students’ motivation for group work in high school
Amanda Sjöström
December 2020
MASTER’S THESIS
Department of Applied Physics and Electronics Umeå University, Sweden
Extern supervisor: Raphaela Bieber Bardt, Tieto
Supervisor: Thomas Mejtoft, Umeå University
Examiner: Ulrik Söderström, Umeå University
Preface
This Master’s thesis is written by Amanda Sjöström for the examination of the Master of Science program in Interaction Technology & Design at Umeå Uni- versity.
The project was carried out during the fall semester of 2018 in cooperation with Tieto, to extend their work on the “Future Classroom” project and give in- sight into the topic of how to improve the school experience and motivation of learning in the Swedish high school, by the use of innovative technology.
Umeå, 2020-12-28 Amanda Sjöström
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank everyone who has read, revised and in any other way helped me throughout this project. A special thanks is directed to Raphaela Bieber Bardt who has been my supervisor at Tieto, supporting me throughout this project, and Thomas Mejtoft who has always been there during my studies at this program and also supported me in this project as a supervisor from Umeå University.
A.S.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was giving further insight into how innovative tech- nology can be used to increase the intrinsic motivation to group work and learning in the Swedish high school (swe: gymnasieskolan), and thereby ex- tend an ongoing project driven by Tieto which is called "Future Classroom".
During a workshop with a class of high school students three aspects were identified to be the biggest problems that lead to demotivation for group work:
troublesome members of the group, uneven disposition of workload and un- fair grading of the work. The students were suggesting solutions like keeping a project log, which can be used while grading, and to give feedback to the other students to minimize the troubles within the group.
The proposed solution is a concept for evaluating group work at school, focus- ing on the roles needed for successful group work and the students that have participated in the group. A mapping between these two engages the students to evaluate the work and increases the awareness of the different ways peo- ple contribute to the work, which is helpful to keep in mind for the next group work.
Preface . . . i
Acknowledgment . . . ii
Abstract . . . iii
1 Introduction 2 1.1 Objective and Aim . . . 3
1.2 Tieto . . . 3
1.3 Approach . . . 4
2 Theory 5 2.1 Motivation . . . 6
2.1.1 Extrinsic motivation . . . 6
2.1.2 Intrinsic motivation . . . 6
2.1.3 Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic motivation . . . 7
2.2 Group work . . . 8
3 Phase 1: Problem definition 9 3.1 Method (Phase 1) . . . 10
3.1.1 Survey . . . 10
3.1.2 Student workshop . . . 11
3.2 Results (Phase 1) . . . 15
3.2.1 Survey results . . . 15
3.2.2 Workshop results . . . 18
3.3 Analysis (Phase 1) . . . 20
3.3.1 Problem area . . . 20
3.3.2 Reasons for demotivation . . . 21
3.4 Discussion (Phase 1) . . . 23
iv
3.4.1 Concept idea . . . 23
3.4.2 Limitations . . . 24
4 Phase 2: Concept development 26 4.1 Method (Phase 2) . . . 27
4.1.1 Concept design . . . 27
4.1.2 User test . . . 27
4.2 Results (Phase 2) . . . 33
4.2.1 Test 1 . . . 33
4.2.2 Test 2 . . . 34
4.3 Analysis (Phase 2) . . . 36
4.3.1 Concept idea . . . 36
4.4 Discussion (Phase 2) . . . 37
4.4.1 Proposed solution . . . 37
4.4.2 Limitations . . . 38
5 Concluding discussion 39 6 Summary & Conclusions 41 6.1 Phase 1: Define problem . . . 41
6.2 Phase 2: Develop concept . . . 42
6.3 Further Work . . . 43
References 44 A Survey 46 A.1 Questionnaire . . . 46
B Student workshop 50 B.1 Problems with group work . . . 50
C User test 52 C.1 Roles . . . 52
C.2 Test results . . . 53
Introduction
In the Swedish high school (swe: gymnasieskolan) the aim of education is to promote a life-long desire for learning among the students as well as to ensure that the students acquire and develop both knowledge and values needed after graduation [18]. The amount of unlawful absence in the Swedish high school is now higher than ever [19], which has been shown by the amount of withdrawn student grants reported by CSN, the Swedish Board of Student Finances.
The actual reason behind the increased absence in high school is not known, but studies show that when people are extrinsically motivated [15], doing things solely for the purpose of getting rewards, they might get stuck in the perfor- mance zone [1] or loose the motivation for learning [10]. Being in the perfor- mance zone can put a lot of pressure on the person, hinder learning and also decrease the intrinsic motivation for completing the task [1] [15].
The aim of this study is to extend Tieto’s work on a project called “Future Class- room” by giving insight into the subject of how technology can be developed to increase the intrinsic motivation for group work and learning in high school.
The project Future Classroom has several focus areas, but the overall aim is im- proving everyday life at school for both students and teachers through the use of innovative technology. Two of the investigated challenges are how to design a management system for presence/absence at school (which takes a minimal time from the classes) and a surveillance system that minimizes the problems with unauthorized people on the school premises or students “at school” who
2
are not attending their classes.
1.1 Objective and Aim
The aim of this research is to propose a concept of a technical solution that solves or decreases the challenges that students experience during group work at school today. Following objectives and research questions has been used:
1. Define a problem area in the Swedish high school
(a) What is a significant problem area in the Swedish high school?
(b) What are the main reasons why students consider the identified problem as demotivating?
2. Develop the concept and propose a technical solution to the problem (a) What effects would the solution have on future group work at school?
(b) How would the solution increase the students intrinsic motivation for working in groups?
1.2 Tieto
This thesis was conducted in collaboration with Tieto1, a software- and busi- ness company originally from Scandinavia. They are active in 3000 projects that belong to many domains, for example telecom, finance, forest industry, public health care, welfare and education. One of their current projects within education is Future Classroom, which has been the base and inspiration for the topic of this project.
1Tieto, accessed 2019-02-12,www.tieto.com/.
