FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1747169696> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1747169696 endingPage "81" @default.
• W1747169696 startingPage "70" @default.
• W1747169696 abstract "Universities are increasingly using group based assessment tasks; however, as with workplace teams, such tasks often elicit mixed feelings from participants. This study investigated factors that may predict student satisfaction with group work at university. Final-year business students completed a questionnaire addressing experiences of group work. Quantitative and qualitative data suggest that the major barrier to students’ group work satisfaction was workload issues. Conversely, perceptions of learning and feelings of group-based achievement contributed most to satisfaction. Knowledge of predictors of satisfaction allows teaching staff to identify potential problems in groups, and improve the quality of the group work experience. This journal article is available in Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol6/iss1/7 Journal o f Univers i t y Teaching and Learn ing Prac t i ce Predicting Satisfaction with Group Work Assignments Jane Burdett School of Management, University of South Australia Jane.Burdett@unisa.edu.au Brianne Hastie Division of Business, University of South Australia Brianne.Hastie@unisa.edu.au Abstract Universities are increasingly using group based assessment tasks; however, as with workplace teams, such tasks often elicit mixed feelings from participants. This study investigated factors that may predict student satisfaction with group work at university. Final-year business students completed a questionnaire addressing experiences of group work. Quantitative and qualitative data suggest that the major barrier to students’ group work satisfaction was workload issues. Conversely, perceptions of learning and feelings of group-based achievement contributed most to satisfaction. Knowledge of predictors of satisfaction allows teaching staff to identify potential problems in groups, and improve the quality of the group work experience.Universities are increasingly using group based assessment tasks; however, as with workplace teams, such tasks often elicit mixed feelings from participants. This study investigated factors that may predict student satisfaction with group work at university. Final-year business students completed a questionnaire addressing experiences of group work. Quantitative and qualitative data suggest that the major barrier to students’ group work satisfaction was workload issues. Conversely, perceptions of learning and feelings of group-based achievement contributed most to satisfaction. Knowledge of predictors of satisfaction allows teaching staff to identify potential problems in groups, and improve the quality of the group work experience. P r e d i c t i n g S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h G r o u p Wo r k A s s ig n m en t s J a n e B u rd e t t a n d B r i a n n e H a s t i e Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice Vol 6.1, 2009 62 Predicting student satisfaction with group work assignments The emerging predominance of group work assignments represents a major trend in education (Brown, Bull, & Pendlebury, 1997; Gottschall & Garcia-Bayonas, 2008). Employers highly value teamwork skills and seek the development of these in graduates (Cranmer, 2006). This study investigates the issue of university student satisfaction with group work assessments. Insights drawn from this study should inform the development of strategies to improve student group work assignment experiences and outcomes. Group work provides an opportunity for students to engage in peer-to-peer learning. Learning is enhanced when students are able to share and clarify their knowledge, and build creative problem solving capabilities (Almond, 2009; Johnson & Johnson, 2005). Working together productively can result in more favourable attitudes to learning and persistence within degrees (Scott-Lad & Chan, 2008; Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999) and academics often favour group work for its anticipated reduction in marking loads. Despite their advantages, group assignments are not always regarded positively by students (Burdett, 2006; Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006); and dissatisfied students can inhibit the performance of others, resulting in poorer group outcomes (Freeman, 1996). Also, groups that become dysfunctional result in collaborative efforts failing and compromised learning outcomes (Livingstone & Lynch, 2002). In some cases content learning can be impeded by group, as opposed to individual, work (Bacon, 2005). These negative outcomes are likely to reduce satisfaction, a critical issue given that student satisfaction has been linked to decreased drop-out rates and higher learning performance (Suhre, Jansen, & Harskamp, 2007). Furthermore, valuable learning opportunities are missed when future group work is avoided (Volet & Mansfield, 2006). Student satisfaction is used as a critical indicator of quality of teaching and is allied to academic tenure, promotion, university reputation, and student choice (Moore, 2006). Funding pressures reinforce priority areas for teaching practice. Faculty must attend to ‘satisfaction’ as reflected in student course evaluations, a focus that influences the design, delivery, and assessment of courses. Hence, student satisfaction is a key concern for academic staff. It is important that such a potentially contentious teaching methodology as group work be investigated so that both positive and problematic aspects are understood. This study investigated the experience of group work, focusing on key areas in which students’ satisfaction with assessed group work experiences might be improved. Of particular interest were: individuals’ achievement orientations; whether students took on leadership roles within groups; their perceptions of workload fairness; and their satisfaction with the outcomes, in terms of marks awarded and learning about group work skills. Predictors of Group Work Satisfaction This study specifically addressed the impact of five issues on students’ general satisfaction with group work projects at university, related to individuals (achievement orientations); and their satisfaction with aspects of the task (leadership roles and workload within task), and its outcomes (marks and learning). Achievement orientation Group work requires changes to conventional learning styles and may contradict the motivations, aptitudes, and learning preferences of high achievers (Yazici, 2005). Those with high achievement orientation are often competitive, seek to work alone, and are less accepting of group-based rewards (Trank, Rynes, & Bretz, 2002). Almond (2009) concluded that group assessment disadvantages high achieving individual students, and Bahar (2003) found that students with achievement-oriented motivational styles were significantly