Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of experience grouping on achievement, satisfaction, and problem-solving discourse in professional technical training

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When a course designed around cooperative, problem-centered instruction attracts learners with a wide range of experience in the topic, should learners be grouped heterogeneously or homogeneously in terms of their relative expertise? In this study, learners were randomly distributed between the two types of groups; learning gains, satisfaction, and problem-solving discourse were compared. Overall, no significant differences were found between heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. However, groups solving relatively ill-structured problems exchanged significantly more elaborated explanations than groups solving relatively well-structured problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baer, J. (2003). Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 169–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making things visible. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 15(3), 6–11, 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. (2007). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 425–439). New York: Routledge.

  • Dorval, B., Eckerman, C. O., & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1984). Developmental trends in the quality of conversation achieved by small groups of acquainted peers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49(2), 1–91. doi:10.2307/1165872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., et al. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M., & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 7. doi:10.1080/03057640802701945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2007). Cooperation and the use of technology. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 401–423). New York: Routledge.

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Methods of cooperative learning: What can we prove works. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html.

  • Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. doi:10.1007/BF02299613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppenhaver, G. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Structuring the classroom for performance: Cooperative learning with instructor-assigned teams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 1(1), 1–21. doi:10.1111/1540-5915.00002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. A. S., & Strand, C. A. (2001). Using the team-learning model in a managerial accounting class: An experiment in cooperative learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(4), 549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458. doi:10.2307/1170650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., & Gilbert, C. G. (2008). Effective peer interaction in a problem-centered instructional strategy. Distance Education, 29(2), 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M., & O’Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of positive results. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33. doi:10.1002/tea.10058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. W. (1971). Interaction process in small groups of varied ages. Presented at the American Sociological Association Convention, Denver, CO. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED056338. Accessed 22 May 2009.

  • Stapleton, J. L. (2007). Effects of team composition on problem solving: An empirical investigation of the assembly effect. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 49(2), 94–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. S. (1998). Handbook of creativity (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S. B., & Marshall, J. E. (1995). Effects of cooperative incentives and heterogeneous arrangement on achievement and interaction of cooperative learning groups in a college life science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 291–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1982a). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 475–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1982b). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 642–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003a). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 73–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003b). The development of students’ helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 361–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Welner, M., & Zuniga, S. (2001) Short circuits or superconductors? Examining factors that encourage or undermine group learning and collaboration among high-ability students. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of Californi/US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RSM McGladrey, Inc., Bloomington, MN, USA

    Robert Sean Mulcahy

Authors
  1. Robert Sean Mulcahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Sean Mulcahy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mulcahy, R.S. The effects of experience grouping on achievement, satisfaction, and problem-solving discourse in professional technical training. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 15–29 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9203-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9203-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation