THE EFFECTS OF GROUP WORK ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AMONG

GRADE 11 STUDENTS OF NEW CORELLA NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

A Research Proposal Presented to the Faculty

New Corella National High School
New Corella, Davao del Norte

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Practical Research 2

1st Semester, S.Y. 2022-2023

LACIA, MAXIM EMILIE E.

ORTEGA, JEANNE MEIRE L.
SUMILHIG, MICHELLE JOY B.
MENDOZA, EMILTUNE JOHN O.
YTANG, ARIANE PEARL AVEGUIL M.

NOVEMBER 2022
 Chapter 1

Rationale

Having their students demonstrate high levels of engagement in the

classroom is a common goal for teachers. In order to get students to that high

level of engagement, teachers work to find instructional strategies, activities, and

lessons. Research has focused heavily on figuring out how to encourage high

learner engagement across the board.

Group work is a powerful instructional strategy that encourages deep

engagement with content through active and social learning. Successful group

assignments and activities allow students to exercise group skills in order to

create something together that individually they would not, or could not. Group

work can be done as a semester-long project, a short activity confined to part of

a class session, or anything in between. It can be adapted to in-person, hybrid, or

online classes.

In Indonesia, In Indonesia, research on student engagement is

underpinned by the constructivist view that education is fundamentally about

students constructing their own knowledge and that learning is influenced by how

an individual participates in educationally purposeful activities (Krause and

Coates, 2008). Students have affirmed how active engagement positively

impacts their learning (Lumpkin, Achen, & Dodd, 2015). Since the late 1980s,

authors have considered student engagement as an important contributor to the

student experience (Astin, 1985, 1993; Bryson & Hand, 2007; Hu & Kuh, 2001;
Pace, 1995). Early definitions of student engagement focused on the student.

This arose because students had the responsibility for their own success in third

level institutions with the institution itself abdicating responsibility (Quaye &

Harper, 2014).

However, institutional policies, practices, and learning environments may

also encourage and support, or discourage and impede students in achieving

their educational objectives (Davis & Murrell, 1993; Quaye & Harper, 2014). In

fact, recent literature speaks of students and universities as partners in education

though making the point that while all partnership is student engagement, not all

student engagement is partnership (Healey, Flint, & harrington, 2014).

In the Philippines, the students’ engagement becomes more important day

by day for their future and it creates a lot of stress on them and their parents. In

modern strategies, the instructors adapt new strategy to enhance the learning

process; such as they used group work strategy and it appeared its effect

through over the world. (Beatrice A. Ward, 1987). Nowadays lot of teachers

change their traditional teaching way and use a new modern strategy of teaching

and one of the most important strategies is group work which has a noticeable

effect on students’ engagement. (Bello, 2011). Group work can be applied to

small and large classes. Many recent studies show the important use of this

strategy. (Bello, 2011). And the reason searchers aim in this paper to show the

real high engagement. Gained by students who learn by using workgroup

strategy and its effect on their behavior, emotion and cognitive. This paper also

seeking to show some of the problems that face group work

 In local setting, New Corella National High School is one of the schools

mandated to hone the capacity of each student by instituting productive group

work in the classroom premises or around the campus which expounds curricular

activities. To achieve the motto of quality education, this group practice further

promotes behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement for the students

which is crucial for their development. In many cases, cultural diversity, group

formation, and trust can be accomplished with group work. Despite any

differences in type or class, because everyone participates, it fosters unity

among the group members. Their shared and motivating activity is labor in order

to fulfill their objectives and contribute to the social value of people. It focuses on

group work that must be developed and prepared before being carried out, and

group work strategies must be used with tools for evaluation and follow-up.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the effects of Group work on Student

Engagement among Grade 11 Students of New Corella National High School.

Specifically, this sought answer to the following queries;

1. To describe the level of Group work among Grade 11 Students in terms

of:

1.1. cultural diversity in the group;

1.2. group formation; and

1.3. trust in the group

2. To describe the level of Student Engagement in terms of:

2.1. behavioral Engagement;

2.2. cognitive Engagement; and

2.3. emotional Engagement

3. To determine the significant relationship between Group work and Student

Engagement among Grade 11 Students.

4. To determine which domain in Group work predicts the level of Grade 11

Student Engagement.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were formulated and were tested at 0.05 level of

significance.

1. There is no significant relationship between the group work and student

engagement.

2. There is no domain in the group work predicts the level of Grade 11 Students

Engagement.

