Mediating Group Search: Lessons from a Middle School Study

Meyers, Eric M. (2010) Mediating Group Search:  Lessons from a Middle School Study.  Teacher Librarian. 38 (2), 24-29.

I went back and forth about including this vs. a different study for my abstracts, but finally settled on this one simply because the other article was also from Computers in Human Behavior and I already used two articles from that issue of that publication.  As an aside, CIHB is not a publication I'd have thought I'd find useful as a future teacher librarian.  Interesting what you discover when you do some digging.

Teacher Librarian is decidedly more readable than the more scholarly publications, too. :)

(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2--6, Eisenberg, 2008) "The 21st Century will demand a combination of information literacy, technical proficiency, and "people knowledge."  This may include skills such as communicating effectively and efficiently with others, collaborating in solving ill-structured problems, and reflecting on group goals and processes."  Schools have responded by integrateg roup learning into curricula, with authentic, project-based tasks that ask students to gather information, make decisions, use or reject resources they find, and develop a solution or way of changing the situation.

"Understanding how students solve information problems in small groups demands that we address three concurrent processes:  learning, information seeking, and managing group work."

Mixed-methods study conducted at a middle school in metropolitan Seattle.  Classrooms of students solving complex information problems alone compared with similar classes working in small groups of 3 sharing the same computer.

Research question:  How is solving information problems in small groups different than solving those same problems alone?

Background:

Small groups should result in positive outcomes (O'Donnell, 1999; Terwel, 2003), such as:

• resource pooling (bringing together knowledge, skills, experiences to generate unique solutions)
• socio-cognitive conflict (clash of multiple ideas prompts individual reflection and reassessment of ideas).
• cognitive elaboration:  providing and receiving explanations of thought processes in approaching problems increases internalization of strategies.
• social-motivational effect:  youth between 10 and 16 are particularly drawn to opportunities to interact socially with peers.
• provides opportunity to address more complex, information-intensive problems, adding instructional diversity and appealing to different cognitive strengths and experiences.

But can result in negative outcomes (Barron, 2003):

• information overload
• increased uncertainty
• personal disagreements/negative emotional experiences
• disjointed processes
• wasted time
• poor products

Additional challenges of group searching:  shared technology and uncertainty of Web-based info, scant research to date.

Method:  worked with middle school science teacher to develop 2 problem-based information assignments on topics in the 7th grade micro-life curriculum.  2 month units where students explored microscopic life, microbiomes, diseases prevention, and personal hygiene.  Info-seeking assignment presented as a multi-part scenario.  Students performed research online using classroom computers to answer a series of related questions.  Scenario 1: hypothetical salmonella outbreak.  4 classes participated--2 individually, 2 in small groups of 3 sharing a single computer.  Two weeks later, 2nd assignment, but reversed individual/group classes.

Findings:  Students working individually tended to do better on info-seeking assignment than students who worked in groups (by about 12%).  This was true for both assignments.  Quizzes given after assignments also proved the results--students who worked in groups had slightly lower post-test scores than those who worked alone.  Data suggested that working in groups has a negative effect on the way students solve problem-based scenarios using online resources, which affected their learning outcomes.

Researcher wanted to look at the "nuances that can be found in examining the students' search processes.  What we really want to know is why students working in groups might come to different conclusions than students working alone.  Teachers care about whether students got the right answer, but also how they arrived at the answer."

Student process data was gathreed by recording computer screens/conversations of select groups and individuals as they worked.  Data showed students working in groups performed poorly on some questions but not all.  Questions where students struggled were those that asked them to make inferences or decisions from information resources they found online.  If simply fact-finding, individuals and groups performed about the same.  Groups struggled when they needed to use the facts to make a decision.  Researcher wants to know why this happens.

Key process loss for students:  they were prone to "groupthink," meaning they wish to reduce tension within the group--rather than challenge each others assumptions, group members rationalize their answer and do not support their conclusions with expert opinion.

Three types of groupthink:

1. Relying on surface understanding.  Groups found info on one way salmonella is transmitted and assumed that was all there was to know.  They did not  read deeply or perform additional searches to verify their assumption.  Groups jumped to hasty conclusions, not taking the time to engage with ideas and each other.
2. Discounting the evidence.  Groups would encounter good explanations online of why those infected with salmonella should be kept home, but would discount it b/c it was inconsistent with their perception of peer hygiene.  Students might not want to admit that people don't wash their hands or that their hands might touch "gross" stuff.  Groups concluded that as long as everyone washed hands then sending infected students to school would be ok.  Groups also tended to express empathy for classmates who might be kept home from school.  The more groups discussed the issue, the more they minimized the risk of spreading bacteria, contrary to the evidence online.
3. Ignoring correct suggestions.  Unequal social dynamics might result in the ideas of some students having more weight than others.  The correct answer might be ignored or rejected based on social status of the suggester, not on the idea's merit.

There was a fair amount of resource and strategy pooling within the groups.  They checked with each other for understanding and discussed resources they found.  Some encouraged others to not rely on preconceptions.  They checked to make sure each others answers were consistent with their findings.   The researcher feels the process gains offset the distraction of working socially to some extent.

Overcoming Groupthink:

Using a teacher-librarian or classroom teacher (or both) can help overcome groupthink by helping with teh sense-making process.  Students were able to find appropriate, relevant resources on their own; they needed help making sense of that information.  Suggestions for educators:

• assign roles to group members, ie searcher, fact checker, group leader, summarizer, etc. to build interdependence and reduce the dominance of a high-status student.
• use a mix of individual and group assignments.  Students can brainstorm socially, search individually, discuss findings in small groups, etc.  Varying the level of interaction gives students the opportunity to flow together and apart as they think.
• encourage healthy disagreement.  Students may need guidance regarding how to make differing opinions work for them.  Model effective group work, including handling disagreements with respect.

Conclusion:  group work is assigned for a variety of reasons, from a desire to develop effective social skills to making the most of inadequate resources.  It is a complex task, but the emphasis on collaboration in education today makes it important for teachers to have research-based understandings of the benefits and risks of small group interaction.  It must be carefully designed and should involve skilled information professionals as mediators.

My response:  Interesting.  I like the way he looks beyond the test scores to examine the processes of group work more closely and finds value in the process itself.  This study is highly useful both for teacher librarians and classroom teachers, and points to another benefit of having a teacher librarian to help when group work has been assigned.  The classroom teacher and teacher librarian could model healthy disagreement in front of students, which could help them learn to disagree amicably in their groups.

In terms of where this fits with other research, I have to think about that some more.  This researcher seems to think students did an adequate job of finding resources.  Of course, the nature of this project may not have required extensive searching.  However, like the other studies, students may have ignored important information on each site or only read the first section/page of a site, resulting in incomplete information.  Clearly, in addition to direct instruction/support in group processes, students need instruction in reading websites and searching within them.  I'd also be curious to know if explicit teaching of group processes transfers from one grade level/subject area to the next.  In my experience, by high school students are a bit weary of group work and tend to roll their eyes if you assign them specific roles within the groups, although it does force some students to contribute more than they might otherwise.  At that stage, though, so much is about effort that highly motivated students generally do not like group work because they care a great deal about the final product (ie, they want an A).  Perhaps some method of assessing the process of working as a group (reflective journaling?  observational checklists?) and giving that assessment equal weight with the final product would help.  Having a TL and a classroom teacher to monitor the process would certainly make things easier.