Creating student groups

Decisions about group composition should be shaped by the objectives of the assignment. All decisions about composing groups will have consequences that are important for the instructor to consider.

One way of exploring the impact of group composition is to view it in a continuum between instructor-selected groups and student-selected ones. If students are allowed to form groups as they please, they will tend to cluster in groups that are homogenous with respect to ability and culture. This often results in strong teams and weak teams. It also often results in groups that self-segregate with respect to cultural expectations and language. If the focus of the group task is strictly product (as opposed to process), this might be appropriate, and even enhance the group’s efficiency. But if other skills are also important (e.g., communication skills, reconciling alternative opinions) this kind of group composition may not serve your objectives. In those circumstances, you may want to structure groups in particular ways to serve your goals. As a hybrid approach, you might let students self-select within particular constraints (e.g., no groups larger than 4, no more than one engineer per group). Here are some dimensions you should consider when making decisions about group composition:

Prior knowledge and skills.

If you assess student’s prior knowledge you can structure groups to distribute particular types of knowledge (e.g., programming ability, design expertise, experience with historical research) across groups. In some interdisciplinary courses, instructors use student majors as a proxy for prior knowledge when forming groups.

Role.

Some projects demand the each group member play a specialized role, mirroring the workplace (e.g., a project manager, a data analyst, a writer). Some instructors specify the roles every group must have and then let the students join groups based on their strengths. (It should be noted that if a goal of the class is for students to learn to play different roles, the opposite strategy might be effective, i.e., assigning students roles that compel them to move out of their comfort zone and develop new skills.

Motivation.

Students have different motivations within a course: some will prioritize the work for a project in order to excel, some are content just getting by, some are taking the course out of genuine interest, others just need it as a requirement. Mixing students with different goals in one group can cause tensions and problems. To counter this, some instructors group students by motivation.

Diversity.

If part of the purpose of using groups is to provide multiple perspectives, you can structure groups to include a diversity of gender, race/ethnicity, native language, etc. This suggestion, however, comes with a caveat. It is important to make sure that there is critical mass in every group, so that lone members of a particular social category (race or gender, for example) do not find themselves isolated or crowded out of the conversation. (For instance, in a class with 4 women and 4 groups, instead of placing one woman in each group, consider putting 2 women in 2 groups or 4 women in one group.)

Size.

Small groups tend to work efficiently because it is easier to coordinate efforts and schedules among fewer people. However, while large groups have higher “coordination costs” (which may require more planning and supervision on the part of the instructor, as well as more total time), they can theoretically accomplish larger and more complex projects. Although some experts claim that groups of more than 5-6 students tend to be unmanageable, and thus a bad idea, there are no hard and fast rules. Decisions about group size should, as with most elements of group work, be shaped by the objectives of the assignment.