Review of Related Literature

This section includes readings taken from online references, books, and

articles relevant to the current research. The discussions focus on group work

and student engagement. The study's independent variable is group work,

including cultural diversity in the group, group formation, and trust in the group

(Summers & Volet, 2010; as cited in Zhoc et al., 2019).

The study's dependent variable is student engagement, including

behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004; as cited

in Zhoc et al., 2019).

Group Work

Group work is a teaching strategy that deliberately creates a social setting

for learning to enhance deep learning, however a group assignment in itself does

not guarantee knowledge co-construction; it is through communication,

interaction and collaboration that knowledge is co-constructed (Oxford, 1997).

Students need to truly engage with their group members, the assignment, and

the different perspectives in the group to benefit. Student engagement in group

work is critical in realizing these benefits.

Cultural diversity in the group. Culturally diverse teams have the

potential to be more creative and innovative, with more positive impacts on

problem-solving, than single-culture teams (Denson & Zhang, 2010). Culturally

diverse students bring a variety of perspectives and approaches to the group,

which contributes to the quality of learning and decision-making (Johnson et

al., 1991; Watson et al., 1993). However, culturally diverse learning groups also

face challenges, such as misunderstandings, different views on how the

assignment should be undertaken, different expectations of the group work, and

language barriers (Hennebry & Fordyce, 2018; Moore & Hampton, 2015; Popov

et al., 2012; Volet & Ang, 2012). In terms of sociocultural learning theory, these

struggles can be viewed as the process of acquiring new psychological tools.

According to Vygotsky (1986), learning through social interaction is mediated by

tools such as language, signs, symbols, and gestures. Each culture has its own

set of psychological tools; therefore, a multicultural group can be viewed as a co-

presence of different systems of psychological tools. For students to learn

together through social interaction in an internationalized setting, they will have to

acquire a new, shared system of psychological tools (Kozulin et al., 2003).

Cultural diversity thus could affect engagement positively or negatively.

On the one hand, developing a shared system of psychological tools requires

time, effort, and commitment, which results in higher behavioral engagement. On

the other hand, cultural diversity might lead to group conflicts, which can cause

students to withdraw from the group and decrease their behavioral engagement.

Similarly, cultural diversity might enhance critical thinking through discussions

and incorporation of different (cultural) perspectives, resulting in higher cognitive

engagement. However, the lack of a shared system of psychological tools might

decrease cognitive engagement, because students struggle conveying their

thoughts and understanding their peers.

Group formation. Some research studies suggest that group formation

through self-selection is preferable, because it has a positive effect on student

attitudes and outcomes (e.g., Connerley & Mael, 2001; Mahenthiran &

Rouse, 2000). Chapman et al., (2006) find that students who are free to choose

their own group members assess the group process as more valuable and
effective than students randomly assigned to groups. Other studies suggest that

teacher selection is preferable though, because it ensures group heterogeneity,

which contributes to the quality of learning (Feichtner & Davis, 1984;

Muller, 1989). In heterogeneous groups, students with different skills, talents,

achievement levels, and social and cultural backgrounds can complement one

another (Johnson et al., 1991); homogeneous groups lack this synergistic

diversity.

Whether students have a say in whom to unite with thus likely affects their

level of engagement. When given a choice, students tend to choose to

collaborate with friends, same-culture peers, and similar-achieving peers

(Brouwer et al., 2018; Moore & Hampton, 2015). Entering into dialogue might be

easier in this case than with students they do not know. At the same time, critical

dialogue might diminish if group members think more alike or feel they cannot

challenge their friends’ views.

Trust in the group. Trust is essential in facilitating effective group work

(Huff et al., 2002; Johnson et al., 1991). Trust represents ‘one party’s (the trustor)

confident expectation that another party (the trustee), on whom the trustor must

rely, will help the trustor reach his or her goals in an environment of risk and

uncertainty’ (Huff et al., 2002, p. 25). In group work, students must rely on one

another, and their learning, grades, and ability to reach their goals depend at

least partly on the other group members. When trust among group members is

high, they are more willing to share their thoughts, perspectives, opinions, and
information; are more open to considering other points of view; and generate

better solutions (Chang, 2009; Huff et al., 2002).

