document

Group Work Equity and Attitude 1

Using Individual Accountability in Laboratory Group Work to

Increase Equity and Influence Student Attitudes

Prepared By

Jena Youngflesh

Candidate for the Degree in Master of Education

Specializing in Curriculum and Teaching

University of San Diego

School of Leadership and Education Sciences

Summer 2009


Abstract

Working with others is the foundation of our society; we work together in business, through our

political system, and within our families. Today’s schools try to encourage group work so that

individuals know how to function successfully in our human community. Unfortunately, students

often do not work together in an equitable manner, causing them to miss out on many of the

benefits of this environment. Some students resent group work because they feel like they have a

larger responsibility than others, while some try to control the group entirely. On the other side

of the spectrum, students may feel like they are not allowed to fairly share their ideas within a

group or they simply let others complete all of the work for them, enjoying the fruits of others’

labor. This inequity may encourage students to shy away from working with others when they

have the option. The focus of this paper is on using different accountability methods within

laboratory group work to see if they can increase the perceived and actual equity among group

members. This research also strove to provide evidence for a shift in student attitudes towards

group work stemming from the increased equity. The data collection methods used in this study

included careful instructor observations, computer recordings of student conversations, self and

peer evaluations, and student surveys. The results demonstrate that both perceived and actual

equity can increase with the implementation of accountability methods. However, no one method

proved to be superior for all students, rather having a variety of methods seemed to be best.

Intriguingly, most students remained engaged and equally involved in their groups even when

the accountability tools were removed. This is encouraging for the possibility of re-training

students to incorporate new effective norms into their group work repertoire. Students also

reported more positive feelings towards group work at the end of the study as compared to their

initial feelings and stated that they were more willing to work with others in the future. These

results are promising, but it is suggested that they should be explored in different contexts and

over longer periods of time to confirm their validity.


Table of Contents

Introduction 4

Literature Review 10

Methodology 14

Implementation/Recursive Design 20

Phase I 21

Phase II 27

Phase III 32

Phase IV 35

Whole Study Results 37

Case Studies 37

Informal Case Studies 47

Whole Group Results 49

Analysis and Discussion 58

Findings 58

Significance 63

Limitations 64

Implications 65

Conclusion 68

Appendices 74

Works Cited 83


Introduction

My research focused on group work, specifically within a scientific laboratory setting. As

one of the major goals of education is to introduce students to different content areas and emulate

and approximate the practices of these fields, in the science classroom students must be involved

with groups. Scientists not only work with others on their individual projects, they also attend

conferences and participate in literature reviews to remain up-to-date on the most current

findings. It would be impossible for scientists to make progress if they did not build on the work

of others and share their ideas.

During the early months at my student teaching site, I incorporated as many authentic

science experiences as possible into my unit plans because students must have genuine

experiences in order to learn (Kolb, 1983). These authentic experiences included a field trip to

Body Worlds, interaction with the local endangered vernal pool habitat, student created natural

selection experiments, and several dissections. As supplies and funding were short, students were

often required to work in groups during laboratory activities. However, even if money was not a

limiting factor, I would have wanted students to work in groups during these activities to help

each other co-construct knowledge. Students learn from encountering and solving problem which

is a social process, not just a personal one (McNaughton, 1995). Working in groups helps to

orient students in Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: A state where students are

intellectually challenged, but are not pushed so far that they become overly frustrated and give

up (Vygotsky, 1978). By allowing students to work together, they can re-structure and construct

ideas that they would not have been able to reach independently.

Group work is also important because it is an essential practice throughout life.

Especially in science, discoveries are collaborative achievements. However, effective group


work is necessary in all fields, from manual labor to corporate business. As stated in “Learning

with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities,” “if small groups are

going to be the problem-solving units in business, schools should have the same arrangement…”

(Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway, & Krajcik, 1996). One must be able and willing to work with

others in order to achieve larger goals.

In my classroom, I tried to incorporate group work regularly to set up a constructivist

environment. However, I observed on numerous occasions unequal contributions and effort on

the part of different group members. From my observations, it was evident that students were not

gaining all of the benefits that they could from group work. The high achievers were learning the

material, but were demonstrating frustration from feeling the burden of having to complete the

majority of the work. They were scoring well on exams, illustrating their mastery of the

concepts, but they did not want to work with others. Other students wrote down the ideas of their

peers, but were not involved in the construction of the knowledge, so they did not truly acquire

the content. They may have completed lab reports, but they were not able to transfer the

knowledge to other assessments. This became apparent in the discrepancy in quality and grades

between their group work assignments and their individual work. Students seemed to be learning

to either hate group work because of their expected extra effort, or love it because they saw it as

a time to relax and benefit from the effort of others, as verbally overheard from individual

students. Students were not reaping all of the benefits from group work because they were not

truly involved in group work. My goal in this study was to incorporate accountability measures

to increase the equity of labor, and see if this increase of equity positively affected students’

views towards, and willingness to participate in, group endeavors.


Context

The district I worked in during this study is massive, serving over 132,000 students. The

socioeconomic level, quality of teachers, number of English learners, and racial make-up varies

at each site. The school I conducted my research at is situated in a middle class area where the

majority of students are neighborhood children; only about 22% are bused in from lower income

areas. About 40% of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunches. While only 12% of the

students at this school are English Language Learners, 47% have been recently reclassified. The

majority of my students had a primary or home language other than English. These languages

included Vietnamese, Japanese, Tagalog, and Africans, just to name a few.

I taught a seventh grade un-tracked required life science course at my site. My two

classes had a wide range of ability levels: in content knowledge, critical thinking skills, and

language abilities. The students had only had one semester of science prior to my course, making

scientific thinking and the use of evidence to support claims new concepts for most students.

Many students were shy and resistant to participate orally in class without prior validation of

their ideas.

As I incorporated more group work into my lessons, students reacted in a variety of ways.

Some students embraced sharing ideas with others and co-constructing projects. However, it

appeared that most students naturally took on unequal roles during group work in a lab setting.

One student often contributed the majority of the ideas, collected the data, and constructed the

presentation. This student was often a high achiever that wanted to make sure the product was of

the highest quality possible. Whether this student took charge and completed the majority of the

work because s/he wanted it to be completed in his/her own way or if the student was forced into

this role, depended on the specific situation and environment. These students often sighed and


complained when I created groups, saying they did not want to work with certain individuals

because they would be obligated to complete the entire project on their own.

Others sat back and enjoyed the benefit of working with the so-called “over-achievers.”

They took on the “slacker” role and did not contribute adequately to their groups. In most groups

on most occasions, I observed this inequity in effort and participation. This polarization may

have been causing the development of unfavorable and disadvantageous traits for the future. The

leaders may have felt burdened by the excess amount of work and may have been learning to shy

away from group work as a mechanism for self-preservation, causing them to miss out on

learning from others that differ from themselves. This is supported by student comments from

the baseline survey, such as “I hate working with others. They never do anything. I do all the

work. I would rather work solo.”

On the other side of the spectrum, the less involved students were not participating and

therefore were not able to construct their own knowledge. They may not have been learning the

content material adequately and may therefore be performing at a lower level than their potential.

Their self-efficacy may have been in the process of being damaged, leading to the self-

perception of an individual that needs to ride on the coat tails of others. In the baseline survey,

several students stated opinions of themselves similar to the following, “I’m the recorder because

I don’t have good ideas.” Worse yet, these students may also have been learning that taking

advantage of and benefiting from the effort of others is an acceptable way to behave in society.

Data from my baseline study supports this claim. 32% of students willingly admitted that they

are inactive participants in group work. They stated that when they are in groups, they listen and

then take others’ ideas, without contributing any original thought of their own.


Question

My question for this research was as follows: Will greater accountability in a

laboratory setting increase equity within groups? And, if can be accomplished, Does this

equity influence student attitudes towards group laboratory work itself? Sub-questions that

I addressed include the following:

1. How will high-achievers react to the accountability methods? Will they feel

more positively about group work because others are contributing, or will the

resent no longer controlling the situation?

2. Will lower achieving students feel more involved in group work and therefore

enjoy it more, even if it takes more effort? Or will they resent the extra energy

they are required to exert and therefore tend to dislike group work?

3. Will those that hated group work initially change their attitudes and be more

willing to work with others in the future?

4. Will the attitudes of those that initially loved group work change to a more

negative view due to a more formal and rigid group work model?

These questions were significant because individuals in my classroom exhibited behavior

on either end of the group work spectrum on a regular basis. Some individuals assumed all the

responsibility and refuse to work with others because, “I will have to do all the work. They never

do anything.” Others completely took over and shut out the opinions other students because,

“I’m smarter and have better ideas.” While still others, sat back and enjoy freeloading off of their

peers. I saw a correlation in my classroom between performance and participation in group work,

however it is difficult to determine if those that earned higher grades did so because they

participate in the activities, or if they participate in the activities because they were hard workers,


which also corresponds to higher grades. It is difficult to determine if they would have received

similar grades without the group laboratory experiences. I was frustration with group work in

several of my students, and a lack of engagement in others. Although this project had two parts,

it was focused specifically on if I could create increased equity through accountability and if that

accountability affected student affect. As group work and laboratories were frequent players in

my lesson plans, I had ample opportunities to collect data.

Personal Connection and Significance

This action research topic had personal meaning for me, not only because it was an area

of need for my students, but because it was an issue I dealt with throughout my education. From

elementary school through high school, I dreaded group work because I knew I would be saddled

with the majority of the design, implementation, and presentation. This attitude carried over into

my college career, however was lucky challenged by some amazing discussions and group

dynamics in an environmental biology class. Peers that were drastically different from myself

introduced phenomenal ideas to our projects that were far more advanced and well-thought

through than I could have constructed myself. This experience caused me to appreciate and seek

out ideas and opportunities to work with individuals different from myself. While I am still very

careful about individual roles and completion dates, I am now able to learn effectively from

collaboration.

I am glad I learned this lesson, but it came late in my educational career. I believe that an

increase in accountability would have caused greater equity and therefore allowed me to feel

more positively about group work. I would not have shied away from working with others; rather

I would have embraced the opportunity to think through issues at a deeper and more meaningful

level. I also would have experienced less stress and would have been able to enjoy my education


more fully. By implementing accountability in this study, I sought to discover if students’ affect

towards group work truly would positively increase, leading to deeper conceptual knowledge,

but possibly more importantly, a greater appreciation and desire to work cooperatively in groups.

By establishing and providing data to support this process, teachers in the future may put more

emphasis on the creating equity in group work through individual accountability.

Literature Review

The issue of equity and accountability in group work is a heavily discussed issue in both

scholarly and practitioner research forums. My research focused on group work within

laboratory/authentic research settings, so it was important to establish the validity of these types

of activities. According to Kolb’s experimental learning theory, individuals must partake in

concrete experiences in order to reflect and translate these experiences into meaningful concepts

(Kolb, 1984). More specifically to science, Gallagher says that “developing understanding

requires activities that construct meaning from experience” (Gallagher, 2007). Because science is

based on experimentation, this is the type of activity students must be involved in. If and when

students are able to apply concepts to new situations, they demonstrate true content mastery.

Authentic laboratory activities are therefore valuable for student science acquisition. As science

is a collaborative field where colleagues are constantly discussing and working through problems

together, and the purpose of a science class is to approximate the field of science (Gallagher,

2007), students must be engaged in both experimentation and group work.

Group work has also been shown to be beneficial to student learning across content areas.

As Vygotsky described, placing students in groups helps them to enter the zone of proximal

development, where each individual is appropriately challenged beyond their comfort level to

push critical thinking (Vygotsky, 1978). When in a group, students help to push each other’s


thinking beyond what they would be capable of achieving independently. In this way, students

co-construct knowledge, or create meaning by discussing and working with ideas together

(McNaughton, 1995). Although McNaughton was discussing literacy, the same ideas apply to

science.

Group learning is an extremely powerful tool. As Parr and Townsend described, “In true

collaborative learning, knowledge is genuinely socially constructed between or among

individuals…it is sought and negotiated together so that the one collaborative outcome is greater

than the sum of its parts” (Parr & Townsend, 2002). There are several benefits of group work,

including allowing for more comprehensive assignments, the development of interpersonal skills,

and exposure to different view points (Mello, 1993). Group approaches not only helps

individuals to master content material, they also help students from “different groups learn to

treat one another as persons rather than as members of social categories” (Cohen, 1994). The

significance of the effective use of groups is therefore more far reaching than simply increasing

performance in school. Students are able to develop their academic knowledge, while developing

interpersonal skills and learning to appreciate ideas that may come from individuals very

different from themselves.