less satisfied with group work, compared to those with curious, conscientious, and sociable learning styles. It was expected that achievement orientation would be negatively related to overall satisfaction with group work. P r e d i c t i n g S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h G r o u p Wo r k A s s ig n m en t s J a n e B u rd e t t a n d B r i a n n e H a s t i e Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice Vol 6.1, 2009 63 Leadership roles in groups Most group work assessment tasks involve leaderless groups, however, in practice, one or more students often end up taking responsibility for completing the work, whether or not they want to (Mills, 2003). In some cases, these ‘leaders’ may be encouraged by others in the group to do more, resulting in higher responsibility and workload, while ‘free riders’ in the group flourish (Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006). This is likely to lead to resentment and dissatisfaction. There is the possibility that the high degree of control over the group work product may contribute to greater satisfaction among leaders (Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003). However, while this may increase their satisfaction with the product created, it is unlikely to increase their satisfaction with the group work process. It was expected that taking on a leadership role would be negatively associated with overall satisfaction with group work." @default.
• W1747169696 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1747169696 creator A5039253237 @default.
• W1747169696 creator A5050924487 @default.
• W1747169696 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W1747169696 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1747169696 title "Predicting Satisfaction with Group Work Assignments" @default.
• W1747169696 cites W104013224 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W1496971482 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W1555291448 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W1954254222 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W1993094677 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2012152041 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2018988902 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2025957729 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2032777240 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2040502074 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2041459570 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2048528977 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2049352740 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2050334079 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2062280517 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2066378800 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2078174348 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2105082021 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2113671972 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2116659922 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2119910860 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2121224052 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2132606439 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2149946956 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W2163406181 @default.
• W1747169696 cites W96839006 @default.
• W1747169696 doi "https://doi.org/10.14453/jutlp.v6i1.7" @default.
• W1747169696 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W1747169696 type Work @default.
• W1747169696 sameAs 1747169696 @default.
• W1747169696 citedByCount "21" @default.
• W1747169696 countsByYear W17471696962012 @default.
• W1747169696 countsByYear W17471696962013 @default.
• W1747169696 countsByYear W17471696962014 @default.
• W1747169696 countsByYear W17471696962015 @default.
• W1747169696 countsByYear W17471696962016 @default.
• W1747169696 countsByYear W17471696962020 @default.
• W1747169696 countsByYear W17471696962021 @default.
• W1747169696 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1747169696 hasAuthorship W1747169696A5039253237 @default.
• W1747169696 hasAuthorship W1747169696A5050924487 @default.
• W1747169696 hasBestOaLocation W17471696961 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C178790620 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C18762648 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C2776020993 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C2781311116 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C3019640506 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C127413603 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C145420912 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C15744967 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C178790620 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C185592680 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C18762648 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C2776020993 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C2781311116 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C3019640506 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C77805123 @default.
• W1747169696 hasConceptScore W1747169696C78519656 @default.
• W1747169696 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1747169696 hasLocation W17471696961 @default.
• W1747169696 hasOpenAccess W1747169696 @default.
• W1747169696 hasPrimaryLocation W17471696961 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W104013224 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W168818665 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2025957729 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2032777240 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2046644899 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2056369623 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2062280517 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2082659470 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2094117731 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2140236135 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2149946956 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2178567184 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2234579731 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2618064349 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2890428933 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2919736311 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W2974606506 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W3106159908 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W3109569045 @default.
• W1747169696 hasRelatedWork W9897725 @default.
• W1747169696 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W1747169696 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1747169696 isRetracted "false" @default.

• next