Gunderson, D E and Moore, J D (2008) Group learning pedagogy and group selection. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 4(1), pp. 34-45. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
Collaborative learning, cooperative learning, and group work are similar terms that describe "students working together in a group small enough that everyone can participate on a collective task" (Cohen, 1994, p. 3). The literature clearly states that group learning is superior to individual learning. In the construction industry working in groups to complete projects is the norm. There are three primary methods that an instructor can utilize to accomplish group selection: self-selection, random assignment, and criterion-based selection. This two-phase research project was designed to first compare self-selection and random assignment, and then compare purposefulselection and self-selection. The results, although very valuable, did not find any differentiation between the group selection methods. It was discovered that the groups formed by each of the group selection methods have the potential to excel either beyond expectation or to perform at a level far below average. It was discovered that, in general, the students enjoyed the project, learned a lot about value analysis (a.k.a. value engineering), and almost always had one or more group members who did not participate at expected levels. This paper discusses the mixed methods research results and makes recommendations for group learning pedagogy.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaborative learning; cooperative learning; group learning; member selection; mixed method research; value analysis |
| Index terms: | mixed method, mixed method research, cooperative learning, collaborative learning, pedagogy, construction industry, instructor, value analysis, selection method, value engineering, differentiation |
| Subjects: | teaching methods, industry analysis, data collection methods, value management, learning methods, research methods, tendering, financial analysis, organization, practitioner |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Cost Management, Organizational Design, Procurement, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here