This study investigated the relative benefits to the student of working in homogeneous versus heterogeneous classroom groups. Correlation analysis of 18 desirable outcomes versus 8 personality-based heterogeneity variables reveals that heterogeneity associates with advantages as well as disadvantages. Ways in which group composition might be customized to benefit students with particular needs or to emphasize particular goals are described, along with their potential downsides.
Allen, T. H., & Plax, T. G. (1999). Group communication in the formal educational context. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 493-515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
Center for Applications of Psychological Type. (2003). Training [Brochure]. Gainesville, FL: Author.
3.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Cooper, J. (Ed.). (1998). Cooperative learning in college science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET). Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 8(3), 1-2.
5.
Davidson, N. (1985). Small-group learning and teaching in mathematics: A selective review of the research. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 211-230). New York: Plenum.
6.
Dobos, J. A. (1996). Collaborative learning: Effects of student expectations and communication apprehension on student motivation. Communication Education, 45, 118-134.
7.
Frey, L. R. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Hammer, A. L., & Huszczo, G. E. (1996). Teams. In A. L. Hammer (Ed.), MBTI applications (pp. 81-103). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
9.
Haslett, B. B., & Ruebush, J. (1999). What differences do individual differences in groups make: The effects of individuals, culture, and group composition. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 115-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Huszczo, G. E. (1996). Tools for team excellence. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
11.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.
12.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19, 319-351.
13.
Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II: Temperament, character, and intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
14.
Kroeger, O. (with Thuesen, J. M.). (1992). Type talk at work. New York: Dell.
15.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
16.
Nutt, P. C. (1989). Making tough decisions: Tactics for improving managerial decision making. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Schullery, N. M., & Gibson, M. K. (2001). Working in groups: Identification and treatment of students’ perceived weaknesses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 9-30.
18.
Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2002). Relationships between group skills, temperament, and argumentativeness. Communication Research Reports, 19, 246-257.
19.
Schultz, B. G. (1999). Improving group communication performance: An overview of diagnosis and intervention. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 371-394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Springer, L. (1998). Research on cooperative learning in college science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 8(3), 2-4.
21.
Sunwolf, & Seibold, D. R. (1999). The impact of formal procedures on group processes, members, and task outcomes. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 395-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