Although there is ample evidence that group work can have significant educational

benefits, the literature also suggests that there can be problems associated with the manner in

which group work is implemented. The main concern is “individuals who do not do their share

of the work but reap the benefits of their more productive group members” (Mello, 1993). The

lack of participation of some students, due to rejection or lack of effort, is also a concern because

this means they are missing out on opportunities to learn (Blumenfeld, Marx, Soloway, &


Krajcik, 1996). Therefore, it is pertinent to include both group and individual accountability

components when designing group projects.

The reasoning and methodology of incorporating individual accountability into group

work is a main focus in theoretical and practitioner journals. The success of a group depends on

many variables, including “how the group is organized, what the tasks are, who participates, and

how the group is held accountable” (Blumenfeld et al., 1996). Often, students use tactics to avoid

accountability, such as abstaining, hedging, and conforming (Sweet & Pelton-Sweet, 2008). In

order to insist on student accountability and therefore increased equity, teachers must build it

directly into the group structure. One way of creating accountability is by monitoring student

actions during group work. This can go beyond who is on task and who is off task to include

behaviors such as being preoccupied with an authority figure, being off-task and passive, being

off-task and aggressive, directing, being resistive and aggressive, and so on (Hurley & Allen,

2007). One could video tape or audio tape student conversations and analyze them, or train

students to keep a record of the types of interactions that occur during their discussion.

Others suggest using peer evaluation forms, such as a “confidential feedback sheet” to

have individuals rate, using percentages, each member’s contribution (Bastick, 1999). Mello

agrees, stating that “students should submit a written report on their group and individual

member performance” (Mello, 1993). Brooks and Ammons suggest that, “the process of

completing evaluation instruments gives team members a chance to consider their own

contributions to the group,” creating both a reason to be involved and a reason for improved self-

concept when one participates to the full extent of their ability (Brooks & Ammons, 2003).

Several authors suggest using pre-designated roles in order to create accountability. One

article went beyond procedural roles and suggested thinking roles: the prediction manager, the


evidence collector, the researcher, and the skeptic (Voreis, Crawley, Tucker, Blanton, & Adams,

2008). Using specific roles that push beyond management will help students take ownership over

portions of projects. By rotating roles and having students share with their group members, each

student will learn the essential science skills. When using this strategy, it is advised to use the

“the multiple abilities treatment,” meaning that one must remember that there are many ways of

being smart and one must be open to different forms of expression (Cohen, Lotan, Scarloss &

Arellano, 1999). This may mean the evidence collector uses pictures to display steps or data, or

the skeptic writes a poem to challenge an idea. Allowing students to express themselves in

different ways while still adhering to their roles will help all students to be more successful and

therefore willing to engage.

Additional approaches to supporting equity within group activities include think-pair-

shares and jigsaws. A think-pair-share is a strategy where students think about an issue on their

own, discuss it with a partner, and then share out ideas with a larger group. In a jigsaw, each

student learns their assigned component in detail and become an “expert on the topic.” Each

student then teaches the rest of the group about their topic (Lin, 2006). In order to make these

effective, students would need to be responsible for writing down their own ideas first and then

coming up with group ideas after interactions with their peers.

Several sources claim that student affect is an important factor that should be measured in

education. Researchers find that there is a strong relationship between self-concept and affect

with engagement and participation in activities (Skinner, Wellborn & Connell, 1990). Also,

affective variables “influence students’ future behaviors. Students who have a positive attitude

towards learning will be inclined to continue learning after they leave school” (Popham, 1994).

Similarly, students with positive attitudes towards group work will be more likely to work in


groups with individuals different from themselves not only when in school, but throughout the

rest of their lives. Research suggests using student reporting to assess student affect (Popham,

1994). Questionnaires designed to measured situational interest, chemistry-specific self-concept,

and attitudes toward chemistry have been used (Nieswandt, 2006). Research generally has

focused on attitudes toward content areas, rather than towards the group work itself.

Although there is ample research on the importance of group work and accountability in

group settings, there is a lack of information about how accountability contributes to student

attitudes towards group work. Several articles describe the importance of student affect both with

regards to performance and future behavior; however this affect is measured with regard to

content material, not group work. Since working with others is an integral part of society,

understanding the effects of individual accountability on attitudes towards working with others

seems the next natural step to cultivating practices that prepare students for the real world.

Methodology

Baseline data collection

Over the past few months with my students, I observed uneven contributions during

group work and have also overheard students commenting about their negative feeling towards

group work. Although this information is important, it is also anecdotal. I wanted to get baseline

data about the way students perceived their own effort along with how they viewed others’

involvement in an unregulated group work assignment. I also wanted to measure students’

attitudes towards group work in general prior to any intervention. The laboratory used for the

baseline involved making a model of how muscles work with bones and as pairs, and then

students researched and created a representation of what happens when a muscle is injured or

what needs to happen for a muscle to be strengthened. I gave a survey (See Appendix A) about


equity during the project (called Muscle Strengthening and Injury) and their feelings about

working with others. I later compared the percentage of individuals who felt participation was

equal before the interventions to the percentage after the interventions. I also had students rank

their feelings about group work so I could see if they improved over time.

Interventions

One of my interventions was using use a student managed participation tally sheet to

measure student involvement and contributions, both positive and negative, during discussions of

their conclusion sections (See Appendix B). This allowed students to visualize how much they

were speaking and what types of comments they were adding to the conversation. During these

discussions, I also had every group use a free computer program to record their conversations. I

taught students how to work the software and they were responsible for saving their own

discussions. After school, I transferred the lesson’s files from the school computers to my own

laptop so I could listen to them at home. This provided me with the opportunity to track certain

groups of students throughout the study. From their conversations, I filled out the identical tally

sheet, in order to compare student perceived participation to actual verbal participation.

I also introduced individualized roles within a group work setting, including a prediction

manager, an evidence collector, a researcher, and a skeptic, based on the roles describe in

“Teaching students to think like scientists during cooperative investigations” (Voreis et al.,

2008). These roles were assigned to students on a rotating basis, so that each individual would be

an “expert” at each type of role. A chart with the jobs for each participant was posted at the front

of the class for easy reference (See Table 4 in Implementation Section-Phase II).

The final interventions were not based on introducing new accountability methods, but

rather were focused on removing the accountability methods to see if equity changed. First, I


removed just the tally sheets, and then I removed all accountability tools. I did not tell the

students why I was taking such actions, as this would have skewed my data; rather I told them

what we would not be using and at times invented reasons to explain why.

Rationale for interventions

I decided to use the student participation tally sheet in order to allow students to see their

level of participation on a regular basis, and help them to self-evaluate if they were participating

in the given categories appropriately or not. This way, the tally sheet encouraged students to

participate more frequently and more meaningfully in group work. The tally sheet also played

into my additional phases of implementation, allowing me to measure if each additional change

made a difference with regard to equity or not. They allowed me to assess specific groups’

changes in participation in a longitudinal study.

I used the computer recordings so that I was able to observe the types of interactions

taking place between students, even if I was not there to hear them in the moment. The

recordings also helped students to be aware of the types of contributions they were making and

try to participate in an equitable manner. Although I only listened to five minute intervals from

the conclusion section conversations of two groups from each lab (my case studies), I never

informed the students of this fact. The uncertainty of if I was going to listen to their

conversations or not helped to keep all groups on task.

I decided to use the individualized roles within group work because some students

seemed like they did not know where to start when working on a laboratory. In other groups,

individuals would argue about who got to do what, wasting precious class time. I based my

individual roles on those described in “Teaching students to think like scientists during

cooperative investigations” (Voreis et al., 2008), as one of my goals was to increase participation


in group work in order to increase thinking and acquisition of knowledge. Although the roles did

incorporate managerial aspects to help the group work flow in a more organized manner, they

also each had an aspect that encouraged thought and leadership skills.

Data collection methods

To measure equitable distribution of labor and contribution, I used several methods in

order to triangulate my data. First, I made careful observations in my field notes about student

participation, engagement, and effort. I also paid attention to the roles and routines students took

on during the group work. I made sure to note any positive or negative comments made about

working in groups as another way to measure attitude.

To support the idea of more equal participation, I had the prediction manager man the

tally sheet. S/he kept track to the amount of verbal participation from each group member,

including each type of contribution made. The prediction manager used hash marks to indicate

each individual’s participation (See Appendix B). This allowed me to see if an individual’s

relative participation in certain areas increased or decreased as additional interventions were

added.

As students tend to favor their friends or themselves, I used a computer program to record

students’ interactions during group discussion time to monitor actual participation. I selected two

groups to track throughout the study (rationale discussed in Whole Study Results-Case Studies).

I listened to the middle five minutes from each of the two groups’ conclusion section

discussions. I used the middle five minutes because this was the most likely time that students

would be on task and involved with the discussion. I only listened to conclusion section

conversations because time to discuss this section was consistent across all laboratories.

I also used student laboratory notebooks as a source of data. Students completed the


majority of their work in their notebooks and I collected them regularly to give feedback and to

grade. I used a 1 to 4 grading scale for both quality and completion to assess if either changed

with the use of discussion accountability tools.

Surveys at the end of each group work activity were also data collection devices. I used

surveys to address students’ feelings about group equity (See Appendices A-F). I asked students

which group members participated equally/fairly and if they felt they made an adequate effort

themselves. I also asked them if they felt the interventions helped to increase individual

participation. I acknowledge that having students rate others and themselves may have skewed

my data; however students were aware that I was observing them and listening to their

conversations on tape. They were also informed on several occasions that I was not grading them

based on what they wrote on their surveys. This hopefully helped students to be honest in their

responses.

I also used the post-lab group work survey as an opportunity to address student attitude

toward group work. I asked students if they liked group work more or less in each situation than

they did during the Muscle Strengthening and Injury Project. I also asked if they liked group

work more, less, or the same compared to group work in each of the other prior interventions. I

asked students to explain why, in order to determine if any improvement was correlated with

individual accountability measures, or if it was due to some other factor (See Appendices A-F).

At the end of the study I had students answer questions about their feelings towards

group work in general (See Appendix F). I had them rate group work on a scale of 1 to 10 and

then I compared this rating to the initial score they gave on the Leichert scale on the baseline

survey. I had students write their names on their surveys so that I could track patterns and

changing ideas over time. Students were informed that they were not being graded based on their


responses and that this data was being used for collegiate research, so I believe they were honest

with me the majority of the time. However, I wanted more concrete support, so I gave students

an anonymous honesty survey at the end of the study (See Appendix G).

Finally, I conducted a member check, where I presented the major findings to my classes,

and asked them to weigh in on what they thought about the results (more details about the

member check discussed in Whole Group Results-Member Check). Students expressed their

opinions both verbally and in writing in order for everyone to be heard.

Rationale for data collection methods

I chose to use several data collection methods for each component of my research in

order to triangulate the data and ensure the most reliable and valid conclusions possible. By

having multiple sources for each data set, I could compare them and see if they revealed similar

results, adding to the strength of the deductions. I used the tally sheets so that the students and I

could see individual’s positive and negative oral contributions to group work, both during

specific laboratories, and over time. I used them in conjunction with the computer recordings to

encourage students to be honest with their hash marks, but also so I could compare perceived

participation to actual participation. This comparison took place within my case studies. I used

two case studies in order to examine the dynamics within groups that were representative of the

class as a whole. This enabled me to get a more in-depth view of equity. I used the surveys so

that I could hear student’s voices with regards to both equity and their feelings about group work

on a regular basis.

I also used field notes throughout the phases to collect anecdotal evidence towards my

research question. This real time, “actions speak louder than words” data could not be gathered

in any other manner and is significant in a social science study. It triangulated my data in that it


enabled me to see and provide evidence documenting if students were actually acting in the

manner that they stated they were on the surveys. I used the final survey to assess students’

overall feelings and have data to compare to students’ initial thoughts revealed in the baseline

survey. The honesty survey and the member check were used to assess the validity of the data

collected throughout the study.

