QUESTION 6

QUESTION 6. IF YOU ASSIGNED STUDENTS TO GROUPS, WHAT CRITERIA DID YOU USE?
RESULTS

Common free time for group meetings	28
Previous mathematics courses	25
Gender	24
Some random process	24
Other particular knowledge (computer, calculator)	16
Placement test at entry	10
Average grades in previous mathematics courses	7
Age	4
Math SAT or ACT	3
Verbal SAT or ACT	1
Race	1
Average grades in all previous courses	0
Other
Residence	4
Performance in exams, previous work in course	2
Student preference	2
Personality	2
Major and/or minor	2
My assessment of ability	1
Proximity in class	1
Student’s self-assessment	1
Student goals	1
Preferred learning style	1
Attitude	1

COMMENTS

In a course where backgrounds varied, it helped to distribute expertise.
I assigned by their preference, if no preference I used same dorm (proximity to meet) and next criteria: same major (as they probably ran into each other a lot) also: I avoid number of female less than male (unless they request it).
Overriding concern is a time available for group meetings outside class.
I prefer a heterogeneous mix to provide a variety of experiences.
I try to have heterogeneous groups by skill level, and not put one female with 3 males or vice-versa. Either 2 of each or one sex in groups.
A couple of times I have tried to get students to form study groups to meet regularly outside of class. In those cases I helped form groups by having students fill out a form giving information about their schedules. Since my school has so many commuter students, I found that only a small number of students actually carry through with group meetings outside of class.
I felt like the students took time to thoughtfully self-assess themselves and it helped me in many ways more than test scores or grades although those things still played a role.
For trivial assignments, I prefer to assign groups randomly (pulling names out of a hat). That way I can have people interact with a large number of people and with various group dynamics over the course of the semester. For large projects, I pick the group based on my assessment of their understanding of the material and I also like to mix different personality types.
Make certain there is a mixture of other particular knowledge, gender and degree of interest (I want a good mixture) If I get a good mixture of background, gender and interest; then things seem to work well. (Other - my impulsive/creative choice at the moment - in class grouping - it works and promotes a "friendlier" class when students get to know each other. (Other - grades in present course - this approach works very well) (Other - I simply said you two form a group; and you two make another group, etc.)
Random process very successful.
Successes: Weaker students learn from the stronger ones. Unsuccessful: Some personality conflicts and stronger students doing too much of the work.
Using the background and allowing them to form their own groups seem to work well, except when the group size is 4 or more.
The gender criteria seem to be least useful, at least I didn't observe any differences between mixed and unisex groups. It appeared to be very useful to have a student with computer experience on each group (we use computers in all classes) and to vary the interests of the students.
I have a questionnaire that I administer the first day of class which asks for address, major, year in college, free time, preferred time to meet, expected grade, grade trying for, type of worker (very conscientious, average, or lazy) and how they prefer to work (alone, with a friend, small group). I have found that if I administer this the first day it makes forming groups easier. This information is accessible to all students so that they can always get hold of partners or if they want to thumb through it in choosing their initial groups.
Nothing worked very well for me when I tried to assign groups.
Grade in this class
It is still very difficult to get the students to consult each other. Most often, they work entirely independently outside class and merely staple together their papers seconds before handing them in, without ever looking at their group members' work.
I used to test them for their learning style, a la Kolb, and try different combinations such as all different, or all the same. Now we tend to look at their schedules so they have time to get together outside of class. Just recently, I have been letting them choose their own groups.
Sometimes lone males work well, sometimes they do NOT work well with the personalities of some females I prefer to place weaker students with groups having a lead person who is good at including others in work.
In calculus, I put together those who owned the same calculator.
Random at first, then based on grades in my course after the first grading period. This was the most common method I have used.
I no longer assign groups. It was a lot of work and I am not convinced that it paid off.
mostly random without isolating one woman in a group of men
I change groups usually 3 times throughout a semester. The first is usually random, the others usually are semi random spreading ability, race and gender.
Students self-select (with my guidance). They usually consider particular knowledge that they each admit to having, and common free time for group meetings outside of class.
Past Experience and success in class - Utilize heterogeneous grouping
When we use random choice there are always some students who really want to be with their friends and this has caused some problems. Also, we occasionally get people in a group who just can't stand to work together and this causes problems. These problems don't happen very often.
In my calculus class the students work together on projects using Maple. At least one student must not be afraid of using a computer. In other classes (Geometry for Secondary Teachers and Technology for Secondary Teachers) I find that a random selection puts people in groups where they will discuss items more.
The biggest one was common free time for group meetings.
With freshmen, success seems most dependent on everyone in the group being willing to take it seriously.
The students self-choose in some remarkable patterns. Once, a bunch of mothers made their own group, insisting on being six. Again, a set of commuters might get together. Always, there is the group of the least aware, who missed one or two of the opening classes.
In some of my classes I rotate group membership so that all students have experienced working with each of the other students in the class.
In Abstract Algebra we used ISETL. The pairing of a CS major with a Math major worked well. Later in the course, I merged groups and used groups of four - two of each of Math and CS majors. I have used heterogeneous grouping with respect to previous achievement in math courses. This usually works well, but at times, the good student does all the work and the weaker student benefits from the grade without learning sufficiently from the work.
At the community college it is an important criteria to group according to counties where the student resides. The most successful groupings have been when students have had common free times to get together. Grouping students by counties helps students meet outside of the school if they want to.
I think that I have found that gender homogeneous groups work much better.
I have placed students in groups using detailed surveys, trying to achieve heterogeneity on some variables, homogeneity on others, etc. I have also used random processes to place students in groups. I do not notice that it makes any particular difference which method I use -- the groups seem to function as well overall under either method. (So, I'm tending towards the random process method, since it's less work for me!)
Groups changed several times through the term. My assignment procedure insured that everyone worked with everyone else the same number of times.
I use my own assessment of their strengths, weaknesses and personality. I am eventually quite successful in groups when I form them myself since my main motivation is to find groups that work well. If something is not working, I change it. The problems that arise mostly involve people whose personalities make interaction difficult either due to shyness or personal quirks that either turn-off others, or that do not readily mesh.
I've tried several methods and do not know what is 'best', if there is a 'best' way.