1.3 Approach
This project has been divided into two phases (see Figure 1.1) to answer the objectives in this thesis. In the first phase the problem area is identified through a survey and then further defined during a workshop with high school stu- dents. The analysis of the results from these studies and findings from liter- ature resulted in a concept idea which was used for the second phase. The concept idea was further developed and tested during the second phase and finally resulted in a proposal of a concept to increase the motivation for group work at school.
Figure 1.1: An overview of the work. A literature study was conducted parallel to the two working phases where the problem was defined and a concept was developed.
The rest of this thesis is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 delivers the relevant theory found in literature,
Chapter 3-4 explains the research methodology, shows and analyzes the results according to the objectives in the first- and second phase,
Chapter 5 discusses the project and
Chapter 6 summarizes the project and draws the conclusions.
Theory
This chapter summarizes the findings from a literature study which were con- sidered relevant for the understanding of this report. The study was made parallel to the working phases (see Figure 2.1), and therefore this section has been updated and elaborated throughout the process. The literature consisted mainly of books and articles about motivation, learning, performance and suc- cessful group work.
Figure 2.1: Literature studies were made parallel to the two phases of work.
5
2.1 Motivation
In the Cambridge Dictionary [3] motivation is defined as the “willingness to do something, or something that causes such willingness”. In other words, moti- vation is required for someone in order to do a specific task, or just get work done. In the developed society of today people often talk about two different types of motivation [15] [17]: intrinsic- and extrinsic motivation.
2.1.1 Extrinsic motivation
Motivating a certain performance extrinsically means motivating through out- side factors. In a model called "carrots and sticks" good performance is re- warded and bad performance is punished [15]. Rewarding good performance is a model often found in business, where the companies offer a bonus for doing extraordinary job or increase their salary when staying loyal to the com- pany for a long time. Another example of rewards could be prizes in a compe- tition, or candy as a reward for good behaviour. Punishing bad performance could be grounding children for unacceptable behaviour.
2.1.2 Intrinsic motivation
The intrinsic motivation presumes that humans have a third drive, which not only is to survive or earning rewards and avoiding punishments. But rather an inner drive to learn, create and make the world a better place [15]. Intrinsic motivation to perform a task means that a person is motivated by themselves to do it, without being forced by someone else. The following three elements have been found to enhance intrinsic motivation: autonomy, mastery and pur- pose [15].
Autonomy
We have a need for self-direction and to being able to govern our own lives and organize our activities. To experiment with increased autonomy, a results-
only work environments (ROWE) has been introduced on Meddius, which is a company developing computer software and hardware. As a result of this, the stress level at the company declined at the same time as the productivity rose [16].
Mastery
We urge to improve on things that matter. When working on meaningful tasks that are challenging but still within reach, a person might sometimes through sustained effort and concentration reach a state called flow [2]. In this state fo- cus is heightened, time flies by quickly and nothing but the task at hand seems to matter.
Purpose
We want to do things for a higher purpose. For example Skype was a successful product, developed because the founder wanted to make it easier to connect with people from all over the world. Open source products are also a great example of things made for a purpose and not only to get paid your salary for doing the work you are supposed to do.
2.1.3 Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic motivation
The intrinsic motivation is preferred over the extrinsic motivation [10], but de- pending on the situation the line between these two kinds of motivation can either be crystal clear or very hard to define. It might be challenging to mo- tivate a person who completely lacks intrinsic motivation, without adding ex- trinsic motivators such as rewards or punishments.
Three statements by Kohl [10] show that rewards may not only be ineffective motivators, but also decrease the actual motivation to learn:
1. “Young children don’t need to be rewarded to learn”
2. “At any age, rewards are less effective than intrinsic motivation for pro- moting effective learning”
3. “Rewards for learning undermine intrinsic motivation”
2.2 Group work
While working in groups there are a certain roles that has to be filled. One per- son can play multiple roles within the group, and the roles may develop during the time of work. Through studies Hector-Taylor [9] has identified eight roles needed to succeed with group work, these roles include someone to:
• coordinate meetings and make sure that everyone’s opinions are heard
• direct the solution to the actual problem
• come up with creative and new-thinking ideas
• find weaknesses in arguments
• bring outside knowledge to group
• convert ideas into manageable tasks
• ensure good teamwork within the group
• check the details of the work
Depending on a person’s personality type one might take on a certain role dur- ing group work more naturally than another.
Phase 1: Problem definition
This phase fulfills the first objective, to define a problem area in the Swedish high school, which is done in two steps (see Figure 3.1). First a survey was conducted to find a problem area, connected to the high school students mo- tivation for learning, and then a workshop was performed to further define the problem. The analysis in this phase resulted in a concept idea which was brought to the second phase.
Figure 3.1: In the first phase a problem area was defined through a survey and workshop. The analysis resulted in a concept idea.
9
3.1 Method (Phase 1)
A survey was conducted to create an overview of how the students experience their school situation today. The results were analyzed in order to identify a problem area at school. During a student workshop three problems that occur during group work at school were identified. These problems, considered to be the three most demotivating things to working in groups at school, will be described as results later in the chapter.
3.1.1 Survey
An initial survey was conducted in order to identify possible problem areas at school and create an overview of how students experience the Swedish high school today. Within the target group of students at college preparatory pro- grams in Sweden 139 students answered the survey. The students were reached with the help of teachers working at high schools in Umeå.
The questionnaire was made as a quantitative online survey with Google Forms1, which is a free and responsive online form which makes it easy to collect and analyze data through surveys. During the development of this form the re- spondents were in focus, to avoid common mistakes. According to Fowler [7]
there are four general reasons to why respondents answer a question “less than perfect” from the researchers point of view. These reasons could either be that they do not understand the question, they lack knowledge of the answer, they have a hard time recalling the answer even though they actually know it or that they do not want to report the answer in this context.
In order to simplify the participation, and thus allow for more and better re- sults, this survey was made mostly out of close-ended questions or questions answered on a scale. To maintain the focus on the content and not risking a feeling of performance anxiety of making a mistake because of the language barrier this survey was conducted in Swedish, the native language of the target group. In the introduction of the survey the students were given an explana- tion of how to fill out the form for the best results of the study.
