Research and teaching
Problems, Frequency, and Success of Mediation
By Peggy Brickman, Austin Lannen, and Jill Beyette
Group work has been shown to enhance undergraduate learning, attitudes, retention, and acceptance of students of culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds (Johnson & Johnson, 2000, 2009; Slavin, 1991; Springer et al., 1999). As a result, group work has become a critical feature in many evidence-based teaching strategies in STEM classrooms including: Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (Moog & Spencer, 2008), problem-based learning (Dochy et al., 2003), Peer Led Team Learning (Chan & Bauer, 2015), and peer instruction (Crouch & Mazur, 2001). However, both students and faculty have reported challenges with implementing group work that block effective learning (Felder & Brent, 1996; Khosa & Volet, 2013), and many faculty hesitate to use groups because of concern over dealing with student conflict (Payne et al., 2005).
While there are several recommended strategies to monitor and identify problem groups (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001) including peer evaluations (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; Brooks & Ammons, 2003; Harkins & Jackson, 1985; Oakley et al., 2004; Strong & Anderson, 1990; Wenzel, 2007), there are few studies that specifically examine the factors that increase the probability that students will not contribute equally to group work, referred to as social loafing (Ingham et al., 1974; Latané et al., 1979). There is a paucity of suggestions for what instructors should do to mediate and resolve group conflicts once they are identified.
Most faculty rely on peer evaluations as a way for students to report problems in formal group work (Borg et al., 2011). However, students make assumptions about their peers that render self-reports such as those used in peer evaluations questionable. For example, when students evaluate their peers they often do not distinguish between students who are unable to complete group tasks due to inadequate knowledge and preparation (struggling students) from students who are choosing not to complete tasks (social loafers) (Freeman & Greenacre, 2011). Students often hesitate to provide honest evaluations due to concerns about how their comments will affect their relationships (Strong & Anderson, 1990; Williams, 1992), resulting in intentionally inflating or reducing contributions (Zhang et al., 2008).
Ultimately, this leaves faculty in the position of reading peer evaluations and either not knowing that group work is not going well, or knowing that there is dysfunction but being unable to identify the real source of the problem. This makes it difficult to figure out a successful strategy to resolve the group issues. The goal of this study was to develop strategies to effectively identify the issues in dysfunctional problem groups, and determine under what conditions selected solutions prove effective. We compared the ability to identify groups that were experiencing conflicts between a previously validated instrument (relationship and process conflict survey: Jehn & Mannix, 2001) and a simple two-item question that identifies the specific reasons why a group was not functioning well. We contacted groups that were identified using the survey instrument and scheduled mediation meetings to resolve the conflicts identified. We track the outcomes of these groups through follow-up emails, responses to a group satisfaction survey (Van der Vegt et al., 2001), and their group performance scores.
|Table 1. Demographics of student participants (n = 745).|
|Table 2. The proportion of problem groups identified using the single question compared to Jehn & Mannix’s six-item survey.|
We investigated group problems in two different (approximately 250 student enrollment) introductory biology courses for nonscience majors taught at a large public university (N = 912 students total). Demographics of student participants are described in Table 1. Students were assigned randomly to groups of four during the first week of the semester. Due to a small percentage of students withdrawing from the class before the midpoint of the semester, 15% of groups fell to three members. A significant portion of the course grades (approximately 40%) were earned through group activities that included: completion of in-class worksheets, outside-class group assignments, and group tests that were distributed equally over five units in the course. At the beginning of the semester, groups engaged in activities meant to establish expectations, set ground rules (e.g., penalties for failure to participate), establish communication channels, and develop methods for acknowledging effort on assignments (Oakley et al., 2004). Many students on this campus must maintain a high GPA for scholarship reasons, so they are strongly grade motivated.
A 10-item survey was administered to all students after completing the first two of the five units in the course. The survey included items that requested their group number and workload and the six items on relationship and task conflict from Jehn & Mannix (2001). In addition, they were asked, “Do you currently have a problem working as a team with one or more members in your group?” If students responded positively to this item, they were asked to select from a list of specific problems in the second item that were based on the literature on social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993). Students who reported a problem group member were contacted to arrange an in-person mediation meeting to discuss their challenges and agree upon solutions. Mediation meetings were structured using the crisis clinics model (Felder & Brent, 2007) that involves students sharing perspectives and prioritizing possible group responses to specified offending behaviors. Mediation strategies enacted at these meetings included: identifying the real issue, ensuring all perspectives were heard and advocating for the weaker side when necessary, and informing students of how similar problems have been previously solved (Wall Jr. et al., 2001). Grades and details from the acknowledgment sections of group assignments were also compiled before the meetings to help inform the discussion. Mediation meetings were audio-recorded upon permission from the group members, transcribed, and categorized according to the primary problem identified and the potential solution decided upon by the group.
