Today’s students have taken to social networking like fish to water; yet, from our

perspectives, there is little social interaction taking place in many of today’s classrooms
from kindergarten through college. The model of discourse in most classrooms is a one-
way communication from the teacher to the students. For example, the first thing one
kindergartener said to his mother after his first day of school was: “All teachers do is
talk, talk, talk.” He said the same thing after his first day of high school and his first day
of college. His observations are not uncommon. As early as 1984, Goodlad wrote “the
data from our observations in more than 1,000 classrooms support the popular image of
a teacher standing in front of a class imparting knowledge to a group of students” (p.
105). Smith wrote in 1998 that teachers talk 90% of the time in classrooms. Frey,
Fisher, and Allen (2009) observed that “students are expected to sit hour after hour,
taking notes, and answering the occasional question with little interaction with peers” (p.
70). The concept of teachers doing all of the talking in classrooms is in direct contrast to
the philosophy that learning is primarily a social activity (Dewey, 1963; Lindeman, 1926)
and the idea that the person who is doing the work is the person doing the learning
(Hurst, 1998). Teachers expend a lot of energy preparing lectures. They must read
various texts and synthesize the information, pick out the most important points and
organize them in a cohesive manner, write lecture notes, and then deliver the
information to students who sit passively often thinking of everything but what the
teacher is saying. Who is doing all of the work in this process? The teacher. The
teacher is the one reading, writing, thinking, speaking, and therefore, the one who is
learning. Vacca and Vacca (2002) contend that we need to shift “the burden of learning
from teachers’ shoulders to students” (p. 7). Wilkinson, Soter, and Murphy (2010) agree
“there needs to be a gradual release of responsibility for control of the discussion from
teacher to students” (p. 156). Probst (2007) states, “it’s the student who should be doing
most of the work” (p. 43). One way for students to shoulder the responsibility for
learning is for them to be the readers, writers, speakers, listeners, and thinkers in the
classroom through active engagement in social interaction with others (Alvermann &
Phelps, 2005; Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz, 2011). For the purpose of this study, we define
social interaction as meaningful dialogue among learners. Socially interactive learners
are engaged learners (Vacca et al., 2011). Routman (2005) contends “students learn
more when they are able to talk to one another and be actively involved” (p. 207). In
short, social interaction is vital to the learning process. The Impact of Social Interaction•
377 Years ago, Goodman (1986) stressed that reading, writing, listening, and speaking
should be kept whole (as in whole language) instead of teaching each one separately.
He promoted that reading, writing, listening, and speaking should be incorporated into
everything students do throughout the day. Because reading, writing, and social
interaction are part of everyday life in the real world, it does not make sense for
classrooms to be social interaction-free zones where the teacher talks while students
listen. Gee (2001) contends “reading and writing cannot be separated from speaking,
listening, and interacting, on the one hand, or using language to think about and act on
the world, on the other” (p. 714). Kasten (1997) found it “amusing that the teachers of
another era spent so much time keeping their classes quiet and then wondered why so
many students were terrified of occasional oral reports and even continued into
adulthood to be uncomfortable speaking to a group” (p. 100). She stated “teachers and
principals of the past who worked hard to keep children quiet (myself included) did not
know how critical social interaction and collaboration are in learning” (p. 99). They also
may not have known how to incorporate social interaction into their classrooms. The
problem is not that students are unwilling to talk; many teachers say they spend the
better part of their days trying to get their students to stop talking (whether in person or
texting). The problem is getting the students to talk about the subject at hand.