Implementation/Recursive Design

The implementation of my action research took place over a two month period, with

approximately one group work laboratory activity per week. Due to standardized testing and

other school occurrences, there were two weeks that did not contain labs. The first two phases

contain two labs each, while the last two phases each consisted of one lab. During the phases, I

used student surveys, student participation tally sheets, my tally sheets from computer recordings

of conversations, student notebooks, and my own observations as data sources (See Table 1).


Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Labs Involved 1. Vital Capacity

2.Inhale/Exhale

1. Digestion

2. Calories

1. Seeds 1. Leaves

Type of

Accountability

1. Participation

Tally Sheets

2.Computer

Recordings

1. Participation

Tally Sheets

2. Computer

Recordings

3.Individual

Roles

1. Computer

Recordings

2. Individual

Roles

None

Data Collection

Methods-whole

class

1. Student

Survey-Equity

and Attitudes

2. Teacher

Observations

1. Student

Survey-Equity

and Attitudes

2. Teacher

Observations

1. Student

Survey-Equity

and Attitudes

2. Teacher

Observations

1. Student

Survey-Equity

and Attitudes

2. Final Survey

3. Honesty

Survey

4. Teacher

Observations

Data Collection

Methods-2

groups I tracked

1. Student

Survey-Equity

and Attitudes

2. Student Tally

Sheets

3. Teacher Tally

Sheets (From

Computer)

4. Teacher

Observations

5. Student

Notebooks

1. Student

Survey-Equity

and Attitudes

2. Student Tally

Sheets

3. Teacher Tally

Sheets (From

Computer)

4. Teacher

Observations

5. Student

Notebooks

1. Student

Survey-Equity

and Attitudes

2. Teacher Tally

Sheets (From

Computer)

3. Teacher

Observations

4. Student

Notebooks

1. Student

Survey- Equity

and Attitudes

2. Final Survey

3. Teacher

Observations

4. Student

Notebooks

Phase I

Implementation. My initial intervention took place during a lab examining individual

vital lung capacity. Before we began the lesson, I explained to the students that I would be

studying group work and trying to figure out how to make it more equal and fair. I told them that

we were co-researchers and what they thought mattered as much as anything I thought, so I

needed them to be honest. The first accountability method was using a student operated tally

sheet to monitor different types of participation. I informed students that I would not be grading

Table 1

Accountability Types and Data Collection Methods Used to Assess Equity and Attitudes

Towards Group Work


them based on their participation, but that the sheets would inform them on how much they were

adding to their group discussions. I used this strategy because I believed that students were

unaware of the types of ideas they were offering and their relative amount of contributions. I

believed that visualizing their amount of input, or lack there of, would encourage students to

participate more equally with positive contributions. I modeled, with the help of three students,

how to use the tally sheet for a conversation about what they did over the weekend. I also

reviewed how to use the computer recording software, as I had introduced it earlier that week.

The actual lesson consisted of students thinking about what the term vital lung capacity

might mean, discussing with their groups how we could measure lung capacity, sharing their

procedures with the class, conducting their experiments, and then discussing the components that

they should write about in their conclusions. The students kept the tally sheets during both the

procedure and the discussion, hopefully to increase individual contributions (See Appendix B).

However, after careful reflection, I determined that I would only use the conclusion discussions

because they would be present in every lab, while the procedure discussions may not. I also kept

careful classroom observations during the entire lab, especially during the conclusion portion, to

see if individual participation changed with accountability. At the end of class, students filled out

a survey about the equity of group work and their attitudes towards the activity (See Appendix

C). Additionally, I examined the students’ conclusion sections during grading to check for any

patterns in completion or quality.

The next week, the students participated in another lab that was also part of phase I, titled

Inhale/Exhale. The accountability method of tally sheets and computer recordings was repeated

in this lab to confirm the validity of the results from the first lab. During the Inhale/Exhale Lab,

students made predictions about what activities might influence the amount of CO2 a person


exhales. The groups then discussed possible procedures for testing their hypotheses, shared their

ideas with the class, carried out their experiments, recorded their results, and discussed their

conclusion sections. Again, an assigned student (different from the student in the first lab)

managed the participation tally sheet during the conclusion discussion. The class again

completed a survey at the end of the class period (See Appendix C). I made careful observations

of the students’ interactions. I again examined the students’ conclusion sections in their

notebooks.

Results. The survey given after the Vital Lung Capacity Lab showed positive results; the

majority of students perceived greater equity in the labs with the tally sheets/computers than in

labs with no accountability measures. In fact, 67% said that the tally sheets/computers increased

equity, while only 13% said they did not increase equitable individual effort (See Table 2). These

results were supported by my in-class observations. The students, in general, were more attentive

to each others’ ideas and were leaning in towards each other. Aden, one of my special education

students, who had barely spoken in a class all year, worked cooperatively with his peers and even

volunteered a thoughtful response during a whole-class conversation. I overheard a few students

make comments like, “It’s nice to have you guys talk too.” The students did seem like they were

talking more with each other, however the students in charge of the tally sheets seemed like they

were having difficulty keeping tract of participation while still contributing appropriately. Two

students said in exasperation, “This is too hard. I can barely keep tract of what everyone is

saying!”


As for attitude towards group work, a large proportion of students liked group work more

in the Vital Capacity Lab when there was accountability. This means that instilling

accountability may have influenced more positive feelings towards group work. 49% of students

said that they liked group work more in this activity than they did during the muscle

strengthening activity. Also, 85% of students said that they enjoyed this lab (See Table 3), a far

greater percentage than in the baseline activity. However, students stated that they did not enjoy

the baseline activity because they were not given enough time to work, not that the activity was

uninteresting or unimportant. I also noticed a decrease in complaining during the Vital Capacity

Lab about who was in each group. For example, Alex, a student who had complained about his

partners in every lab up to this point, did not make any negative comments about his peers.

Phase 1. Lab Activity

2.Accountability

method

Yes No Kind of No

Answer

1. Vital Capacity

2. Tally Sheets and

Computer Recording

67% 13% 5% 15% Phase I

1. Inhale/Exhale

2. Tally Sheets and

Computer recording

79% 12% 7% 2%

1. Digestion

2. Tally Sheets,

Computer Recording,

and Roles

77% 15% 5% 3% Phase II

1. Calories

2. Tally Sheets,

Computer Recording,

and Roles

63% 26% 11% 0%

Table 2

Did the Accountability Measure Increase Equity? Data Collected from Four Surveys (Appendices C & D)


I repeated the same accountability measures and data collection methods in the next lab

on Phase I, the Inhale/Exhale Lab, in order to check the validity of the results. In this lab, 79% of

students said that the tally sheets/computers increased equity. Only 12% of students did not think

that these accountability measures increased equity (See Table 2). This validates my previous

results, as the majority students said that equity was increased in both of the two labs where

accountability measures were used. During my observations, I noticed that two very shy girls

were now vocally participating with their groups. One high-achieving student was reading her

ideas for the conclusion and her group was evaluating them. She asked her peers, “What do you

think of that? How can we make it better?” It was encouraging to see that she was trying to

engage her peers in the discussion by asking for their opinions and their help, even if she had

already pre-formed the groups’ responses to the questions.

Implementation of the same accountability methods in the Inhale/Exhale Lab also

resulted in positive student responses with regard to attitude. 65% of students liked group work

in this activity more than in the muscle strengthening lab and only 2% liked it less. In both from

Phase I, where accountability methods were used, students liked group work better. 71% of

Activity Yes No Kind of No Answer

Muscle

Strengthening/Injury

65% 20% 14% 0%

Vital Capacity 85% 3% 6% 6%

Inhale/Exhale 71% 14% 15% 0%

Digestion 83% 9% 3% 5%

Calorie 92% 3% 5% 0%

Seeds 74% 10% 16% 0%

Leaves 78% 18% 4% 0%

Table 3

Did Students like the Lab Activities? Data Collected from Several Surveys (Appendices A-F)


students liked this activity (See Table 3). Students seemed to enjoy discussing which physical

activity increased the amount of C02 they exhaled as they were animated, lively, and engaged. It

was common to hear a student say, “Wow the color changed really quick when I ran. Did the

same thing happen for you? Why is that?” I also noticed that students where more focused on

listen to their peers’ responses than they had been in the past.

Analysis. According to the results of the first phase of implementation, the accountability

methods were fairly successful. Most students felt that the work load was more equal and they

enjoyed working in groups more. This matched my observations from class. Students appeared

engaged not only with the content, but also with the discussions that were taking place with their

peers. It was intriguing that after only two labs with accountability measures, changes in student

behaviors and opinions could already be taking place. However, on the survey, I only asked

students if the tally sheets increased participation. Although several of them said yes, in their

comments they said it increased participation because they knew I was listening or they wanted

to impress me. A smaller population of students said that they could see if they were

participating equally based on the tally sheet and then could change their behavior accordingly.

Therefore, it is difficult to discern if the increased equity was due to the tally sheets, the fear of

the teacher overhearing their contributions, or both.

Also, during my observations, I noticed that at times there was a power struggle between

students over who got to do which jobs and whose responsibility it was to record which portions

of data. This seemed to distract students and then they would be off-task. They would talk about

other matters and forsake their conclusion discussions until one student pulled them back on

track. I had considered using individual roles when I conceptualized this study and at this point I

decided that if students had specific concrete roles, both in physical and discussion duties, the


arguing would no longer be an issue. Students would be more able to focus on the task at hand

and positively contribute.

Phase II

Implementation. In the next phase of the study, I introduced the individual roles. I

displayed the titles for the roles on the document camera, and then asked student what they

thought each person should be responsible for based on the titles. I had a pre-formed list for

reference, but added a few student ideas to give them control over their own learning. The roles

were as follows:

Role Thinking tasks Organization tasks

Prediction manager 1. Leads discussion about

predictions and reasoning

behind thinking

1. Keeper of the tally sheet

Evidence collector 1. Helps look for patterns

2. Summarizes results

1. Helps others record data

and observations

2. Reports findings to the

class

Researcher 1. Leads discussion about

why information learned is

important, how it relates to

the hypothesis, and how it

relates to past topics

1. Gathers and returns

supplies

2. Reports findings to the

class

Skeptic 1. Leads discussion about

sources of error and

alternative meanings

1. Obtains, runs, and returns

computer

2. Saves conversations

3. Reports data to class

The students were assigned letters earlier in the year (A, B, C, D) based on where they sat within

their group. Therefore, I could assign a letter to a task on a rotating basis, assuring that each

student was able to participate in each of the roles at some point in time.

When introducing the individual tasks for laboratory group work, I informed students that

I was creating these roles to help them act more like real scientists. In the field, scientists each

Table 4

Individual Student Roles during Group Work


work on their own studies, collaborate, and apply information from others to their own work. I

used this strategy because in the past my students had become excited and enthused when they

are involved in “genuine” science, as observed when I brought in x-rays for them to examine and

mouse-heart-defect slides. During these lessons, students asked more in-depth and sophisticated

questions. They became more animated when they felt like real scientists, as see through their

behaviors when they had designed their own labs during the study of natural selection. Playing

on the authenticity of the strategy helped my students to “buy-in” to the method and gave me the

opportunity to truly look at its effectiveness.

After introducing the roles, three students and I modeled an appropriate group

interaction/conversation using the roles. They were next applied in the Digestion Lab. During

this inquiry lab, students were given three different foods (potatoes, egg whites, and vegetable

oil). In previous lessons, we discussed which foods contain which nutrients (carbohydrates,

lipids, and proteins), so students were familiar what the given foods contained. The students

were also given three indicators: a mouth indicator, a stomach indicator, and a small intestine

indicator. They were to design a lab to test which organ digests which type of nutrient. The

groups discussed their possible procedures, shared and edited them as a class, carried out their

experiments, and then discussed the information that would go in their conclusions. They used

the tally sheets during the conclusion conversation, as well as the computer recording program. I

made observations during the entire lab, paying particular attention to if students were using the

described roles and if they seemed to alter equity. At the end of class, the students again took a

survey on the equity of group work and their feelings towards group work (See Appendix D). I

again monitored their performance on the conclusion sections of their labs during grading.

The next week, I used the roles again in the Calorie Lab to see if they continued to be


effective at ensuring equity. Before the lab, I reviewed the roles and which letter would be

assigned to which task. In the actual activity, students predicted which food types contained the

most calories and why. They then burned the foods systematically under a tube of water and

measured the temperature increase. The groups then discussed their findings and their

conclusions. The students used the roles, tally sheets, and computer recordings during the

conclusion discussion. I tried to observe group work throughout the lab, but as this lab had

several safety precautions and needed ample active teacher interactions, most of my observations

were limited to the conclusion section conversation. Again the students filled out a survey at the

end of the lab (See Appendix D) and I reviewed notebooks for conclusion completion and

quality.

