Understanding What Senior High School Students Say about
Group Work: Constructive or Destructive?
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Joe, Wayuni Elviana Dewi 112011025
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
i
Understanding What Senior High School Students Say about
Group Work: Constructive or Destructive?
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Joe, Wayuni Elviana Dewi 112011025
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
ii
Understanding What Senior High School Students Say about
Group Work: Constructive or Destructive?
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Joe, Wayuni Elviana Dewi
112011025
Approved by:
iii
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other person expect where due reference is made in the text.
Copyright@2015. Joe, Wayuni Elviana Dewi and Elisabet Titik Murtisari, M. TransStud., Ph.D
All right reserved. No part of this thesis may be produced by any means without permission of at least one of the copyright owner or the English Department, Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.
iv
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic community, I verify that:
Name : Joe, Wayuni Elviana Dewi
Student ID Number : 112011025
Study Program : English Teacher Education
Faculty : Faculty of Language and Literature Kind of Work : Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with non-exclusive royalty free right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
Understanding What Senior High School Students Say about Group Work: Constructive or Destructive?
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter, or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in: Salatiga Date:
Verified by signee,
Joe, Wayuni Elviana Dewi Approved by
Thesis Supervisor Thesis Examiner
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inside Cover Page ... i
Approval Page ... ii
Copyright Statement ... iii
Publication Agreement Declaration ... iv
Table of Contents ... v
List of Tables ... vii
List of Figures ... viii
Abstract ... 1
A. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1. Statement of the Problem ... 2
2. Significance of the Study ... 3
B. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 4
1. The Concept of Group Work ... 4
2. Meaning behind Perceptions ... 6
3. Perceived Advantages of Group Work... 8
4. Views Against Group work ... 9
5. Conditions for Successful Group Work ... 11
vi
b. Grading Policies ... 12
c. Task Complexity ... 13
C. THE STUDY ... 13
1. Research Question ... 13
2. The Aim of the Present Study ... 14
3. Participants ... 14
4. Instrumentation... 14
5. Data Collection Procedure ... 16
6. Data Analysis ... 17
D. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 19
1. Social or Interpersonal Aspect ... 19
2. Academic Aspect ... 26
3. Fairness ... 31
4. Conditions for Successful Group Work ... 35
E. CONCLUSION ... 41
F. ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... 44
G. REFERENCES... 45
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. The 4-Point Scale Intervals ... 18
Table 2. The Average Score of Items under the Social / Interpersonal Aspect ... 19
Table 3. The Average Score of Items under the Academic Aspect ... 26
Table 4. The Average Score of Items under Fairness ... 32
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Average Score of Items under Social / Interpersonal Aspect ... 20
Figure 2. The Frequency Distribution of Students‟ Perceptions toward Group Work under the Social / Interpersonal Aspect ... 22
Figure 3. The Average Score of Items under the Academic Aspect ... 27
Figure 4. The Frequency Distribution of Students‟ Perceptions toward Group Work under the Academic Aspect ... 28
Figure 5. The Average Score of Items under Fairness... 32
Figure 6. The Frequency Distribution of Students‟ Perceptions toward Group Work under Fairness ... 33
1
UNDERSTANDING WHAT SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS SAY ABOUT GROUP WORK: CONSTRUCTIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE?
Joe, Wayuni Elviana Dewi
Abstract
Group work has long been integrated to teaching procedure in schools due to its various benefits. However, the benefits have mainly been connected to enriching students with work skills, which will be appreciated in their prospective workplaces (Harvey et al., 1997). As a result, the focus of group work studies is often directed to university context only. Yet, in reality, group work is also done in almost all education levels, and that the conditions of university and other levels are distinctive. In this study, one-hundred-and-twenty twelfth graders of Satya Wacana Christian Senior High School, Salatiga, Indonesia, were asked to fill in questionnaires concerning their perceptions of group work, covering the aspects of social, academic, fairness, and conditions for successful group work. The results indicate that in general they supported that group work was beneficial in terms of their social and academic aspect. Students only expressed one concern on the social aspect, which was that too much time was wasted to talk than to work. In addition, concerns under fairness aspect on the unequal workload and the existence of freerider(s) were also stated. Lastly, the conditions of successful group work were revealed, covering 3 to 4 self-selected friends with different competency levels, the presence of teacher guidance, being done in school hours, and a peer assessment to control their performance.
Keywords: group work, group project, team work, perception, advantage, benefit, disadvantage, secondary, senior high school, cooperative learning.
A. INTRODUCTION
Common beliefs tend to often regard group work as the most effective learning
strategy to prepare students, especially university students, to embark on their future
career. This assumption is based on the idea that group work enables students to build
good communication skills among members (Mello, 1993) by exchanging ideas to form a
final decision to finish the given task. Some scholars even believe that this process of
2
problem solving, and leadership skills which are highly valued in the 21st century workplaces (Harvey et al., 1997). Strictly speaking, in the era where technology and
innovation take control, it cannot be avoided that only organizations with qualified
workers will possibly win the market. Since the claims are often aimed at preparing
students to be ideal employees or leaders, the higher education, especially universities,
are often pressed by these claims to include group work learning strategy into their
teaching procedure (Astin & Astin, 2000).
With the emergence of more concerns about the connection of tertiary education
and real-world setting, there has been a great deal of research studying about the
perceptions of university students toward the application of group work (Coers &
Lorensen, 2009; Colbeck et al., 2000; Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006; Walker, 2001). In
spite of this, however, there has been less research conducted to study about the students‟ perceptions of group work in the secondary education, which in this context, senior high
school level. This may be due to the fact that the secondary education is seen to be a little
far to reach the career as „real workers‟, i.e., it is not as close as the connection which the tertiary education can draw to the real working environments.
