MALMÖ HÖGSKOLA Lärarutbildningen
KSM
Examensarbete
10 poäng
Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Group Work in a School Setting
Elevers attityder till grupparbete i skolan
Jonas Mårtensson
Katarina Svenning
Lärarexamen 180 poäng Handledare: Björn Sundmark
ABSTRACT
Group work is a teaching method used frequently in Swedish upper secondary schools. In this thesis the authors examine four pupils’ attitudes towards group work. The aim is to enhance understanding of how teachers can improve pupils’ learning abilities when they co-operate using this methodology. Qualitative interviews were conducted to examine the informants’ past experience of group work, how they perceive it functions currently, and why they believe it is used in the school setting. When the interviewees discussed groups in which all group members were motivated, they all were in favor of group work as teaching method. However, they experience that few guidelines are provided on how to conduct well functioning group work and that teachers seldom motivate its use. The authors suggest that teachers should provide more scaffolding on how to work in groups and describe the ideas and advantages prior to group work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Aim 7 1.1.2 Research questions 7 2. BACKGROUND 8 3. THEORETICAL FRAMES 11
3.1 Definitions of group and attitude 11
3.2 A sociocultural perspective on learning 13
3.3 Related research 13 4. METHOD 16 4.1Participants 17 4.2 Material 17 4.2.1 Interview questions 18 4.3 Procedure 20 5. RESULTS 22 5.1 Presentation of interviewees 22 5.2 Focus areas 22
5.1.1 How group work should be used according to our
Interviewees 23
5.1.2 How group work is used in our school settings 24 5.1.3 The interviewees’ own views of group work 26
6. DISCUSSION 28 6.1 Ideals 28 6.2 Reality 29 6.3 Attitudes 31 7. CONCLUSION 33 LIST OF REFERENCES 37 APPENDICES
1 Interview with Sot 38
2 Interview with Tor 44
3 Interview with Saga 50
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the problems with working as a teacher is that teaching does not equal learning. Project work and group-based learning are methods frequently used in Swedish upper secondary schools. Prevailing ideas on learning do not always correspond with pupils’ own thoughts on how they best learn and reach their goals in school. During our VFT we have come across negative reactions amongst pupils towards the amount of group work and projects they have to get involved in, as opposed to individual projects or teacher-centred instructions.
Since project work is frequently used it is important for teachers to be aware of pupils’ attitudes towards this particular methodology. Many factors contribute to attitude formation and through examining pupils’ thoughts and ideas on group work we seek a better
understanding of their attitudes towards this teaching method. It is our belief that communication and negotiation of meaning contribute greatly to the learning process.
Therefore we want to provide a platform of knowledge by examining the understanding of our informants’ views and ideas on the subject matter.
1.1 Aim and research questions
Group work as a teaching method is frequently used in Swedish upper secondary schools. Pupils have different views on this methodology and therefore we find it interesting to examine what thoughts and ideas that exist. Through in-depth interviews with four pupils we seek to understand their attitudes towards group work in the school setting. The objective is to enhance and broaden teachers’, and our own, understanding of pupils’ ideas on well
functioning group work, how they perceive this work method in their present education, and their thoughts regarding why group work is used by teachers. We will not be able to provide a result that can be generalised, but our aim is to present strategies that can improve pupils’ learning abilities while working in groups.
1.1.2 Research questions:
1. What are four upper secondary pupils’ attitudes towards group work in the school setting? • According to these pupils, what would be the ideal form of group work? • How do these students perceive group work in their school settings?
2. BACKGROUND
In order to place our thesis within the Swedish school system we have chosen to provide a short background on why we believe that group work has become an important tool for teaching in Sweden. We believe that John Dewey is one of the pedagogues who have been most influential in how we teach in schools today. Thus we briefly bring up Dewey’s most important ideas in connection with our thesis.
The Swedish school system is based on different pedagogical theories and one of the most prominent ones is linked to John Dewey. He started his career some time around 1890 and kept going until his death in 1952. As many other educational thinkers during the same period of time, Dewey was strongly influenced by Darwinism :
The organism adapts to its environment for its survival, but this process of adaptation means that the organism affects its environment at the same time. (thinking in lines with ecology.) The whole process of mutual adaptation means that the organism/individual acquires knowledge and enhances its bank of knowledge. [our translation] (Didaktik för
lärare, Arfwedson & Arfwedson, p. 67).
The human being is, however, different from all other organisms because of her abstract thinking. This basic premise is what all education should be built on, according to Dewey. In line with his findings, Dewey raised the question of when a human being begins to think. In his opinion, according to Arfwedsson & Arfwedsson, that is when she is faced with a problem that needs solving but where the solution to the problem is not obvious. “Learning by doing” became Dewey’s most powerful words. In many places this was interpreted as a way of presenting pupils with a problem, often of a practical nature that they had to solve. In Sweden, many classrooms were equipped with saws, hammers and other tools. Many teachers,
however, were faced with having to provide large groups of students with constant practical problems. Out of this problem-solving technique grew the project method, based on an essay written by one of Dewey’s apostles named Kilpatrick in 1918 (Arfwedson & Arfwedson, pp. 68-69).
A more recent interpretation of Dewey’s thoughts is that teachers should put children’s interests in relation to the syllabus in order to teach at the correct level for learning to occur. Ingrid Carlgren writes in her article “Vilka glasögon behöver skolan?” that Dewey had regretted his emphasis on ”Learning by doing” later in life, since it made such a great impact on people. Carlgren interprets his theory as being more focused on thinking than on doing. According to her, Dewey meant that the means for reaching the goal is as important as the goal in itself and the means are not the only important thing. Moreover, the means are not only what you do but also what you think while you are doing something. What matters is to create meaning using both means and goals (Skola i förändring, p 109).
In her article, Carlgren also discusses the relation between knowledge learnt in school and knowledge learnt in life and how these two should be connected. This is, and has always been, a very modern topic to discuss. Hence, you do not learn for school, you learn for life. In accordance with those words, what are then the most important facts to learn in school? Does going to school have a purpose at all? The latter question is of great importance since most Swedish pupils spend a fifth of their lives in different school settings. Many important foundations in our society, such as reading and the ability to write, are provided to our population through the school system. With new technology, information is more easily attained than it has been in our past and therefore many hard facts such, as the succession order of kings and queens and similar things might, not be as important to know by heart any longer.
This new society demands other types of knowledge, such as being able to adjust to new situations and as Dewey said, being able to think and solve problems. At university and at many workplaces you are required to be part of a team and cooperate to come up with solutions to different problems. With that in mind, we as teachers have to think about the importance of practising cooperation and problem solving already at upper-secondary schools. In order to acquire the tools for doing so we have, as mentioned before, chosen to focus on finding out what attitudes a few students have towards working in groups in the school setting.