In the context of higher education group work, students are often expected

to team on a project for a relatively short time, which is not conducive to

gradually building trust. Instead, trust may be based on easily observable

characteristics, such as visible similarities, effort put toward the group work,

reliability, or communication (Ennen et al., 2015; Huff et al., 2002; Meyerson et

al., 1996). The limited time puts multicultural groups at a disadvantage because

communication can be difficult and students may be less likely to trust group

members who have a different ethnic appearance or display behaviors that are

deemed different. In addition to differing in the time needed to establish trust,

cultures vary in how trust is developed and expressed. For example, people from

cultures that prefer direct communication might interpret an indirect

communication style as withholding information, which can appear dishonest or

untrustworthy (Bird & Osland, 2005). Given limited time and cultural differences,

trust building in multicultural groups will be more difficult than in single-culture

groups.

Sharing personal perspectives, being critical of one’s own ideas, and

being willing to consider other views can be a vulnerable position. Therefore,

greater trust in the group most likely results in greater cognitive engagement.

Behavioral engagement also might increase as trust increases. When students

have confidence in their group, they feel encouraged to invest in group work by

attending meetings and completing assigned tasks.

Student Engagement

Student engagement is a critical aspect of a classroom setting as it has

been connected to having positive results in the long run with areas in higher

education, future jobs and just your personal satisfaction (Pino-James, 2017).

Even though student engagement is vastly defined, most definitions indicate

breaking down engagement through three lenses, behavioral, emotional and

cognitive. Specifically, in a 2017 journal, it stated “behavioral engagement refers

to positive academic and social conduct in the learning activity, emotional

engagement relates to positive emotional reactions to the learning activity and

cognitive engagement refers to psychological investment in the learning activity”

(Pino-James, 2017, p. 458). Having student engagement broken down in these

three areas shows not only how diverse engagement is, but also how these

different types of engagement impact each other.

Behavioral Engagement. When looking at behavioral engagement my

research showed that it is important to see the level of participation that they are

having in their learning. (Lei et al., 2018). Ways that educators can see that

engagement is through body language, showing resiliency and effort and

expanding learning further without being directed to (Sinatra, et al., 2015).

Creating an environment within your classroom to promote these behaviors is a

crucial part. Students feeling that they have a place in the classroom is a pivotal

piece. Another crucial part is having students who are healthy with their behavior

issues. Educators cannot ignore or continue to put a band-aid on behavior

problems, but to find out how to solve them. “Scholars and school practitioners all
agree that students externalizing, and internalizing behavior problems cause a

threat to their active engagement in school” (Olivier et al., 2020, p. 2333).

Cognitive Engagement. The last part of student engagement is the

cognitive piece. “The cognitive dimension of school engagement pertains to a

student’s ‘thoughts’ in relation to learning and education” (Li & Lerner, 2012, p.

21). The research shows this as being the self-monitoring strategies that

students use (Lei et al., 2018). In turn, all three of the aspects of student

engagement, behavioral, emotional and cognitive are optimistically attached to

middle and high school student’s academic achievement (Griffin et al., 2017).

Emotional Engagement. Another aspect of student engagement is

emotional. “The emotional aspect of school engagement refers to students’

affective reactions in the classroom and toward school” (Li & Lerner, 2012, p.

21). This emotional engagement ranges from the student’s feelings about

teachers, other students and their learning along with pairing it to their “sense of

belonging, value and identity, as well as their level of interest, boredom,

happiness, sadness, anxiety and other emotions” (Lei et al., 2018, p. 519).

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

This study is based on Hu & Kuh, (2002) define student engagement as

‘the quality of effort students themselves devote to educationally purposeful

activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes’. Common sub-dimensions

of engagement include (1) behavioral engagement, which involves attendance,

participation, persistence, and preparation for class; (2) cognitive engagement,

which refers to the mental energy students apply to learning and self-regulation;
and (3) emotional engagement, including interest and identification (Fredricks et

al., 2004; as cited in Zhoc et al., 2019).

The researchers consider three factors that appear specifically relevant to

group work in an international learning environment: (1) cultural diversity in the

group, (2) group formation, and (3) trust in the group. These factors have been

investigated in relation to outcomes such as student satisfaction and

performance, but their influence on student engagement remains under-explored.

The researchers focus on two forms of engagement: students’ behavioral

engagement, required to achieve minimal learning, and cognitive engagement,

essential to deeper learning in a group setting (Summers & Volet, 2010; as cited

in Zhoc et al., 2019).

In this study, the researchers explore the effects of cultural diversity, group

formation, and trust on behavioral and cognitive engagement in group work.

Besides the direct effects of these variables on engagement, the researchers

also consider the possible role of trust as a mediator. A mediator variable

explains the relationship between other variables. In the context of this study, this

means the researchers investigate the extent to which cultural diversity and

group formation affect trust, which then, in turn, affects levels of engagement.