Results. In the Digestion Lab, students perceived that equity was increased due to the

implementation of individual roles. 77% of students said that the roles helped to increase the

equal distribution of individual participation, while 15% of students said they did not (Table 2).

In my observations, I noted that the roles really helped some students know exactly what to do

and helped to keep them on task. However, I also noticed that others were confused by the roles,

constantly referencing the poster and asking other students, “Who is supposed to do that again?”

They seemed more concerned with whether or not they were sticking exactly to the jobs they

were assigned, rather than making sure they understood the material and were cooperating with

their partners, taking away from the quality of the group work.

The majority of students, 83%, enjoyed this lab (See Table 3). Students also liked group

work more than they did initially, indicating that their feelings towards working with others were

continuing to become more positive. 73% of students liked group work in this lab more than they

had in the Muscle Strengthening and Injury Lab, saying that their peers contributed more and


listened to their ideas. 22% of students liked this lab the same as the Muscle Strengthening Lab,

while 5% liked it less. Those that liked it less were lower achieving students that said they now

had to “Work harder and understand the stuff.” When comparing this lab to the labs that used the

tally sheets and the computers, 32% of students said they liked group work more with the

addition of the roles, 57% liked it the same, and 12% liked it less with the roles. The verdict also

seemed mixed during my observations, with some students complaining based on getting the

“hard role,” while others expressed rejoice when their partners finally contributed.

During the second lab in Phase II, the Calorie Lab, most students thought that the roles

increased equity. However, the numbers were lower in this lab than in the Digestion Lab. 62% of

students said that the roles increased equity, 11% said they kind of increased equity, and 26%

said they did not increase equity. During this lab, I noticed and recorded in my field notes a huge

increase in effort and equity. Not only were students participating more, they were sharing and

contributing a far higher caliber. Several students were absent for a school field trip allowing

some of the usually quiet and shy students to step-up and let their voices be heard. I only saw one

off-task student during either of my two classes.

Students really enjoyed this activity, as seen by the 92% approval rate (See Table 3).

Those that did not enjoy the lab made comments about being afraid of fire. Students were also

far more positive about group work during this lab. None of the students in either of my classes

liked the group work in this activity less than in the Muscle Strengthening/Injury Lab. In fact,

79% of students liked it more and 21% liked it the same. This shows that at this point, students

may have mastered the roles more and have benefited more from them in this Calorie Lab than

they did in the Digestion Lab. In comparison with the tally sheet/computer recording labs, 52%

liked group work better with the roles, 45% liked it the same, and 3% liked it less. It was a little


surprising to me that any students liked it less, as students were smiling the most I have ever

seen, cooperating kindly and frequently with others, and did not complain at all.

Analysis. The effectiveness of adding the roles to the array of accountability measures

was somewhat inconclusive from the collected data. Some students seemed to think that the roles

were extremely useful, making statements like, “Group work is so much more organized with the

roles,” “I don’t have to wonder what to do anymore. I know what I am supposed to do so I can

contribute,” and “Now everyone knows what to do and they don’t make their partners do it for

them.” These comments were representative of the feelings expressed by about 60% of the

students. However, a small portion of the other students seemed to have the complete opposite

view, stating that, “The roles were confusing,” or “we just focused on our own tasks and didn’t

really talk to each other.”

My observations helped to slightly clear up the confusion. In the Digestion Lab, some

students seemed to be mostly focused on figuring out the roles rather than actually doing them.

In the Calorie Lab, students worked as a team and were extremely engaged; the majority of

students seemed to embrace the roles at this point and benefit from them. However this may have

in part due to engaging lab itself. Overall, the roles seemed to influence an increase in equity for

the majority of students, but not for all students. This may indicate that no one accountability

method will work well for everyone.

The students’ attitudes seem to be improving towards group work. I received fewer and

fewer comments like, “I have to do all the work. I hate group work.” Students’ comments began

to state they enjoyed the activities because their peers contributed equally, rather than just saying

that the lab was fun. This illustrates that a true attitude change may have been taking place.


As students seemed to have re-learned how to work in groups and which behaviors are

appropriate, I started to wonder at this point if they had actually internalized their group work

norms or if they were still completely reliant on having the accountability methods present. I also

wanted to see if it was truly the tally sheet that increased the students’ participation, or if it was

actually the computer recordings. Therefore, I decided that the next step would be to remove the

tally sheets and see the resulting influence on equity and student attitudes.

Phase III

Implementation. In the first phase of the intervention, students made comments indicating

that the computer recordings, not the tally sheets, may possibly have been the accountability

method that was effective. Therefore in Phase III, I took away the tally sheets in order to help me

to decipher which of the two made the larger difference with regard to equity. I did not explain to

the students why I was removing the tally sheets, as this would skew my results. Therefore, I just

informed them that we were not doing the tally sheets that day, but we would be continuing with

the roles and the computer recordings.

This actual lab was different from the previous four because we had finished the body

systems unit of study and moved on to plants. Also, as the year was coming to an end, I did not

have enough time to do a full scale inquiry lab. The Seeds Lab was more of a dissection to see

the different parts of a seed, rather than a lab to figure out a specific scientific process or idea.

Students were given the procedure and I modeled the dissection. Then the students completed the

lab. They removed the seed coat from a bean and from a corn kernel, observed the differences in

the cotyledons, located the embryonic plant, and drew and labeled the appropriate parts. They

then discussed with their groups the purpose of a seed coat, the differences they observed

between the two seeds, and the functions of a seed in general (components of their conclusions).


The took a survey at the end of the lab (See Appendix E) and I reviewed their notebooks for

quality and completion.

Results. According to their survey responses, the majority of students perceived group

work to be the same without the tally sheet as it was with the tally sheet/roles/computer

recordings. 59% of students believed that group work was the same without the tally sheets,

while 19% of students thought the group work was more equal without the tally sheets, making

comments like, “The tally sheets get in the way” or, “The person that does the tally sheet doesn’t

talk as much” (See Table 5). 22% of the students thought that the group work was less equal

without the tally sheets because, “People don’t know how much they are talking without the tally

sheets, so they talk less.” Similar comments were common from individuals in this group of

students.

In my observations, I only noticed a distinctly lower amount of participation in two

groups. In these groups, students were turned away from their group members or talking to

individuals from other groups about non-related topics. Most other groups were participating in a

fashion similar to that see when all accountability methods were used.

1. Lab Activity

2.Accountability

Devices

Removed

More Equal The Same as

with All Three

Accountability

Methods

Less Equal

1. Seeds

2. Tally Sheet

19% 57% 22%

1. Leaves

2. Tally Sheet,

Computer

Recording, and

Roles

5% 65% 30%

Table 5

When Accountability Devices were Removed, How was Group Work Equity? Data from Two Surveys (Appendices E &F)


As far as attitudes, in their surveys the majority of students still liked group work in this

activity more than in the activity without any accountability methods. However, the results for

comparing the roles/computer to the tally/computer were far more mixed. 37% of students liked

them the same, 44% liked the roles/computer better, and 21% liked the roles/computer less than

the tally/computer. This matched my observation in that when I told the students they would not

be using the tally sheets, a small portion of them cheered, while another group sighed. However,

the students still seemed to like this activity in general, as 74% of them said that they enjoyed it.

Analysis. During this phase, the equity of participation decreased only a small amount.

There were a few students off-task a bit more than usual, but nothing extreme. This is reflected

in the student responses where the majority stated group work was the same. However, there was

a small group of students that missed the tally sheets, saying that their partners “Did not talk as

much without them.” One girl said, “I don’t like the tally sheets, but they help keep us on track.

Group work is more equal with them.” Although I only saw two similar comments, the behavior

of several students revealed this sentiment. They said on their surveys that they did not like the

tally sheets and that they did not increase equity, however from their peer evaluations and my

field notes, their participation was increased. This illustrates that even if the students do not

enjoy having accountability measures, they do have a valuable purpose that at least some

students are beginning to realize.

A smaller group of students expressed their complete dislike of the tally sheets saying, “It

was so much better without them. Normally we fight over who is going to get the most points.”

This illustrates some students still think that I am grading them based on their participation and

do not realize that I can check the accuracy of their counts using the computer recordings.

Students are, at times, still wasting time arguing over the tally sheets, rather than using them as a


tool to monitor participation. For those students, the tally sheets may detract from their learning,

both in content and group work skill acquisition.

As many of the students did not like group work more or less than they did with the tally

sheets, it does not seem as though the tally sheets themselves make a huge difference in student

attitudes, although there were a few students that either loved or hated group work due to the

lack of tally sheets. This illustrates that for each student, their may be a method that either

absolutely works for them or absolutely does not. Some accountability method is clearly needed,

but no accountability method will work perfectly for each student. Therefore, it may be

important to introduce several different types of methods and vary their use.

During this phase, it seemed as though the students were fairly well re-trained with

regards to group dynamics and that they had internalized some group work skills. Also, as

removing one specific method did not seem to produce drastically different results, it seemed

like alternating the removal of different accountability measures would not tell me much.

However, if I removed all accountability methods, I would be able to see if students really had

been re-trained or if they were still relying on the formal methods to keep them engaged with

their group and their discussion. Therefore, I decided to remove the tally sheets, computer

recordings, and roles in the next phase and see if student participation in laboratory group work

changed.

Phase IV

Implementation. I began this phase by informing students that we would be doing another

group work lab. The students got up to go get the computers and asked me which person would

have which role today. I told them that we were not using the computers today because some of

them were not working and that we would take a break from the roles as well. I was very careful


not to tell them that the removal of the accountability measures was planned, as this may have

altered their participation and responses.

Before we began the Leaves Lab, the students brainstormed ideas about how we could

categorize leaves and why scientists may want to do this. Students came up with the five main

ways, and then we designed a table to hold the data for leaves I had collected from the

neighborhood. Then, the groups were given 6 leaves and the students had to determine which

ones fit into which categories and why. They also worked in their groups to answer the

conclusion questions. During this time, I made careful observations. Students took a final

equity/attitudes survey at the end of the period (See Appendix F), and I reviewed their work in

their notebooks the next day.

Results. Again, the results in this phase of my action research were mixed with regards to

equity. 65% of students said that individuals participated the same amount without any

accountability methods, 30% said they participated the less, and 5% of the students said that they

participated more (See Table 5). Of those that said their group members participated less, the

common comment was that, “We knew you weren’t watching as closely, so we didn’t have to be

as on task.” However, in the groups that said they participated the same as before, most students

said, “We knew what to do now. We could just do it without all the other stuff.” Those that said

that they participated more said, “We could participate more now because we weren’t as

pressured. We didn’t have to focus on roles or tally sheets, so we could just talk.”

In my observations, I noted that several groups were extremely on task and seemed to be

doing just as well without the accountability tactics. Their group work equity had definitely

improved since the beginning of this study. A few groups seemed to be a little bit less focused.


However, they were still far more involved than they had been before the introduction of the

accountability methods.

When students commented about their feelings about the group work in this activity,

most students said, “I liked group work the same in this activity. Not having the stuff didn’t

matter.” However, some students said, “I liked group work less because my groups didn’t do

anything.” With regards to the actual activity, 78% enjoyed categorizing the leaves (See Table

2).

Analysis. The data from this phase illustrates that it is possible to re-train students with

regards to the way that they participate in groups, but also in the way that they feel and view

group work. As students have been working in groups in their old way for at least eight years, a

two month intervention probably was not enough to change every student’s behavior and attitude

towards group work. Because the vast majority of students were on task even when all

accountability methods were removed, this intervention was long enough for most students. The

others may simply need more time to internalize the skills that they learned.

Although students seem to have changed, it would be interesting to see if these changes

stay with the students over a longer amount of time. If I had had the opportunity to continue this

phase for a longer period of time, I would have been able to gather a more realistic image of if a

genuine change in students’ approach to working with others had occurred. Also, it would have

been interesting to gather data on these students from their other classes and see if an

overarching change had taken place.