Skolverket in Sweden performed a survey in 1992 in which they tried to find out how much time was spent on different types of teaching in the classroom. Group work was used as a teaching method approximately 10% of the time. This may seem like a small amount of time
but the survey was compared to a similar one performed in 1962 and back then only 2% of the time in the classrooms was devoted to group-work (Stensmo, p. 139). As you can see working in groups has increased over this period of time. We have not been able to find a similar survey of a more recent date and therefore we can only assume from our own field experiences that the use has increased even further since 1992.
3. THEORETICAL FRAMES
3.1 Definitions of group and attitude
In our everyday lives the social group affects us in many ways. Social skills are required in many situations and the ability to adapt and behave is vital to how others perceive us. Groups do in many ways determine the lives we live; they influence how we speak, what to wear, how we vote and so forth. How we adjust and react to group influence thus affects our entire lives. There are a variety of different definitions of the social group and we have chosen the following by Johnson and Johnson (1987):
A group is two or more individuals in face-to-face interaction, each aware of the others who belong to the group, and each aware of their positive interdependence as they strive to achieve mutual goals. (Hogg and Vaughan, p. 269)
This definition fits the type of group we are discussing, but does not encompass larger groups, for which other definitions exist.
Group processes are affected by many parameters such as group size, motivational factors, and cohesiveness for instance. Two effects that are of importance in a classroom are social loafing, and its counterpart; social compensation. Social loafing is a lack of individual effort when working in a group on a collective task (when the loafers’ effort is compared to those of other group participants) compared to working individually. This occurs when the individual knows that others are working on the same task and thus creates an opportunity for the lazy person to be inactive. According to Hogg and Vaughn, social loafing is related to the free-rider effect. A free free-rider is a person who benefits from a shared resource without contributing to the work. The difference between a loafer and a free rider is related to motivation. Social loafers lack motivation but still contribute to the product, while a free-rider experiences a different motivation and exploits the group without contributing at all. (Hogg and Vaughan, p. 283). The free-rider effect in the class-room context will be discussed more later on.
The social compensation effect occurs when group members experience social loafing from less motivated group members. In order to compensate, the more motivated group members increase their effort on the collective task. This can even happen when lack of effort or ability is anticipated or is perceived as inadequate (without actually being so) (Hogg and Vaughan, p. 283).
What positive aspects on performance does group work then contribute to? Hogg and
Vaughan argue that it is important what the individual feels for the group. If a group member acknowledges that the existing group is significant to his or her self-conception this
accelerates peer pressure and increases individual motivation. The group cohesiveness, or the team spirit, is also increased if group members are socially attracted to each other. Social attraction is defined as “Liking for someone based on common group membership and determined by the person’s prototypicality of the group” (Hogg and Vaughan, p. 287).
The concept of attitudes is widely discussed in many fields of science and is constantly debated, especially in social psychology and philosophy. The word attitude is said to have its origin in the Latin word aptus, which means fit and ready for action. The thoughts and
discussions in current research lean more towards a mental construct that precedes a persons’ behaviour and affects choices and actions. One definition claims that an attitude is “A
relatively enduring organisation of beliefs, feelings and behavioural tendencies towards socially significant objects, groups, events or symbols (Hogg and Vaughan, p. 145).
The function and formation of attitudes are also interesting. It is argued that the purpose of attitudes is that they save energy, that when we relate to socially significant objects or situations, we do not have to figure out from scratch how to behave. Instead we use our mental construction as a short cut that saves effort. Another proposition is that attitudes provide a possibility to maximise the chance of having positive experiences of objects and situations, while minimising negative experiences. The fact that you have an attitude is beneficial due to the orientation it provides you (Hogg and Vaughan, p. 148).
Attitude formation is the process of creating and forming an attitude. It is relevant for teachers in the school context since they are directly involved in this formation when providing frame works and criteria for group work as the attitude object. Hogg and Vaughan argue that
attitudes are learned and not innate. You learn attitudes when you take part of the socialisation process, either through direct experiences or indirectly through the contacts and
communication with others. Cognitive processes, through which knowledge is acquired, where memory, thinking and perception are involved, also contribute to the learning of attitudes (Hogg and Vaughan, p. 168).
3.2 A socio-cultural perspective on learning
We are of the opinion that group work has many advantages as long as you can provide a framework for this work method that pupils understand and accept. The understanding that learning takes place while discussing is vital to convey and also that the subject matter is understood when pupils share their different thoughts. The concepts “negotiation of meaning” and the idea that knowledge is constructed through social cooperation in a cultural context are discussed in Dysthe’s article ”Om förhållandet mellan individ och grupp i portföljprocessen”. According to Dysthe, knowledge is distributed between people in a community. People have different skills and competences, and only if everyone shares, the whole scope of the matter at hand can be understood. Every person that contributes adds a dimension or extrapolates what has been said before. In the classroom context pupils need to formulate their understanding in order to gain a deeper knowledge. By sharing their different opinions and views, pupils contribute to the whole and to the “polyphonic voice” that is important to the learning process. If the pupils work individually their understandings will be limited and
incomprehensive compared to the mutual understanding that emerges through group work.
3.3 Related research
Christer Stensmo’s Ledarskap i klassrummet contains a whole chapter where he discusses group work both in theory and practice. Along with his own notes he brings out valuable parts from Arfwedson & Arfwedson’s book from 1981 describing the whole process of planning and performing group work in the school setting. Stensmo also includes valuable points from Cohen’s research on the subject matter. We are indebted to Stensmo’s work in many ways. He sums up what we consider to be the main points of Arfwedson & Arfwedson and Cohen. When we refer to either Cohen or Arfwedson & Arfwedson in this section we do so through Stensmo.
According to Stensmo well-performed group work should contain both social and cognitive teaching goals. The cognitive goals could be those of understanding, analysis etc. He stresses that it is important that the task is of such complexity that it gains from being solved in a group in order for the group members to cooperate instead of dividing the task between them. And we believe that the purpose of the group work is lost if the cooperation is lost. The social goals are such as cooperation skills, understanding of other people’s thoughts and feelings, empathy and conflict management. He also suggests that group work could be used to
enhance friendly relationships and for teaching students to take responsibility (Stensmo, p. 150).
As we have already mentioned above, not all tasks are suitable for group work. Stensmo describes what to consider when constructing an assignment for group work. The task must have more than one answer, contain a problem or appeal to the pupils’ own interests.
