The Core of the Matter Issue #5

To group or not to group? That is the question.

Nov 30, 2024

Teachers have to make a tremendous number of decisions when planning any given lesson, spanning from the more foundational, such as establishing the learning goal, to the more nuanced, such as figuring out when understanding might break down and what to do about it. Somewhere in this bevy of choices is the topic of this post: Should students work in groups or individually? The answer, like many things involving teaching and learning is… it depends. But on what? What variables should we be paying attention to so that our choices are intentional and backed by research, rather than based on preference or personal style? It turns out that there are three main factors we should be considering when deciding whether to have students work individually or collaboratively, namely: the complexity of the task, the prior knowledge students have on the topic of the lesson, and the interdependence that exists within groups. Let’s dig into each of these ideas in more detail.

Task complexity refers to the level of cognitive demand a task imposes on a learner. Features of a complex task can include things like: number of subtasks, the amount of information to manage, the need for complex decision-making, the level of uncertainty involved, and how different elements within the task interact with each other. In the literature, complex tasks are sometimes referred to as non-routine or problem solving tasks. Conversely, less complex tasks are known as routine or recall tasks.

Research shows that for recall tasks, collaboration impedes performance, because the cognitive effort that it takes to collaborate takes away from the effort available to perform the task. Counting, for example, is a fairly low-level skill; but think how much harder it is to count if someone is talking to you, or even if there is noise in the background.

However, when engaging in problem solving tasks, groups outperform individuals (Laughlin, Hatch, Silver,& Boh, 2006). The explanation for this finding is that while the additional cognitive load of working in a group becomes extraneous when the task is relatively straightforward (as in the counting example), when the task is more novel and complex, the members of a group can pool their individual working memories, which allows the group to be able to handle a higher level of cognitive load. This collective working memory enables cognitive capacity to be freed up at the individual level, which can be used to build higher quality schema than could be developed if working alone. For example, if the task is to read a challenging technical text, it is likely that having a small group of students working together on figuring out what it means will lead to higher performance.

Another relevant factor when deciding if students will learn more from working in groups or by themselves is the level of prior knowledge students have about the topic. Students with little relevant prior knowledge have been found to learn more when working in a collaborative group compared to on their own. (Zambrano et al., 2019). This finding supports the theory of the collective working memory effect, which suggests greater cognitive capacity allows collaborative groups to acquire better mental representations from complex information.

What about a situation in which working in a group would benefit students with weak prior knowledge, but they would be working with peers who have strong prior knowledge. Working in a collaborative group needlessly increases the extraneous cognitive load of higher prior knowledge peers due the fact that the extra mental effort needed to work with others is not actually helpful, since whatever they would potentially learn from the group is likely redundant. However, the research suggests that higher prior knowledge students perform at similar levels when working individually or collaboratively on complex tasks despite this increase in cognitive load. Therefore if some students would benefit from working in a group, that should be the teacher’s decision.

The final variable that needs to be considered when deciding whether to have students work alone or in groups is the level of interdependence that can be created within the group. Positive interdependence reflects the extent to which group members must depend on one another for effective group performance. In other words, the conditions for collaboration need to be such that each group member is responsible for the work of the group as a whole, and the group as a whole is responsible for the learning of each individual group member. Group interdependence is realized when the relevant knowledge held by each individual group member is communicated and coordinated within the group, leading to the construction of shared mental models (Kirschner, Sweller, Kirschner, Zambrano, 2018). Basically, what this is saying is that when making meaning about complex tasks, collaboration becomes a scaffold for an individuals’ knowledge acquisition. For example, during collaborative learning, some information comes from collaborators rather than other sources, and that information is likely to become available exactly when it is needed, resulting in increased learning.

Other explanations posited for the effects of collaborative learning when using complex tasks include the notion that social interaction stimulates elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Research has found that groups working on a task generate more elaborative talk (i.e. students verbalizing their thinking) than students who work individually, which in turn leads to higher learning outcomes (Boxtel, Linden, & Kanselaar, 2000). One theory proposed for this finding is that talking to someone else creates deeper understanding, because the person speaking is thinking hard about how to get the listener to understand their thinking, resulting in a more coherent explanation. Other explanations put forth for the relationship between conceptual discourse and achievement focus on the process of negotiating meaning. The premise being that the process of negotiating a shared meaning about a concept likely requires participants to engage in elaboration, justification, questioning, building upon ideas, reflection, and the integration of different viewpoints, all of which involve sustained deep thinking about a concept.

Classroom Connections

Now that we have some background on each of the three variables that impact the potential for students to learn more when working individually or in a group, let’s examine the implications of each on classroom practice. Let’s suppose a grade 4 teacher is planning on having her students find the product of 25 x 12. How should she think about what kind of task to design?

Is this a complex or routine task? It depends on the learning intention the teacher has for the lesson.
1. If the teacher wants the students to understand how to perform the standard algorithm to solve multi-digit multiplication problems then the task and related learning intention are pretty routine, and the teacher should have students work individually.
2. However, if the teacher has a more conceptually based learning intention in mind, such as understanding how both the associative and distributive properties can be used to create equivalent and easier to compute expressions, then the task becomes much more complex, and requires a more collaborative approach.
What do students already know about the subject?
1. If her students are unfamiliar with the topic, collaborative learning is advantageous because it distributes cognitive demand, allowing students to build better mental models through shared knowledge and interaction.
2. However, if her students already know quite a bit about the topic (perhaps they have already learned a lot about the associative and distributive property) then having them work individually would be a better choice, since they may not gain as much from collaboration, as group work can introduce redundant or unnecessary effort.
Let’s say that the teacher decides on the more conceptual learning intention, and her students have little prior knowledge of the topic. She decides to have students work collaboratively, and now needs to think about how to foster positive interdependence within classroom groups.
1. There are two types of group interdependence that can be created. The first is called resource interdependence, which occurs when each group member has access to partial information which is needed to complete the task. This type of interdependence can be created by activities that require active communication and coordination, such as brainstorming sessions, debates, or jigsaw readings.
2. A second type of interdependence, called task or goal interdependence, can also be generated in order to maximize the benefits of collaboration. This type of interdependence is developed when each member of the group is dependent on every other member of the group to complete the task or reach a shared goal. Activities that require students to justify their reasoning, integrate multiple perspectives, and refine their ideas collaboratively are best suited to stimulate this type of interdependence.
3. Techniques for fostering task or goal interdependence include having groups share one writing utensil, requiring all group members to demonstrate understanding before assigning the next subtask or extension, teaching students how to effectively collaborate through modeling (i.e. fishbowls), and the use of collaboration rubrics.

This post aims to give you an overview of key theories and research on when it's most effective for students to work in groups versus individually. I then provided a practical example to demonstrate how these ideas can be applied in the classroom. Specifically, it offers insight into the decision-making process of a typical fourth-grade teacher planning the "25 x 12" task. See below for additional resources. If you'd like to continue the discussion or explore additional resources on this topic, don't hesitate to reach out at tnobili314@gmail.com.

The Core of the Matter

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?