Transcript Personality Theory

What Kind of
Groups and Individuals
SUCCEED
in Collaborative Projects?
John A. Johnson
Penn State DuBois
[email protected]
Nature of the Project
Students in a large (~180) introductory
psychology class were assigned to
groups of 7-8 students.
Each group was to write an annotated
list of web sites that helped answer 8
general questions about psychology.
Each student wrote his or her own
answers to the questions.
Goals of Project
•To restore thoughtful exploration of ideas
•To increase internet literacy
•To assess how well students learn this way
–for the class, overall
–for different types of students
Observational Aside
• Witness the long string of trends and
fads in teaching
• Yesterday, Total Quality Management
• Today, technology and collaboration
• Each hailed as THE ANSWER
• THE answers deny learning styles
• Bottom line: Does technique work?
For Missing Details
• Full report available at:
http://cac.psu.edu/~j5j/persona/
courses/courses.html#Empower96
Setup Logistics
• Assess computer attitudes and
literacy on first day of class
• Enter scores in spreadsheet; sort
to distribute talent in groups
• Result: ~180 students in 25
groups of 7-8 students
• Signs labeled A-Y hung around
auditorium perimeter
Assignments & Activities
• 50% each class allotted to group
meetings and training for 3 weeks
• Meeting 1: Informal, introductions
• Meeting 2: 8 research questions;
½ supportive, ½ supportive skills
• Meeting 3: Detailed description of
expectations
Expected Product
• One annotated list of web sites for
entire group
• Each member writes own answers
to eight questions
• Annotated list & answers emailed
• Each student rates contribution of
each group member
Criteria of Individual Success
• Score on ungraded multiplechoice test
• Score on research project
• Contribution rating from group
• Specific + and - behaviors
• Post-test of attitudes/literacy
Criteria for Group Success
•
•
•
•
•
Equality of rated contributions
# of valid web addresses
# of questions adequately answered
% of students who contributed
Open-ended comments
Multiple Choice Test Scores
• Difference between scores on 19
questions not lectured on and 21
questions lectured on not
statistically different
• Overall performance (52%) lower
than previous year (69%)
• Scores correlated
→r = .24 (p<.01) with project score
→r = .45 (p<.01) with contribution score
Reports (N=166)
•
•
•
•
•
•
33 excellent (deep comprehension)
58 good (MC-test level)
54 okay (rote; mistakes & copying)
6 problems (marginal functioning)
15 failed to turn in anything
Scores correlated r = .23 (p<.01)
with rated group contribution)
Correlates of Individual
Project Scores
• Low Neuroticism
– (depression, self-consciousness)
• High Extraversion
– (assertiveness)
• High Openness to Experience
– (openness to aesthetics & ideas)
• High Conscientiousness
– (competence, dutifulness,
achievement striving, self-discipline)
Distribution of Group
Contribution Scores
20
15
10
5
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
Group Contribution Scores
19
21
23
Correlates of Contribution to Group
• High Extraversion
– (assertiveness and activity)
• High Openness to Experience
– (openness to feelings)
• High Conscientiousness
– (dutifulness, achievement striving,
self-discipline)
Correlates of Positive and
Negative Behaviors
• High Conscientiousness
– competence
– order
– dutifulness
– achievement striving
– self-discipline
– deliberation
Follow-up Attitude Questions
Interest in Web Searching
(compared to exams)
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
10
1 = low interest, 10 = high interest
Interest in Group Work
(compared to individual work)
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 = low interest, 10 = high interest
Correlates of Attitudes
• Who likes web searching?
– Unpredictable from personality scores
• Who likes group work? Students with
high scores on:
– emotional stability
– gregariousness & excitement-seeking
• and low scores on
– openness to aesthetics
– openness to feelings
Indices of Group Success
6
Num ber of 4
Groups 2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Percent of Students Contributing
7
6
5
Number of 4
Groups 3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Number of Questions Answered Adequately
8
Correlates of Group Success
• % of Students Contributing related to
– higher scores on multiple choice test
– higher levels of
impulsivity, activity, immodesty
– receiving the supportive rather than
directive skill handout
• Number of sites/answers related to
– higher levels of openness to aesthetics
Future Directions
• I’ve eliminated group projects as a
uniform requirement
• Future projects will involve
individual tailoring
– Projects will be an optional alternative
– Groups can choose their members
– Students can choose research topics
that interest them
– Personality self-assessment may help
estimate suitability for projects