1. Statement of the Problem
In point of fact, the application of cooperative learning, an approach requiring
students to work in groups to finish a task, is not constrained to university classrooms
3
learning promotes higher achievement across all age levels, subject areas, and almost all
tasks” (p. 11). Basically, Grundman is saying that cooperative learning approach can be addressed to all levels of education with no restriction at all. A similar idea has also been
proposed by Slavin (1987) by emphasizing on the fact that group works “are now being used in every conceivable subject, from grade two through college level, and in all kinds
of schools throughout the world” (p. 10). In other words, Slavin believes that cooperative learning is considered very essential to be applied into learning practices, even when it
starts from the earlier ages of the students. These two ideas of Grundman and Slavin add
an important point that university should not be treated as the only important target level
of the group work perception studies.
In addition, given some findings that the application of group work in tertiary
education does not always result in students‟ attainment or in only positive perceptions (Burdett, 2003; Long & Porter, 1985), it is very imperative to also figure out how senior
high school students perceive group work as their learning strategy since the
circumstances in tertiary and secondary education are different in practice.
2. Significance of the Study
This research becomes very significant to conduct since there has been very little
research on how senior high school students perceive group work. Instead, much research
conducted in secondary contexts are still only restricted to studies about the effectiveness
4
Keramati, 2010; Topping et al., 2007). This condition is very contrast to tertiary contexts
where many perceptions‟ studies have been done due to the trend of group work‟s benefits in the future working environments (Astin & Astin, 2000; Hansen, 2006).
Therefore, this present study will help to provide some valuable understandings
on which aspects of group work are regarded as meaningful by the senior high school
students in their English classes. By considering the results, it is hoped that senior high
school teachers will be more aware of the impacts of group work on the learning
processes and how to maximize their benefits if any.
B. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. The Concept of Group Work
Without rejecting the achievements that the traditional approach has once
contributed in the history of teaching and learning in all over the world, an increasing
number of teachers have now started to include the cooperative learning approach in their
teaching technique. Therefore, it is noteworthy to firstly figure out what cooperative
learning basically means. Cooperative learning is basically understood as an approach
which requires students to work in groups rather than individually. Olsen and Kagan
(1992) add an important point that cooperative learning should involve the
interdependence of students to exchange information and to motivate each other in order
5
be found in the traditional teaching approach which only regards teachers as the center of
the learning and stresses competition over cooperation (Slavin, 1987).
Furthermore, Ettington and Camp (2002) define group work as “a graded assignment requiring students to work collaboratively across multiple class periods and
involving some time outside the normal class meeting” (p. 357). In other words, Ettington and Camp focus the concept of group work as a learning strategy that is related to grades,
as the achievement of the students, as well as periods, as the students‟ effort allocated to complete the given task.
While Ettington and Camp (2002) perceive group work in terms of grades and
periods, Davis (1993) describes it in terms of periods and kinds of task given by the
teacher. Davis (1993) with an adaptation from Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991)
categorizes three types of group work, namely “formal learning groups” (p. 147), “informal learning groups” (p. 147), and “study teams” (p. 147). Formal learning groups refer to the completion of a particular task in a given time which usually only lasts for
one class meeting up to several weeks at maximum. Meanwhile, informal learning groups
are aimed as a means for students to strengthen their understanding about a concept or
even help other friends to comprehend a theory in class. On the other hand, study teams
have a purpose on assigning the students to make a project or a more complicated task
6
have control, that is, when students are engaged in a group discussion in class, Ettington
and Camp (2002) stress that group work is an activity that can only happen if there are
grades which trigger it. Though I concede that Ettington and Camp‟s definition works in some contexts, I agree more with Davis‟ viewpoint that group work can also happen without the interference of grades from the teachers.
Recognizing that there are various definitions coming from different perspectives,
it is important to summarize the definition of group work used in the present paper. To
sum up, group work can be better defined as a learning strategy under cooperative
learning approach which requires students to work supportively with a number of peers,
in order to complete a particular type of task in a certain period of time, either with or
without the presence of grades as the controller (Davis, 1993; Olsen and Kagan, 1992;
Slavin, 1987).
2. Meaning behind Perceptions
Up to this point, the term „perception‟ has arisen a degree of confusion among different people. It is based on the idea that some people find it difficult to distinguish the
meaning of the term „perception‟ from „attitude‟ because they are somewhat connected to each other (Pickens, 2005). In other words, there are times when people tend to put the
7
Given this issue, it is very important to note that in this present paper, I will
follow the term „perception‟ proposed by Wolf (2013) that refers to “a conscious judgment on the part of the learner vis-à-vis evaluative dimensions of discussion topics” (p.54). To put it in another way, „perception‟ in the present study will only cover opinions that are explicitly written by the learners themselves. Hence, it should be distinguished
from „attitude‟ which also recognizes the behaviors – the way people act, and emotions – the way people express their feelings, in addition to the conscious thoughts of the learners
(Pickens, 2005).
Thus far, there has been also a great deal of research which reveals the importance
of conducting studies on perceptions of the students. It is basically due to the fact that
teachers often predict wrongly the preferred styles of the students in learning the
materials in class (Barkhuizen, 1998; Kumaravadivelu, 1991). Kumaradivelu (1991) even
states that “the more we know about the learner‟s personal approaches and personal concepts, the better and more productive our intervention will be” (p. 107). Basically, Kumaradivelu is saying that to know exactly the learning styles which work well with the
students, it is crucial to ask the students about the issue directly, rather than wasting time
to estimate only from the teacher‟s point of view, which in fact might fail to really meet the students‟ needs and desires. These disparities between teachers‟ and students‟ viewpoints of an activity often take place because they have different ways in
recognizing the goal of each assigned task (Block, 1994). Barkhuizen (1998) also
8
prefer to do, teachers can be one step ahead in preparing various additional activities for
facilitating a good learning.
Further support of the importance of perception studies can be found in a research
which has been conducted by Savignon and Wang (2003) in Taiwan. This study revealed
that while the teachers estimated their students to like grammar-based classes in learning
English, the fact showed inversely that the students preferred having
communication-based activities to grammar-communication-based ones. This study adds weight to the view that the
disparity between teachers and students can really happen in the actual teaching and
learning process if the teachers only accept their own viewpoints as the only contributing
factor of determining the tasks. Hence, it is worth pointing out that taking the students‟ perceptions into account when it comes to designing tasks is a very important thing to do.
