students will develop the presentation skills.
Results indicated that most students (70%) were interested in all group member presentation.
The results also revealed some of the strengths inherent in the all member group approach. Besides that
all members report, respondents also highlighted that the experimented group technique involved all
participants. This approach counters the suck in tendency and group loafing cited by several authors as the
weakness of group work (Makaye, et al., 2017, Burtis, & Turman, 2006).The tendency of some members
loafing and only show off when groups present their findings are countered. All members have to contribute
right from the start since each and every member has to present. And the idea of an extra mark(s) for
outstanding group members could keep members glued to the group as well as work hard. Barkley, Cross and
Major (2005) postulate that two of the most common concerns about group assignments are that: a students
mark can be pulled down by others in the group, or a student may be awarded a high mark mainly due to the
achievement of others. Thus, the awarding of an extra mark counters this effect. However; this may require
another inquiry to ensure how students perceive of it. The approach may promote highly team spirit.
Considering that members research together on the topic, assign each other tasks, put their ideas together for the
write up, contribute for typing of the write-up, assign each other topics and areas for presentation. This process
involves team work and unity of purpose to produce a substantial, valid and coherent presentation. The findings
may also point out that there may be minimal dominance of one individual as established in Makaye et al.
(2017)s findings.
It was revealed that the approach however has one major challenge, that of time consuming. There is
need for proper planning to ensure that time is well managed for the semesters work. Time may be wasted if
group members are not well coordinated. That being the only challenge almost all students were in favour of a
group work technique that would give them equal chances to present.

Conclusion & recommendation

The study established that students were in favour of the group technique used, where all members present
their findings and hence recommends that lecturers or educators may adopt the approach. Cognisant of the fact
that situations and contexts vary educators may adopt and adapt it to their settings for effective results. To be
specific the following steps can be followed to carry out this group work:
1. Spell out clearly the group presentation topics.
2. Allocate members to group topics. Groups should be relatively small; two to five members are good
enough to work together.
3. Clearly explain the expectation and objectives of the group work. If possible make a run down of each
of the topic.
4. Specify how group work will be assessed. Students should know right from the beginning that each
member will be given an equal chance to present and an extra mark may be earned from the overall
group mark for being outstanding. A group has to come up with a group write-up which is typed.
Emphasize the importance of team work.
5. The tutor/lecturer will chair all presentations and has the prerogative to protect all the presenters. This
protects presenters from being ridiculed by others.

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 22 | P a g e
 The Efficacy of Group Work as an Instructional Technique for Pre-service Students at Great Zimbabwe University

REFERENCES
[1]. Ackermann, A., & Plummer, S. (1994). Examination into the use, place and efficacy of group work in university courses: A
work in progress report of a current research project. Paper presented at the Annual Australian Association for Research in
Education, Newcastle, Australia.
[2]. Brooks, C., &Ammons, J. L. (2003). Free-riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency and specificity of
criteria in peer assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 75(5), 268272.
[3]. Burtis, J., &Turman, P. (2006). Group communication pitfalls: Overcoming barriers to an effective group experience.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[4]. Chang, V. (1999). How can conflict within a group be managed? In Martin, K., Stanley, N. and Davison, N. (Eds), Teaching in
the Disciplines/Learning in Context, 59 - 66. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of
Western Australia, February 1999. Perth: UWA. Retrieved November 27, 2002 from the World Wide Web
http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/chang.html
[5]. Denscombe, M.(2003).The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects. Second edition. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
[6]. Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., van der Vleuten, C., &Wijnen, W. (2001). Solving problems with group work in problem-based
learning: Hold on to the philosophy. Medical Education, 35(9), 884889.
[7]. Fall, R., Webb, N. &Chudowski, N. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment: Effects on students
comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 911-9451.
[8]. Forrest, K., & Miller, R. (2003). Not another group project: Why good teachers should care about bad group experiences.
Teaching of Psychology, 30, 244-246.
[9]. Gibbs, G (1994) Learning in Teams: A Student Guide Oxford: The Oxford Centre of Staff Development, Oxford: Brookes
University.
[10]. Gibbs, G (1995) Learning in Teams: A Tutor Guide. Oxford: The Oxford Centre of Staff Development, Oxford Brookes
University.
[11]. Hammar Chiriac, E. (2014). Group work as an incentive for learning: Students experiences of group work. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 1-10.
[12]. Hendry, G. D., Frommer, M., & Walker, R. A. (1999). Constructivism and problem-based learning. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 23(3), 369371.
[13]. Huberman, A. (2002). The qualitative Research: Design and Methods. London: Sag .
[14]. Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary schools: A
review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 66, 459 - 506.
[15]. Johnson, L & Miles, L (2004) Assessing Contributions to group assignments, Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education,
29(6), 751-768
[16]. Kerr, H. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(4), 819828..
[17]. Kerr, N. L., &Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(2), 224231.
[18]. Kerr, N. L., &Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses; Free Rider effects. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 7894. Kremer, J., & McGuiness, C. (1998). Cutting the cord: Student-led
discussion groups in higher education. Education Training, 40(2), 4449.
[19]. Lee, C., Ng, M., & Jacobs, G. (1997). Cooperative learning in the thinking classroom: Research and theoretical perspectives.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Thinking, Singapore.
[20]. Leedy, P.D &Omrod, J.(2005). Practical Research: Planning and Design. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
[21]. Maguire, S., & Edmondson, S. (2001). Student evaluations and assessment of group projects. Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 25(2), 233240.
[22]. Mahenthiran, S., & Rouse, P. J. (2000). The impact of group selection on student performance and management. International
Journal of Educational Management, 14(6), 255264.
[23]. Makaye J, Chimugoti W and Mapetere K (2017). University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of Group Assignments: A Case
Study of Great Zimbabwe University. Dynamic Research Journals Journal of Economics and Finance (DRJ-JEF), Volume 2,
Issue 4, pp 30-37.
[24]. McGraw, P., & Tidwell, A. (2001). Teaching group process skills to MBA students: A short workshop. Education? Training,
43(3), 162170.
[25]. Mutch, A. (1998). Employability or learning? Group work in higher education. Education? Training, 40(2),5056.
[26]. Nance, T., & Mackey-Kallis, S. (1997). Cant you just talk to them? Small group work in a senior thesis course. Paper
presented at the 83rd Annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Ill.
[27]. Ruel, G., Bastiaans, N., & Nauta, A. (2003). Free riding and team performance in project education. International Journal of
Management Education, 3(1), 2638.
[28]. Strong, J. T & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of
Marketing Education, 12(2), 6167
[29]. UNSW -- University of New South Wales (2003), UNSW Graduate Attributes,
http://info.library.unsw.edu.au/skills/attributes.html (accessed on 28 April 2016)
[30]. UNSW -- University of New South Wales, (2004), Guidelines on learning that informs teaching at UNSW, University of
New South Wales, 33 pages.
[31]. Vittrup, B. (2005). How to Improve Group Work: Perspectives from Students. Teaching and Learning.
[32]. Watkins, R. (2004). Groupwork and assessment: The handbook for economics lecturers. Economics Network, from
http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook/printable/groupwork.pdf.
[33]. Webb, M. (1993). Postgraduate Research: Giving feedback and Assessing Process. Centre for Teaching and Learning
Workshop.

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 23 | P a g e