1Google forms, accessed 2019-04-02,www.google.com/forms/about/.
In the first part of the survey some general questions were asked to collect de- mographic data of the respondents. All these questions (apart from the year of birth) were offering pre-defined answers with radio buttons to make the filling in both faster and easier for the participants. In case the students could not find a suitable option to a question, or were not willing to answer it, “other”
could be chosen. This part of the survey required very little thinking capac- ity and was therefore placed first in the survey to give the responder a feeling of getting somewhere right away and warming up before the more important questions.
The second part of the survey consisted of questions with focus on how much the students like different things at school, both for learning and examination and how much of their leisure time they spend on various things. The respon- ders were asked to answer each question by rating the answer on a likert scale [5]. This survey used a “forced-choice” scale with four options to each question (1-4), where option 1 stands for “not at all” and 4 stands for “a lot”. By using an even numbered scale in the survey the students have to think the questions through and take a stand before answering instead of answering all the ques- tions neutrally. This kind of scale is also used in the yearly survey about stress as a result of school work [6] made by Folkhälsomyndigheten or “the Public Health Agency of Sweden”, which is responsible for the national health.
In the third and final part of the survey the students were asked open-ended questions. These questions were not mandatory for submitting the form, which was a deliberate choice to reduce the amount of text added to fill out a manda- tory field or students not submitting any answers to the survey at all because they do not have an answer to these questions. This also made the total time of answering the form shorter, which was important to make it possible for more students to have the time to respond to the survey. The questions to the survey are found in appendix A.1.
3.1.2 Student workshop
A workshop, with the goal to gain further insight into the target group, and the problem they experience during group work at school, was performed in a class of first-year students from the technical program at Minervaskolan, a
high school in Umeå. This workshop consisted of two parts: the first part with the focus on identifying the biggest problems that occur during group work, that makes students unmotivated to working in groups, and the second part to generate ideas of how to solve the problems that were identified in the first part of the workshop.
The idea agent [13] was a great inspiration while planning the workshop, but due to the limited time of the workshop some of the chosen methods had to be adapted to consume less time in order to fit into the tight schedule. After preparing the workshop a trial run was performed to test the chosen methods on people without earlier knowledge about these methods. Unfortunately the persons participating in the trial run did not belong to the target group of this project, which is considered as a limitation. The trial run was structured as a shortened version of the workshop, and the results received there were noted and later brought to the actual workshop as possible answers, to help out in case the students do not come up with anything on their own.
Defining the problem
Brainstorming was used to identify the problems that occur during group work at school. It was performed in full class, and the ideas were written on a white- board as they were mentioned. The purpose of this exercise was introduced to the students along with some basic guidelines to brainstorming.
The students were asked a few non-leading help questions when they no longer came up with anything on their own. These questions were prepared prior to the workshop, for example “Is it something during group work that makes you irritated?” and “What is the biggest challenge when working in group at school?”. After the non-leading questions had been asked a problems identi- fied during the trial run, which had not already been mentioned, were lifted in case they do consider it a problem during group work but only did not think of it at the moment. They were questioned if they also consider it a prob- lem.
Similar problems were combined and sorted in clusters before finding out which ones were considered the most problematic among the students and lead to unmotivation for group work. A selection method inspired by “Three dots”
[13] was used to identify the problems. The alternatives were read through twice. During first round the students were asked to think of the two things they consider most problematic and in the second round they were asked to raise their hand when these two problems were mentioned, so the votes could be counted. The three problems which received the highest amount of votes were considered the biggest problems with group work at school, according to the students.
Generating ideas of possible solutions
The goal of the second part of the workshop was to generate ideas of how to solve the three problems with group work that had been identified in the first part of the workshop. To warm up the minds of the students before the idea generation an exercise called “random word association” [13] was performed.
The warm-up exercise was held in full class and started by a random word said by one person in the class, and the next person would say any word that they associate with that word. This continued by people associating to the new word. After about half of the students, randomly chosen, had said an associ- ated word, the exercise was stopped and the last said word was pointed out as the final word. The participants were asked to think about the final word and how it can be used for the task of improving motivation at school for a minute, and then an open discussion was performed for the students to inspire each other and build on the ideas.
For the actual idea generation the students were introduced to a brainwriting exercise [11], where the idea is to write your mind. This exercise was inspired by “6-3-5” with the purpose of generating multiple ideas fast, and allow every- one in the group the same opportunities of getting their voice heard [13]. The exercise had to be adapted for the tight schedule of the workshop, and there- fore the students were divided into groups of 5 people (one group 6), and they had 3 and a half minutes each round to work on 2 ideas instead of 5 minutes to work on 3. For this exercise each student was handed a paper template (see Figure 3.2) which had been designed and printed on a3 papers prior to the workshop.
They were allowed to choose from the three problems with group work iden-
Figure 3.2: For each time-slot the students were writing on two ideas, A and B. In the first run they came up with ideas of how to solve a problem, after that the papers were passed around within the group for the other students to elaborate the ideas. When the students received the papers with their own ideas they summarized them.
tified in the first part of the workshop and then individually wrote down two different ideas of how to solve them at the first row, one idea in each column. It could either be two different solutions for the same problem or for two differ- ent problems. When the time was up the paper was passed to the next person in the group, who extended the ideas on the next row. This was repeated until each person had received the paper they started with, and then a last round was performed so the students could read through the ideas their group mem- bers had added to their initial ideas, and summarize and/or elaborate even further. At the end of the workshop the students were given 20 minutes to dis- cuss the ideas within the groups and find a solution to present for the rest of the class.
The papers from the idea generation session of the workshop were collected for additional analysis after the end of the workshop. The ideas were summa- rized and clustered on whiteboards, inspired by the affinity diagram method [12], to give an overview of the student ideas.
3.2 Results (Phase 1)
This section summarizes the results from the initial survey and student work- shop performed in the first phase.
3.2.1 Survey results
A total amount of 139 answers were recorded to the survey, but two of them were discarded before the analysis because they were undoubtedly not serious in their answers.