3. Perceived Advantages of Group Work
Group work has long been confirmed to offer various social as well as educational
benefits for the students (Colbeck et al., 2000; Gillies, 2011; Slavin, 1987). Socially, the
use of group work in the classroom has been viewed as a learning strategy which capably
improves the communication skills among members (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Mello,
1993), the value of respecting others (Slavin, 1995), as well as the solidity in friendships
(Walker, 2001).
Meanwhile educationally, group work has also been proven to enhance critical
9
higher achievements on the grades if it is compared to individual learning (Boud et al.,
1999; Slavin, 1995). Moreover, this better achievement can also be sensed in the
language learning context since group work may not only improve the quantity of
students‟ interaction in using the target language, but also its quality (Long & Porter, 1985).
Additionally, the benefits of group work are not viewed as being only restricted to
the classroom achievement. Given the fact of the rapid global demand of qualified
workers, group work is also recognized as an effective way to build many work skills
such as team-work, leadership, social networking, problem solving, and among others,
which will be highly required in today‟s workplaces (Davis & Miller, 1996; Harvey et al., 1997). What is more, the fact indicates that the past two decades have become the
evidence of the rise of this group work trend (Hansen, 2006). Even, some scholars also
reveal that more than four-fifths of institutions have been proven to really make use of
group work in the real practice (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). This finding reinforces further
that the benefits of group work might be increasingly considered by lots of organizations
all over the world in these days.
4. Views Against Group work
Besides the benefits that group work offers, a lot of studies also find that the use
of group work can bring several new problems in the classroom. Most of the problems
10
the presence of members who do not really take part in the task, who are called as „free riders‟ (Boud, 2001), „passengers‟ (Bourner et al., 2001), „freeloaders‟ (Daly & Worrel, 1993), or „hitchhikers‟ (Oakley et al., 2004), but still gain the benefits of the mark (Mello, 1993); different schedules among members (Oakley et al., 2004); diverse orientation of
the final grades (Oakley et al., 2004), lack of leadership skills (Bolton, 1999); and also
lack of guidance from the tutors which causes ineffective working performance from the
group (Bolton, 1999).
In a set of similar studies in Asia for instance, while studies conducted by Iqbal
(2004) and Keramati (2010) in Iran as well as Zakaria et al. (2013) in Indonesia could
prove that group work was effective in promoting higher grades for the senior high
school students, a study led by Thanh et al. (2008) showed differently. In the study,
Thanh et al. tried to challenge the Western common assumption of the effectiveness of
group work by revealing some studies with various school levels in Asian context which
did not work. The findings showed that from 14 studies that had been selected and
reviewed carefully, 7 studies – 50% of them indicated that group work was not significant to enhance grades, or even ineffective to promote a better learning for the
primary, secondary, and tertiary students. Even, Thanh et al. argued that the finding was
enough to infer that group work principles “do [did] not suit the local [Asian] context in terms of both cultural values and infrastructure conditions, leading to rejections from
11
have long been claimed to exist in Western countries may not be effective for students in
Asia.
Another study conducted by Topping et al. (2007) in Scotland has also supported
the view that group work does not always result in positive outcomes. While in one
project they could show that group work was effective for the primary students, in
another project, they failed to prove the effectiveness of group work in improving the
grades of the secondary students. This result indicates further that the benefits of group
work may be uncertain and inconsistent to appear as the effective way to enhance
students‟ attainment.
5. Conditions for Successful Group Work
The factors which might play important roles in determining whether group work
is successful or not are basically related to group formation, grading policies, and also
task complexity (Fiechtner & Davis as cited in Falchikov, 2001; Oakley et al., 2004).
a. Group Formation
According to Oakley et al. (2004), group formation usually covers aspects such as
who becomes the decision maker for the group choice – teacher or student, the number of students involved in a group, and the proficiency level of the students. They view that an
ideal group formation covers three up to five students with varied competence levels who
are carefully selected by the teacher. If students are allowed to choose their own group,
12
the remaining less-competent students, with no other choice, have to be united in other
groups. This condition, they claim, will not give beneficial impacts for the skill
development of their students. They reveal that more-competent students tend to only
divide a task into individual responsibilities without discussing the task beforehand, while
less-competent students tend to do the task in a meaningless way. On the other hand,
Oakley et al. believe that if the teacher can take a part in forming the so-called ideal
group, less-competent students can get learning benefits from more-competent students,
and the stronger students can also benefit in comprehending the material better by
tutoring the less-competent students.
b. Grading Policies
Regarding grading policies, Oakley et al. (2004) insist to use peer ratings, as also
known as peer assessments, to encourage each member to work harder for the group
assignment. According to them, there are two common styles in using peer ratings. The
first is academic-related, which is about the final product of the task or project, while the
second one concerns about the social contribution among members. From these two
styles, Oakley et al. favor the second style over the first for a number of reasons. They
claim that the first style will consent only more-competent students who tend to
contribute the most ideas on the task. Realizing this, Oakley et al. find that weaker
students may feel dejected to work harder since they may think their ideas will not be
counted in the peer ratings process. Meanwhile, by applying the second-style peer
13
more supportively to develop the target task since it is the social contribution which is
reckoned more. In addition, Fiechtner and Davis (as cited in Falchikov, 2010) also insist
that good peer ratings should be worth 21% up to 40% of the total grade of the
assignment.
c. Task Complexity
According to Fiechtner and Davis (as cited in Falchikov, 2010), the activities
assigned in class should be sufficient to give each group chances to improve the solidity
level within a group. In achieving this aim, however, they also recommend teachers not
to assign too many activities at the same time. Besides, teachers should also ensure that
the activities given are varied, related to course objectives, and also able to allow an
adequate amount of time for in-class group work.
As a final point, although the results of the studies might vary from other similar
studies, it is worth noting that these factors may be very significant to be taken into
account when teachers assign their students to work in groups.