Whole Study Results

Case Studies

Group selection. When deciding which groups to follow through the study, I wanted to


pick groups that I felt represented the larger classroom as whole. I also wanted to select groups

that contained students at both ends of the spectrum; ones that loved group work and ones that

hated group work. Similarly, I wanted to get a mix of students that contributed equally with those

that did not contribute fairly to group work, taking into consideration their ability levels. I also

sought to examine heterogeneous groups with regard to ability level. This way, the case studies

would be slightly extreme, but accurate representations of the class group work norms and show

a microcosm of how the class changed as a whole over time.

I therefore picked two groups, from this point designated Group 1 and Group 2. Group 1

consisted of three boys and one girl. The girl, “Amy” is a high-performing hard working student

who has the second highest grade in my class. She is somewhat shy and began this study hating

group work. She said that, “I either have to do all the work or go along with people’s ideas that I

hate.” There were two middle performing students in this group, “Timmy” and “Josh”. Timmy is

very vocal, but at times has difficulty focusing. He initially said he really likes group work. Josh

is an intermediate English Language Learner, who often completes quality work, but is often

very quiet during discussions. The last member of this group is “Ilkin,” a very vocal boy that has

an active IEP. He is very capable, but often performs below his ability level because he is off-

task and is satisfied with doing the very minimum to get by. He is often not a team player when

it comes to group work, and said initially that he enjoyed group work because he can use others’

ideas and not have to think as much on his own. I picked this group because I wanted to see 1) if

Amy would warm up to group work and feel that the accountability measures made it more

fair/if she would be more willing to participate in the future, 2) if accountability measures would

help focus Ilkin and help him to contribute more fairly, and 3) if Timmy and Josh would be able

to become more focused vocal group participants.


The other group I selected contained a similar structure of students: one high-performing

student, two middle-performing students, and one low-performing student. However, the

personalities of the students were very different. “James,” the high performer, is very

domineering and bossy, telling others what to write and what the “correct” answers are. James

initially gave group work a 10 out of 10, saying that he likes to “be the leader and tell everyone

what to do.” The two middle-performing students, “Gabi” and “Vanessa” are both very vocal

girls who tend to be easily distracted. They have little self-efficacy when it comes to science, and

often turn to others for information. However, they both initially rated group work very high.

“Adrian,” the low-performer, is incredibly shy and hardly ever speaks to anyone in class. I even

struggle to get him to say “Hi” to me as he enters the room. In the baseline survey, he gave group

work a five. He said he does not like to depend on other people and would rather work alone. He

said that I could improve group work if I could get him to talk more. Through this study I wanted

to examine 1) if James would become more of a team player, listening to his classmates rather

than ordering them around, 2) if Gabi and Vanessa would become more vocal with their science

ideas, and 3) if Adrian would start participating and like group work more.

Equity Trends. To assess the patterns of equity over time for these two groups, I used four

data collection methods: student tally sheets, teacher tally sheets created from computer

recordings of student conclusion conversations, average peer evaluations, and my own

observations. I also compared the student tally sheets to my own to get an idea of students’

perceived equity in relation to actual equity.

As can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below, student perceptions of their positive

contributions vary greatly from the actual positive contributions that I observed from the

computer recordings. Asking a question, restating an idea, or presenting a new idea were all


considered positive contributions. As shown in Figure 1, the student tally sheets indicated that

participation began fairly equally, became less equal, and then became more equal again.

However, according to my tally sheets, the equity of actual positive verbal participation steadily

increased over time. This difference may be due to many factors, such as different students

manning the tally sheet and the inability to accurately keep track of participation while trying to

remain engaged in the conversation. It is important to note that my record included the Seeds

Lab while the graph of the students tally sheets (See Figure 1) did not because the tally sheet was

the accountability method that was removed from this lab. Neither figure includes the Leaves

Lab because no accountability methods were used and therefore fewer data collection devices

were available. It is also important to note that Ilkin participated more over time.


Although not illustrated in the graphs, negative contributions made by team members

were also tracked. In the first activity, Ilkin was off-task six times (data from computer

recordings). This number steadily declined, until the Calorie lab when he was on-task the entire

time. However, when the tally sheets were removed, he was off-task three times (Seeds lab).

Similarly, Amy was off-task three times and Timmy was off-task two times in the Seeds Lab.

They were rarely off-task in the other labs. This indicates that the tally sheets did help to keep

this group on task.

In the peer evaluations, an interesting pattern was revealed for Group 1. Students rated

their peers, ranging from1 to 5: 1 meaning they contributed far less than others, 3 meaning they

contributed equally, and 5 meaning they contributed far more than others. Although the group

believed that they contributed fairly equally throughout the first two phases, they showed a big

gap in participation in the third phase when the tally sheet was removed (See Figure 3). This

coincided with my observations. During the Seeds lab, Ilkin and Timmy were often facing away

from their group members and talking about unrelated topics. Josh and Amy were trying to

maintain focus and answer the conclusion questions. The students stated that they thought that


they started participating more equally again when all accountability measures were removed. In

my observations, I noted that Ilkin was slightly off-task during this lab, but that Josh and Amy

and Timmy were actively on-task. All students were involved more equally than they had been in

the beginning of the study.

Group 2’s positive tally sheet recordings also different greatly from mine (See Figures 4

and 5). Although our findings were similar in the beginning, the differed greatly for the Calorie

Lab. James’s contributions were over-exaggerated, while Adrian’s were under-emphasized,

possibly because James was in charge of the tally sheet that day. My tally sheet indicated that

individuals began to participate in a more equitable way over time, and this was not lost in the

Seeds Lab when the tally sheet was removed. Also, during my time spent listening to the audio

recordings, I noticed that that James became less bossy and actually asked Adrian and Gabi what

they thought on several occasions. He made comments like, “So Adrian, what do you think?

Why would the Cheeto burn hotter than the cracker?” and “Wow Gabi, that’s awesome that you

predicted that. I thought the marshmallow would have the most calories.” During the digestion

lab, Adrian actually raised his hand to contribute in the larger classroom discussion, illustrating


that his increased contribution in a small group setting may be influencing his comfort level

within a larger group setting as well. He had never volunteered an answer before and this one

was correct and in-depth. Vanessa and Gabi also started to switch from mostly asking questions

to contributing more of their own new ideas. During one of the computer recordings, Vanessa

said, “I think the seed coat is for, you know, protecting the seed. It gets soft when it is in water so

it can fall off and the baby plant can get out.” This illustrating that Vanessa and Gabi may be

becoming more self-confident and comfortable putting themselves into at-risk situations.


Although there is not clear pattern in the average peer evaluations for Group 2 (See

Figure 6), it was evident that the group originally viewed James as the main contributor and

Adrian as a very minimal contributor. However, over time, the gap narrowed and all students

were closer to the “contributed equally” score of 3. This was interesting because, according to

both my tally sheet and their peer evaluations, they were contributing in an equitable manner

even when the accountability measures were removed. This indicates that the members of this

group may have internalized the new group work norms more than the members of Group 1 did.


Attitude Trends. I also tracked the changes in attitudes for these students throughout the

study. On the baseline survey, I asked students on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being really dislike

and 10 being really like, how much they liked group work in this class (See Appendix A).

During each lab, I asked students if they liked group work more or less than in the lab without

accountability and also in comparison to labs that used each of the prior accountability methods.

On the final survey, I asked, on a scale of 1 to 10, how do you feel about group work now (See

Appendix F)? The responses of the eight students in my case studies can be seen below. As

shown, only one student went down in her opinion of group work. Two factors may have played

into this. 1) I did not remind students what they had initially rated group work, and 2) her

reasoning for liking group work at this level was because “We had to talk more.” This shows she

is still resisting being an active on-task verbal participant, however if she still likes group work

fairly strongly, I do not think the accountability methods were a hindrance for her.

Group Student Initial

feelings about

group work

Final feelings

about group

work

Ilkin 10 10

Timmy 8 8

Amy 3 5

1

Josh 8 8

Vanessa 10 10

Adrian 5 7

James 9 10

2

Gabi 10 8

Table 6

Student Attitudes Towards Group Work Before and After the Study


Two students, of the eight tracked, increased in their positive feelings towards group

work. Although Adrian did not comment, Amy said, “I like group work better now because

people in my group work more.” This illustrates that at least for some, using accountability

measures does increase students’ perception of equity and positively alters students’ attitudes

towards group work itself. It was interesting that Amy said this after the two labs where

accountability was removed, because group work was slightly less equitable for her group when

we did not use the accountability measures. Amy was still able to recognized group work

drastically different than it had been at the beginning of the study.

Effects on grades. Although the influence of accountability methods on grades was not

the major focus of this study, I did monitor students’ conclusions in their science notebooks for

both completion and quality of answers. I ranked both categories on a scale of 1 to 4. For

completion, a 4 meant all required components were present, a 3 meant one aspect was missing,

a 2 meant two aspects were missing, and a 1 meant three or more aspects were missing. If a

student did not turn in the assignment at all, s/he received an M for missing. For quality, a 4

meant that the student surpassed the information discussed in class and added new depth to their

answer, a 3 meant the student clearly understood and could explain the information from class, a

2 meant the student was unable to explain the concept clearly or explained it slightly incorrectly,

and a 1 meant the student was completely off-topic and did not address the concept

appropriately.

Although there were no completely obvious patterns for the students that I tracked, the

lower-achieving students such as Ilkin, showed some common tendencies. Ilkin’s completion

and quality were highest for the two labs with all three accountability methods. He earned a 3

and then a 4 for completion, and two 3s for quality. In the Leaves Lab, when accountability was


removed, Ilkin did not even attempt his conclusion. The same pattern was true for Adrian. He

earned two 4s for completion and a 4 and a 3 for quality on the Digestion and Calorie Lab

conclusions, respectfully. Prior to these labs, he was earning 2s in both categories. When all

accountability was removed, he earned a 3 in completion and a 2 in quality. This indicates that

although students tended to be able to continue to verbally participate when the accountability

methods were removed, the lower-achieving students’ written work decreased in completion and

quality. They possibly needed more time to learn how to be effective independent of the

accountability methods.

The high-achieving students, such as Amy and James, remained consistent over time,

earning all 3 and 4 in both categories in all labs. Students in the middle-performing range

fluctuated, doing better on some lab conclusions and worse on others, with no apparent

connection to the group work accountability methods. This shows that there may be some loose

tie of verbal accountability methods to written performance, but not consistent pattern was

apparent for all case study students.

Informal Case Studies

Throughout the study, I also informally tracked the two students in the class that rated

group work the lowest on the baseline survey. I did not follow their entire groups because of

repeated absences of group members and a less heterogeneous grouping of ability and

performance levels. However, I thought it was still important to follow these students due to their

obvious extreme dislike of group work. For example “Forrest” a shy, hearing impaired boy, gave

group work a 3 on his initial survey and wrote, “Personally, group work makes things go slower.

I detest debating, so I just take others’ opinions,” and then when asked how I could help improve

group work, he wrote “Whether you try or you don’t, I still think group work is a waste of time.”


Another student, “Kimi,” gave group work a 1 with an arrow pointing towards lower than

1 and said, “I hate group work. I want to do good and like to do things on my own. Other people

just think about random jokes.” Throughout the semester, every time I had the students work in

groups, she has made comments like, “NOO. Can I please do it on my own?” or “I HATE this.”

She always ended-up working with others and put in a lot of effort. She was a hard work and a

high-achiever.

I followed these students throughout the study, carefully observing their comments and

reactions. I also watched their responses on surveys over time. Kimi seemed very resistant to

change her opinion about group work, giving it a very low score on the first three labs. She then

started to shift and be a bit more inclined towards group work. On the final survey, she gave

group work a 4 and wrote, “We at least help each other out with the ones we don’t understand.”

Although this is not a huge improvement in attitude, she does see some benefit in group work

and had been more willing to work with others. She said she was a 6 on the scale of 1 to 10 about

willingness to work in groups in the future. In Forrest’s case, his feelings about group work

increased from a 3 all the way to an 8. All he said in his explanation was, “Less off task.” This

change was thrilling because he seemed very dismal in the beginning, thinking that no difference

in group work norms was possible. He also said he was an 8 on the sale of willingness to work in

groups, showing that he was far more willing to work with others than he was initially.

It was interesting that both of the students that gave initially gave group work the lowest

ratings had improved feelings towards it in the end, albeit on very different levels. This

illustrates that even when students hate something or think that it cannot change, teacher actions

can influence their feelings. This reveals the possible power of interventions in several different

aspects of teaching.