The survey was answered by students from 3 different programs, where the representation of students from the natural sciences program was about 64%, compared to 23% from social sciences and 14% from economics (see Figure 3.3). It was almost double the amount of first-year students compared to third years, and second year students were in between (see Figure 3.4). The gen- der representation among the participants to this survey were quite equal (see Figure 3.5), with 52% of the persons that identify themselves as male, 47% as fe- male and 1% that does not identify themselves either as male or female.
One of the questions in the survey was how much the participants liked a couple of different learning methods, for example PowerPoint presentations, group work, individual work and watching movies/videos. Based on the 137 answers to this question a difference was identified in how much the students like group work compared to individual work. The middle values were within the difference of a few percentages (see Figure 3.6), but looking at the amount of students who like it “a lot” and “not at all” it shows that group work is con- sidered to be less attractive than individual work. While 20% of the students in the survey ranked group work as something they do not like at all only 4%
ranked individual work the same. 27%, more than one fourth of the students ranked individual work as a learning method they like a lot, but only 12% an- swered the same about group work. PowerPoint lectures are something most students in this study consider quite neutral, where the amount of students liking it “somewhat” and “quite much” is very similar. Comparing PowerPoint lectures to group work we see that the group work is considered “not at all”
Figure 3.3: The program of the respondents
Figure 3.4: The year of studies of the respondents
Figure 3.5: The gender of the respondents
liked by more than double the amount of students in the survey, compared to the PowerPoint lectures.
In the last section of the workshop the students were asked a few open-ended questions, that were not mandatory. To the question if there is anything they want to spend more time on, compared to what they are doing today, answers were received from 39 students. Out of the students answering to this question 38% wanted to spend more time on school/homework, 21% on reading, 18%
on being with friends, 15% on training and 13% on working. It is worth men- tioning that this question did not require any answers connected to school or school work, but from the results the students might have been biased to think in that direction. One student said that she has a hard time doing the things she wanted after school when knowing there is work to do, and another one wanted to have time for more things, but there is not enough time. Another one wanted to spend more time doing homework to achieve high grades.
“I want to spend more time drawing, painting my nails and gam- ing, but I cannot do that in good conscience if I know there is a schoolwork assignment that has to be done.”
When asking what they consider the best with high school 123 answers were
Figure 3.6: How much they like learning methods
recorded. Out of these 40% think that the social aspects like friends and fel- lowship are the best thing, 17% the learning, 11% the freedom of choice and 11% mentioned “new things”, for example a new class, school etc.
Out of the 116 students who answered what the worst thing with high school is, 36% mentioned things like stress and performance anxiety, 16% to study and the amount of work, and 12% that the examinations is worst. One student explains that it sometimes feel like your whole future depends on how you per- form at school, which is really stressful.
3.2.2 Workshop results
According to the participants of the workshop the three biggest problems (in priority order) that decrease motivation for group work at school are:
Troublesome members of the group: a problem when people in the group are too quiet, too loud, too lazy, too bossy etc.
Uneven disposition of workload: a problem when there are members in the group that don’t do their share of the work.
Unfair grading of the work: a problem when the teacher grades all members of the group considering the end results, without taking the amount of work completed by each individual into the equation. This may result in some people receiving high grades even though they have been do- ing nothing, or the other way around so that someone who have worked really hard is not getting the deserved grade.
During the brainstorming the students also mentioned other things that they see as problems and demotivating to group work at school. For example stress and time pressure, a feeling of not being in control of the work and thereof not having the same responsibility for the work, which makes them less motivated of working in groups. The lack of punishment for people who are late or not contributing to the work was also seen as a problem to some students.
From idea generation at the second part of the workshop a lot of ideas about how to increase the motivation to group work at school. Some of the ideas were more similar than others, and it was two ideas that occurred multiple times during the presentations that were summarizing the ideas of each group in the exercise, these were:
Project log: keeping a log of how the work is proceeding, which is later used by the teacher to set individual grades according to what each student has accomplished during the work.
Feedback: giving feedback to the other students in the group of how well they think they had worked and contributed with the group work.
Some ideas, concerning the problem with troublesome members of the group, that came up during the brain-writing session were letting the students choose their own groups or to divide them into groups depending on certain aspects.
These groups could be formed of students who: think alike and have the same ideas, have performed at the same level at school, have the same drive and motivation for the work, have the same schedule or students who are able of working together. Another idea was to let the students decide for themselves, prior to the work, whether they want to participate in a group or work individ- ually and present their work to the class afterwards.
One suggestion of how to disposition the workload more evenly among the members of the group was by letting the teacher handing out specific respon-
sibilities to each member of the group.
One idea mentioned as a possible solution regarding the problem with unfair grading of the work was that the teacher should keep track of what every stu- dent is actually doing, to make sure that all members of the group are con- tributing evenly and are doing their share of the work.
3.3 Analysis (Phase 1)
This section analyzes the findings from the studies in the first phase, according to the first objective and the corresponding research questions.
3.3.1 Problem area
When analyzing the results from the survey and how much the students like different learning methods it was shown that 51% of the students do not like to play theatre or record a movie as a learning method. This would have been a clear winner of the problem area, but since this is not a part of the educational plan for high school it was decided to focus on another area. Whether these results depend on the fact that both playing theatre and recording movies in school require students working together, which may or may not affect the re- sults of how much the students like it, is not covered in the survey.
Friends and fellowship was mentioned as positive aspects of high school by many students, and was also rated as a very high factor motivating the stu- dents to attend school. A few times on the other hand it was mentioned neg- atively, for example “groupings” at school. One student who responded to the survey wanted the classes in high school to be divided depending on where the students come from, so they would have “at least one friend”. In the north of Sweden the population density is low, which may result in a large distance between where the students live, and it sounds like that might be a reason to why that particular student is experiencing loneliness at school.
Group work was mentioned multiple times in the open questions - both as something that would increase the motivation of school work and something
that should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately it is not mentioned in the survey why, and this makes us interested in why some people consider group work as demotivating while others ask for more. Is this solely because of dif- ferent personality types amongst the students or is it another reason behind this?