Group learning, which is often used interchangeably with collaborative learning,

cooperative learning, peer learning, community learning and constructive learning, has
become a common practice in schools and tertiary institutions (Ward and Masgoret,
2004). It is believed to provide a more comfortable and supportive learning.Schofield
(2006) explains that group learning fosters critical thinking skills, develops individual
accountability, increases levels of reasoning and positive interdependence, improves
problem-solving strategies and internalizes content knowledge. In group learning,
students are divided into small groups to learn content knowledge, to explore or discuss
an assigned topic, or to complete cases, projects and group assignments, to answer a
few challenging questions, to exchange ideas, and share some insights with group
members (Holter, 1995; Porter, 2006). Porter (2006) indicates that students who work in
groups achieve better results, and are more satisfied with their learning experiences
than those who do not work in collaborative groups. It is based on constructivism that
emphasizes real talk which includes discourse and exploration, talking and listening,
questions, argument, speculation and sharing. Constructivism fosters active learning
over passive learning, collaboration over competition, and community over isolation
(Cross, 1998; Gross, 1993). The process of group work is harder than working alone as
individual because individuals should cooperate with others (Campbell and Li, 2006). A
group work requires students to complete work as a group with shared marks. The
marks for each individual are determined by the performance of the group. Campbell
and Li (2006) say that the aim of group work is to increase students’ understanding of
teamwork, and to enable them develop skills in coordination, collaboration, contribution,
sharing, and dedication. It also benefits students in promoting retention rates,
transferring knowledge, providing counseling with cognitive, physical, social, and
emotional problems, and enhancing their intercommunication skills (Porter, 2006). But
many factors influence the group relation, such as members’ perceptions, attitudes and
willingness to cooperate and contribute as a team. An important role in the outcome of
group work is group member’s perceptions and attitudes towards group work. Most
students may enjoy group work where they could discuss their academic issues but
may dislike it where all members share the same marks regardless of the contribution
made by the members. To many participants, this type of practice puts bright and
hardworking students at unfair disadvantage and rewards dull and lazy ones, and
promotes laziness and irresponsibility at the sacrifice of the efforts of hardworking
students (Campbell and Li, 2006). CSHE (2002) and Burdett (2003) add that, lack of
clear objectives, inequality of contribution among group members, unequal distribution
of effort, unequal effort not reflected in marks, difficulties of accommodating different
work schedules for meeting times, overuse of group work, lack of staff support, the
potent effects of assessment, lack of choice and flexibility, difficulty in accommodating
cultural and language differences by Daba et al. 861 students and collaboration are
some of the factors that affect using group in classroom teaching. The assumptions
behind group work and group assignments are to make learning meaningful through
active learning since learners gather information from different sources, and see the
relationship among ideas and finally organize and formulate their own ideas. However,
the rationale of group work is achieved when group members fully participate in work. In
contrary to this, from classroom teaching-learning experiences, researchers believed
that their students’ participation in group work was usually inadequate. Therefore, this
study was conducted on students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the usefulness of
group work mainly, and how the students evaluate factors that may affect their
participation specifically.
Group work is used as a means for learning at all levels in most educational systems,
from compulsory education to higher education. The overarching purpose of group work
in educational practice is to serve as an incentive for learning. For example, it is
believed that the students involved in the group activity should “learn something.” This
prerequisite has influenced previous research to predominantly focus on how to
increase efficiency in group work and how to understand why some group work turns
out favorably and other group work sessions result in the opposite. The review of
previous research shows that in the 20th century, there has been an increase in
research about students’ cooperation in the classroom (Lou et al., 1996; Gillies and
Boyle, 2010, 2011). This increasing interest can be traced back to the fact that both
researchers and teachers have become aware of the positive effects that collaboration
might have on students’ ability to learn. The main concern in the research area has
been on how interaction and cooperation among students influence learning and
problem solving in groups (Hammar Chiriac, 2011a,b).