Whole group results

Equity trends. To measure if equity in group work on a whole group scale was changing

over time, I made careful observations during each laboratory, as well as asked students their

opinions about equity on the student surveys. In the initial baseline survey, I asked students if

group work was equal during the Muscle Strengthening/Injury Lab and the class was

approximately divided between yes and no (See Figure 7). During my observations of this

activity, I noted that group work was not equitable at all. Some students chatted with members of

other groups and one student even pretended like he was getting a computer so he could flirt with

his girl friend. In general, one or two members of each group were building the muscle model

and compiling the research, while the others were superficially contributing or not contributing at

all. It was clear that three of the “group leaders” were not letting others contribute; they wanted

to do all of the work themselves. However, some of the leaders were trying to involve others by

asking questions or asking for help with certain sections. It was evident that the “slackers” were

resistant to contribute.


On each lab, I asked in the post-survey if the accountability method helped to increase

equity. The students said yes, no, or kind of and explained their answers. I received mixed

answers, as can be seen in Table 2 (Table 2 is shown again below for ease of reference).

However, the majority of students thought that the tally sheets, individual roles within the group,

and the computer tallies each were useful in increasing equity. When the tally sheets were

removed, about half the students thought that the equity remained the same. However, of the

remaining students, more thought that the group work was less equal than more equal. The same

was the case when all accountability measures were removed, as seen in Table 5 (Table 5 is

shown again below for ease of reference). On the final survey, I asked students which

accountability method was most effective for increasing equity. I expected them to circle

“computer recordings” as throughout the research many of them stated that they were more on

task because they knew that I was listening. However, the largest percentage of students said

having all three methods was most effective. The next (perceived) most effective method was the

individual roles. (See Table 7 for percentages).

1. Lab Activity

2.Accountability method

Yes No Kind of No

Answer

1. Vital Capacity

2. Tally Sheets and Computer

Recording

67% 13% 5% 15%

1. Inhale/Exhale

2. Tally Sheets and Computer

recording

79% 12% 7% 2%

1. Digestion

2. Tally Sheets, Computer

Recording, and Roles

77% 15% 5% 3%

1. Calories

2. Tally Sheets, Computer

Recording, and Roles

63% 26% 11% 0%

Table 2

Did the Accountability Measure Increase Equity? Data Collected from Four Surveys (Appendices C & D)


This data aligned with what I observed in class. No accountability method worked

perfectly for every student. Some students did really well with the roles and knowing in advance

precisely what to do and how they should interact with others. Other students liked to have more

freedom and work more naturally, but still benefited from the tally sheets because they could

visualize who was participating appropriately and who was not. When all methods were used, I

saw the best results because each student had something that worked for them. However, some

students did not need any accountability method, as they were already very involved, accounting

1. Lab Activity

2.Accountability

Devices

Removed

More Equal The Same as

with All Three

Accountability

Methods

Less Equal

1. Seeds

2. Tally Sheet

19% 57% 22%

1. Leaves

2. Tally Sheet,

Computer

Recording, and

Roles

5% 65% 30%

Accountability

Method

All Three

Together

Roles Computer Tally Computer

and Tally

None Computer

and Roles

Percentage of

Students that

Thought it was

Most Effective

28% 24% 19% 10% 10% 7% 2%

Table 5

When Accountability Devices were Removed, How was Group Work Equity? Data from Two Surveys (Appendices E &F)

Table 7

Student Opinions of which Accountability Method(s) were Most Effective at

Creating Equity in Group Work


for a portion of the “None” category. I noticed some improvement in a few of the other students

in the “None” category. It is possible that they just did not like being held accountable and

therefore said that none of the methods worked well.

Attitude Trends. To see attitude trends on a whole study (two classes) level, I used

student surveys and my classroom observations. I looked at students’ feelings about group work

on a scale 1 to 10, 10 being high, before the study began and as the study concluded. As seen in

Figures 8 and 9 below, student attitudes towards group work did change over time. Although a

extremely dramatic shift did not occur, more students fell into the 8 and 10 categories, while

fewer fell into the 1, 3, and 4 categories. Of those that moved to the 8 category, several stated

that “I like group work more because I don’t have to do all the work” or “I like it more because

now I get to participate and share.” The components of this study may have helped to influence

positive changes in attitude towards group work for different types of students.


On the final survey, I also asked students if, on a scale of 1 to 10, they liked group work

more or less than they did at the beginning of this study and why. Amazingly, only one student

said that he liked group work less at the end of the study than he did at the beginning of the study

(See Figure 10). 27% of students liked group work the same, while 72% liked group work better,

at least a little bit. A large majority of the students that liked group work the same were students

who initially gave group work an extremely high rating of either a 9 or a 10. Those that fell in

the 6 to 7 range made comments such as “Group work is now more organized” and “Everyone

participates more.” Those in the 8 to 10 range made comments such as “I now get to talk in my

group and help others while they help me” and “I no longer have to do all of the work.”

Interestingly, there were individuals in this category that are high-achievers and individuals that

are low achievers. This again illustrates that multiple types of students were assisted by this

study.


On the final survey, I wanted to also address if the altered attitudes towards group work

positively changed students willingness to participate in group work in the future, the ultimate

goal of this study. Therefore, the final question on the survey was, “I am now willing to work in

groups…” and then the students answered on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being much less than

originally, 5 being the same as originally, and 10 being much more than originally (See

Appendix F). Three students were slightly less willing to work in groups than before, while the

majority of the class was equally or more willing to work with others (See Figure 11). Only one

of the students that said they were less willing explained why, and he simply said that

accountability “made group work less cool.” One-fourth of the class put themselves into the 10

category, saying that they are much more willing to work in groups now than they were

originally. Some of the representative comments made by these students were, “Group work can

actually help me. I would like to keep learning from my friends” and “I know how to do it now.”

This illustrated that although teachers sometimes assume students know basic skills such as how

to work with others, at times students need to be directly taught these skills.


Overall, I believe that student attitudes definitely changed throughout this research.

Students became more positive and complained far less about having to work with others. Part of

this was probably due to the consistent grouping: students worked with the same people for two

months. Therefore, individuals learned the habits of others and how to work together according

to their specific personalities. It would be interesting to see if students still worked as cohesively

if the groups were changed. However, regardless of the specific reasons for the changes, students

were more willing to work with others at the end of this study than they were in the beginning.

This shows that attitudes towards group work can 1) be altered through interventions and 2) can

affect students’ willingness to work with others, at least in the near future.

Effects on Grades. I used the same 4 point grading scale for completion and quality for

all of my students’ notebooks that was discussed in the case studies section. Similar to the results

in the case studies, no distinct patterns were apparent in the whole group data over time. The

clearest pattern was a spike in both completion and quality during the second phase of

implementation, in both the Digestion and Calorie Labs. Following this peak, there was a slight

drop in completion and quality when the tally sheets were removed, but not much change


between the Seeds Lab and the Leaves Lab (Phase III and Phase IV). The increased participation

due to all three accountability methods may have increased students performance on written

work. Also, removing the accountability methods had a slight affect on written performance, but

nothing drastic. This pattern did not hold true for all individuals. There was a lot of variation for

some students, and other students were consistent throughout the entire study.

Honesty Survey. To asses the reliability of my results, I gave an honesty survey at the end

of the study (See Appendix G). Throughout the research, students put their names on their

surveys so that I could track patterns of equity and attitude for specific individuals, as well as the

entire class. Therefore, it was difficult to determine if the answers that students responded with

where indeed genuine. In the honesty survey, students did not put their names on their papers and

simply stated what percentage of the time they answered the survey questions honestly

throughout the study. As indicated in Figure 12, the majority of students believed that they were

honest most of the time. Some students wrote in their own answers, rather than circling a

number. This is the reason for the 95 and 99% categories. I included these data points in order to

be true to the students’ perceptions. Because 80% of the students said that they were honest on

the surveys at least 90% of the time, I believe that the data from my study is reasonably reliable.


Member Check. The final measure I took to ensure that the data I collected accurately

represented student thoughts and actions, I conducted a member check with my students. I

compiled a PowerPoint slide show consisting of four slides. I showed the students the major

findings and asked them for their opinions. I recorded the conversation to refer back to and use to

analysis student responses. I first showed them that the majority of students said group work was

more equal when some sort of accountability method was used. I then showed the data about

which accountability tools they thought were most effective. I asked students if they agreed with

my results, and most students verbally responded, “Yes.” One of my students said that he

thought the tally sheets were useful for everyone except the person who had to keep track of the

participation. He said that that person did not get to contribute because s/he had to make sure

s/he heard everything each of the other people was saying. Several other students chimed in with,

“Yeah.” Then I showed them the improvement of attitudes towards group work over time using

Figures 8 and 9. One girl said, “I thought more people would like it more. Everyone was

complaining less and working better.” Another student said, “It was hard to know what to write

on the last survey because I couldn’t remember what I put on the first one.” A boy added, “You


should have told us what we put the first time.” Some of the students therefore believed that

group work improved a lot, and this was not represented well enough by the data.

The last slide contained the data from the final survey questions 6 and 7 (See Figures 10

& 11). The students agreed that this data looked correct according to how they felt. One student

said that she wished that all of her friends had been in this class because then they would work

more equally with her in her other classes. After the discussion, I had students take out a piece of

paper and write an anonymous reflection on their thoughts about the overall major findings. I did

this because some students are shy and probably did not want to vocalize their ideas to the whole

class. I wanted to make sure that I heard all voices with regards to their thoughts about group

work and this study. In those responses, I saw a lot of, “This data really represented what I

think,” “I really like group work a lot now. It’s nice for it to be fair,” and “I wish other teachers

would do studies like this.” One note said, “I liked this, but it wouldn’t work with other teachers.

They don’t listen to what we say.” This comment both made me feel good in that students know

that I listen to them, but also sad because this student realizes that not all teachers want to take

student input into account in order to make beneficial changes.

All student responses said that they thought that the results were accurate to how they felt

about group work and what they showed through actions in class. Some students explained in

more detail why certain strategies did or did not work well and some students explained why

they like group work more now. This member check helped to assert the validity of my findings.

Analysis and Discussion

Findings

In this study, I used accountability methods to attempt to increase equity within group

work and improve student attitudes towards group work. In this research, increasing equity


meant both increasing the number of students that participate orally when in groups, as well as

increasing the equitable distribution of participation among the members of each group. The

major findings in this study fell into the equity, ownership, and attitude categories. Within

equity, the major findings revolved around if equity increased in general, if high-achievers

allowed and encouraged others to contribute more, and if lower-achievers participated more

frequently. In ownership, the findings dealt with being able to use tools to create a long-lasting

culture of equity and accountability that would outlast the accountability methods themselves.

With regard to attitudes, my major findings surrounded increased positive attitudes towards

group work, as well as the creation of a greater willingness to work with others in the future.

Equity. During this study, it became evident that students were responding to the methods

of accountability and that those methods were influencing equity within a laboratory group work

setting. As seen through my observations, individual students were participating more in

discussion, both with their own ideas and asking their peers questions. It was also evident that as

the number of students participating increased and contributions became more equitable across

groups, students were more able to rely on their peers and were less reliant on me. I noticed and

noted that I had to address fewer discipline issues and remind students fewer times to stay on

task. I heard fewer off-topic conversations and more on task student collaborations. This

progression happened as I added different types of accountability methods. Although students

seemed to react the best to having the computer recordings, tally sheets, and individual roles

within group work, I observed that no one method worked for all students and was truly superior.

The key was having some form of accountability measure and really teaching the students how

to use it so that they could learn to work with others fairly and to the best of their abilities.

Several other data sources backed up these findings. First of all, within my case studies,


the tally sheets I created from the recorded computer conversations indicate a move towards

more equitable verbal positive contributions during small group discussions of laboratory

conclusions (As seen in Figures 2 and 4) Similarly, the average peer evaluations centered more

around the number 3 for Group 2, indicating more equal participation (As seen in Figure 6).

James made comments such as, “Adrian now talks with the group rather than just sitting there,”

while Adrian said, “My group wants me to talk now and they actually let me talk.” This shows

that both the high- and low-achievers feel like group work became more equitable among group

members. When considering the whole group data, the same pattern appeared in the student

surveys. Students continually commented that each added accountability measure made group

work more equal (See Table 2). Students made comments like, “I like having all three. It helps

everyone.”