Furthermore, it is important that the task requires all pupils’ participation as well as different senses such as hearing, listening, seeing etc. The assignment should also require different strategies and ways of acting in order for the pupils to be forced to contribute and actively take part. Furthermore the task should be challenging to inspire the students. He also underlines that it is not suitable to work in groups to solve tasks that will be quicker solved single-handedly by each pupil since they will take that course of action in order to save time (Stensmo, p. 151).
Furthermore, Stensmo discusses the process of group formation since it is important for the teacher to consider the dynamics of different groups when planning the group work.
Basically, the most important thing is to be well aware of why you as teacher are organising the groups as you do. Moreover, it is important to vary the method for organising the students, since you tend to end up with the same groups each time and that may affect the end result. According to Cohen it is important that the teacher always organises the groups and that he or she does so in accordance with criteria set in advance and that both social- and intellectual factors are considered. One social factor could be that everyone in a class should have the opportunity to work with each other in order for all to get to know each other better.
Intellectual factors to be considered are for instance that high achieving students could gain from working with low achieving students and vice versa. Gender is another factor that should be taken into consideration since Cohen is of the understanding that groups should consist of a mixture of both sexes in order to be well functioning. One of the main reasons why Cohen is of the opinion that the teacher should choose the groups is that if you leave this decision up to the students they tend to want to work with their friends and when doing so they tend to spend time playing and dealing with private matters instead of actively focusing on the task.
Stensmo also states that a group should not contain more than five members in order to be most efficient. The reason is that the more members a group contains the more different personalities there are to coordinate and it also makes it harder for the pupils to communicate in a natural way (Stensmo, pp. 153-154).
Above you find the frames for a well functioning group work, according to Stensmo. However, using group work as a teaching method is also connected with different sets of problems. Even though group work is said to be a recommended way of working in schools, it has been shown by research done by Skolverket in Sweden that teachers tend to avoid it to quite a great extent. Stensmo lists a number of reasons for this and we have chosen to go about it in the same way. The following points are a summarized and translated version of the ones Stensmo lists (pp. 155-156):
1. All pupils do not participate in the activity to the same extent. Some students tend to take a free ride on the other more motivated pupils.
2. Some students insist of getting their will through and want everything done according to their beliefs in order to take any part of the group work.
3. Some students have the status of experts and lead the group even when they lack the expertise in accordance to the task in question. This might lead to that they lead the whole group in the wrong direction even though other students perhaps would have been more able. Because of the status issue these pupils do not get their say in the matter.
4. Groups could be confused because of unclear instructions. Cohen states that it is important to provide each group member with clear instructions, preferably written ones.
5. Pupils are often not practised in group work methodology and are therefore unaware of the different aspects of working together in a group, such as leadership, cooperation techniques, coordination and how to divide the workload. Pupils also tend to be unaware of other pupils’ strengths and weaknesses and tend to focus more on what status a particular pupil has. Cohen states in his research that it is a mistake to believe that pupils are able to do group work without any social training in advance.
6. Group work often tends to involve limited group work since it contains little or no
interaction. Pupils tend to divide different parts of the task amongst them and everyone gives an account for their own little piece of the group work. Thus, everyone performs a small piece of individual work, instead of working as a group with a mutual task and goal.
4. METHOD
When doing qualitative research one should consider differences in worldviews, explore assumptions and ask oneself which research paradigm correspond to one’s own beliefs and ideas (Hatch, p. 12). Within the Constructivist paradigm constructivists “assume a world in which universal, absolute realities are unknowable, and the objects of inquiry are individual perspectives or constructions of reality. While acknowledging that elements are often shared across social groups, constructivist science argues that multiple realities exist that are
inherently unique because they are constructed by individuals who experience the world from their own vantage point” (Hatch, p. 15). It is also stated that “It is through mutual engagement that researchers and respondents construct the subjective reality that is under investigation” (Hatch, p. 15). We share these ideas of how individuals look upon reality and what research is and how it is conducted. Thus, we used this as a starting step when we initiated our research.
Even though Hatch suggests case studies or rich narratives as methods to present a product emerging from the views of the Construct paradigm, we have chosen to do qualitative, semi- structured interviews and use the received data as our source. In order to learn from the informants, to understand their views and ideas on group work, we agreed that this data collection would be sufficient since this kind of interview is open to following the threads of the discussion. A semi-structured interview also allows you to go deeper into the meaning that is constructed during the conversation. We constructed open-ended questions that are related both to different themes (the informants’ past experience and their ideas on how to improve existing methods) and theory (attitude formation, social compensation).
We have chosen to use a simplified version of Hatch’s Inductive analysis to examine our data. When using this method you start with smaller pieces of evidence and the next step is like a puzzle, where you add the different pieces together, thus creating a meaningful whole.
Inductive data analysis is a search for patterns of meaning in data so that general statements about phenomena under investigation can be made. Inductive analysis begins with an examination of the particulars within data, moves to ‘looking for patterns across individual observations, then arguing for those patterns as having the status of general explanatory statements’ (Hatch, p. 161).
In accordance with Inductive analysis we have created categories, frames that have emerged when the data set has been analysed as a whole. These frames, or analysable parts, can be seen as special entries or comments on specific themes that re-emerge in our different interviews. The frames are then analysed and examined in the light of relevant theory.
A full scale Inductive analysis includes more steps, from which one can extrapolate data, and create domains based on semantic relationships within the frames of analysis. We have found that this is not within the scope of our thesis. The first steps of this analysis will be sufficient for the aims of this thesis.
4.1 Participants
In order to get a wide range of points of views we chose students that we knew differed in opinions regarding group work. The informants are pupils from S:t Petriskolan in Malmö and Österportsgymnasiet in Ystad. Two pupils that were not in favour of group work were chosen from S:t Petriskolan and two students that were in favour of group work were chosen from Österportsgymnasiet. In all, four pupils from upper secondary school participated, two boys and two girls. These informants were chosen partly because of their outspoken attitude on the matter of group work as a teaching method, and partly because of their different experiences having attended different schools. This sample of informants fits into two categories
mentioned by Hatch; “critical case samples”, since they had strong opinions on the subject matter and were either for or against group work, and “homogeneous samples”, since they shared the same characteristics (age, and all being upper secondary pupils) (Hatch, pp. 98-99).
4.2 Material
When we created the interview questions we wanted to learn as much as possible about the informants’ thoughts and ideas on group work. Based on our findings in related literature we found that attitudes are learned over time and that they are formed through direct or indirect interaction with the environment (Hogg and Vaughan, p. 168). Therefore we focused on our informants’ past experiences when constructing the interview questions. To enhance our understanding of their day-to-day participation in group work this was also discussed. Furthermore, questions examining their ideas on well functioning group work were posed in order to create an understanding of whether they find group work in their school setting satisfactory or if they welcome changes, and if so, which ones.