C. THE STUDY
1. Research Question
This study tried to answer the following questions:
14
How do they perceive certain conditions for successful group work?
2. The Aim of the Present Study
The current study intended to identify senior high school students‟ perceptions toward the advantages and disadvantages of group work applied in their English
classroom, as well as to find out kinds of conditions influencing the way they perceived
group work as either successful or not.
3. Participants
At Satya Wacana Christian Senior High School, Salatiga, Indonesia, 120 twelfth
graders around 15-19 years old became the respondents of this study. The twelfth graders
were chosen since plausibly they had more experience in working in groups rather than
both the eleventh and tenth graders due to the longer time they devoted to study at school.
Therefore, it was hoped that the twelfth graders were able to make meaning of the group
work experience that they had, much better than other lower-grade students in the school.
4. Instrumentation
A set of questions in the form of a questionnaire was administered to 120 twelfth
graders for this study. The respondents were required to give their perceptions by
responding to 22 questions. These questions were written in Indonesian instead of
English to help the respondents to better understand the meaning of each statement, with
15
The first part of the questionnaire presented a short introduction, covering my
identity, the purpose of the study, and also a promise to keep the respondents‟ identity as confidential. Still in this part, 21 close-ended items in the form of a Likert scale and 1
regular close-ended item were presented. These items were implicitly categorized under 4
themes, namely social, academic, and fairness aspects, as well as conditions for
successful group work. This categorization was done to assist me to obtain more
organized data to be analyzed later on.
The second part asked for the demographical information of the students,
including their age, gender, length of studying English, as well as length of experiencing
group work learning strategy in the school. Furthermore, the last part questioned about
the optional information on the respondents‟ name and phone number. This information could be later used as a way to have some personal communications with some
respondents if there were parts needed to figure out more.
As discussed earlier, a Likert scale was used. As Likert (1932) points out, to use a
Likert scale, the researcher has to present a set of statements along with the space for the
respondents‟ judgments, ranging from extremely positive to negative ones. Following this model, I designed a series of statements related to the advantages and disadvantages of
group work derived from the previous studies and some informal conversations with
several twelfth graders. In each statement, I provided spaces for each statement in the
form of a table to ease the respondents to respond, regarding to what extent they agreed
16
In this study, I used an even-number Likert scale since I believed that the use of
an odd-number scale would enlarge the unreliability level of the data due to the
inclination of the respondents to select the middle options (Cronbach, 1950). Responding
to this, I applied a 4-point scale in the study, ranging from strongly agree, agree, disagree,
and strongly disagree. In that way, it was hoped that the respondents were triggered to
think more critically before judging the available options for each statement.
5. Data Collection Procedure
Data collection took place during the second semester of the academic session
2014/2015. Before the real data were collected, I piloted the questionnaires to one class
of the eleventh graders instead of the twelfth graders, with the aim of being able to
generalize the results of my study for the twelfth graders, as my real participants. The
results of the piloting were very useful to give me some clues on which items in the
questionnaires were still confusing or even unclear for the respondents.
After having the final version of the questionnaire items, I met two English
teachers who were responsible for teaching the twelfth graders to get the permission in
distributing the questionnaire sheets to the students. In personal meetings with each
teacher, I arranged schedules to decide what class and time I was allowed to enter each
target class.
In entering each target class, I introduced myself and explained the purpose of the
17
questionnaire would not affect the students‟ grades and that they felt free to ask questions if there were unclear items. Afterwards, I distributed the sheets and pens, and also asked
them to fill in the sheets honestly. As a token of appreciation, I stated in advance that
they could take the pens as their own. Thus, it was hoped that they could even be more
motivated in filling out each questionnaire item more carefully.
6. Data Analysis
To analyze the data, firstly I input all the responses which had been coded
accordingly, i.e. positive statements toward group work were set as: „4‟ for „strongly agree‟, „3‟ for „agree‟, „2‟ for „disagree‟, and „1‟ for „strongly disagree‟; while negative ones were coded reversely along these lines: „4‟ for „strongly disagree‟, „3‟ for „disagree‟, „2‟ for „agree‟, and „1‟ for „strongly agree‟. I later used the codes to obtain the average score of each item. Based on the scoring method used, it could be simply inferred that the
higher the average score, the more positive the perceptions of the students toward group
work. Yet, to evaluate the general responses better, I adapted the 4-point scale intervals
18 Table 1.
The 4-Point Scale Intervals
Average score interval Perception towards group work
1.00 – 1.75 Strongly negative
1.76 – 2.50 Negative
2.51 – 3.25 Positive
3.26 – 4.00 Strongly positive
After inputting the codes and getting the average scores, I grouped the responses
under each theme (social, academic, and fairness aspects, and also conditions for
successful group work). In each theme, a table and a chart presenting the average scores
of the items was displayed to show the readers in general about the results of the study. In
addition, a figure of the frequency distribution of the items was also presented to really
understand the percentage sharing of each response. By referring to the figures, it was
easier for me to figure out which statements were more positively or negatively perceived
by the respondents. Then, I also discussed the data of each theme in relation to my
19
D. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
As mentioned before, the results of the study were categorized under 4 big
themes, namely social or interpersonal aspect, academic aspect, fairness, and conditions
for successful group work.
1. Social or Interpersonal Aspect
This theme is basically related to the way students socialize or build rapport with
other members in their group. Table 2 shows in general how the twelfth graders of Satya
Wacana Senior High School perceived the advantages and disadvantages of group work,
in terms of their relationship with other friends while working in a group. Note that
negative statements (see Question 4, 5, 6) were reversely coded, meaning that the higher
the average score, the better the students perceived group work.
Table 2.
The Average Score of Items under the Social / Interpersonal Aspect
Question no. Item Average
Question 1 I can get to know friends better through group work. 3.37
Question 2 Through group work, my communication skills become
better.
3.34
Question 3 Through group work, I can learn to respect others‟ opinions.