Greater cultural diversity may lead, at least initially, to less trust which then would

result in lower levels of engagement. Group formation also might affect trust

levels. When students are free to choose their teammates, they tend to choose

friends who have proved reliable in the past. This would lead to more trust in the

group which then would result in higher levels of engagement.

 Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Group Work Student Engagement

 Cultural Diversity in the Group  Behavioral Engagement

 Group Formation  Cognitive Engagement

 Trust in the Group  Emotional Engagement

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework Showing the Variables of the Study

Significance of the study

The findings of this study can be used as valuable information among

people in different areas study especially in the field of education.

The result could be highly significant and beneficial to the following:

Students. This study will benefit students because they are the primary

respondents to the study. The study's findings may prompt various institutions to

take action, which will directly benefit students as the primary beneficiaries. This

study provides students with the opportunity to engage in process skills critical

for processing information, analyzing problems, and solving them, as well as

management skills through the use of roles within groups and assessment skills

involved in assessing options to make decisions about their group's real

conclusion.
 Teachers. This will direct their efforts to providing additional advice,

endorsing, and learning actions that will help their students improve. This study

provides teachers with an excellent opportunity to supervise and observe

students as they work together. This allows teachers to observe their students'

engagement in action as they apply their learning and analyze situations and

decisions. Teachers can provide guidance and correction as necessary.

School Administrator. They would identify the need to help students

improve their deep understanding of the importance of personality learning by

developing enhancement programs and events. Both students' and teachers'

professional accomplishments would benefit from the administrator's support.

Future Researcher. This study will be a reference for future researchers

who will study the same concept related to the effects of group work on

engagement among senior high school students.

Definition of Terms

The following concepts are conceptually and operationally defined for

clarify and understanding in this study:

Group Work. An introduction to the values, knowledge and skills required

for working with different groups in a variety of social work and social care

settings (Macmillan, 2007). In this study, it is defined as effective educational

approach that promotes intense focus on the subject matter through interactive

and social learning.

 Cultural Diversity in the Group. Appreciating that society is made up of

many different groups with different interests, skills, talents and needs. It also

means that you recognize that people in society can have differing religious

beliefs and sexual orientations to you (Young Scot). In this study, it is defines as

individual distinctions based on personal experiences and characteristics of the

students.

Group Formation. In this study, it is a complex step to design effective

group work activities. A group may have many outstanding individuals, but they

must learn how to combine their separate talents and energies to enhance the

team’s performance. In this study, it is defined as the essential step to design

effective group work.

Trust in the Group. A group-directed willingness to accept vulnerability to

actions of the members based on the expectation that members will perform a

particular action important to the group, encompassing social exchange,

collective perceptions, and interpersonal trust (Larsen, 2006). In this study, it is

defined as the glue holding people together will help promote student’s welfare

and education.

Student Engagement. Measure of a student’s level of interaction with

others, plus the quantity of involvement in and quality of effort directed toward

activities that lead to persistence and completion (Kelly Hughes). In this study, it

is defined as the way students respond or engage as an effect of group work.

 Emotional Engagement. A student’s involvement in and enthusiasm for

school. When students are emotionally engaged, they want to participate in

school, and they enjoy that participation more (Walden, 2022). In this study, it is

defined as the way that students are feeling about their learning.

Cognitive Engagement. The extent to which students are willing and able

to take on the learning task at hand. This includes the amount of effort students

are willing to invest in working on the task (Mandinach, 1983). In this study, it is

defined as the level of a student’s ability and willingness to handle the current

learning assignment.

Behavioral Engagement. The observable act of Students being involved

in learning; it refers to student's participation in academic activities and efforts to

perform academic tasks (Fredricks et al.2004; Suarez-Orozco et al. 2009). In this

study, it is defined as their focus and attention are increased during the during

the learning process, which also inspires students to use more advanced critical

thinking.
 Chapter 2

This section depicts the study's different methods, including research

design, research respondents, research instruments, data-gathering procedures,

statistical tools, and ethical considerations.

Research Design

The researchers applied the descriptive-correlational design. Pertinent

data were gathered through the use of questionnaires as the main data-gathering

tools in assessing the level of Group Work on Students Engagement.

As the name "descriptive survey" suggests, it is used to describe and

quantify the degree of relationship between two or more variables or sets of

scores. It is also a procedure in which subjects' scores on two variables are

merely measured, without manipulating any variables, to ascertain whether there

is a relationship (Creswell, 2008).