In order to get an as broad as possible spectra of attitudes we chose to interview two students who were mainly negative and two who were mainly positive towards group work. We posed both groups with the same questions but expected different types of answers depending on whether they were negative or positive. In order to avoid our expectations to colour their answers we chose to use as neutral and open ended questions as possible.
4.2.1 Interview questions
When constructing the interview questions we used Hatch’s typological analysis as a starting point, in which you divide the data into categories based on predetermined typologies. According to Hatch these typologies are generated from common sense and/or research objectives. We wanted to investigate how pupils perceive group work in school, how they think it ought to be and what their general attitudes towards group work in such are. By posing questions dealing with these three areas we aim to reach their attitudes from different directions. When interviewing the pupils we chose to use a semistructured approach in order to be able to follow up on the informants’ answers as well as letting them elaborate on their thoughts and opinions.
1. Describe a typical occasion when doing group work in class. (Beskriv ett typiskt tillfälle då ni arbetar i grupp under lektionstid.) 2. What do you think characterize a well functioning group work?
(Vad tycker du karakteriserar ett väl fungerande grupparbete?) 3. What are the advantages by using group work as work method?
(Vilka är fördelarna med att använda grupparbete som arbetsmetod?) 4. What do you think the disadvantages are?
(Vilka tror du är nackdelarna?)
5. How often do you participate in group work during a week in school (three persons or more)?
(Hur ofta deltar du i grupparbete i skolan under en vecka (tre personer eller fler)?) 6. How are the groups formed? By the teachers or do the pupils decide for
themselves?
(Hur delas grupperna upp? Av läraren eller får eleverna själva bestämma?) 7. How is group work motivated as teaching-method by the teacher?
8. What kind of tutoring related to group work have you received during your education?
(Vilken sorts handledning har du fått i att jobba i grupp under din utbildning?) 9. What is the ideal ratio between individual work and group work in school?
(Hur tycker du att uppdelningen av eget arbete respektive grupparbete bör fördelas i skolan?)
10. When working in a group, do you feel that you get your own ideas through? (När du jobbar i grupp känner du att du får igenom dina egna idéer?)
11. In what way do you feel that you learn the topic (based on the above mentioned example) when working in groups?
(På vilket sätt tycker du att man lär sig ämnet man studerar ( om vi utgår från det tidigare exemplet?)
12. Which forms of presentation do you find suitable when working in groups? (Vilka presentationsformer tycker du är lämpliga att använda vid grupparbeten?) 13. Which forms of presentation do you find not suitable when working in groups?
( Vilka presentationsformer tycker du inte är lämpliga vid grupparbeten?)
14. What parts of you personality do you think become most prominent when you are working in a group?
(Vilka sidor hos dig själv tror du påverkar när du jobbar I grupp?) 15. How do you generally feel about working in groups?
( Vad tycker du generellt sett om att jobba i grupp?)
16. Is there anything you would like to add that we have not brought up in the interview?
( Är det någonting du vill tillägga som vi inte har tagit upp i intervjun?)
After the tape recorder is turned off:
17. Sometimes one could be wanting to add something after the tape recorder is turned off:
Is there anything you would like to add?
(Ibland kan man vilja tillägga något efter att bandspelaren har stängts av: Vill du tillägga något?)
4.3 Procedure
Initially we talked to teachers at our partner schools in order to find out which classes worked in groups to a great extent. We chose one class at Österportsgymnasiet (ÖP) in Ystad and one at S:t Petri skolan (SP) in Malmö. As an initial step in our research we observed classes at both schools in order to find adequate interviewees with outspoken attitudes towards group work. Since this was our only aim with our observations we have chosen not to include the observations in our thesis. At ÖP we searched for students who were positive towards group work and at SP we looked for those who were negative towards group work. All in all we found six pupils who were willing to take part in our research, two who were negative and four who were positive. We contacted the parents of those pupils who were under 18 in order to get their approval in accordance with research ethics. Since the interviewees go to different schools in different cities we found that it was not possible to perform the interviews in the exact same environment but we tried to book rooms that were of similar size at both schools. Both rooms were quite small and comfortable and situated at the pupils’ schools respectively. In order to make the pupils as comfortable as possible we chose to divide the interviews between us by gender. Jonas interviewed the boys and Katarina interviewed the girls. This was quite a practical decision since we did not want to outnumber the interviewees in case this would have had an intimidating effect on them. Thus, we assumed that the girls would feel more comfortable speaking to another girl and vice versa.
Before the interview started we gave the interviewees a Danish pastry and something to drink and then we small-talked a little about our thesis and their school work. We informed the interviewees of the ethics of research and made it clear to them that they could interrupt the interview at any time should they feel uncomfortable and also that they could withdraw their answers up until the thesis was published. We also stressed that they would be anonymous except for that their school’s name would be mentioned and since we have visited two different schools it would not be possible to find out who is who. Each interview lasted between 30 and 40 minutes, with 40 as the top limit. This was because we estimated that it would be enough time for us to be provided with enough information and also because extended interviews would have been tiring for the pupils and could have affected the trustworthiness of their answers.
We had 16 different questions and during the interviews we followed the lead of the pupils’ answers and asked different follow-up questions depending on what they said.
Two of the interviewees seemed very stressed during the interview and because of that we did not receive any trustworthy information from them. They answered most questions with very short answers and “I don’t know”. We have decided to leave their interviews out and focus on the other four instead, since these interviews were relaxed and gave us relevant data which we estimate as enough for our thesis.
5 RESULTS
5.1 Presentation of interviewees
We have chosen to give a very brief presentation of the interviewees where we merely state their age, programme and outspoken attitude towards group work before we performed the interviews. The names and also gender in some of the cases have been altered in order to protect their identity.
Tor – is an 18-year-old male student who attends the Social Science programme with Economics as his main focus area. He is outspokenly positive towards group work as a teaching method at upper secondary level.
Loke – is a 17-year-old male student who attends the Social Science programme with Journalism as his main focus area. He is outspokenly negative towards group work.
Saga – is an 18-year-old female student who attends the Social Science programme with Journalism as her main focus area. She is outspokenly negative towards group work.
Sot – is an 18-year-old female student who attends the Social Science programme with Marketing as her main focus area. She is outspokenly positive towards group work.