20
Question no. Item Average
Question 4 I often feel alienated by dominant friends in my group. 2.93
Question 5 In group work, more time is wasted to talk than to work. 1.96
Question 6 I often argue with other group members because our
working styles are different.
2.57
Question 7 Through group work, my leadership skills can be more
developed.
3.06
To more easily recognize the order of items from the highest to lowest average
score, I will sort these items into a chart (Figure 1):
Figure 1.
The Average Score of Items under Social / Interpersonal Aspect (sorted from the highest to the lowest)
21
The data in Figure 1 show in general that all the positive statements presented
under this aspect (Question 1, 2, 3, 7) tended to be positively accepted by the students.
These items constitutes the highest four average scores (see Figure 1) and could be
regarded as students‟ confirmations of the benefits of group work, i.e. being able to respect others‟ opinions (3.48), get to know friends better (3.37), improve communication skills (3.34), and also develop leadership skills (3.06).
Additionally, in Figure 1, despite their negative statements, Question 4 and 6 also
appear with means of 2.93 and 2.57 respectively, indicating that a larger number of
students regarded group work as more positive since it did not make them feel alienated
and did not make them argue with other members. Thus, it is clear that only Question 5
with a mean of 1.96 verifies students‟ negative perception toward group work, which concerns about more of the time wasted to talk rather to work.
Since Figure 1 can only show students‟ perception toward group work in general, the frequency distribution of each response becomes vital to be presented in Figure 2 to
see the details of each item, including whether or not each item shows a significant
22 Figure 2.
The Frequency Distribution ofStudents’ Perceptions toward Group Work under the Social / Interpersonal Aspect
The data in Figure 2 clearly illustrate that the most valuable benefit in group work
in relation to the social aspect was about learning to respect other friends‟ opinions (Question 3). The result indicates that almost all of the students (99.2%) expressed their
„strong agreement‟ (55.1%) or „agreement‟ (44.1%) that they could learn to appreciate various and different ideas from other group members through group work. In the words
23
including contributing and listening to many different ideas for the development of the
task itself.
The second place of this rank was occupied by the benefit regarding the
improvement of the students‟ communication skills (Question 2). The data in Figure 2 indicate that nearly all the students (98.3%) either „strongly agreed‟ (35.8%) or „agreed‟ (62.5%) towards this benefit. As said by Long and Porter (1985), unlike a regular class
session, group work will provide students more chances to communicate with their peers
during the discussion time. With more chances to communicate, it can be implied that
their possibility to form better communication skills can be greater as well.
Another advantage that a huge number of students (96.6%) deemed as the third
most useful benefit was related to getting to know their friends better (Question 1). The
data show that the responses of „agree‟ (55.8%) and also „strongly agree‟ (40.8%) really dominated this item. The idea of „friendship‟ corroborates Slavin‟s (1987) belief who said that “cooperation almost always increases positive, intimate contact between individuals – a condition that leads to the formation of friendships” (p. 11). Basically, Slavin is saying that group work can actually offer good opportunities for each student to
understand one another much better since the chances to meet and communicate in group
work will be much more than those in the traditional teaching approach.
Furthermore, the subsequent data in Figure 2 indicate that 87.5% of the students
24
Murtisari‟s (2015)1 experience, claiming that students basically could learn to assume responsibilities as they truly worked according to their own roles in the group. That is to
say, Murtisari emphasized that leadership skills were not necessarily practiced through
the role of a leader only, since all roles did matter to enable students to improve their
leadership skills. For that reason, group work may be a good teaching technique to train
students to commit to their own duties.
The next data in Figure 2 demonstrate that a huge number of students (80.7%)
either „disagreed‟ (63.9%) or „strongly disagreed‟ (16.8%) with the statement that they often felt alienated by their friends in their group (Question 4). This finding contradicts
the statement of Börjesson et al. (as cited in Hall & Buzwell, 2012) claiming that some
dominant members will usually disregard a member whose ideas are not helpful for the
task assigned. In other words, it can be implied that the majority of the twelfth graders in
Satya Wacana Senior High School perceived group work as more positive within this
aspect. Aside from this, however, it is worth pointing out that around one-fifth of the
students (19.3%) also expressed their „strong agreement‟ (1.7%) or „agreement‟ (17.6%) that they often felt discounted in working with some dominant friends, making the claim
of Börjesson et al. should not be overlooked as well.
The following data in Figure 2 reveal a common problem usually faced by
students in group work, explicitly about having an argument among members (Question
1
Elisabet Titik Murtisari, M.TransStud., PhD, a lecturer of Satya Wacana Christian University,
25
6). With the help of Figure 2, it can be seen that more than half of the students (54.6%)
either „disagreed‟ (44.5%) or „strongly disagreed‟ (10.1%) that they often argued with other members during group work. This result indicates that slightly more positive
perceptions toward group work were exposed. In other words, it should also be noted that
the total percentage of disagreement (54.6%) was not much different from the one of
agreement (45.4%), leading to a fact that there were still a number of students who
„strongly agreed‟ (5.9%) or „agreed‟ (39.5%) that they frequently had arguments with other members due to different working styles they had.
The last question under this aspect demonstrates one disadvantage of group work
that a huge number of students (81.7%) considered as true. This question discusses about
whether too much time was wasted to talk than to finish the task (Question 5). From
Figure 2, it can be seen that 24.2% of the students „strongly agreed‟ and 57.5% of them „agreed‟ with this disadvantage. This finding corresponds to Greenbank‟s (2007) study, revealing his respondent‟s comment who expressed that group work was useless due to its tendency to become a companionship to associate with friends. Regardless of this,
however, 18.4% of students still either „disagreed‟ (16.7%) or „strongly disagreed‟ (1.7%) with such disadvantage. This means, there were still a few students who believed
that group work could still be effective since they could concentrate more on finishing the
26 2. Academic Aspect
This theme basically covers benefits that are commonly associated with the
educational-related effects possibly gained through group work. Table 3 displays the
items covered under this theme and how the twelfth graders of Satya Wacana Senior
High School perceived each item presented globally.