A decision was made to further investigate the problems of group work at school, which is one of the goals of high school and also very important for future work.
Being able to collaborate with others during group work at school is also stated as a requirement for high school in the curriculum, which made it an interest- ing topic since the opinions on group work seem to vary a lot from student to student.
3.3.2 Reasons for demotivation
All three problems identified as the biggest in group work - troublesome mem- bers of the group, uneven disposition of workload and unfair grading of the work - can all be linked to extrinsic motivation [15] for the schoolwork and misunderstandings of the other people and how they contribute to the work [4]. By understanding others and using the personality differences to the ad- vantage in the group instead of seeing it as a problem, people might be more motivated to participate and do their share of the work and also feel that their workload is less heavy, even though the same amount of work is completed within the group.
Troublesome members of the group was seen as the biggest problem with group work, according to the students attending the workshop. When students see others in the group as “incompetent” and “incapable of working in groups” it is not surprising that this is considered a big problem during group work at school. The question is why the students feel this way. Are some of the stu- dents deliberately not working during group work, or is the real problem in the eye of the beholder? In Erikson’s book “Surrounded by idiots” [4] he ex- plained how he felt surrounded by idiots when growing up, but after years of studies and an increased awareness of people he realized that this was not the actual case. People with different personality types act naturally in different ways, and instead of trying to force everyone to act the same we should take
advantage of each others strengths, which will be considered during the con- cept development.
Uneven disposition of workload was seen as another problem with group work.
The question is if this is considered a problem because some of the members in the group actually do not put in as much effort to the work as the other, or because they are working with different kinds of tasks? For a group work to be successful multiple roles have to be filled [9], and these roles may be easier to some people than other depending on their interest and personalities [4].
Maybe all students in the group are actually putting the same amount of effort to the work, but some of them are unfairly blamed to not contribute since they work and contribute in other ways? By letting people spend more time on the things they do best, or feel like doing, they may reach flow [2] which is a state where the time flies by and nothing else matters. The rest of the work could be divided on the group which would decrease the heavy workload experienced by each individual.
Unfair grading of the work was also seen as a problem according to the stu- dents. Are they focusing too much on the grades and performance [1] so they take the focus from the actual learning? Instead of competing against each other they could focus on the learning, and use their energy for working to- gether.
Since most students from the workshop consider other students as “incompe- tent” when working in group an assumption was made that it might be some- thing more behind this. A part of the actual problem might be that multiple students are not aware of how people with different personality types act and how they can use this as an advantage when working together. In group work there are multiple roles needed to be filled for a successful group work, and the natural behaviour of a person might suit one of the roles better than another.
If people are allowed to take a role that feels natural to them the work will most likely feel less burdensome. Persons with different personalities might not al- ways get along which may lead to inconvenience during group work, especially if the people are not aware of how different personality types act [4].
3.4 Discussion (Phase 1)
Many students mention stress in the survey, that the school work is too heavy or that the pace is too high in school. Others wanted to shorten the days, mak- ing them more intense to limit the mandatory time in school and allow time for visiting friends, playing sports or doing other activities after school. In the survey students also mentioned that they wanted a change of the grading sys- tem. Some specified that they wanted to lower the requirements for the higher grades, and reducing the pressure of achieving the highest grade in every sub- ject in order to get into medical school.
Group work was ranked as something the students like “not at all” in a much higher amount than for example individual work, but why? During a workshop the problems that a class of students experiences during group work was ana- lyzed, and the three biggest problems identified can all be linked to the grading of the work. What most of the participants were considering the biggest prob- lem related to group work at school was when some people do not work well in the group. This could be when a member of the group is too loud and mak- ing a lot of noise without it leading somewhere, too quiet and not sharing their opinions or taking a stand when needed, too bossy and not listening to others opinions, too lazy and not contributing to the work, always showing up too late or not showing up at all.
3.4.1 Concept idea
The two most common solutions presented by the students in the end of the workshop were to keep a project log during the work and to give feedback to the other members of the group. Both of these show a desire to express their feelings of how the work has proceeded, but for two different reasons.
The project log was supposed to work as a guide to help the teacher to grade the students fairly considering the amount of work they have done, thereby focusing on the grades and performance which is a form of extrinsic motiva- tion [1] [15]. Considering the fact that being in the performance zone, which is connected to extrinsic motivation, can hinder learning [1] and undermine the intrinsic motivation [10] this is not something to encourage since one of the
purposes of school is to develop the students knowledge and promote a life- long desire for learning [18]. Giving feedback to the others in the group may come from a desire of increasing the awareness of the work, and what can be improved for the current or future group work, depending on how and when it is given.
The idea is to design an application which can increase awareness among the students that people can contribute in different ways. Depending on the per- sonal strengths some tasks may be considered easier to complete than others, and this can be used as an advantage during group work since there are multi- ple roles needed within the group for a group work to be successful. To follow the students suggestions of evaluating the work, without unnecessary focus on grades, performance and extrinsic motivation, this will be done as an evalua- tion of the work according to the roles needed in group work.
3.4.2 Limitations
Apart from the chosen limitation of the target group to focus on college prepara- tory programs there were limitations of students reached with the survey since it was spread through teachers at high school. The teachers found to help with the distribution of the survey were earlier known by the researcher or people within the contact net, and therefore all students responding to the survey were attending a school in the environs of Umeå. The survey had to be de- signed to allow a quick filling-in, for the students to keep their focus through- out the survey and also to not be giving up before submitting it.
The survey was answered unseriously by some of the students, and because of that two of the 139 registered answers needed to be taken away before analyz- ing the results.
All participants in the workshop were first-year students at the technology pro- gram at a high school in Umeå. The class consisted of 21 students who partic- ipated in the workshop, only 5 of them were female. The participants of the trial run of the workshop did not belong to the actual target group, they were employees at the office of Tieto in Umeå. They did not have much knowledge either about the project or methods to be tested, and had also been working
for maximum 2 years after graduating from the University, which at least made them more similar to the target group than someone who had been working in the field for 20 years.
