Lessons for teaching using group work from a survey of law students ^[1]

Law students who had experienced some form of group work in their law studies were surveyed by Gary Davis and the writer using a written questionnaire. This research was designed to reveal whether students understood and accepted the purposes lecturers had in mind in setting group work, whether those purposes were achieved, and how group work affected students' academic lives. Eighty five students responded, a good response rate, allowing the data to be analysed statistically. Open-ended questions were also included which permit more subjective insights also to be gained.

The results of analysis of the responses given by students are reported on. One significant finding seems to be a "levelling effect" whereby on certain measures students with more polarised attitudes (at both poles) towards study and their fellow students were apparently brought to more moderate positions after encountering group work. This raises the question whether positive changes in some students' attitudes and behaviour outweigh the possibly undesirable effects of group work on others. Student attitudes and beliefs about fairly sharing the work of groups and about differentials between marks expected in individual work and those received for group work are also described and commented on.

Introduction

We have in the past received feedback in a variety of ways on how our law students have experienced group work at Murdoch, usually by way of informal conversations with them and also via comments from tutors and facilitators. However, no methodical research has been conducted at least in our law school on this aspect of legal study. This project therefore was an attempt to fill some of the gaps in our knowledge as to how students react to group work and why those reactions apparently can vary greatly amongst students as shown in the following two vignettes drawn from student reports.

I have come to this conclusion partly on the basis of two psychological constructs about groups. The first is social loafing (Harkins, Latane and Williams, "Social Loafing: Allocating Effort or 'Taking it Easy'" (1980) 16 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 457). The second psychological construct is social facilitation (Bond and Titus, "Social Facilitation: A Meta-Analysis of 241 Studies", (1983) 94 Psychological Bulletin 265.)"

Two very different vignettes, both from the same class which took part in this research.

These polarised reports of student experience with working in groups were not acquired as part of this research but illustrate why it was pursued. How many students are "turned off" by group work and how many "turned on"? How do students prior attitudes and beliefs affect their experience of working in groups and do they change in the course of that experience? Do students realise the learning potential of working cooperatively with their peers? The issues highlighted by such diverse vignettes provided the impetus for questioning students in a methodical way about their experience of group work in law school.

Context and Focus of the Study

These researchers and some others in the Murdoch law school decided to go further in bringing collaborative effort into the mainstream of teaching and learning for law students. This involved setting group tasks directed towards producing a joint product as an important part of the learning experience and the assessment regime. In 1993 three units coordinated by the researchers featured such group tasks.

For the elective unit "Remedies" students were required to complete a research report on practical aspects of legal remedies working in self-selected groups of two or three independently of supervision. One submission was made by each group, the same mark being awarded to all members who were required to sign a declaration of equal contribution to the project. Students were advised that one of the educational goals served by this assignment was "to foster the development in prospective lawyers of communication and co-operative skills".

In the unit "Legal Practice and Documentation" (a full year required unit) students were randomly assigned to groups of between 6 and 8 members to work on a variety of legal problem solving and writing projects which were submitted to other groups for comment and criticism. No marks were awarded for these activities. Tutors acting as 'facilitators" attended group meetings from time to time. The unit guide contained background statements about the collaborative approach to learning including the following: "In an 'information age' marked by acceleration in the increase of stocks of knowledge and in the speed of its transmission, division of labour in mental work followed by coordination of results becomes imperative. Exposure to working in groups should therefore be a valuable experience for all students as well as providing other benefits such as opportunities for peer teaching, support and critiquing."

As part of the elective unit "Alternative Dispute Resolution" students were randomly assigned to groups of between 8 and 10 members to prepare for dispute resolution exercises. These exercises were simulations involving processes such as negotiation and mediation amongst groups which took place before the entire class. A member of each group was nominated by it to act as its representative for the purpose of the role-play. Tutors acting as "mentors" attended some of the group meetings and awarded marks based on the quality of group preparation for the exercises. Students peer-assessed the performance of individual participants in the simulations. Students were advised that the group workshops and simulations "will be occupied with group participation in applying selected processes to the resolution of set problems and the practice of associated skills."

Finally, a colleague of the researchers in the law school included a group assignment in his elective unit "Taxation Policy". Here the task was to collaborate on producing a joint paper dealing with one aspect of the subject area which was assessed.

The 120 or so students in these four units were the focus of our study. Some students experienced group work through enrolment in two or more of the units in question.

The Survey Questionnaire

Writing the questionnaire itself led to the first favourable outcome of this research since it required the researchers to clarify their somewhat unrefined reasons for asking law students to work in groups. We found that these learning objectives could be roughly classified as related either to values or skills, recognising that these terms themselves are not well defined.

Some of the values we had in mind as being enhanced by group work were those of trust in and respect for fellow students. This led us to ask students to respond to such statements as "Before I did group work in law school, my level of trust towards other students was: High Medium Low" and to ask what their level of trust was after doing group work. As regards skills, we asked students for instance to rate the level of their "skill in organising and coordinating tasks and outcomes" before and after doing group work. Other skills touched on were "ability to resolve conflicts" and communication skills.