Research Respondents

The respondents of this study were the Grade 11 Student in different

strand from New Corella National High School.

The questionnaire for the potentiality of Group Work will be related by the

bona fide student of the school mention above as well as Student Engagement.
 According to Creswell (2018), while there are no hand and fast rules

around how many people should involve in research, some researchers estimate

between 10 and 50 respondents as being sufficient depending on the type of

research and research question. Based on the table below the total population is

643 students, the researchers took only 40 respondents, 6 HUMSS students, 6

ABM students, 6 STEM students, 5 Animal Production students, 5 Cookery

students, 5 CSS students, 6 GAS students.

Strand Population Respondents

HUMSS 198 6

ABM 68 6

STEM 59 6

Animal Production 56 5

Cookery 125 6

CSS 80 5

GAS 57 6

Total 643 40

This study is to be conducted at New Corella National High School which

will be the main setting of the researchers for gathering the data.

Research Instrument

This study made use of two sets of researcher-constructed

questionnaires. These will be validated by the panel members. The first tool was
the questionnaire designed to elicit the responses on the group work among

grade 11 students.

The other set of research instrument was the questionnaire which was

utilized to gather data on the level of student engagement among grade 11

students.

Both questionnaires will be rated by those who are involved in the study,

residing in New Corella National High School, Davao del Norte, Philippines.

For the level of Group Work, the set is listed as follows:

Range of Means Level Interpretation

4.20 - 5.00 Very High This means that the Group Work among
Grade 11 Student Engagement is
excellent.

3.40 – 4.19 High This means that the Group Work among
Grade 11 Student Engagement is very
good.

2.60 – 3.39 Moderate This means that the Group Work among
Grade 11 Student Engagement is
good.

1.80 – 2.59 Low This means that the Group Work among
Grade 11 Student Engagement is fair.
 1.00 – 1.79 Very Low This means that the Group Work among
Grade 11 Student Engagement is poor.
For the level of Student Engagement, it is set as follows:

Range of Means Level Interpretation

90 - 100 Excellent This means that the Student

Engagement
among Grade 11 Student is very high.

86 – 89 Very Good This means that the Student

Engagement
among Grade 11 Student is high.

80 - 85 Good This means that the Student

Engagement
among Grade 11 Student is moderate.

75 - 79 Fair This means that the Student

Engagement
among Grade 11 Student is low.

74 - below Poor This means that the Student

Engagement
among Grade 11 Student is very low.

Data Gathering Procedure

The following actions were conducted throughout the study' execution. In

order to formally perform the study, the researchers first created a letter of
authorization noted by their research teacher. In order to conduct the study on

their students and answer their question about the impact of group work on

student engagement, the researchers wrote letters to the advisers of the various

strands.

The research distributed the questionnaires to the respondents individually

and explained how they would reply to the questionnaires after receiving consent

form from the principal, the research adviser, and the strand advisers. The

survey's results were compiled, added up, tabulated, analyzed, and handled

scientifically.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The gathered data were tabulated and analyzed using the following

statistical tools:

Mean. This was done in order to assess the potentiality of The Effects of

Group Work on Student Engagement among Grade 11 Student of New Corella

National High School.

Linear Regression Analysis. This was done to determine the degree of

predictability between one dependent variable and one or more independent

variables.

Ethical Consideration

Voluntarily Participation all research participants must voluntarily

participate in order to avoid any sort of coercion or pressure. Every participant is

free to stop participating in the study at any time without feeling obligated to do

so. There is no requirement that participants give a justification for abandoning

the research. It's crucial to make It clear to participants that declining to take part

has no negative effects or ramifications. Since they took the time to assist you

with your research, you should respect their choices and refrain from attempting

to persuade them otherwise. A lot of scientific rules of conduct as well as

international law safeguard voluntary involvement as an ethical concept. When

working with vulnerable groups of people, take extra care to ensure there is no

pressure placed on participants because they can find it difficult to end the study

even if they want to.

Consent form all potential participants must be given and ensured to

understand all the information necessary for them to make an informed decision

about whether or not to participate. Typically, after giving the participants a text to

read, you’ll ask them if they have any questions. They can initial the permission

form or sign it if they accept to participate. Keep in mind that if you work with

particularly vulnerable groups of people, this might not be adequate for informed

consent. Make sure you explain the consent form verbally to anyone collecting

data from who has limited literacy before asking them to participate.