The workshop was performed on a class of first-year students at the techno- logical program at a high school in Umeå, which was within the target group, but in this class the students were mostly male students. Out of the 21 students who participated in the workshop, only 6 of them were female, which may have affected the results.
Because of the limited time for the workshop the exercises had to be adapted.
Phase 2: Concept development
This phase fulfills the second objective, to develop the concept and propose a technical solution to the problem (see Figure 4.1). A concept was designed from the concept idea of the first phase, which later was tested with users. The findings from this phase resulted in a proposed solution to the problem.
Figure 4.1: The second phase developed the concept idea which was later tested. This phase resulted in a proposal.
26
4.1 Method (Phase 2)
A concept was designed considering the literature and findings from the first phase of this study. The concept, which had two possible flows, was tested and evaluated through A/B user tests. The analysis of the test results led to a proposal of how technology can be used to help minimizing the problems that students experience during group work at school.
4.1.1 Concept design
The solution is supposed to focus on the roles needed for a successful group work [9], engaging the students in the evaluation by letting them evaluate the work what roles that has been filled in the group during the work, and by whom. To avoid the performance zone connected to grades [1] the people will not be rating how good they think people have been at various roles but rather evaluate the work by mapping the group members and the roles. The map- ping can be done in two different ways; either by focusing on one person at the time to select the roles filled by that particular person during the work (see Figure 4.2), or the opposite by focusing on one role and select the persons who have filled it (see Figure 4.3). These flows will be called A: Person-first and B:
Role-first.
4.1.2 User test
The tests were focused on how users experience the two different flows for the concept design, and what effect this kind of evaluation of the group work po- tentially could have on future group work at school. It was performed as a qualitative user test inspired by A/B-testing [12] where the participants tested both designs (in different order) and thereafter compared them, instead of let- ting them test one prototype each depending on what group they belong to, which requires a larger amount of participants.
The user test was prepared through developing the prototypes and running a pilot test. Observations made in the pilot test were considered and used to
Figure 4.2: Example of the person-first prototype (A)
Figure 4.3: Example of the role-first prototype (B)
adapt the test before running the test on a group of high school students. The results from the pilot test was used, therefore the tests are called Test 1 and Test 2 instead of pilot test and user test.
Prototypes
In order to test the concept and compare the two possible flows two prototypes were developed:
Prototype A is using the person-first flow for the evaluation. For each person in the group the user choose the roles that have been filled by this person during the work.
Prototype B is using the role-first flow for the evaluation. For each of the 8 roles found in successful group work there is a short description, and the user choose which persons in the group that have filled the role during the work.
The purpose of the test was to compare the different flows and what effect this kind of evaluation of the group work could (or could not) have on future group work. To avoid unnecessary focus on the design of the tested application lo- fi prototypes were used. The test prototypes were adapted between the pilot- and the user test, the differences will be described below.
Test 1 In the pilot test two printed paper prototypes (see Figure 4.2 and 4.3) were used. For these it was important that the participant only saw one
“screen” at the time during the test, since the user would not see more than that on the screen of a mobile phone when using the actual appli- cation.
Test 2 In the user test two prototypes created in Google Forms (see Figure 4.4 and 4.5) were used instead of the paper prototypes in order to test the two different flows for evaluating the group work. This adjustment was made to make it clickable and clearer for the user how the actual eval- uation should be conducted, for example in cases they were allowed to choose more than one option for each question. The questions, for ex- ample “What role or roles do you think have been filled by this person during the group work?”, were also added to the prototype instead of be- ing a part of the instructions of the test.
Figure 4.4: Example of the person-first prototype (A)
Procedure
The test was inspired by A/B-testing [12]. Each participant was testing both flows of evaluation, but half of the group starting with prototype A and the other half starting with prototype B. The participants were asked to “think aloud”
[14] during the test to facilitate the observations.
After introducing the participants to the test they were asked to fill in the pro- totype according to how they experienced their recent group work. Therefore it was preferred to run the test on a group of people that have recently been working together, to receive accurate results based on an actual group work.
No names were printed on the prototypes for the test, instead a cheat sheet was used in order to make sure that all participants referred to the same per- son as “Person 1”, “Person 2” etc, since it can be an important aspect while
Figure 4.5: Example of the role-first prototype (B)
Test 1
Participant Group Gender
Person 1 B male
Person 2 A female
Person 3 B female
Person 4 A female
Figure 4.6: Participants in test 1.
Test 2
Participant Group Gender
Person 1 A female
Person 2 A female
Person 3 B female
Person 4 B female
Figure 4.7: Participants in test 2.
analyzing the results. This choice was made both for the participants and the researcher, in order to make the test as “anonymous” as possible, without los- ing important information.
Participants
The participants in each test group were divided into two groups, depending on which prototype they were shown first. Group A was shown prototype A prior to prototype B, and group B the other way around.
Test 1 was performed on a group of four students from Umeå University (see Figure 4.6), that recently had been working together during a Hackathon.
Test 2 was performed on four high school students in the second grade at Midgårdsskolan (see Figure 4.7), which is a high school in Umeå.
4.2 Results (Phase 2)
This section summarizes the results from the second phase, where the concept idea was developed and tested. The collected data from the two tests of the prototypes is found in appendix C.2.
4.2.1 Test 1
The participants identified two different foci of the prototypes. The role-first prototype was said to be focusing more on evaluating the group work itself instead of “picking on one person” as someone described Prototype A: Person- first.
Two of the four participants in the pilot test preferred prototype B, with the role-first flow for the evaluation of the work, but only one preferred the person- first. The last one was not able to decide which one to prefer. Participants mentioned that it would be fun to get anonymous statistics of what the others think of your contribution to the work.
One of the participants in this test, person 4, mentioned that there had been no disagreements during the work. As a result of this no person was chosen to be the team player in the group, neither while testing the prototype A: person-first or B: role-first (see Figure 4.8 and 4.9)
A: person-first
When testing Prototype A: Person-first participants needed to look into the “in- formation” about the roles when filling in the person-first prototype in the test, since it only shows the name of the roles. One of the participants was unsure if it was okay to choose more than one role that had been filled by a person during the work.