Ownership. One of the most interesting findings from the surveys and peer evaluations

was that the majority of students thought that the equity remained the same when the tally sheets

were removed as well as when all of the accountability tools were removed. Students may have

internalized the ability to work together equitable and no longer needed to completely rely on the

accountability methods to ensure that they were participating appropriately. I also observed this

trend in my notes. It was extremely apparent in the students’ final surveys when they made

comments like, “We know how to do it group work now, so it is the same without the computer,

tallies, or roles.” Although their was no distinct connection between grades and the increased

equity in laboratory discussion-based group work, students grades did tend to improve with the

implementation of accountability methods. The grades also remained higher than their initial

levels, in both quality and completion, after the accountability devices were removed. This

indicates that the accountability methods may have a sustainable positive effect on group work.


This could illustrate the creation of a culture of equity and accountability, where the structure of

accountability methods can be removed once student have been taught the expectations.

Student Attitudes. The long term goal of this study was to see if the increased equity

influenced a change in student attitudes towards group work itself, possibly encouraging students

to be more willing to work in groups in the future. Through my observations, I saw a positive

change in student attitudes from an increased amount of engagement in conversation, increased

effort during group work, and far fewer complaints about having to work with others. This shift

was also seen in the comparison of the 1-10 ranking of how much students liked group work

during the baseline survey, compared to the 1-10 ranking on the final survey. As can be seen in

Figures 8 and 9, the rankings moved towards the right, towards higher numbers. This same

pattern can be seen in the two groups I tracked, where seven of the eight students’ feelings about

group work improved or stayed the same (See Table 6).

Similarly, when students were asked about their feelings towards group work, compared

to their initial feelings, only one person liked group work less and 72% liked group work more

than originally (See Figure 10). This is backed up by 74% of students saying they are now more

willing to participate in groups than they were before. A large percentage said they were willing

to participate the same as before, however the majority of students in this group said they loved

working with others since the beginning.

My results from my case studies help to answer the sub-questions with regard to student

attitudes towards group work. Amy’s improved feelings about group work illustrate that at least

some high-achieving students felt better about group work because it was more equitable. They

no longer felt like it is their “job” to do the entire project alone. They can trust and learn from

others. The fact that James’s group work score did not plummet, illustrates that his view about


group work did not decrease because some of the control was taken away from him. Originally,

he was only interested in what he thought the answers were, never asking for others’ opinions.

However, I observed, in class and in the computer recordings, his attitude change over time. He

actually tried to get others involved and asked them for their opinions. Because James still loves

group work, it is possible that high-achieving and controlling students can embrace others

contributing more equitably.

Also, it appears that lower-achieving students that initially did not like group work, liked

it more after they were included, as was seen through Adrian. On the other side of the spectrum,

lower-achieving students that loved group work initially because it was easy, such as Ilkin, still

liked group work when they were held accountable. The majority of those that loved group work

initially (in case studies) either continued to like group work at the same level, or even liked it

more. Only Gabi liked group work less due to having to contribute, however, she still gave group

work a high rating. At least for some students, creating a more rigid and formal group work

setting did not influence individuals to enjoy group work less. Finally, as can be seen through the

informal case studies, the two students that hated group work the most (as seen through their

surveys and classroom comments) both had improved attitudes towards group work. Forrest

completely embraced the new model. Although Kimi was still somewhat resistant to group work,

she no longer complained profusely about it and said that she is more willing to try to work with

others. She admitted that there are benefits to working in a group, a statement she never would

have made prior to this study. The improved attitudes of many different types of students

towards group work are encouraging for the goal of increased willingness to participate in

collaborations in the future.


Significance

My findings are significant because they fill a gap in the current available research on

group work. First, the survey data and field notes provide both student-generated and teacher

observed evidence that accountability methods can influence an increase in laboratory group

work equity. This adds validity to methods such as student evaluations of self and peer

performance (Mello, 1993), tally sheets to measure different types of contributions (Hurley &

Allen, 2007), and individualized thinking roles (Voreis et al., 2008). However, my results also

indicate that the effects of using these methods can stretch beyond the time of their use, showing

potential for their long lasting impact. Using accountability methods can help to re-train students

with regards to their group work identities, building a new classroom culture and helping to

avoid problems such as those that do not contribute and benefit from others (Sweet & Pelton-

Sweet, 2008). Therefore, teachers can embrace using group work more often, as some of the

fears and problems associated with it can be mitigated or eliminated.

Similarly, these results start to build a case for the importance of student affect towards

group work itself. While many articles, such as those by Skinner, Wellborn & Connell in1990

and Nieswandt in 2006, indicate that positive student affect towards content is incredibly

important, the importance of student affect towards group work is often ignored. If we believe

that group work is essential for students to socially construct and acquire knowledge, as stated by

Vygotsky and McNaughton, then attitudes towards group work and how to improve them should

be analyzed. As this research has indicated, the increased equity can help to boost positive

student feelings towards group work. More importantly, students said this study helped them to

feel more willing to participate in groups in the future. Accountability methods of some sort

positively affect students’ willingness to work with others, making them an important component


of the modern inquiry and constructivist classroom.

Limitations

The major limitation of this study was that it was conducted in one content area, by one

teacher, at one school, for one semester. Due to these factors, it is difficult to determine if the

results and findings can be applied more broadly to all grade levels, all socio-economic levels, or

all content areas. In order to be appropriate and control as many variables and confounding

factors as possible, I had to focus my study on only group work within a laboratory setting.

However, because the findings do not show that one specific accountability measure led to

greater equity within groups and more positive attitudes towards groups, I believe the findings

are applicable to other areas. Teachers will need to experiment and determine which

accountability methods work best for their students, but will know that having at least one

accountability method seems to increase equity and positive attitudes. This finding is valuable to

all teachers, as equity and positive attitudes are important in every context.

Another limitation of this study was that because I was the teacher, and I considered this

my main and most important role, I was not able to collect as much anecdotal data as I would

have as an outside observer. I also had to make sure that the labs fit in well with my curriculum

and state standards. This meant that I could not conduct labs as frequently as I would have liked.

Similarly, how I taught and what I taught may have affected the results. For example, if I

explained information more clearly one day, students may have enjoyed that laboratory more,

regardless of the quality of the group work.

Finally, one of the major limitations of this study was that I relied on students to provide

a lot of the data. Because students were reporting on equity and their feelings, outside factors

such as how “cool” or “fun” the lab was may have influenced how students reported they felt


about the group work. This may have been the case in labs such as the Calorie lab, where

students worked with fire and burned household foods to measure caloric values. The exciting

nature of the lab may have affected their responses. However, I did triangulate my data as often

as possible to try to counter the influence on my results of the confounding factors. Along the

same line, because students had their names on their surveys, they may not have been completely

honest due to fear of their teacher or their peers seeing their responses. Although the anonymous

honesty survey revealed that most students were honest the majority of the time, this was still

and independent variable. During the member check, some students said that they could not

remember what they had put on previous surveys when using the Leichert scale, so they did not

know what to put in order to show if they liked group work more or less. However, because the

student surveys, my observations, the peer evaluations, the student tally sheets, and my tally

sheets all illustrated the similar pattern of increased equity and student attitude, my findings

seem relatively reliable and valid.

Implications

For my teaching. This research will have great implications for my teaching. Managing

and introducing several accountability methods and listening to and replying to student ideas,

while trying to meaningfully cover content material was definitely a difficult task. However, the

positive student responses, both seen through actions and student surveys, show that this effort

was worth while. When a shy student wrote, “I finally get to be involved” and when an

overachiever said, “I don’t get taken advantage of anymore,” I knew this research was

meaningful and useful. Students worked in a more collaborative fashion and socially constructed

knowledge. They also felt more favorable towards group work, making comments such as,

“Wow, group work actually works.” This increased positive attitude may possibly affect their


future interactions with others, meaning I made a difference in their lives outside of my

classroom. In my future teaching, I will therefore continue to use accountability methods within

group work, not only because it helps students to be more on task, organized, and responsible,

but also because it has helped my students to grow as individuals and be better prepared to work

with others in our social society. I will share my results with my future colleagues, encouraging

them to see the more far reaching results, hopefully inspiring others to add data to my findings in

different content areas and settings.

Instructional Practices. This research has implications for all teachers who value the

modern constructivist classroom, where peer collaboration, group work, and consensus building

are at the foundation of learning. Therefore, any method that helps to make student interactions

more effective is probably of great interest to these teachers. Similarly, many teachers would like

the lessons and the skills they teach students to extend beyond the classroom. Because this

study’s findings indicate a potential for the long-term learning of cooperation skills and positive

attitudes towards working together, the ideas presented in this paper are extremely relevant for

these teachers’ goals. This research my encourage teachers to experiment with accountability

methods within their own classrooms. They could see which specific methods work best for

them according to their content areas, student personalities, and objectives. They could then see

if they were able to guide students towards long-term learning of group work skills, as measured

by student performance after accountability methods are removed. Teachers could also track

student attitude patterns. Although they may not want to use surveys, they could keep more

informal observations and have students periodically write reflections, as many teachers do

anyway. Teachers should be encouraged to share their thoughts and findings with their


colleagues, and try to remain open-minded when it comes to suggestions for possible future

action.

Policy. Often in education, the focus is on test scores and improving ratings, which at can

lead to less productive direct instruction because teachers feel crunched for time. However, if

teachers could make their group work and constructivist activities more effective and meaningful

for their students on all levels, then teachers may be more willing to stick to these prized

methods that are described in current research. Therefore, it seems as though teachers and

schools should have more time to collaborate with each other about which methods work best for

them and issues they have with implementing accountability methods or group work itself.

Teachers should not feel isolated or alone on the trek towards more student-centered lessons.

Therefore, it should be a priority to create time for teachers to interact with each other, both

intra- and interdepartmentally in order to re-create the group work culture. The move towards

smaller schools may be a step that positively affects the amount of time teachers have to work

together and the influence they have over school culture.

Research. One of the main question that arose from this research is if these findings

would be consistent across content areas. Would accountability measures increase equity among

group members in an English or history class? Would students be as engaged and willing to

collaborate and use the accountability methods when discussing a play or an event, as they were

when they were discussing their own real-life experiments and results? Although content area

may be important, my largest question would be, would I gather the same results across grade

levels? As my students were seventh graders, they were still highly interested in working with

me and showing me how much they knew and could do. I wonder if this would be the same in a

high school setting, where students do not generally seek as much teacher approval and have


more concrete views of who they are in life, as well as in a group work setting. I think it would

be interesting to investigate these questions and compare data.

Further research should also be conducted on a long time scale. I was able to implement

accountability methods in four labs and then removed them from two. I wonder if 1) the students

were really given enough time to internalize the new norms of group work participation and 2) if

these norms would stick with them in weeks or months to come if the accountability methods

were not re-instated. Would students revert back to their old ways? Would higher-achieving

students require more effort from their lower-achieving peers? Would the lower-achieving

students require that their group members listen to their ideas and allow them to participate in an

equitable manner? These questions will only be answerable in a longitudinal study over several

months, preferably in several different classrooms, in order to triangulate and add validity to the

findings.

Conclusion

Throughout this study, I learned a lot about the process of action research. I learned that it

is an important process that teachers who want to improve their practice should and must engage

in to be truly reflective and effective. I learned that a lot of the elements of action research are

already components of truly thoughtful and meaningful teaching. Some of these elements include

identifying meaningful problems, assessing the situation, implementing systematic changes,

collecting data from several sources, reflecting on the effectiveness of these interventions, and

making logical adjustments in order to try new methods. All of these were skills we discussed

and practiced throughout my credential and master’s program, indicating that they are prized

practices for all teachers. I learned that if I want to become and stay the kind of teacher that is a

life-long learner, I must embrace and carry out action research throughout my career. I learned


this lesson by observing teachers at my site that were initially forward thinking when they began

their careers, but became complacent as time continued. I do not want to become one of these

“burned-out” teachers, and therefore must continue to innovate and “keep it interesting” by

engaging in action research.