Two approaches concerning learning in group are of interest, namely cooperative

learning and collaborative learning. There seems to be a certain amount of confusion
concerning how these concepts are to be interpreted and used, as well as what they
actually signify. Often the conceptions are used synonymously even though there are
some differentiations. Cooperative group work is usually considered as a
comprehensive umbrella concept for several modes of student active working modes
(Johnson and Johnson, 1975; Webb and Palincsar, 1996), whereas collaboration is a
more of an exclusive concept and may be included in the much wider concept
cooperation (Hammar Chiriac, 2011a,b). Cooperative learning may describe group work
without any interaction between the students (i.e., the student may just be sitting next to
each other; Bennet and Dunne, 1992; Galton and Williamson, 1992), while collaborative
learning always includes interaction, collaboration, and utilization of the group’s
competences (Bennet and Dunne, 1992; Galton and Williamson, 1992; Webb and
Palincsar, 1996).

At the present time, there is strong scientific support for the benefits of students learning
and working in groups. In addition, the research shows that collaborative work promotes
both academic achievement and collaborative abilities (Johnson and Johnson,
2004; Baines et al., 2007; Gillies and Boyle, 2010, 2011). According to Gillies and Boyle
(2011), the benefits are consistent irrespective of age (pre-school to college) and/or
curriculum. When working interactively with others, students learn to inquire, share
ideas, clarify differences, problem-solve, and construct new understandings. Gillies
(2003a,b) also stresses that students working together are more motivated to achieve
than they would be when working individually. Thus, group work might serve as an
incentive for learning, in terms of both academic knowledge and interpersonal skills.
Nevertheless, studies about what occur in groups during group work and which factors
actually influence the students’ ability to learn is still lacking in the literature, especially
when it comes to addressing the students’ points of view, with some exceptions
(Cantwell and Andrews, 2002; Underwood, 2003; Peterson and Miller, 2004; Hansen,
2006; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012). Similarly, the question of why some
group work turns out successfully and other work results in the opposite is still unsolved.
In this article, we hope to contribute some new pieces of information concerning the why
some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while others result in the
opposite.

Group work is frequently used in higher education as a pedagogical mode in the

classroom, and it is viewed as equivalent to any other pedagogical practice (i.e., whole
class lesson or individual work). Without considering the pros and cons of group work, a
non-reflective choice of pedagogical mode might end up resulting in less desirable
consequences. A reflective choice, on the other hand, might result in positive
experiences and enhanced learning (Galton et al., 2009; Gillies and Boyle,
2011; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012).
Group work might serve different purposes. As mentioned above, the overall purpose of
the group work in education is that the students who participate in group work “learn
something.” Learning can be in terms of academic knowledge or “group knowledge.”
Group knowledge refers to learning to work in groups (Kutnick and Beredondini,
2009; Gillies and Boyle, 2010, 2011; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a,b). Affiliation, fellowship,
and welfare might be of equal importance as academic knowledge, or they may even be
prerequisites for learning. Thus, the group and the group work serve more functions
than just than “just” being a pedagogical mode. Hence, before group work is
implemented, it is important to consider the purpose the group assignment will have as
the objective, the means, or both.

From a learning perspective, group work might function as both an objective (i.e.,
learning collaborative abilities) and as the means (i.e., a base for academic
achievement) or both (Gillies, 2003a,b; Johnson and Johnson, 2004; Baines et al.,
2007). If the purpose of the group work is to serve as an objective, the group’s function
is to promote students’ development of group work abilities, such as social training and
interpersonal skills. If, on the other hand, group work is used as a means to acquire
academic knowledge, the group and the collaboration in the group become a base for
students’ knowledge acquisition (Gillies, 2003a,b; Johnson and Johnson, 2004; Baines
et al., 2007). The group contributes to the acquisition of knowledge and stimulates
learning, thus promoting academic performance. Naturally, group work can be
considered to be a learning environment, where group work is used both as an objective
and as the means. One example of this concept is in the case of tutorial groups in
problem-based learning. Both functions are important and might complement and/or
even promote each other. Albeit used for different purposes, both approaches might
serve as an incentive for learning, emphasizing different aspect knowledge, and
learning in a group within an educational setting.
Even if group work is often defined as “pupils working together as a group or a team,”
(Blatchford et al., 2003, p. 155), it is important to bear in mind that group work is not just
one activity, but several activities with different conditions (Hammar Chiriac,
2008, 2010). This implies that group work may change characteristics several times
during a group work session and/or during a group’s lifetime, thus suggesting that
certain working modes may be better suited for different parts of a group’s work and
vice versa (Hammar Chiriac, 2008, 2010). It is also important to differentiate between
how the work is accomplished in the group, whether by working in a group or working as
a group.

