What is best? To let the students take care of group division themselves, to let them wish for group colleagues, or as a teacher to single-handedly arbitrarily decide who works with whom?
Group work in studies is a very useful pedagogical tool. In another post, we discuss this (Group work as a form of work in teaching). However, there is a risk that the social hierarchy game in the small working group will counteract the pedagogical purpose. If the group does not function well and a participant is marginalized, ignored or clearly rejected, the effect of this will be far greater in a small student work group than would be the case in the larger course group. In the small group there are no alternatives to escape to. We teachers need to think about this and take it into account when planning the course.
When the teacher for pedagogical reasons chooses to use group work and then as a side effect exposes the students to the social game that group work entails, the teacher also has the responsibility to implement the group work so that the social exclusion risks are as small as possible.
Being the one who “was not chosen” is a very strong negative experience. We humans have a basic need for positive relationships with others. Not being seen by others and not having ones membership manifested by being accepted in the group eventually makes people sick. Particularly exposed to the risk of being left out is those who are perceived as different compared to the norm in the group, e. g. the one who is in the minority in some respect. It can be about factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, social behavior that is perceived as different by the others or about disability or variation, etc..
The situation when participants in a course are encouraged to form groups is one of the most negatively charged for many students. Will I be chosen? Will I be rejected if I take the initiative to approach someone myself?
The teacher puts the groups together
A simple measure to deal with this risk is that the teacher simply eliminates the moment where some participants may feel that they are “left over”. The teacher decide on grouping students.
This can be done in different ways to signal that it is not about being chosen or not chosen, not to be sorted according to external attributes such as age, ethnicity, gender, etc.. The teacher can instead choose some obviously irrelevant and arbitrary system (e. g. based on birthday of the month, alphabetical order or lottery).
Another (almost) equally arbitrary system is to form groups in a distance course according to when new participants register or based on a specified area of interest or study situation (As a request for daytime work or evening work).
Sometimes it may be wise to still apply a certain hand-laying when the teacher suspects that some students may have tried to manipulate the grouping by expressing a specific desired an area of interest or signed up as a lump in a strategic way. The teacher should not hesitate to adjust the group division if he discovers that some students are trying to manipulate the intended arbitrary division.
Training for the working life
Another argument for the teacher’s autocratic group division is that university educations almost without exception aim to prepare the participants for professional life. And in working life, you rarely have the privilege of choosing your colleagues yourself.
Make new groups regularly!
The university’s commitment is to offer all students a reasonably equal chance to complete their studies. Regardless of how workgroups are put together, some will work better than others and some will work really poorly. The fact that the teachers put together the student working groups aims to reduce social exclusion but will not change the fact that the groups work differently well.
When we teachers design the activities during the course, and choose group work as a workform for certain parts of the course, we must also take responsibility for handling situations when a group turns out not to work well. Just as important as reducing the risk of exclusion by taking on the responsibility of dividing into groups is not to lock students into groups that obviously don’t work. Therefore, make sure to change the group division from time to time, e. g. between each course or module.
If students feel locked into dysfunctional groups for a long time, e. g. throughout the entire semester or academic year, it increases the risk that they give up and drop out. Their expectations increases that the teacher should intervene to solve the group’s interpersonal problems. The motivation to endure being in a dysfunctional study group decreases. Risk of drop-out increases.
On tthe other hand, knowing that the occasional bad luck in the grouping is temporary and soon will be replaced by a new group, contributes to students to tend to endure the situation in the dysfunctional group. Knowing it is temporary will make it easier to act constructively and focus on what can be done in the temporarily unfavorable situation.
So change group division regularly!