One section of the questionnaire explicitly stated the variety of educational objectives which the researchers believed group work could serve and asked students to rate the relevance of them to their own educational needs. Other questions sought to ascertain what support students found most useful in pursuing group work. A number of the questionnaire items dealt with the issue of assessment of group work and of unequal contributions to the joint product. One section explored the issue of conflict in groups and how it was resolved. A final open-ended question allowed students to express their "general feelings about group work".

Copies of the survey instrument are available on the world wide web using the following URL:

http://law.murdoch.edu.au/academics/zariski/grpsur.html

Results

Here are some of the results we found most striking:

• students generally rated themselves quite highly in relation to the key values and many indicated no change in these aspects of their academic lives after doing group work; for instance 71% rated their level of trust in other students as "high" or "medium" before doing group work in law school and 40% stated that had not changed after doing group work; 90% rated their level of respect for other students as "high" or "medium" and 54% said that had not changed;

• similarly, 97% of responding students stated that their organising skill was at a "high" or "medium" level before group work and 55% said that had not changed;

• sizeable numbers of students reported "no change" in their values and attitudes after doing group work; at the highest 75% said this in relation to their "desire to learn in general" and at the lowest 28% said their "level of appreciation of the value of other students in contributing towards [their own] learning" had not changed;

• 66% of respondents indicated that after doing group work their appreciation of the value of other students in contributing towards their own learning had increased;

• as regards learning objectives, students ranked the following as most relevant to them: "to increase understanding of the course content", "to develop conflict resolution skills", and "to develop skills in organising and coordinating tasks and outcomes";

• those learning objectives related to group work which were rated as least relevant to students were: "to enhance in students the motivation to learn" (where respondents were most polarised in their responses) and "to encourage students to respect and value other students";

• majorities of respondents supported all of the listed learning objectives as being relevant, ranging from a high of 90% to a low of 59%;

• 83% of respondents stated that in their experience all group members did not contribute equally to a project;

• strong majorities agreed they were more cooperative in their approach after doing group work and disagreed they were more competitive;

• a large majority of students responding agreed group projects allow them to use skills which individual assessments do not;

• there was a notable split amongst responses to the statement "Having completed group projects, I feel I am more responsible for my own learning" - 41% disagreed with this statement;

• 80% of responding students declared there had been "no significant conflict" between students in groups;

• a strong majority (83%) disagreed with the statement "doing group work makes no difference to the amount I learn"; on the other hand there was a notable split in responses to the statement "doing group work causes me to receive no different marks than when working on my own" - 52% of respondents were in agreement - an almost equal number disagreed with this view.

Discussion and Analysis

It bears considering whether this finding relates in some way to other results of the survey where the respondents seem to be polarised in their responses to group work. For instance, there were larger proportions of students who reported a decrease in their level of trust towards other students (13% of respondents) and of respect for them (14%) than we would have liked to see. Another somewhat troubling result was the finding that 41% of students responding did not see "enhancing the motivation to learn" as a relevant objective of doing group work.

These observations lead me to suggest that for a number of law students something has "turned them off" group work such that they display ambivalent attitudes towards the experience. It may well be that the explanation lies in the prevalence of unequal contribution to group projects and the impact that has on learning, grades and attitudes. These possibilities have led me to analyse the responses more closely. Statistical tests were performed on the answers to several paired questions which revealed some interesting significant correlations as follows:

• change in level of trust in fellow students was highly correlated with the pre-group work level of trust; that is, those students with a high pre-existing level of trust were significantly more likely to say that their level of trust had decreased, and vice versa; this might be described as a kind of "levelling effect" on students' attitudes;

• change in students' desire "to learn more about course content" was also highly correlated with their pre-existing level of desire "to learn more than the minimum required course content"; those with low pre-existing learning motivation were significantly more likely to report an increase in that desire but the opposite was also true;

• those respondents who agreed with the statement "doing group work helps me learn more than I would on an individual project" were much more likely to also report that their motivation to learn more about course content had increased, but the reverse was also true for those students who thought group work did not help them learn more;

• students who agreed with the statement "doing group work causes me to learn less than I would on an individual project" were much more likely than those who disagreed to say that after doing group work their "desire to learn in general" had decreased.

Lessons for the Future?

First, I am satisfied that group work has an effect on student values, attitudes and learning. Second, that effect is not always positive and seems to depend on the perceived successes (or failures) of group processes experienced. Third, there may be a "levelling" or "homogenising" effect on student attitudes of experiencing group work related to perceptions of its impact on learning and grades.

Hopefully this research and further analysis of the information collected will contribute to preparing the way for more positive vignettes of learning in law school such as the following:

Footnotes

1. This research was supported by a Murdoch University Teaching Grant which is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks also go to Helen Shurven who assisted with data analysis and to Dale Montgomery for transcribing respondents' written answers. [back]
2. This project was conducted jointly by the author and Associate Professor Gary Davis then of the Murdoch University Law School and now at Flinders University. [back]