Table 3.
The Average Score of Items under the Academic Aspect
Question no. Item Average
Question 8 I can understand the lessons more effectively while working
in a group than while studying alone.
2.93
Question 9 I can solve problems better while working in a group than
while studying alone.
3.19
Question 10 I can think more critically while working in a group than
while studying alone.
3.04
Question 11 I can be more motivated to learn while working in a group
than while studying alone.
2.94
Question 12 My memory of the lessons can last longer when I work in a
group than when I study alone.
2.65
Question 13 Through group work, I feel that my English skills are more
improved.
27
In order to identify which benefits of group work the students agreed the most, the
data will be sequenced from the highest to the lowest average score, as seen in Figure 3:
Figure 3.
The Average Score of Items under the Academic Aspect (sorted from the highest to the lowest)
The data in Figure 3 demonstrate that almost all of the advantages of group work
asked tended to be positively confirmed by the twelfth graders. This indicates that a
bigger share of the students approved the view that through working in a group, they
could solve problems better (3.19), think more critically (3.04), improve their English
skills (3), be more motivated to learn (2.94), understand the lessons more easily (2.93),
and also memorize the lessons longer (2.65).
As stated before, with the intention of identifying the further details of the result,
28 Figure 4.
The Frequency Distribution ofStudents’ Perceptions toward Group Work under the Academic Aspect
From Figure 4, it can be understood that Question 9, concerning about
problem-solving skills, ranked first as the most favorable advantage under the academic aspect for
the twelfth graders. A bigger share of the students (88.3%) either „strongly agreed‟ (30.8%) or „agreed‟ (57.5%) that their ability in solving problems was enhanced when it came to working together with their friends. This is probably due to a chance that allows
each group member to share his or her idea(s), leading them to produce the best solution
29
The second advantage with high approval from the students was related to the
ability to think more critically (Question 10). According to Figure 4, 85% of the students
either „strongly agreed‟ (22.5%) or „agreed‟ (62.5%) with this benefit. Almost similar with the previous idea, since there are a number of different answers collected from all
group members, each member might be triggered to really consider which answer is the
most suited to the target problem. In other words, by analyzing the answer more deeply, it
means that the students‟ critical thinking skills may be automatically improved.
Next, the improvement of English skills occupied the third rank under this theme
(Question 13). The data in Figure 4 demonstrate that a great number of students (79.1%)
showed their „strong agreement‟ (23.3%) and „agreement‟ (55.8%) towards this benefit. According to Long & Porter (1985), this advantage can really happen since group work
will facilitate students to form “a natural setting for conversation” (p. 209) which empower them not to utter separate parts of a language, but to unify those parts into a
whole discourse. In other words, this chance might be very meaningful in adding value to
the quality of the students‟ English skills. Nonetheless, it should also be noted that 20.8% of the students significantly expressed that they either denied (18.3%) or strongly denied
(2.5%) that their English skills were improved through group work.
The following advantage that gained a significant affirmation among the students
was related to the efficacy of understanding the lessons through group work (Question 8).
30
a group. According to Slavin (1987), this benefit can be experienced when the more
capable students are willing to clarify the confusion of the lesson(s) that the other
members still have. This statement is in line with Iqbal‟s (2004) study which proves the effectiveness of group work in general, especially for less-competent students who can
receive “more scaffolding and help from more capable peers” (p.72) in some parts of the lessons that they still find difficult. Yet, unfortunately, this was not certainly the case.
The data prove that 22.5% of the students also expressed their „disagreement‟ (20.8%) or „strong disagreement‟ (1.7%) that group work helped them in grasping the lessons that they were still puzzled of.
The fifth advantage with which three-fourths of the students agreed, concerned
about self-motivation that they could get after working with some friends (Question 11).
As seen in Figure 4, 20% of the students „strongly agreed‟ and 55% „agreed‟ with this advantage. This result in fact matches to Littlejohn‟s study (as cited in Long & Porter, 1985), proving that group work increases the students‟ confidence in speaking up their thoughts if it is compared to a condition requiring them to talk in a whole-class
discussion. That is to say, the fear of making errors can be reduced when the students
work with only a small number of peers. With this high level of security, Littlejohn
believed that the students can be more encouraged to learn the language. However, it
should also be noted that one-fourth of the students in fact objected (24.2%) or strongly
31
Lastly, as seen in Figure 4, the perceptions on Question 12, concerning the
learning durability, tended to be slightly more positive. The data show that more than half
of the students (56.3%) either „strongly agreed‟ (16%) or „agreed‟ (40.3%) that they could memorize the lessons longer when they worked in groups than when they studied
alone. This finding corresponds well to Topping et al.‟s (2007) study which showed that there was a significant result between the grades of students who had experienced group
work previously and the students who had never been exposed to group work. As
additional information, this result was obtained through a test covering a topic which had
been studied by those two clusters, two years previously. In other words, this finding
might verify that group work could really result in lifelong learning for the students.
Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that there were still a significant number of students
who „disagreed‟ (38.7%) and „strongly disagreed‟ (5%) with this benefit.
3. Fairness
This theme basically covers problems regarding inequality typically encountered
by the students while working in a group. There are 3 items under this theme described in
Table 4. Note that, since these items were all negative statements towards group work,
the reverse coding was again applied. Thus, the same understanding was valid for this
theme that the bigger the average scores, the more supportive the students toward group
32 Table 4.
The Average Score of Items under Fairness
Question no. Item Average
Question 14 In my opinion, there is always at least a friend who does not
work in the group.
1.91
Question 15 The workload between other group members and I is often
imbalanced.
2.28
Question 16 I hate when the teacher gives equal grades for all group
members.
2.67
The sequence of the average scores from the highest to the lowest is presented in
Figure 5:
Figure 5.