From a group work perspective, there are two primary ways of discussing cooperation in
groups: working in a group (cooperation) or working as a
group (collaboration; Underwood, 2003; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012).
Situations where students are sitting together in a group but working individually on
separate parts of a group assignment are referred to as working in a group. This is not
an uncommon situation within an educational setting (Gillies and Boyle, 2011).
Cooperation between students might occur, but it is not necessary to accomplish the
group’s task. At the end of the task, the students put their separate contributions
together into a joint product (Galton and Williamson, 1992; Hammar Chiriac,
2010, 2011a). While no cooperative activities are mandatory while working in a group,
cooperative learning may occur. However, the benefits in this case are an effect of
social facilitation (Zajonc, 1980; Baron, 1986; Uziel, 2007) and are not caused by
cooperation. In this situation, social facilitation alludes to the enhanced motivational
effect that the presence of other students have on individual student’s performance.

Working as a group, on the other hand, causes learning benefits from collaboration with
other group members. Working as a group is often referred to as “real group work” or
“meaningful group work,” and denotes group work in which students utilizes the group
members’ skills and work together to achieve a common goal. Moreover, working as a
group presupposes collaboration, and that all group members will be involved in and
working on a common task to produce a joint outcome (Bennet and Dunne,
1992; Galton and Williamson, 1992; Webb and Palincsar, 1996; Hammar Chiriac,
2011a,b). Working as a group is characterized by common effort, the utilization of the
group’s competence, and the presence of problem solving and reflection. According
to Granström (2006), working as a group is a more uncommon activity in an educational
setting. Both approaches might be useful in different parts of group work, depending on
the purpose of the group work and type of task assigned to the group (Hammar Chiriac,
2008). Working in a group might lead to cooperative learning, while working as group
might facilitate collaborative learning. While there are differences between the real
meanings of the concepts, the terms are frequently used interchangeably (Webb and
Palincsar, 1996; Hammar Chiriac, 2011a,b; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012).

As mentioned above, there are a limited number of studies concerning the participants’
perspectives on group work. Teachers often have to rely upon spontaneous viewpoints
and indications about and students’ experiences of group work in the form of completed
course evaluations. However, there are some exceptions (Cantwell and Andrews,
2002; Underwood, 2003; Peterson and Miller, 2004; Hansen, 2006; Hammar Chiriac
and Einarsson, 2007; Hammar Chiriac and Granström, 2012). To put this study in a
context and provide a rationale for the present research, a selection of studies focusing
on pupils’ and/or students’ experiences and conceptions of group work will be briefly
discussed below. The pupils’ and/or students inside knowledge group work may present
information relevant in all levels of educational systems.

Hansen (2006) conducted a small study with 34 participating students at a business