5.2 Focus areas
When constructing the interview questions we divided them into three focus areas which we found relevant to study closer in relation to our research questions, the defined theoretical frames and related research presented in the former sections. In order to present our results in an objective way we also present other relevant and significant commentaries that the
different informants bring up in the interviews. To provide as clear a structure as possible, we are also going to present our results in that order. However, this is not the order in which the questions were asked. All quotes in this passage are our translations.
5.2.1 How should group work be used according to our interviewees?
Frame: When asked to describe a well functioning group work the interviewees all agreed that it is important that all participants contribute equally to the work load. They also stress that an open communication within the group is important. It is also important that teachers evaluate the process that leads to the result to a higher degree. Sot states:
If, as an example, we look at Ungt Företagande, we have a meeting with our teacher every week, and check what we are doing, and we send in logs what we have done, as
individuals, she is supposed to grade our work project as a whole, as well as our individual effort. But this is a pretty large project, if it is a smaller one, when you have one month as time limit, the teacher never participates, I have never experienced that, that the teacher participate.
Other comments: Saga describes the perfect group work as follows, “A well functioning group work would like have been if all reflected upon the assignment and we worked a bit at home with the task and were interested and came up with new ideas and such … and then also when you then present it or do a presentation […] everyone has prepared so that no one comes unprepared because it affects the whole group and then it feels like everyone has to take the blame”.
Frame: When the informants were asked to discuss the advantages of group work two of them agreed on the importance of sharing points of views with group members because this makes you see things differently. Sot states that: “You look upon it in many ways […] I may interpret in one way, someone else in another, you sort of get different points of views, and you can change ideas, and … eh … if you do group work it often become much broader than an individual work so this should also mean that it becomes better. That may not always be the case, sometimes it is better to do it on your own but it is almost always like this, that it is good to work in groups.”
Other comments: Saga: “I suppose that you learn to listen to other people’s views and that you think harder and make an effort to cooperate and by this … eh … perhaps you push yourself to work in a way you have not done before and then you also get results that perhaps are much better than if you would have done it alone so that you use that method in the future when working alone that is. […] then it also prepares one for work life … so in work life it is
much like that you have to cooperate and such and sometimes perhaps with people you do not cooperate with ordinarily outside work and then it is very good preparation”.
Frame: When discussing their preferences on how to form the groups, whether the teacher should divide them into groups or if it was up to the pupils, all interviewees agreed that they preferred to choose themselves. This is because it leads to better results when you know the group members well and if your friends participate in a project you have more fun, which also in the end gives better grades. Tor agues: “Both ways are good […] you socialise more with some people and that is positive. And when you get to choose yourself it is good for the performance. ”When asked to elaborate on how this enhances performance, he continues: “Because then you know that person, it will be good when everyone is serious and the result often is improved.”
Other comments: Sot states” I think that to randomise groups is the best way, but if I work with a project for a long period, you are forced to get along with those in the group, then you must get to choose yourself. That may not be the best, it might be that someone gets left out, neither pupils nor teachers want that.”
5.2.2 How group work is used in our school settings.
Frame: When we asked the informants how often they participated in group work in school they agreed that it happens every day, either as discussions during classes in smaller groups or larger group work that overlap with each other. Two of the interviewees also mentioned Physical Education as a subject in which you almost always cooperate in different ways. Saga argues: “ […] I would say we do it pretty often … it works very well during classes, there is a great difference because then we have a teacher who is watching what we do … and … outside the class room, and like that, it does not work as well.”
Other comments: One of our informants wanted more cross-curricular group work. Sot states: “It differs from subjects, but is much more individual work now than it should be. The larger part is individual […] At any rate at upper secondary level, in my secondary school we tried to get Social Science, English and Swedish into the same project, the same group work. In all these classes we worked on the same thing, a cross-curricular story. You do not see this at upper secondary level, it is a good way to get it into a whole.
Frame: When we asked the informants to discuss the disadvantages of group work three of them agreed that the work process itself was not visible to any greater extent. The individual contributions were not visible enough, and much group work was hampered by group members that did not make an effort. Sot states that: “Well, it is first and foremost that someone might sneak away, and then that, the school world is very, like, concentrated on results, so that, it might be harder to show what the individual has done in group work compared to individual work.
Other comments: Tor: “In the end, it is the presentation that is most important since that is what is being assessed, we attend school to learn but also to get assessed, and the process itself is perhaps not always seen, the work itself up to the group work day (the day of
presentation. Authors’ comment), there are those who go down to the library that the teachers never see and it is the result that you see.
Frame: When asked how group formation actually takes place the informants agree that when it comes to more extensive group work they often get to decide themselves. Two of the
interviewees experience that when having smaller discussions the teachers randomise the groups. Saga states: “Mostly we decide ourselves, or we do it as we are placed, and then we do it automatically together with those you have chosen to sit next to”.
Frame: When discussing what kind of tutoring and scaffolding concerning group work and group processes the informants have received during secondary and upper secondary levels they agree that methodological tutoring does not exist. One of the interviewees, Tor, says that the closest he has come is a course in conflict management. Loke states: “I cannot exactly say that I remember anything. I believe … I do not know actually, you just work in groups, like …”
Other comments: Tor: “Some teachers say that it is important that everybody gets to decide, that is a guideline, and that all voices should be heard. Not as much nowadays, because now it is more evident […]
Frame (non-existing): When asked how group work is motivated by teachers we do not find any similar points in the answers, three have different ideas and one cannot remember any teacher that motivates this work method.
Other comments: Saga: “[…] we had a Natural Science teacher who did a very good thing … we wrote logs … and told exactly what each person in the group had done and afterwards he told us exactly why and so … that was good but then there are those teachers that just divide you up quickly and effectively and then it often turns out that they do not save any time in the end because many students just sit there and you do not know why you are supposed to do it and then … do not put any time into it simply so it would have been good if they had taken more time to it maybe and well … “.
Sot states: “On occasions they have said: ‘Now you have to work in groups because there is too much work to be done individually’. That is probably the only reason I have heard, that and the fact that you learn how to communicate and to consider others’ feelings”.
Tor states: “Now that is just it, when you started working in groups at lower levels then they did not have to motivate it directly because then one thought it was fun with group work […] then you had got used to group work so now it feels like there is no need to motivate group work because every one knows how to do it (teachers believe that this is the case. Authors’ comment). It feels like that because no one says ‘now we are going to work in groups because that is good because then we learn this’. It is not like that, so I do not know how the teachers motivate it.”
Loke states: “No, they just say that now we are going to work in groups. It is never anyone who explains that now we are going to work in groups because that is good for this and that … well … […] … well … South America we are working on because the teacher student does not know so much about South America and because it does not say in our history books”.