Test 1 (A: Person-first)
From person 1 From person 2 From person 3 From person 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Koordinationsledare X X X X X
Ordningsvakt X X X X X X X X X
Idéspruta X X X X X X X X X X X X
Kritiker X X X X X X
Influencer X X X X X X X X X X
Praktiker X X X X X X X
Lagarbetare X X X X X X X X
Kvalitetssäkrare X X X X X X X X X
Figure 4.8: Data received in the first test of prototype A: person-first.
Test 1 (B: Role-first)
From person 1 From person 2 From person 3 From person 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Koordinationsledare X X X X X
Ordningsvakt X X X X X X X X X
Idéspruta X X X X X X X X X X
Kritiker X X X X X X
Influencer X X X X X X X X X X X
Praktiker X X X X X X X X
Lagarbetare X X X X X X
Kvalitetssäkrare X X X X X X X X X X X
Figure 4.9: Data received in the first test of prototype B: person-first.
B: role-first
When testing Prototype B: Role-first one of the participants did consequently choose only one person which had filled each role. One of the other partici- pants selected all four members on many roles.
4.2.2 Test 2
By performing this kind of evaluation of group work at school could give the effect that the school would get to know what the students think of group work,
or you get to see for yourself what roles you think you have filled, and what others think, which can be useful information for making a change before the next group work.
Two out of the four participants in the second test said they preferred proto- type B: role-first because it was clearer and felt easier. The other participants were not sure which one they would prefer. All four participants were positive towards the effect given by the evaluations.
A: person-first
Prototype A: Person-first was said to be a good and easy way of evaluating the group work by both participants in the second test, prior to testing prototype B. Participant 2.4 who had been testing prototype B first answered that this way was better, because it gives a clearer picture of what could have been done differently.
One participant who tested A as the second prototype needed to use the infor- mation of the roles when filling in the prototype. It was said to be annoying not being allowed to read the descriptions at the same time as looking at the evaluation screen at the prototype, but it did work.
The students had a tendency to choose only one role to each person while test- ing prototype A: person-first.
B: role-first
All four participants said that Prototype B: Role-first was either a good or in- teresting way of evaluating the group work on. It would probably improve the self-perception and work as a overview of the group.
“It gives an overall picture and therefore develop and could do dif- ferently in the next group work. Could probably work to improve.”
- Participant 2.4
4.3 Analysis (Phase 2)
This section analyzes the findings from the second phase, according to the sec- ond objective and the corresponding research questions.
4.3.1 Concept idea
In order to increase the intrinsic motivation for group work at school the focus needs to be distanced from extrinsic motivators, in this case grades, which of- ten decreases the intrinsic motivation and inner drive to work on a task [15].
We still want the work to matter and therefore we developed a concept to a technical product that evaluates the group effort and how well the students have worked together.
Looking at solutions to different aspects and phases of the group work, a de- cision was made to focus on the evaluation part. Students of today seem to be very focused on their grades and also it would also be easier to implement that in today’s school without changing too much on the teachers side, which is preferable since not all teachers seem to be up for a change in the educa- tion. There are tools like mentimeter1with the purpose of being used during presentations to increase the interaction with the students, which may not be used very often in school.
Evaluation flows
It is possible that the students think of the persons themselves instead of what role he or she actually took during the work, and to by mistake miss filling out a role or two, if the students were more of another role.
One student checked only one person to each role, and asked at the person- first if it was okay to check more than one role to each person. Was it unclear that this was allowed and a limitation of the prototypes - or just an interpreta- tion of the purpose behind the assignment?
1Mentimeter, accessed 2019-04-02,www.mentimeter.com/.
Effect on future group work
The students were positive to this concept of evaluating the group work ac- cording to the different roles. It was considered an interesting way and espe- cially the role-first flow can give an overall picture of the work. It would in- crease the awareness of the roles and how to work in a group.
Elements for intrinsic motivation
By evaluating group work according to this concept will adding another pur- pose to the group work, increase the awareness of how people can contribute in different ways, which may lead to allocation of the work more adapted to the strengths of the people in the group in future group work.
4.4 Discussion (Phase 2)
Is the purpose of high school to achieve the highest grades so that you can get into the best program at the best university, or is it a place needed for the fu- ture? By focusing too much on achieving the highest grades you may forget the purpose of why you are actually studying and the motivation will most likely only be extrinsic, which easily leads to stress and also less performance when needing cognitive skills for the work [15].
If the students’ motivation at school were more intrinsic instead of extrinsic their learning may increase [1] at the same time as the stress decreases.
4.4.1 Proposed solution
The proposed solution is an application which, for starters, will be used after a completed group work to evaluate a group that has worked together according to eight roles found in successful group work [9]. The evaluation flow will be role-first, since the focus is supposed to be on the group work itself, and how the students have worked together instead on trying to figure out the person- ality type of each and every one of them.
By performing this type of evaluation at school the students will have to think through the work in a new way. It would probably increase the awareness that more than one role is needed for the work, adding a new purpose for future group work which is one of the elements for intrinsic motivation [15]. By fo- cusing on how to work as a group instead of only be stressing out focusing on the results which will lead to a certain grade there is a better chance to avoid the performance zone and instead learn new things easier [1].
It is important to make the application accessible and it will therefore be devel- oped as a web application which is platform-independent. Allowing the stu- dents quick and easy access through their smartphone it should be designed for mobile usage, but of course responsive and with good user experience on larger screens like a laptop as well. If the app is downloaded on the device it should be possible to do the evaluation without internet connection, as long as it is updated for the group. It should also follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) [8] since these guidelines are designed to ensure that the content is accessible to users with disabilities.
4.4.2 Limitations
Finding participants within the target group that had recently performed group work at school was difficult, and because of the limited time it was not an op- tion to perform a shorter group work as a part of the test. Instead a group of students from the university was found to participate in the first test. They had recently participated in a Hackathon, where they for a limited time worked on a case as a team, and at the end presented their solutions for the other teams.
Since this is a kind of group work which had been performed recently it was le- git to use them for the pilot test even though they are not in high school.