The Average Score of Items under Fairness (sorted from the highest to the lowest)
33
The data in Figure 5 demonstrate that both Question 15 and Question 14 show
relatively low average scores, which are 2.28 and 1.91, respectively. It indicates the fact
that a larger number of the twelfth graders justified two disadvantages of group work,
that „there was at least a member who did not participate in finishing the task‟, and that „the workload of each member was often unfair‟. Yet, Question 16, concerning whether they hated teachers who gave equal grades for all members, appears with a relatively
positive tendency (2.67), which in the light of the frequency distribution will later show
the details of the responses.
The details of the results for each item are displayed in Figure 6:
Figure 6.
The Frequency Distribution ofStudents’ Perceptions toward Group Work under Fairness
34
members exactly the same grades (Question 16). This data indicate that the majority of
the students could still tolerate such condition, which normally happened in group work.
Yet, it also cannot be denied that there were approximately a third of the students
(31.7%) who expressed their hate regarding the equal grades by „strongly agreeing‟ (9.2%) or „agreeing‟ (22.5%) with this item.
The following item shows the fact that more than half of the students (57.5%)
either „strongly agreed‟ (20%) or „agreed‟ (37.5%) that the workload of each member was often imbalanced (Question 15). In other words, the majority of the students
perceived that group work was more negative since the amount of work of each member
was considered unfair. This idea is perfectly reflected in the study of Walker (2001), who
found that some fellows took more parts in completing the task than did the other
members in the group. It is not impossible that this issue could be a major cause that
triggered the hate from the students who responded their strong agreement and agreement
in the previous item (Question 16). Aside of this, however, there were still a significant
number of students (42.5%) who either „disagreed‟ (37.5%) or „strongly disagreed‟ (5%) with such disadvantage. Strictly speaking, slightly less than half of the students viewed
that they could mostly share or manage the equal proportion of each task well.
The last part under the fairness aspect discusses about one of the usual
disadvantages that could hardly be eliminated when it came to working in groups, namely
35
(Analoui et al., 2001, p. 8). To be precise, while the previous item (Question 15) only
discusses about the condition when the division of the task was unfair, this item
(Question 14) spots on the presence of one or more members who did not initiatively
participate or even care about the development of the task itself. Regarding this matter, it
is not surprising that a greater number of students (78.4%) justified this disadvantage by
responding their „strong agreement‟ (34.2%) or „agreement‟ (44.2%) toward this item. Yet, the rest of the students (21.6%) claimed that they „disagreed‟ (18.3%) or „strongly disagreed‟ (3.3%) that there was at least a free-rider when they worked in groups.
4. Conditions for Successful Group Work
As discussed in the Literature Review, this part specifically covers several factors
that could be very important for the students to judge whether group work was either
more desirable or undesirable. There are 6 factors presented in the questionnaire, as
indicated in Table 5:
Table 5.
Kinds of Items under ‘Conditions for Successful Group Work’
Question no. Item
Question 17 Group work feels more effective when the teacher selects the groups.
Question 18 I am pleased to cooperate with friends whose competency levels are
36
Question no. Item
Question 19 To be fairer, I think there needs to be a special sheet to assess the
performance of other group members in secret (only teachers who
know).
Question 20 Working in a group is more effective when conducted during school
hours than outside school hours.
Question 21 I think teachers need to teach us specifically how to establish an
effective working group.
Question 22 In my opinion, the ideal number of people in a group normally ...
a. 2-3
c. 4-5
b. 3-4
d. other, please specify ____
In order to get better understanding towards the result of this part, Figure 7 of
37 Figure 7.
The Percentage ofStudents’ Perceptions toward ‘Conditions for Successful Group Work’
As indicated by Figure 7, more than half of the students (55.8%) either
„disagreed‟ (35%) or „strongly disagreed‟ (20.8%) with the idea that the teacher should be the one who determined the members of each group (Question 17). In other words, they
explicitly expressed that they favored working with friends whom they could choose by
themselves than with the ones chosen by the teacher. Although there were no explicitly
stated comments from the students in this study, the reason behind this students‟ preference might be similar with Oakley et al.‟s (2004) prediction, revealing that smarter students naturally tend to choose only clever partners and leave the less competence
students to form their own groups. That is to say, some students, especially the more
38
certain skilled friends they can choose by their own. Regarding of this, however, there
were still quite a lot of students (44.1%) who also supported (35.8%) or even strongly
supported (8.3%) the idea of having the teacher as the group picker.
Yet, surprisingly, the following data (Question 18) show a contrasting result with
the previous prediction of Oakley et al. (2004), revealing that a great number of students
(78.2%) actually strongly sided (20.2%) or sided (58%) with the idea to work with
friends whose competence levels were different from them. Thus, perhaps it was only a
reason of „friendship‟ or another social factor which mattered the most to the majority of the students who preferred to have self-selected groups to teacher-selected ones
(Question 17). Apart from this, in contrast, a smaller number of students (21.9%) still
expressed their objection (18.5%) and strong objection (3.4%) related to this idea,
proving a fact that the minority of the students preferred working with partners who had a
similar competency level to the ones who did not.
The next item discusses about whether or not a peer assessment was needed to
make the final grades became fairer for every individual (Question 19). Based on Figure
6, a higher number of students (61.6%) either strongly accepted (13.3%) or accepted
(48.3%) the idea that a peer assessment was important to be attached in every work done
in groups. This high percentage of the need of a peer assessment was somewhat
incompatible with the result of Question 16 before, revealing that a bigger share of them
(68.3%) did not hate the fact when the teachers gave equal grades to each member. To be
39
same marks (Question 16), there should not be a peer assessment needed to spot on the
different contribution that every individual made in their group. This condition could be
understood that there were 6.7% of the students who showed a sort of mixed feelings in
filling in the questionnaire. Regardless of this, on the other hand, the rest of the students
(38.3%) significantly either „disagreed‟ (28.3%) or „stronglydisagreed‟ (10%) that a peer assessment was needed to make the marks more transparent among individuals.