5.2.3 The interviewees’ own views of group work
Frame: When we discussed why our informants’ views on why teachers use group work as a teaching method two agreed on the preparatory aspects of work life. Two of the interviewees agreed on this method as means for the teacher to relax and not having to teach in front of the
class all the time. Tor argues: “Since society looks like it does today, where you work a lot in groups, so to prepare, and then you have the student democracy aspect. Many prefer group work, and if the majority wants it, group work should be used. It may also be nice for the teacher not having to teach in front of the class time after time, they also have to relax a bit”.
Other comments: Saga: “I think they want us to get a better spirit in class, and then I believe it is meant that those who are better … should assist the weaker ones so you in a way can create some sort of discussion, outside the group work as well, and talk and help and such … some sort of higher level gets obtained in class perhaps … and then I think it is a good way of learning, that is, if you discuss something the pupils learn better, I think …
Frame: When the informants were asked how they learn various subjects while working in groups they all experience that learning does not take place in the group. Instead it is common to divide the work-load into smaller parts and then unite all parts into a whole for the
presentation. Loke argues: “You learn the topic matter of what you are doing. I do not believe you think that much because it is pretty much individual work in a group work you sit alone and seek your own facts … and it is like you search for the specific thing you do not get the meaning of the whole subject so I believe it is very specific when you work in groups because you divide it up … like I have this part and the other person has that part and then you do not learn that much …
Frame: When asked how they generally feel about working in groups, two of our
interviewees claim that it is a well functioning work method, one even argues that it is the most effective method in its best forms. One argues that it has advantages only when teachers monitor the work since pupils tends to work to get good grades and when they are being observed.
Other comments: Loke argues: “it depends so much on what group you are in. In some groups it is very boring and hard and elongated and in some groups it can be fun but it
happens so often that you are in bad groups and now when we are doing so much group work it becomes … no, not group work … no … ”.
6. DISCUSSION
The aim of this thesis was to find out what our interviewees’ attitudes towards group work in their school setting were and also to try to investigate how those attitudes were formed. In order to do this we asked them questions related to three focus areas regarding their ideals concerning group work, their experiences concerning the topic matter and their personal views of group work. The latter focus area functions as a relation between ideals and reality. We started out with theories on what group work is and also how attitudes are formed in relation to a specific task such as group work. In the former chapter we presented our findings from our interviews and in this chapter we will relate them to our theoretical frames.
We have only interviewed four pupils and therefore it is not our goal to try to generalise our findings. However, we do believe that we have found enough trustworthy data to be able to draw conclusions on the attitudes of these four students in relation to group work. By doing so and by relating this to related research we do believe that we will be able to create a platform of knowledge in order to achieve a better understanding of how well functioning group work should be performed in school in order for pupils to learn as much as possible.
6.1 Ideals
The idea of having ideals as one of our focus frames is to be able to compare our informants’ views of ideal group work to what modern research has to say on the topic. We believe that when group work contains negotiation of meaning it contributes to an enhanced learning environment and improvement of performance. This is created when different points of views are taken into account by the various group members. Dysthe argues that pupils have different skills and competences and by sharing those, the subject matter is better understood.
Furthermore she argues that every person that contributes adds a new dimension or develops what has already been said before (see above, p 14). We interpret this to be in line with our own opinion of how well functioning group work should be conducted. When analysing our data we have found that this coincides with our informants’ views. One of the advantages they bring up is that you get different points of views and that you can change ideas when sharing with each other in a group since discussing matters with others broadens your way of looking upon things. This is also in line with what Stensmo argues when he discusses social goals such as cooperation and understanding of other people’s thoughts and feelings (see above, p. 15).
According to Cohen (in Stensmo) teachers should be the ones forming groups, not pupils (see above, p. 15). This is to avoid group members talking about irrelevant matters and to keep them focused. Another point is that social factors should be taken into account, that everyone in class should have the possibility to get to know each other better when working together. We do not entirely agree on the last point since the social life amongst pupils takes place on many other occasions, such as breaks and in their spare time.
What Cohen says about group formation is somewhat contradicted by Hogg and Vaughan. They argue that if the individual feels safe and can identify with the other group members this increases individual motivation. Our interviewees also argue in this direction. When involved in group work that stretches over a longer time period they are of the opinion that it is more important to be able to rely on peers doing what is decided and expected than to get a randomised group formation decided by the teacher. When all this is taken into account we argue that variation is important when having smaller discussions, but students must have their say when they feel it is important to them in order to fulfil their goals.
6.2 Reality
As we have mentioned earlier in this thesis Skolverket has performed two surveys, one in 1962 and one in 1992, where they found that the amount of total teaching time devoted to group work had increased from 2% in 1962 to 10% in 1992. In line with this we asked our interviewees if they could estimate to what extent they worked in groups each week. All the pupils said that they participated in some kind of group work, such as group discussions and also group work which stretched over a longer period of time, everyday. This shows that group work is used to a great extent in the classes that our informants attend. An important point, however, is that we intentionally chose pupils who we knew were used to working in groups both from asking their teachers and from our observations of their classes. Although it is our assumption that this mirrors the reality of most students at upper secondary level, our data lacks trustworthiness in this matter.
Hogg and Vaughan argue that social loafing is a decline in individual effort when working in a group on a collective task compared to working individually. By this they mean that when you compare the pupils’ efforts to each other within the group it is sometimes the case that
pupils’ perform less than they would have done if they had worked on the same task on an individual basis (see above, p 12). Stensmo also acknowledges this to be a problem when using group work in schools since not all pupils participate to the same extent. Some pupils tend to just take a free ride on the other more active pupils. The answers we received from our interviewees point to that working in groups often is a problem because not all group
members make an effort. This is in line with what the researchers say. Both Hogg and Vaughan and Stensmo bring up the free rider effect, which basically means that a person benefits from a shared resource such as group work without contributing to the work. The difference from the above mentioned social loafer is that the free rider often is motivated to cash in on the award, as for instance a high grade, without making the effort, whereas the social loafer often suffers a lack of motivation but is not deliberately taking advantage of his peers. However, we have found no evidence in our interviews that the students distinguish between the two, they merely state that some pupils do not do their share of the work load (see above, pp. 12 – 16).
Another factor that is brought up by our informants is that the process in itself is not visible as well as the individual contributions. Because of that the presentation becomes the most
important part of the group work since that is when they are assessed. We have not found any research on this but since it is an important factor for the pupils we regard it as important for our thesis. It also coincides with what we believe is true when you are discussing group work in relation to high achieving pupils, who often strive to achieve high grades. We were quite surprised that Stensmo did not mention anything about grades in relation to group work since it seems to be one of the most important factors for the informants.