faculty, focusing on the participants’ experiences of group work. In the study different
aspects of students’ positive experiences of group work were identified. For example, it
was found to be necessary that all group members take part and make an effort to take
part in the group work, clear goals are set for the work, role differentiation exists among
members, the task has some level of relevance, and there is clear leadership. Even
though Hansen’s (2006) study was conducted in higher education, these findings may
be relevant in other levels in educational systems.
To gain more knowledge and understand about the essence behind high-quality group
work, Hammar Chiriac and Einarsson (2007) turned their focus toward students’
experiences and conceptions of group work in higher education. A primary aim was to
give university students a voice in the matter by elucidating their students’ points of view
and how the students assess working in groups. Do the students’ appreciate group
projects or do they find it boring and even as a waste of time? Would some students
prefer to work individually, or even in “the other group?” The study was a part of a larger
research project on group work in education and only a small part of the data corpus
was analyzed. Different critical aspects were identified as important incitements for
whether the group work turned out to be a success or a failure. The students’ positive,
as well as negative, experiences of group work include both task-related (e.g., learning,
group composition, participants’ contribution, time) and socio-emotional (e.g., affiliation,
conflict, group climate) aspects of group work. The students described their own group,
as well as other groups, in a realistic way and did not believe that the grass was greener
in the other group. The same data corpus is used in this article (see under Section The
Previous Analysis). According to Underwood (2003) and Peterson and Miller (2004), the
students’ enthusiasm for group work is affected by type of task, as well as the group’s
members. One problem that recurred frequently concerned students who did not
contribute to the group work, also known as so-called free-riders (Hammar Chiriac and
Hempel, 2013). Students are, in general, reluctant to punish free-riders and antipathy
toward working in groups is often associated with a previous experience of having free-
riders in the group (Peterson and Miller, 2004). To accomplish a favorable attitude
toward group work, the advantages of collaborative activities as a means for learning
must be elucidated. Furthermore, students must be granted a guarantee that free-riders
will not bring the group in an unfavorable light. The free-riders, on the other hand, must
be encouraged to participate in the common project.

Hammar Chiriac and Granström (2012) were also interested in students’ experiences
and conceptions of high-quality and low-quality group work in school and how students
aged 13–16 describe good and bad group work? Hammar Chiriac and Granström
(2012) show that the students seem to have a clear conception of what constitutes
group work and what does not. According to the students, genuine group work is
characterized by collaboration on an assignment given by the teacher. They describe
group work as working together with their classmates on a common task. The students
are also fully aware that successful group work calls for members with appropriate skills
that are focused on the task and for all members take part in the common work.
Furthermore, the results disclose what students consider being important requisites for
successful versus more futile group work. The students’ inside knowledge about
classroom activities ended up in a taxonomy of crucial conditions for high-quality group
work. The six conditions were: (a) organization of group work conditions, (b) mode of
working in groups, (c) tasks given in group work, (d) reporting group work, (e)
assessment of group work, and (f) the role of the teacher in group work. The most
essential condition for the students seemed to be group composition and the
participants’ responsibilities and contributions. According to the students, a well-
organized group consists of approximately three members, which allows the group to
not be too heterogeneous. Members should be allotted a reasonable amount of time
and be provided with an environment that is not too noisy. Hence, all six aspects are
related to the role of the teacher’s leadership since the first five points concern the
framework and prerequisites created by the teacher.

Näslund (2013) summarized students’ and researchers’ joint knowledge based on

experience and research on in the context of shared perspective for group work. As a
result, Näslund noticed a joint apprehension concerning what constitutes “an ideal
group work.” Näslund (2013) highlighted the fact that both students and researchers
emphasized for ideal group work to occur, the following conditions were important to
have: (a) the group work is carried out in supportive context, (b) cooperation occurs, (c)
the group work is well-structured, (d) students come prepared and act as working
members during the meetings, and (e) group members show respect for each other.

From this brief exposition of a selection of research focusing on students’ views on

group work, it is obvious that more systematic studies or documentations on students’
conceptions and experiences of group work within higher education are relevant and
desired. The present study, which is a reanalysis of a corpus of data addressing the
students’ perspective of group, is a step in that direction.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The overarching knowledge interest of this study is to enhance the body of knowledge
regarding group work in higher education. The aim of this article is to add knowledge
and understanding of what the essence behind successful group work in higher
education is by focusing on the students’ experiences and conceptions of group work
and learning in groups, an almost non-existing aspect of research on group work until
the beginning of the 21st century. A primary aim is to give university students a voice in
the matter by elucidating the students’ positive and negative points of view and how the
students assess learning when working in groups. Furthermore, the students’
explanations of why some group work results in positive experiences and learning, while
in other cases, the result is the opposite, are of interest.