All students enrolled in the course were asked to complete a team satisfaction survey after the fourth unit of the course (week 12) (Van der Vegt et al., 2001) and group and individual grades were also collected for all students. In addition, each individual member of a group that engaged in the mediation clinics was contacted via e-mail to check on how their group and individual behaviors of students changed after mediation, and what they learned from the mediation process.
We focused on three major time points for our frequency analysis. First, we characterized groups that indicated they were experiencing problems from those who did not on the initial survey. Second, of the groups that indicated problems, we characterized those that declined mediation from those that accepted mediation. Third, we characterized five potential outcomes of the problem groups at the end of the semester: group member dropped the class; group was unchanged; group dissolved, absentee group member failed; and member switched groups. The Sankey Diagram Generator v.1.2 by Acquire Procurement Services (available online) visualized outcomes.
Reported conflict, satisfaction, and grades for the three types of groups (no problems reported, problems reported with, and without subsequent mediation) were non-normally distributed because all had a ceiling effect—i.e., low conflict, high satisfaction, and high grades for most students. Therefore, we selected nonparametric Kruskal tests to identify overall differences (R statistical package) and then used pairwise Wilcox tests with a Bonferroni correction to characterize degree of differences observed between each pair. Levels of reported satisfaction on surveys were compared with mediation session transcripts (when available), survey responses, and e-mails from each group reporting problems. Group satisfaction was characterized based on the proportion of members agreeing or strongly agreeing with the three satisfaction survey items. If students switched groups, but the group was not dissolved, their satisfaction was attributed to the new group. Groups were characterized as unsatisfied if no members agreed, partially satisfied if some—but not all—members agreed, and satisfied if all members agreed to the three group satisfaction items. In instances where less than 50% of the group members responded to the survey, either e-mail communications were used to determine satisfaction or the group was removed from analyses. (This included one group out of 296 groups for Figure 1, and three groups for Figure 3 out of a total of 296 groups.)
Out of 296 total groups, 43 groups (15% of groups; 13% of students) contained at least one student who identified problems on the single question: “Do you currently have a problem working as a team with one or more members of your group?” The primary problems reported included social loafing, attendance, and effort (Table 2). Only a few students identified problems such as lack of understanding of content, dominating, or being personally unpleasant. In addition to answering the single item identifying their group’s problem, students also completed the six-item conflict identification survey of Jehn and Mannix so we could compare responses (Figure 1). Students were identified as indicating problems within their group if their responses to the three task and three relational-conflict items averaged ≥3 (agreed or strongly agreed to most items).
Only 21 of the 43 groups identified with the survey agreed to meet for mediation (Figure 2). Three groups (yellow) did not report problems in the initial survey, but developed problems later on. Group members’ perceptions of the outcomes were coded as fully satisfied (green), partially satisfied (gray), or fully unsatisfied (red). Member requested new group was only coded for when the no problems response was reported in the initial survey.
We employed the following two strategies during mediation: Remove the poorly performing member from the group and attempt to find a group that will take them; or impose new rules on attendance, punctuality, taking turns with different aspects of assignments, etc. Following mediation, all students were contacted to determine their overall satisfaction with their group experience. Many of the groups decided to solve the problem on their own so we compared the reported satisfaction in three categories: those that never reported problems (n = 253 groups); those that reported problems but declined mediation (n = 21 groups); and those that reported problems and underwent mediation (n = 22 groups). Groups that reported problems had higher average task (p < 0.001, Kruskall-Wallace) and relationship conflict (p < 0.001 Kruskall-Wallace) scores overall than groups that did not report problems.
Mean relationship and task conflict, satisfaction, and group grade were averaged across the three groups: no reported problem, problem but declined mediation, and problem that underwent mediation. We observed significant difference in the conflict reported and the level of satisfaction at the end of the course from all groups that reported problems compared to those who did not (p < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallace) (Figure 3). Almost 50% of groups reporting problems declined mediation. Groups that declined mediation did not report a lower level of satisfaction compared to groups who never reported problems (p = 0.989, Pairwise-Wilcox Test) and their grades were not lower at the end of the semester. However, groups that underwent mediation were significantly less satisfied than groups that never reported problems (p < 0.05, Pairwise-Wilcox Test). They also had lower course grades at the end of the semester (p < 0.05 Pairwise-Wilcox Test). We also found no significant difference in task conflict (p = 0.38), relationship conflict (p ≥ 0.22), and satisfaction (p = 0.05) when we compared groups with different gender compositions (all female, all male, and 50%:50%, 25%:75%, and 75%:25% male/female ratios).
Instructors have previously reported dysfunctional group behavior in collaborative learning (Davies, 2009; Kreijns et al., 2003; Svinicki & Schallert, 2016). In our study, we found that 13% of student groups reported conflict. Our single question asking to indicate the presence of a problem group member was more effective than the Task and Relationship Conflict items from Jehn and Mannix (2001). In 72% of all groups who reported problems, only a single student in a group of three or four students indicated a problem. Students are reticent to report problems in their groups (Williams, 1992), and we acknowledge that we may be underestimating the presence of problem groups. However, in our study, only three groups came forward to report conflict who had not reported problems on the conflict identification survey.