When our informants discussed how teachers motivate group work as a teaching method they argue that there are seldom given reasons why. One of the informants has been given the explanation that the task in question is too extensive to handle alone, and that you learn how to communicate when working in groups. Another interviewee argues that the lack of
information on why they use group work is related to teachers believing that pupils have this knowledge already. We argue that you cannot take this for granted since pupils tend to work individually when working in groups. The concept that you learn from others was not brought up by any of the informants. Dysthe draws upon the social context when discussing that learning takes place when pupils share their knowledge with others. She emphasises that
knowledge is distributed between people since they possess different competences needed to apprehend the whole (Dysthe, p. 95). These ideas were not brought up by our informants.
The informants were also asked to discuss what guidelines concerning group work they have been provided with. The idea that all group members should participate in the decision
making is brought up by one of the informants. This is in line with what Stensmo argues when discussing that all group members should participate (Stensmo, p. 151). Otherwise the
informants state that related tutoring is scarce. This is a fact that we consider to be one of the main problems that affect pupils’ attitudes towards group work in a negative way. Not to be able to draw from adequate strategies when using this method hampers the pupil’s ability to learn and to work in an effective way together.
6.3 Attitudes
This focus area contains the thoughts and ideas that form our informants’ views on group work. Their previous experiences contribute to a high extent to why they think as they do. According to theory on attitude formation, attitudes are shaped over a longer period of time through the interactions with others. Hogg and Vaughan argue that attitudes are a set of beliefs and feelings towards significant objects, the significant object in this case being group work. Our interviewees’ attitudes towards why teachers use group work differ and they are uncertain why this method is used so extensively. We argue that teachers should provide more guidelines on why group work enhances performance and provide more scaffolding to how it should be done. Dysthe claims that knowledge is constructed through social cooperation in a cultural context and by discussing and reformulating their acquired knowledge pupils achieve a deeper understanding, (Dysthe, p. 95). It is therefore important to stress group processes and the co-operational effort when initiating group work; pupils should discuss findings and facts within the group and share their opinions and views. This becomes clear when we examined the data concerning our interviewees’ ideas on how learning takes place when working in groups. They argued that learning often takes place individually in group work because they divide the task into smaller ones and assign these to the group members in order to be more effective. This is in line with what Stensmo says when discussing problems related to group work. He raises the awareness of group work tending to be no group work at all since it contains little or no interaction. Pupils often divide different parts of the task between them and perform individual work instead of working as a group in order to obtain their mutual goal.
Our informants are well aware of their ways and strategies when working in groups. They are high performing pupils and they naturally want higher grades. If a group is dysfunctional they work harder or try to motivate less effective group members in different ways. This becomes evident when the interviewees discuss the pros and cons of group work. The aspect of social compensation is therefore central since the informants compensate for less motivated group members.
The interviewees agreed to a higher extent when discussing the downsides of group work. One major point they brought up was that the group process was not assessed. The informants also worried about their individual effort not being graded fairly compared to other group members. Another major issue was that less motivated group members did not contribute enough to the work load. This is in line with the concept of social loafing, which Hogg and Vaughan describes as a decline in individual effort when working in a group on a collective task (when the loafers’ effort is compared to those of other group participants) compared to working individually (see above, p. 9).
7. CONCLUSION
The aim of this thesis was to discover what attitudes pupils at upper secondary level have toward group work as one of the methods for teaching. Since we chose a qualitative approach for this thesis, we had to limit our research to interviewing only a few pupils. In order to obtain relevant data we asked them questions concerning; their ideas on well functioning group work, how they perceive their reality, and their own thoughts about group work. It has been quite hard to analyse our findings since the students often suggest rather different answers and therefore it has been impossible to include everything they said. We have brought out their main points and by comparing these to the research done by Christer Stensmo regarding how to use group work as a method for teaching, we have come up with conclusions that both differ and agree with Stensmo. In order to define the pupils’ attitudes we have put them in relation to different social psychological theories regarding social compensation, social loafing, attitude formation etc.
Our interviewees were positive to well functioning group work in which every group member was motivated and contributed equally to the work load. When they describe the ideal
situation their views were very similar to those that Stensmo presents. The informants
described the well-functioning group as one where participants reflect upon the subject matter and on how to go about solving it. They also mentioned cooperation and communication as important factors when working together.
When it comes to group formation the theories differed. Cohen who is quoted and referred to in Stensmos research argues that teachers should always form groups in order to consider all different factors that he means are important for a well-functioning group, for example that a group should contain both boys and girls. Hogg and Vaughan, on the other hand, means that a person gains from working with people he/she is socially attracted to and also that motivation is raised if the team-spirit is high. We believe that the latter is best obtained if the students get to chose for themselves. The interviewees agree with us on that. Even though they bring up that it could be good if the teacher selects the groups for shorter group work or discussions, they all agree that when it comes to longer projects it is important that you know the other members in order to cooperate as well as possible. We believe that a mixture of the two is probably the best way. Sometimes there might be a need for the teacher to choose the groups in order to consider different factors that are important for the task in question. We can also
see the pupils’ point of view since it is only human to want to work with someone you know in order to feel secure in what you are doing. We believe that pupils will be able to focus on the task instead of playing around, which Cohen also argues is one reason why teachers should make a rule of choosing the groups. The informants are not negative towards the teacher selecting groups; however they suggest a little more imagination than just creating groups after the name list. They suggest lottery amongst other things, which we find interesting since they might end up with anyone if this method is used.
Another factor that we want to bring forward is that the informants all experience inadequate guidelines on how to actually work in groups, such as group psychology or group dynamics etc. Cohen argues that teachers should not let their pupils engage in any kind of group work before having been trained properly in how to do it, and without being informed of what factors to consider. Yet our informants claim to have little or no tutoring at all in this methodology. We were also surprised by the fact that the students claimed that teachers seldom motivated why they were supposed to work in groups and what they would benefit from doing so. This is something that has been stressed during our education, and its importance is also underlined in the hands on description by Stensmo on how group work should be carried out (see above, pp. 14-16). One of the pupils provide us with the
explanation that it might be because pupils find it exciting to work in groups in the early school years and then there is no need for any kind of motivation from the teachers.
Furthermore he argues that the teachers at upper secondary level seem to think that the pupils already know the benefits of group work since they have been practising it for quite a long time. When revising our own teaching we realise that we too have performed group work and group discussions without motivating why the pupils will benefit from cooperating.