Anonymity refers to the fact that you are unable to identify the

participants or connect their personal information to their data. Only by refraining

from gathering any personally identifying data, such as names, phone numbers,

email addresses, IP addresses, physical traits, photographs, and videos, can

anonymity be assured. It may be difficult to properly anonymize data collecting in

many situations. For instance, data gathered over the phone or in person cannot

be entirely regarded as anonymous because certain personal identifiers (such as

phone numbers or demographic data) cannot be concealed.

Confidentiality knowing the participants while removing all identifying

information from your report demonstrates confidentiality. Since everyone who

participates has a right to privacy, you should safeguard their personal

information for as long as you have it or use it. Even if you are unable to obtain

data in an anonymous manner, you should always maintain confidentiality.

1. Possibility of injury. All potential causes of injury to participants

must be taken into consideration as a researcher. There are numerous ways

harm might appear.

2. Psychological harm. Tough questions or assignments could make

you feel guilty or anxious. Social hazards, humiliation in public, or stigma can all

result from participation.

3. Physical harm. The study procedures may cause pain or injury.

Legal concerns or a privacy invasion could result from reporting sensitive info.

It is best to keep in mind every potential cause of danger in your research,

as well as practical solutions to reduce them. Include your supervisor in the

discussion of harm reduction measures. To obtain informed consent, make sure

to fully communicate any potential risks of harm to participants before the study.

Prepare to offer participants support, counseling, or medical assistance if

necessary if there is a danger of harm.

References

Bird, A., & Osland, J. S. (2005). Making sense of intercultural collaboration. International

Studies of Management & Organization, 35(4), 115–

132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2005.11043739

Denson, N., & Zhang, S. (2010). The impact of student experiences with diversity

on developing graduate attributes. Studies in Higher

Education, 35(5), 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903222658

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning:

Increasing college faculty instructional productivity [ASHE-ERIC higher

education report no. 4, 1991]. ERIC.

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact

on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and

diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590–

602. https://doi.org/10.5465/256593
Hennebry, M., & Fordyce, K. (2018). Cooperative learning on an international

masters. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2), 270–

284. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1359150

Moore, P., & Hampton, G. (2015). ‘It's a bit of a generalisation, but … ’:

Participant perspectives on intercultural group assessment in higher

education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(3), 390–

406. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.919437

Popov, V., Brinkman, B., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., Kuznetsov, A. M.,

& Noroozi, O. (2012). Multicultural student group work in higher education:

A study on challenges as perceived by students. International Journal of

InterculturalRelations, 36(2), 302317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.

09.004

Volet, S. E., & Ang, G. (2012). Culturally mixed groups on international

campuses: An opportunity for inter-cultural learning. Higher Education

Research & Development, 31(1), 21–

37. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642838

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. The MIT Press.

Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (Eds.). (2003). Vygotsky’s

educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge University Press.

Connerley, M. L., & Mael, F. A. (2001). The importance and invasiveness of

student team selection criteria. Journal of Management

Education, 25(5), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290102500502
Mahenthiran, S., & Rouse, P. J. (2000). The impact of group selection on student

performance and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational

Management, 14(6), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/0951354001034804

Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can't we pick our own

groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and

outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 557–

569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905284872

Feichtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1984). Why some groups fail: A survey of

students’ experiences with learning groups. Organizational Behavior

Teaching Review, 9(4), 58–

73. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256298400900409

Muller, T. E. (1989). Assigning students to groups for class projects: An

exploratory test of two methods. Decision Sciences, 20(3), 623–

634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1989.tb01571.x

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning:

Increasing college faculty instructional productivity [ASHE-ERIC higher

education report no. 4, 1991]. ERIC.

Brouwer, J., Flache, A., Jansen, E., Hofman, A., & Steglich, C. (2018). Emergent

achievement segregation in freshmen learning community networks. Higher

Education, 76(3), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0221-2
Moore, P., & Hampton, G. (2015). ‘It's a bit of a generalisation, but … ’: Participant

perspectives on intercultural group assessment in higher education. Assessment

& Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(3), 390–

406. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.919437 

Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences of trust

in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 24–

34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475302241004

Chang, H. M. (2009). Students’ trust building in a collaborative learning team [Doctoral

dissertation, University of Texas,

U.S.A.]. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/11665

Ennen, N. L., Stark, E., & Lassiter, A. (2015). The importance of trust for satisfaction,

motivation, and academic performance in student learning groups. Social

Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 18(3), 615–

633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9306-x

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups.

In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory

and research (pp. 166–195). Sage.