All the instructors in our study had adopted approaches designed to intentionally promote and support effective group behaviors and discourage detrimental, maladaptive activities such as free-riding and social loafing (Davies, 2009; Kreijns et al., 2003). Even with these efforts, students’ major reports of problems still involved social loafing issues such as lack of effort and attendance rather than lack of knowledge or relationship conflicts. We may be underestimating the reported problems. Even with incentives, we did not achieve uniform survey completion, and a large portion of our problem groups contained students who failed to complete the survey and withdrew from the course.
We also examined differences between groups that accepted or declined conflict management mediation meetings (Tekleab et al., 2009). Half of the groups that indicated problems declined mediation. However, we found no difference in their final levels of satisfaction with those that never reported problems. These groups did receive an e-mail from their instructor revealing that an issue had been reported and requesting a meeting. This may have sparked adequate discussion and resolution of their problems. Groups that accepted mediation, however, reported lower levels of satisfaction at the end of the course and received significantly lower group grades. These groups clearly did not feel that they could resolve the issue on their own: Their problems may have been more intractable, their members uncertain of their ability to resolve the problem, or involved lower scores that they considered more problematic. Although we examined group grades, we did not have a large enough sample size for statistical tests to measure the effect of individual course performance differences between students in groups reporting problems. Future work should examine the internal conflict management discussions (Tekleab et al., 2009) used by groups who declined mediation. More thorough study of classroom behaviors of those groups who accepted mediation could also provide strategies and case studies that other groups could use to address problems as they arise.
Instructors can identify problem groups early on by administering the Jehn & Mannix survey followed by the single question: Do you currently have a problem working as a team? Instructors should be aware that only a fraction of students may be forthright enough to identify a problem, so they should incentivize completing the survey and make efforts to contact groups for meetings even if only one member of the group reports a problem. Instructors should offer, but not insist, on groups undergoing mediation. The threat alone seems to be adequate for most groups to discuss and resolve the issue. Adopt a positive focus during mediation that clarifies the problem, includes each perspective, and provides suggestions for resolving disputes. ■
This material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 1659423. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. This study was approved by IRB STUDY00006399. The authors would also like to thank the students who volunteered to allow us to collect data.
Peggy Brickman (email@example.com) is a professor in the Department of Plant Biology at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. Austin Lannen is an undergraduate at Augustana University in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Jill Beyette is an academic professional in the Department of Plant Biology at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia.
Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255–264.
Borg, M., Kembro, J., Notander, J., Petersson, C., & Ohlsson, L. (2011). Conflict management in student groups—a teacher’s perspective in higher education. Högre utbildning, 1(2), 111–124.
Brooks, C. M., & 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, 78(5), 268–272.
Chan, J., & Bauer, C. (2015). Effect of Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) on student achievement, attittude and self-concept in college general chemistry in randomized and quasi experimental designs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21197
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.
Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment: Common problems and recommended solutions. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 58(4), 563–584.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43–47.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Cooperative learning. In P. A. Mabrouk (Ed.), Active learning: Models from the analytical sciences (pp. 34–53). American Chemical Society.
Freeman, L., & Greenacre, L. (2011). An examination of socially destructive behaviors in group work. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(1), 5–17.
Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(4), 457–465. https://www.doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167285114011
Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(4), 371–384. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-X
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000). Cooperative learning, values, and culturally plural classrooms. Palmer Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.
Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2013). Promoting effective collaborative case-based learning at university: a metacognitive intervention. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 870–889. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.604409
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832.
Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 61–72.
Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (2008). Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL). ACS Publications.
Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34.
Payne, B. K., Sumter, M., & Monk-Turner, E. (2005). Conflict resolution and group work. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(2), 22–27.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research of cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71–82.
Springer, L., Donovan, S. S., & Stanne, M. E. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
Strong, J. T., & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12, 61–67.
Svinicki, M. D., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Learning through group work in the college classroom: Evaluating the evidence from an instructional goal perspective. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher ediucation: Handbook of theory and cesearch (Vol. 31, pp. 513–538).
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R, Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2): 170–205.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J., & Van der Liert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 51–69.
Wall Jr., J. A., Stark, J. B., & Standifer, R. L. (2001). Mediation: A current review and theory development. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(3), 370–391.
Wenzel, T. J. (2007). Evaluation tools to guide students’ peer-assessment and self-assessment in group activities for the lab and classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(1), 182.
Williams, E. (1992). Student attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 17(1), 45–58.
Zhang, B., Johnston, L., & Kilic, G. B. (2008). Assessing the reliability of self-and peer rating in student group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 329–340.
NSTA Press BookUncovering Student Ideas in Science, Volume 2, Second Edition: 25 More Formative Assessment Probes
COMING IN APRIL 2021; NOW AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER “Leave no alternative science idea unchallenged!” could be the slogan of this second edition o...