Proposal Title

Collaborative Groups Both Help and Hurt learning, but Group Composition Has No Effect on a Group's Success or Failure as Defined by Personality Characteristics.

Proposal Abstract

We examined the effect of collaborative group structures by varying personality types in triads on a free recall task. The triads were based upon varied levels of dominance. Collaborative projects are popular classroom engagement tools and lead to greater learning though re-exposure to items and through error pruning (Rajaram, 2011). Students often request engagement, yet balk at group collaborations with group members taking over and others simply getting run over. Students were sorted into triads with either a strong, neutral, or low dominance personality receiving an extra item for their recall. These items increased the odds of social contagion. Two participants in each group were dominance neutral. The success of group work was confirmed by collaboration recall, F(1,17)= 23.405, p < .001. Post collaboration scores increased from pre-collaboration (M= 51.5, SE=1.65), to post-collaboration (M=56.77, SE=1.24). Collaboration led to false recall with the dominant-neutral members increasing by one third (M= -1.07143, SE=.28640), t(13)= -3.741, p= .002. There was no interaction of personality types and social contagion, F(1,17) = .387, p>.05. This suggests that all groups will create memories that are not true or accurate in group projects, yet that effect is consistent across all groups no matter the dominance.

Location

Room 113

Publication Type and Release Option

Presentation (Open Access)

Share

COinS
 
Mar 27th, 4:00 PM Mar 27th, 5:30 PM

Collaborative Groups Both Help and Hurt learning, but Group Composition Has No Effect on a Group's Success or Failure as Defined by Personality Characteristics.

Room 113

We examined the effect of collaborative group structures by varying personality types in triads on a free recall task. The triads were based upon varied levels of dominance. Collaborative projects are popular classroom engagement tools and lead to greater learning though re-exposure to items and through error pruning (Rajaram, 2011). Students often request engagement, yet balk at group collaborations with group members taking over and others simply getting run over. Students were sorted into triads with either a strong, neutral, or low dominance personality receiving an extra item for their recall. These items increased the odds of social contagion. Two participants in each group were dominance neutral. The success of group work was confirmed by collaboration recall, F(1,17)= 23.405, p < .001. Post collaboration scores increased from pre-collaboration (M= 51.5, SE=1.65), to post-collaboration (M=56.77, SE=1.24). Collaboration led to false recall with the dominant-neutral members increasing by one third (M= -1.07143, SE=.28640), t(13)= -3.741, p= .002. There was no interaction of personality types and social contagion, F(1,17) = .387, p>.05. This suggests that all groups will create memories that are not true or accurate in group projects, yet that effect is consistent across all groups no matter the dominance.