When talking about group work in general, our informants discuss that a major part of group work is divided up into different parts. Thereafter everyone works individually and reunites only in order to prepare for the presentation. This has different reasons, one is that they feel a lot of pressure to perform many things at the same time, another is that this is less time consuming. They feel that this is possible because the teacher does not assess the process since he/she does not monitor how the group work is conducted unless their work is carried out in the class room. Hogg and Vaughan talk about social loafers. These are people who probably want to take an active part but who are lazy either by nature or because they are having a down period. These are however also described by our informants, who mean that
one of the most evident downsides to group work is that some people just follow the flow and do not participate while the others are working. Another type of person who is mentioned in the literature is the free rider. Those are the ones who seldom do anything and just want to take a free ride on the other group members. The difference from the loafer is that the free rider often is fully aware of his/her actions. The free rider often chooses high performing peers because he/she wants to get an as high as possible grade with a minimum effort. However, our interviewees do not distinguish between the two.
Grades are another factor that was brought up in our interviews. The informants claim that they are sceptical towards group work since the presentation part is the only part that is assessed and also because the teacher does not know who has done what. They feel that the process should be weighed in to a higher extent and that the teacher should make an effort to monitor the various individual efforts. One of the interviewees tells us that she once had a teacher who told them to write detailed logs describing who did what and how the group work proceeded. This was a very good method according to her since it made the teacher aware of the whole process. We believe that this is an important part of why pupils sometimes are negative towards group work. This assumption should be seen in the light of that we have mostly taught high performing and high aiming classes and therefore those pupils often have high grades as one of their main goals (again authors’ assumptions based on their own experiences).
To sum it up our informants’ attitudes were mainly positive towards group work in its ideal form when all participants contribute equally and the teacher provides clear guidelines. The negative attitudes they showed were mainly based on negative experiences of when they had had social loafers/free riders in their groups and also on when guidelines and aims had been unclear. Furthermore they felt that the fear of receiving lesser grades because of other pupils lack of interest, motivation or capability were an important reason for not wanting to work in groups. They suggested that this could be prevented with stricter monitoring form the teacher. We believe that the latter factor could be prevented with clearer guidelines.
We believe that teachers could benefit from our findings when using group work as a method for teaching by raising their awareness of how pupils feel about working in groups. Since our thesis is a qualitative study based on four upper secondary pupils’ views it is not possible for us to make any generalizations, however we do believe that our findings are relevant in many
cases based on our own experiences. We feel that it is important for teachers to consider that pupils are not generally negative towards group work. We have found this topic very
interesting and all taken into account we hope that our thesis will inspire others to do further research on pupils’ attitudes towards group work.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Arfwedson, G, Arfwedson, G. (1981). Arbete i lag och grupp. Stockholm: Liber. Arfwedson, G, och Arfwedson, G. (2002) Didaktik för lärare. Stockholm: HLS förlag. Carlgren, I (red.). (1998). ” Vilka glasögon behöver skolan” i lärarförbundets Skola I
förändring. Falköping: Elanders Gummessons.
Cohen, E. (1987). Designing Groupworks: Strategies for Heterogeneous Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dysthe, O. (2002) .”Om förhållandet mellan individ och grupp i portföljprocessen” i skolverkets Att bedöma eller döma.
Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hogg, M.A and Vaughan, G.M. (2002). Social Psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, F.P. (1987). Joining together: group theory and group skills (3rd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
APPENDICES
1 Interview with Sot
J: Jag skulle vilja börja med att du beskriver ett typiskt tillfälle när du arbetar i grupp i skolan, ett grupparbete under lektionstid, det kan va ungt företagande eller vilket annat grupparbete som helst.
S: Är det nåt särskilt du vill ha?
J: Du kan ta ungt företagande eftersom det är ganska aktuellt
S: Ja jag kan ta ungt företagande som ett exempel och vi har sagt att vi har, även på pappret, så har vi ordförande på alla våra möten, de protokollförs, vi har en ordförande och vi har en sekreterare och en justerare som står fast hela tiden på dom positionerarna men, vi har inte så att ordförande måste begära, ge någon ordet och så, utan att man (eh), har man nåt att säg så säger man det, men man får ändå låta dom andre tala till punkt. Och (eh), vi har väl sagt så att har vi saker vi vill ta upp, så ja, går vi liksom laget runt och visar upp eh, dom saker, problem och frågor vi har och så får vi diskutera det. Nu är vi ojämnt antal då så vi så är det viktiga saker så har vi skrivit sånt samarbetssamtal så då röstar vi om det. Då måste en majoritet vara för eller emot beslutet. Och, ja så det är rätt öppna möte, det kan va att, det behöver inte va bestämt att imorgon klockan tolv, vid mötet då, kan vi ta nåt spontant, ja vi tar ett möte nu om tio minuter, utan det faller som så när det passar oss bäst, det tycker jag.
J: När ni satte ihop just den här specifika gruppen, gjorde ni det själv eller var det läraren som delade upp alla grupperna?
S: Från början så var det, själva idén var, två personer som kom på i slutet på förra terminen, och dom frågade mig om jag ville va med i deras grupp och då sa jag ja, dom frågade en annan om den personen ville vara med och då svarade den personen också ja, så var vi fyra stycken, sen var det tänkt att vi skulle va fyra men sen var det så att nu under hösten så tillkom en medlem till och vi, vår tanke var att vi skulle klara det på fyra personer men nu i efterhand så är det bra att vi är en till, vi hade tatt oss vatten över huvudet annars, det hade blitt för mycket att göra, vi blev en till, det är bara positivt, så vi är, så gick rekryteringen till kan man säga.
J: Om du tänker på grupparbete generellt som ni har i klasserna, kan vara vilket ämne som helst, vad tycker du utmärker ett väl fungerande grupparbete?
S. Jag tycker att så behöver det inte tvunget va att man känner personerna jätteväl, att det är ens bästa kompisar, utan det kan va nån som man inte har pratat så mycket med eller undgåtts så mycket med i klassen och då kanske man lär känna den personen bättre men det kanske underlättar till en början om man känner personerna väl, och sen, jag tycker man måste ha en öppen diskussion kanske inte så jättestrikt alltså man säger egentligen vad man tycker och tänker, sen att alla ska ta lika mycket ansvar, göra lika mycket, oftast blir det inte så men själva iden, tanken är att det ska va så, att man gör ungefär lika mkt.
J: Har du råkat ut för det någon gång att det är någon som…(blir avbruten av informanten) S: Det är ofta det händer det, det är i stort sätt alla grupparbete alltså så på lektionstid när det är inlämningsarbete och så, att det är nån som halkar undan på nåt sätt, dom kanske inte är så