During the conduction of the second test it did occur that the participants had not been working together in a group work recently, so they had to make the group work up for the evaluation of what roles had been filled. This is a clear limitation to the test of the prototypes for the evaluations and therefore the results need to be treated in accordance. However, since they did belong to the target group aspects about the cognitive demands and mental models of the test users are still relevant.
Concluding discussion
Many students in today’s high school are stressed and seem to be more focused on achieving good grades than actually developing their knowledge and learn- ing new things which is supposed to be one of the main purposes of school [18]. This might be a result of the applied grading system, making the stu- dents extrinsically motivated by the grades instead of intrinsically motivated and seeing the purpose of a gained knowledge and helping each other instead of competing against each other.
Group work was something that raised vary mixed feelings among the stu- dents, and according to the participants in the workshop the three most prob- lematic and demotivating things with group work is: troublesome members of the group, uneven disposition of workload and unfair grading of the work. All of these could be linked to the extrinsic motivation and grades, in combina- tion with lacking awareness of the personality types and the fact that people can contribute in different ways, and that many roles needs to be covered in a successful group work [9].
Something which may or may not be clear about the group work in school is that the collaboration itself is very important, and not only the end result.
Some students might think that they could’ve produced a better end result by themselves if they don’t have to work with other students that are only "trou- ble". But instead of getting stuck alone in a performance zone, which can ac- tually hinder the learning[1], they can learn new things by working together in
39
a group and making use of the different perspectives, knowledge and earlier experience from each person.
In order to make the students reflect on the group work in a new way, and in- crease the awareness of the roles needed during a group work, the students can perform a evaluation after a completed group work which is focusing on the roles that has been taken on during the project. To make this evalua- tion focused on the collaboration and project itself, instead of each individual, the evaluation should be "role-based" and not "person-based". This means that during the mapping between roles and group members the role will be explained, and for each role the person(s) who fulfilled this role will be se- lected.
During the role-based evaluation all roles will be seen, and for the next group work the students will most likely have a better understanding on the oppor- tunities of working in a group. If the group is collaborating and working as a team each person would be able to focus more on what comes natural to them, which would decrease the individual burden at the same time as the outcome of the project would be even better.
Summary & Conclusions
This chapter summarizes the findings and draws the conclusions of this project, which has been divided in two phases to fulfill the objectives and answer the corresponding research questions.
6.1 Phase 1: Define problem
This phase fulfilled the first objective Define a problem area in the Swedish high school, and answered the research questions What is a significant problem area in the Swedish high school? and What are the main reasons why students con- sider the identified problem as demotivating?.
Through the analysis of a survey, which had been conducted and answered by nearly 140 high school students in Umeå, group work was identified as a prob- lem area connected to the students’ motivation for learning at school.
A workshop was performed with a group of students to further investigate the problem. According to the participants in the workshop troublesome mem- bers of the group, uneven disposition of workload and unfair grading of the work were identified as the three most demotivating and problematic aspects of group work at high school. Giving feedback to the other members of the group and keeping a project log, which can be used by teachers when grading
41
the students, were the two most popular ideas generated in the workshop to solve one or many of these problems with group work in high school.
The concept idea, which emerged during the analysis of the problems and sug- gested solutions, was to increase the students’ awareness of how people can contribute to a group work in many different ways. This was supposed to be made through an evaluation of the roles filled during the work.
6.2 Phase 2: Develop concept
This phase fulfilled the second objective Develop the concept and propose a technical solution to the problem, and answered the research questions What effects would the solution have on future group work at school? and How would the solution increase the students intrinsic motivation for working in groups?.
When designing the concept two possible flows were found for evaluating the work according to the roles that had been filled. In this report they are called A: person-first and B: role-first.
The concept idea, as well as the differences between these flows, were tested for the purpose of evaluating group work in order to increase the awareness of the different roles needed and how people can contribute to group work in many ways. The user tests were performed on two groups of people, with four participants in each. All participants tested prototypes with both flows but in different order. Flow A: role-first, was preferred by the majority of the partici- pants and also found to be the more suitable option for this purpose.
The proposed solution for the problem with students unmotivated to group work is to engage the students in an analysis of the proceeded work through evaluating it according to the roles found in successful groups. The results from the evaluations will then be received as anonymous feedback given to each student within the group.
This solution is supposed to affect future group work by increasing the stu- dents awareness of how people contribute to the work in different ways, often depending on their personality types, all of them important for it to be suc- cessful.
This will add an extra purpose for working in group: by using the strengths found within the group the work can often be divided in a way that decreases the amount of “heavy” work for each individual, which is increasing the intrin- sic motivation.
6.3 Further Work
The proposed solution could be further developed by extending the applica- tion to use the roles and results from the evaluations when dividing students for the next group work at school. Apart from using the roles the application could let the students add their interest and/or time preferences which could be considered while grouping the students.
[1] Briceño, E. (2017). Learning and performance: how to help students get in the zone. [Online; posted 23-June-2017].
[2] Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2016). Flow : den optimala upplevelsens psykologi.
Natur & kultur, Stockholm.
[3] dictionary, C. (2019). Motivation in american english.
[4] Erikson, T. (2014). Omgiven av idioter: Hur man förstår dem som inte går att förstå. Hoi, Helsingborg, 1st edition.
[5] Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys : a step-by-step guide. SAGE Pub- lications, Los Angeles i.e. Thousand Oaks, Calif.
[6] Folkhälsomyndigheten (2016). Skolprestationer, skolstress och psykisk ohälsa bland tonåringar.
[7] Fowler, F. J. J. (2009). Survey research methods. Sage Publications, Thou- sand Oaks, CA, 4th edition.
[8] för digital förvaltning (DIGG), M. (2012). Webbdirektivet - översikt. [On- line; accessed 06-March-2019].
[9] Hector-Taylor, Matt & Bonsall, M. (1994). Successful study : a practical way to get a good degree. Hallamshire, Sheffield, 2. rev. edition.
[10] Kohn, A. (1999). Lures for learning: Why behavioriam doesn’t work in the classroom, chapter 8, pages 142–159. Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston, Mass.
44