The biggest challenge of this study was finding time to balance the required standards

that I was teaching with the amount of time that was needed to conduct meaningful laboratory

experiments. While this is a struggle that I will regularly face as a science teacher, regardless of

the presence or absence of action research, this problem was compounded by finding time to

analyze my findings and make conclusions and purposeful next steps. I also found it challenging

that the other teachers at my site did not embrace action research. Although I had peer

collaboration at my university, I felt like teacher collaboration was a missing piece of my action

research. Although some teachers became interested in my study and the fact that teachers can do

studies within their classrooms over time, I had few individuals to constructively work with that

truly knew my students and my school’s context. The addition of teacher and administrative

support would have made action research more applicable and significant to the school at-large.

One of the successes that came from this action research was the bond that was formed

between my students and myself. When I introduced this research, I was upfront with my

students, telling them my thoughts and logic behind my question. I encouraged student “buy-in”

by referring to them as my co-researchers and partners. I also informed students about my data

presentations and how the educational community was reacting to their research. This helped the

students to believe that I was honestly and genuinely interested in them as students, but also as

people. They knew that I cared what they thought and their ideas were improvement. I think that

this helped my research to go smoothly, but also helped my students to believe in themselves and


become interested in science and learning. Although I found some interesting results about

student equity in group work and student attitudes towards group work, my more precious

finding involved learning how to relate to my students and make them feel like they had control

over their own learning.

I also learned that action research is an excellent way of combining my love of research

and discovery (from science) with my teaching career. Although not quite scientific, it is

interesting and thought provoking for me to be able to examine my own practice and figure out

ways to improve it. I also learned that as a teacher, while I have the foundations for success and

the best intentions, I still have a long way to come and will always have potential for growth. I

have learned that I can never look at teaching or research as a means to an end; rather it is a

means to a fulfilling and meaningful journey.

Finally, I have learned that although I love science, I am truly more passionate about the

well-being of my students. I want them to learn skills and critical thinking strategies that will

cross over into any content or future career. When I heard one of my students say, “Writing an

essay is just like writing a lab report. You still need evidence to support your claim,” my heart

soared. I am so glad that due to my efforts, my students began to master important skills and

realize connections between content areas.

I also learned that I want all students to have positive self-efficacy and know that if they

put in the effort, they can learn and achieve desired outcomes. I want them to feel cared about

and supported. Although I want them all to at least appreciate the field of science, to me it is

more important that they learn to be self-assured and interact with others in a positive and

beneficial fashion. I want them to feel confident and want to share their ideas with the world. I

believe my study helped students to embark down this road. They seemed to acquire skills to


work with others fairly and appropriately and were less afraid of judgment and more willing to

take changes. I hope these changes helped students to feel more self-confident and proud of their

own thinking.

If and when I engage in a similar process again, I will make sure to collaborate with

others more frequently, even if they are individuals outside of my school site. I have learned that

support and the influx of ideas is essential to a meaningful and substantial research project. I

would also try to refine my data collection methods before I begin the study so that my resources

would be more manageable and closely measure my intended targets. In this study I had so much

data, I spent an enormous amount of time organizing and trying to decide which findings were

important enough to display in figures. In my own classroom, it would be more effective to have

fewer sources so more time could be spent reflecting and planning additional phases.

One of my “take-aways” from completing this process of action research is that it is best

to stay extremely organized and involve the students in the data collection process. This way,

they feel involved, and the teacher has time to actually stay focused on teaching. However,

triangulation of data must still remain present to confirm the validity of findings. Also, it is

important to make time for ample reflection, whether engaged in formal action research or not.

This will allow for more thoughtful teaching and tweaking of implementation. Along the same

line, I learned that the changes that one makes in action research do not have to be monumental

changes, rather small adjustments here and there to alter the effectiveness of a strategy.

One of the major weaknesses of action research in the classroom is that it can never be

completely replicated, whether from day to day, classroom to classroom, school to school, or

district to district. Similarly, because one can never control all the variables and confounding

factors in students’ lives and the classroom, it is impossible to identify a true cause and effect


relationship. Therefore, the strongest claims that can be made deal with possible correlations,

making findings somewhat weak. Also, action research in one’s own classroom cannot be

impartial and unbiased. This may influence the interpretation of results. Both issues illustrate the

importance of replication in action research, not only in one’s own classroom, but by different

teachers in completely different settings. If similar results are found repeatedly in different

contexts, one’s action research claim is far more supported and reliable. This is one of the

components that was missing from my study and would be valuable to explore in future research.

Another potential weakness of action research is that if the project is not carefully and

thoughtfully integrated within normal classroom activities, the teacher may become too entwined

in the process of collecting data and shirk his/her primary responsibilities as a teacher. The

students may feel like test subjects rather than co-researchers and may resent the project and the

research process. This may cause them to not want to participate and make the research findings

null and void. Therefore, teachers must help their students to “buy-in” to the project and feel like

active participants.

Action research is great for teachers to participate in when in their own classroom

because it helps to make them extremely aware of what is going on in their own practice and

with their students. During action research, one is much more attune to subtle problems or issues

in one’s classroom and how much impact the small changes a teacher makes can have. I think

action research helps teachers to focus in on what they are doing and could be doing. It helps to

create a sense of control over an environment that may at times seem beyond teacher influence.

It makes the teacher feel proactive and helps to overcome some of the pessimism that at times

surrounds the field of education. Also, it helps teachers to feel like and be treated as the

professionals they truly are.


Another benefit of action research is that it helps to provide data to support teachers’

conclusions about their teaching methods and students. When a principal or other administrative

staff member asks a teacher why they are teaching a certain way, that teacher can explain to the

administrator why and incorporate hard data. This helps the teacher to feel more self-assured in

his/her methods, and also lets the administrator know that research is backing up the practices

used at his/her school.

Although I do not think that I will participate in formal action research my first year of

teaching as I find my footing in a new profession, I do believe that informal action research will

forever be embedding in my teaching practice. I will carefully analyze my successes and failures,

collaborate with my peers, and determine what systematic steps I can take to improve my

practice. I will collect data, determine which aspects worked well, adjust those that did not, and

then try again. This will be a continual process throughout my career, as I believe that when

teachers stop learning, they stop being effective. Even once I have been in the classroom for

several years and am considered a veteran teacher, I will still be conducting action research and

improving my skills and methods as a teacher.


Appendix A

Name Period

Activity: Group work baseline-Muscle injury and strengthening

1. Did you like this activity? Explain.

2. Do you feel like all members of the group participated equally? Explain.

3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you like group work in this class? Please circle a

number and explain.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Really Dislike Neutral Really

Like

4. In school, would you rather work on activities by yourself or in a group? Explain.

5. When in a group, what role do you take (Are you the leader? Are you vocal? Do you like

to record other’s ideas? Etc)? Explain.

6. Do you think there is a way that I could improve group work? Explain.


Appendix B

Name Period

Activity

Name

Asked a

question

New Idea Re-stated Idea Interrupted

others

Off task


Appendix C

Name Period

Activity: Vital Capacity Lab and then Inhale/Exhale Lab

1. Circle the answer that best describes your contribution to the group work in this activity.

1 2 3 4 5

I contributed much I contributed I did all or

Less than others equally most of the

work

2. Circle the answer that best describes your peers’ contribution to the group work in this activity.

Name

1 2 3 4 5

Contributed much Contributed Did all or


Work

Name

1 2 3 4 5



work

Name

1 2 3 4 5



work

3. Did the tally sheet cause more individual participation than without it? Please explain.

4. Did you enjoy this part of the activity? Please explain.

5. Did you like group work more in this activity than in the muscle strengthening/injury project?

1 2 3 4 5

I liked group I liked group I liked group

work much less work the same work much more

Please explain.


Appendix D

Name Period

Activity: Digestion Lab and then Calorie Lab

My role was

1. Circle the number that best describes your contribution to the group work in this activity.

1 2 3 4 5

I contributed much I contributed I did most/all

Less than others equally of the work

2. Circle the number that best describes your peers’ contribution to group work in this activity.

Name

1 2 3 4 5

Contributed much Contributed Did most/all


Name

1 2 3 4 5



Name

1 2 3 4 5



3. Did the roles increase equal participation? Please explain.

4. Did you enjoy this activity? Please explain.

5. Did you like group work more in this activity than in the muscle strengthening/injury project?

1 2 3 4 5



Please explain.

6. Did you like group work more in this activity than those that used just the tally sheet (vital capacity

and inhale/exhale)?

1 2 3 4 5



Please explain.


Appendix E

Name Period

Activity: Seeds Lab

My role was

1. Circle the NUMBER that best describes your contribution to the group work in this activity.

1 2 3 4 5

I contributed much I contributed I did most/all


2. Circle the NUMBER that best describes your peers’ contribution to group work in this activity.

Name

1 2 3 4 5



Name

1 2 3 4 5



Name

1 2 3 4 5



3. Was group work more equal, less equal, or the same without the tally sheet (roles only)? Please

explain.

4. Did you enjoy this activity? Please explain.

5. Did you like group work more in this activity (roles) than in the muscle strengthening/injury

project (no roles or tally sheet)?

1 2 3 4 5



Please explain:


(Appendix E Continued)

6. Did you like group work more with the roles/computer than those with the tally sheets/computer

(vital capacity and inhale/exhale labs)?

1 2 3 4 5



Please explain:

7. Did you like group work more with the roles/computer than those with the

tally sheets/ computers/roles (digestion and calorie labs)?

1 2 3 4 5



Please explain:

* This survey was one page in length when given to the students due to formatting.


Appendix F

Name Period

Activity: Leaves lab/Overall Final Group Work Survey

1. Circle the number that best describes your contribution to the group work in this activity.

1 2 3 4 5

Much less than others Equally Much more than others

2. Circle the number that best describes your peers’ contribution to group work in this activity.

Name

1 2 3 4 5


Name

1 2 3 4 5


Name

1 2 3 4 5


2. Did you enjoy the leaf lab? Please explain.

3. Did individuals participate in this lab as much as they did when we used the tally sheet, computer,

and/or roles? Please explain.

4. Did any of the methods used make group work more equal? Circle your answer and explain.

Computer recording Roles None of the methods

Tally Sheet All three

Please explain:

5. How do you feel about group work now? Circle your NUMBER answer and explain.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Really Neutral Really

Dislike like

Please explain:


(Appendix F Continued)

6. Do you like group work more or less than at the beginning of this study? Circle your NUMBER

answer.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I like group I like group I like group

work much less work the same work much

more

Please explain:

7. I am now willing to work in groups…(circle the NUMBER that best represent how you feel)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Much less The same as Much more

than originally before than originally

Please explain:

*This survey was one page when given to students due to formatting.


Appendix G

Honesty Survey

Please circle the answer that applies

On the surveys, I was honest about my answers of the time.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Works Cited

Bastick, T. (1999). “Who did what”: Maximising collaborative learning by using accountable

assessments. Paper presented at the Third North American Conference on the Learning

Paradigm.

Brooks, C.M., Ammons, J.L. (2003). Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing,

frequency, and specificity of criteria on peer assessments. Journal of Education for

Business, 78(5), 268-272.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From

small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8),

37-40.

Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.

Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.

Cohen, E.G., Lotan, R.A., Scarloss, B.A., & Arellano, A.R. (1999). Complex instruction: Equity

in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 80-86.

Gallagher, J.J. (2007). Teaching science for understanding: a practical guide for middle and

high school teachers. New Jersey: Pearson Education Incorporated.

Hurley, E.A. & Allen, B.A. (2007). Asking the how questions” Quantifying group processes

behaviors. The Journal of General Psychology, 134(1), 5-21.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc.


Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 29(4), 34-

39.

McNaughton, S. (1995). Patterns of emergent literacy: Processes of development and transition.

Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Mello, J.A. (1993). Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings.

Journal of Management Education, 17(2), 253-259.

Nieswandt, M. (2006). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 90-937.

Parr, J.M., Townsend, M.A.R. (2002). Environments, processes, and mechanisms in peer

learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 403-423.

Popham, W.J. (1994). Educational assessment’s lurking lucuna: The measurement of affect.

Education and Urban Society, 26(4), 404-416.

Skinner, E.A., Wellborn, J.G., & Connell, J.P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and

whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and

achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 22-32.

Sweet, M. & Pelton-Sweet, L.M. (2008). The social foundation of team-based learning: Students

accountable to students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 116, 29-40.

Voreis, T., Crawley, F., Tucker, K., Blanton, S., & Adams, H. (2008). Teaching students to think

like scientists during cooperative investigations. Science Scope, 31(8), 26-45.


Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

document

Documents

group work equity

laboratory group work

group work repertoire

group results

group members

actual equity

increased equity

study results