How large should a study group be?
Here are some guidelines to consider:
Work in pairs?
The smallest possible group is two. In groups of two, everyone is active, there is no alternative to that. But such a small group is not enough for large tasks and there are not so many different perspectives when you are only two.
Trios?
Groups of three provide more possible angles of approach, but are exposed to the risk that one participant ends up in the shadow if the other two “find each other”.
Groups with 4-5 participants?
Groups of 4-5 participants offer several different perspectives and interaction patterns without becoming socially so complicated that it requires formal and systematic organization. 4-5 participants can have an informal conversation around a table or in an online meeting.
Such a group is also so robust that the loss of a participant (dropout, illness) still leaves a functioning group with 3 or 4 participants.
Groups with 6, 7 or more participants?
When the group size goes via 6, to 7 or more, it means that the difference between the most and least active members quickly increases. Larger group size gives less average speaking time per participant, but this has the least impact on the individuals who normally take up the most space. It is the low-key, withdrawn, members who must make room.
In groups with 6-7 or more participants, formalized procedures are required to have conversations with all participants present: You ask for the floor, wait your turn, the group become dependent on having a meeting leader, when it is your turn your planned input is not relevant any more, etc..
Larger groups also mean that subgroups are formed quickly, e.g. couples or trios, as compensation for some participants feeling that they end up on the fringes of the group. This undermines some of the group’s ability to work together and achieve common results.
The discussions themselves take a long time if everyone is to be allowed to participate. It becomes more difficult to agree on something. You more often choose majority decisions or make de facto decisions when no one actively opposes a proposal. The group more frequently moves on even when some participants are uncomfortable with a decision.
So the verdict is…
Small groups (2-5 participants) mean higher activity level for more members, while larger groups mean that a larger part of the energy is spent on handling the social game. On the other hand, very small groups (2-3 participants) mean fewer perspectives and ideas and an increased risk of exclusion (Two participants who are unable to work together, or pairing in a group of three).
For many group assignments of the type that is common in teaching at universities, i. e. those that require intellectual processing of new concepts, therefore offer groups with 5 participants (plus/minus one) many different individuals’ perspectives and ideas, while being socially manageable for participants and can provide a fairly even member activity level within the group.
Try it!