Student attitudes toward active learning techniques, such as group discussion, are often negative. The purpose of this study was to determine if an intervention informing students of the usefulness of group discussions affects their attitudes on group discussions. Students were randomly assigned to view a video and answer an essay question either on the value of group discussions (treatment) or on how group discussions were graded (control). Students in the treatment indicated group discussions as more useful as students in the control. Importantly, there were no differences in attitudes prior to the intervention. In addition, students reported their perceptions of the value (benefits) and costs (disadvantages) of group discussions in open-ended items. Findings are informative for pedagogical practice as well as designing future interventions.
BaileySBarberLKFergusonAJ (2015) Promoting perceived benefits of group projects: The role of instructor contributions and intragroup processes. Teaching of Psychology42(2): 1–5.
2.
BarronKEHullemanCS (2015) Expectancy-value-cost model of motivation. In: WrightJD (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn.Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 503–9.
3.
BarrySMurphyKDrewS (2015) From deconstructive misalignment to constructive alignment: Exploring student uses of mobile technologies in university classrooms. Computers & Education81(2): 202–10.
4.
BishopCFCastonMIKingCA (2014) Learner-centered environments: Creating effective strategies based on student attitudes and faculty reflection. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning14(3): 46–63.
5.
CanningEAHarackiewiczJM (2015) Teach it, don’t preach it: The differential effects of directly-communicated and self-generated utility value information. Motivation Science1(1): 47–71.
6.
CantwellRHAndrewsB (2002) Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary school students’ feelings towards group work. Educational Psychology22(1): 75–91.
7.
CarnevaleAPSmithN (2013) Workplace basics: The skills employees need and employers want. Human Resource Development International16(5): 491–501.
8.
CavanaghAJAragonORChenX, et al. (2016) Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course. CBE Life Science Education15(4): 1–9.
9.
Chamorro- PremuzicTFurnhamALewisM (2007) Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences17(3): 241–50.
10.
EcclesJSWigfieldA (2002) Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology53(1): 109–32.
11.
EltonL (1997) University physics teaching in reduced circumstances. Physics Education32(5): 346–50.
12.
FreemanSEddySLMcDonoughM, et al. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Unites States of America111: 8410–14.
13.
FungCLHoweCJ (2014) Group work and the learning of critical thinking in the Hong Kong secondary liberal studies curriculum. Cambridge Journal of Education44(2): 245–70.
14.
FungDCToHLeungK (2016) The influence of collaborative group work on students’ development of critical thinking: The teacher’s role in facilitating group discussions. Pedagogies: An International Journal11(2): 146–66.
15.
GibbsG (2010) The Assessment of Group Work: Lessons from the Literature. Oxford: Assessment Standards Knowledge Exchange (Centre for excellence in teaching and learning in higher education, Oxford Brookes university). Available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.422.8600&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed October 2017).
16.
GibbsGJenkinsA (1992) Conclusion: Improving teaching and learning in large classes. In: GibbsBJenkinsA (eds) Teaching Large Classes in Higher Education: How to Maintain Quality with Reduced Resources. London: Kogan Page, pp. 159–63.
17.
GorvineBJSmithHD (2015) Predicting student success in a psychological statistics course emphasizing collaborative learning. Teaching of Psychology42(1): 56–9.
18.
HarackiewiczJMCanningEATibbettsY, et al. (2016) Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology111(5): 745–65.
19.
HarackiewiczJMRozekCSHullemanCS, et al. (2012) Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological Science23(8): 899–906.
20.
HillyardCGillespieDLittigP (2010) University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation. Active Learning in Higher Education11(1): 9–20.
21.
HullemanCSHarackiewiczJM (2009) Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science326(5958): 1410–12.
22.
HullemanCSDurikAMSchweigertS, et al. (2008) Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology100(2): 398–416.
23.
HullemanCSGodesOHendricksBL, et al. (2010) Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology102(4): 880–95.
24.
HullemanCSKosovichJJBarronKE, et al. (2017) Making connections: Replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology109(3): 387–404.
25.
JohnsonDWJohnsonRT (2014) Cooperative learning in 21st century. Anales De Psicologia30(3): 841–51.
26.
KoperR (2015) How do students want to learn in online distance education? Profiling student preferences. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning16(1): 307–29.
27.
LazowskiRAHullemanCS (2016) Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research86(2): 602–40.
28.
LoboJG (2017) Active learning interventions and student perceptions. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education9(3): 465–73.
29.
MachemerPLCrawfordP (2007) Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education8(1): 9–30.
30.
McNallyBChipperfieldJDorsettP, et al. (2017) Flipped classroom experiences: Student preferences and flip strategy in a higher education context. Higher Education73(2): 281–98.
31.
MohamedAR (2008) Effects of active learning variants on student performance and learning perceptions. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning2(2): Article 11.
32.
OrtagusJC (2017) From the periphery to prominence: An examination of the changing profile of online students in American higher education. The Internet and Higher Education32(1): 47–57.
33.
PrinceM (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education93(3): 223–31.
34.
RaceP (2009) In at the Deep End: Starting to Teach in Higher Education. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University.
35.
RaceP (2014) The Lecturer’s Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching. New York: Routledge.
36.
RozekCSHydeJSSvobodaRC, et al. (2015) Gender differences in the effects of a utility-value intervention to help parents motivate adolescents in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology107(1): 195–206.
37.
Sancho-ThomasPFuentes-FernandezRFernandez-ManjonB (2009) Learning teamwork skills in university programming courses. Computers & Education53(2): 517–31.
38.
SavilleBKZinnTEElliotMP (2005) Interteaching versus traditional methods of instruction: A preliminary analysis. Teaching of Psychology32(3): 161–3.
39.
SeidelSBTannerKD (2013) “What if students revolt?”—Considering student resistance: Origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE-Life Sciences Education12(4): 586–95.
40.
ShimazoeJAldrichH (2010) Group work can be gratifying: Understanding and overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching58(2): 52–7.
41.
SmithMKWoodWBAdamsWK, et al. (2009) Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science323(5910): 122–4.
42.
SoetantoDMacDonaldM (2017) Group work and the change of obstacles over time: The influence of learning style and group composition. Active Learning in Higher Education18(2): 99–113.
43.
WigfieldAEcclesJS (2000) Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology25(1): 68–81.
44.
ZschockeKWosnitazaMBürgerK (2016) Emotions in group work: Insights from an appraisal-oriented perspective. European Journal of Psychology in Education31(3): 359–84.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