The subsequent data explores about the idea of the best time to do group work
(Question 20). The finding shows that a large number of students (82.5%) either „strongly agreed‟ (34.2%) or „agreed‟ (48.3%) that group work was more effective to be done in class or during the school hours rather than outside the school hours. This dominant
response is perhaps based on the view that scheduling a time to meet is another difficult
task to do (Greenbank, 2007). Therefore, it is no wonder that a bigger share of the
students insisted to finish the task in class. Nonetheless, there are still a few students
(17.5%) who either „disagreed‟ (15%) or „strongly disagreed‟ (2.5%) with such idea. Strictly speaking, this small number of students liked working outside the school hours
over working during the class session. Such response can also be understood since there
are also types of students who cannot concentrate if the atmosphere of the class is too
crowded or unpleasant (Greenbank, 2007).
Next, the students‟ opinion about whether or not they needed special instructions from the teacher to form an effective working group is revealed through Question 21. The
40
or „agreed‟ (60.8%) that teachers needed to familiarize steps or tips to make the groups‟ performance even more successful. This kind of concern has also been considered by
Bolton (1999) who once figured out that students often feel frustrated with their group
experiences due to “the absence of structured support, concrete guidance, and visible coaching” (p. 235) from the teachers. In addition, this condition became even more tragic when Bolton discovered that a potentially brilliant group failed to undergo a pleasant
process in working with peers due to the zero knowledge of how to be an effective group.
This description from Bolton might somewhat represent the students‟ reason behind the high degree of agreement towards this item.
Furthermore, since the last item (Question 22) allowed the students to choose one
option in connection with the ideal number of people in a group, a special chart (Figure
8) is presented:
Figure 8.
The details of Students’ Responses from ‘Question 22’
17%
The Ideal Number of People in A Group
41
The data in Figure 8 above demonstrate that the first category receiving the
highest responses from the students (50%) is 3-4 persons in a group, followed by 4-5
persons (25%), 10 persons (4%), 5-6 persons (2%), 6-7 persons (1%), and 6 persons
(1%), respectively. Based on this finding, the ideal numbers of people in a group
generally approved by the majority of the students were 3-4 and 4-5 persons. This idea is
in line with the study of Oakley et al. (2004) who suggested that 3 to 5 persons are the
ideal size of an effective working group since if there are beyond 5 members in a group,
they believed that there will be at least a member who does not actively participate in
finishing the task. However, it should also be noted that their suggestion is for regular
assignments given in class, not a type of projects which usually need more members in a
group.
E. CONCLUSION
This research was aimed to investigate Satya Wacana Senior High School
students‟ perceptions toward the advantages and disadvantages of group work in relation to the social, academic, and fairness aspects; along with how several factors affected the
way they perceived group work as either encouraging or discouraging.
In terms of the social aspect, the findings showed that students tended to support
that group work could teach them to respect others‟ opinions, get to know friends better, improve communication skills, and also develop leadership skills. In addition, they also
42
Furthermore, although somewhat divided, 54.6% of them expressed that they could still
tolerate different working styles among members. There was only one disadvantage of
group work that a large part of students deemed as true, i.e. too much time was wasted to
talk than to work.
In the academic aspect, all the questionnaire items tended to receive support from
the majority of the students. In other words, in general, they agreed that group work
enabled them to be both a better problem solver and critical thinker, use English better,
have more motivation to learn English, and understand the lessons more easily. Besides,
although almost fairly divided, 56.3% of them agreed that they could memorize the
lessons longer when they worked in a group than when they studied by themselves.
Meanwhile, under the fairness aspect, two disadvantages of group work were
revealed. The first concerned about the presence of freerider(s). Whereas the second,
although somewhat divided, revealed that 57.7% of the students justified that their
workload was often unfair. Aside of this, however, more than half of them expressed that
they could tolerate the condition when teachers gave all the members the same final
marks, despite the unfair share of the workload.
With regard to the criteria of a successful group work, according to most of them,
consisted of 3 to 4 self-selected friends with different competency levels, who worked
during school hours, that worked best when the teacher guided them, and when there was
a peer assessment to control their performance. From this part, interestingly, the need to
43
their statement that they were not bothered if all members were given the same marks,
which was indicated by 68.3% of the responses. This result could be understood by
inferring that there were a few students having a sort of mixed feelings in filling in the
questionnaires.
Regardless of the discussed findings which already met the aim of the study, there
were also some limitations in the present study. The first limitation concerns the
correlation of female and male students, or even the length of experiencing group work,
to their perceptions toward group work. Perhaps, there will be new findings revealed if
further studies correlate the influences of students‟ gender or the length of experiencing group work to the way they perceive certain items in the questionnaires. The second
limitation concerns the grade of the students, and also the setting of the study. Different
results may have been acquired if the participants of the study had been other graders in
the school, or the twelfth graders in others secondary schools. Thereby, further research is
essential to figure out whether students‟ perceptions differ if the context is changed.
The implication of the study is that the secondary teachers need to consider their
students‟ perceptions into account when teachers want to assign some team-work tasks. Most importantly, teachers should be willing to teach their students how to manage an
effective working team. Therefore, students can really know and even get the real
44
F. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First of all, I want to express my greatest gratitude to Jesus Christ, for blessing me
with good health and wisdom from the start until the completion of my thesis. Without
His blessings, I will not certainly be able to do my study this well.
I also would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciations to
those who always support me in various ways to finish this thesis:
a. My family, who at all times pray for me, give me encouragement, and even
remind me to take enough rest during my thesis completion.
b. My supervisor, Elisabet Titik Murtisari, M.TransStud., PhD , who is very
kind-hearted and patient in giving me useful advice and guidance in finishing this study
despite of her very busy schedule.
c. My examiner, Dra. Martha Nandari S. Handoko, MA, for examining as well as
giving useful advice and corrections to improve my thesis writing.
d. My lovely companions, Iin, Melcy, Awul, Xtin, Chin, Wen, Phelin, and Fani
who always cheer me up as well as support each other to be able to celebrate the
graduation day together.
e. My superb besties, Feli, Sherly, Novi, Ike, and Evi who pray for me all the time
for the great achievements in my life.
Without their cares and supports, the thesis writing of mine will not be able to get
