General Skills in Groupwork Environment in Information Systems
Undergraduate Education
Zuraini Ismail and Maslin Masrom
Department of Science
College of Science Technology
University of Technology Malaysia
zurainisma@citycampus.utm.my, maslin@citycampus.utm.my
Abstract
Groupwork plays a prominent role in information system courses. Furthermore, the ability to work in
groups is frequently short listed for developing generic skills. The objectives of this research are to
demonstrate groupwork can be used as a teaching and learning tool, explain the underlying rationale,
and show how it promotes generic skill development in a higher education setting. This research
adopted a cross-sectional approach in examining Malaysian diploma students’ perceptions on desirable
generic skills and its effectiveness, commonly considered as a sort after prerequisite upon graduation.
The unit of analysis is individual level. In order to achieve the research objectives, data was analyzed
using factor analysis approach, and then the dominant measures of groupwork in higher learning
education were examined. First, the paper reviews current research on the aspects of learning and
groupwork theory. Secondly, implementation of the model in an information systems course on third
year diploma students is discussed. In conclusion, lessons learned and further work needed is
discussed.
Keywords: Generic skills, Groupwork, Groupwork components, Information System education
1. Introduction
The development and assessment of higher education student’s generic skills remain
to receive considerable attention. Without exception, every Malaysian university is
taking steps in incorporating generic skills to optimize their graduates’ employment
readiness upon graduation. The Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE)
announces its concern regarding the marketable value for all its public funded
graduates (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2005). Graduates need to be
equipped with adaptable skills in order to respond to future change is mandatory in
the current competitive market place. A survey made by MOHE revealed that among
the reasons for undergraduate unemployment is the inability to relay ideas
confidently between team members. Therefore, one way to prepare future employees
for such work environment is by having them work in groups in academic settings.
Hence, in year 2005, the introduction of generic skills in order to reflect a dynamic
higher education system in Malaysia is addressed.
It is widely noted that groupwork inculcates generic skills as part of best practices in
a student-centered curriculum. This is particularly so in the area of information
system, a subset of computer science programme where graduates are exposed to
group or team based working environment orientation. Typically, assignments or
groupwork are conducted in the later part (fifth or sixth semester) of their academic
years when students have acquired the necessary technical knowledge (Chamillard &
Braun, 2002). Groupwork success is also heavily dependent on intrinsic factors (eg.
group member personality, motivation, knowledge, experience and cultural
1
background) and extrinsic factors (eg. group formation, task design and assessment
processes) (Drury et al., 2003). Hence, cultivating generic skills in groupwork
environment requires an integration process, namely planning, implementation and
assessment.
Groupwork has long been practiced and became one of the components of
information systems education at Computer Science faculty. Despite extensive
literature on the benefits and challenges of groupwork in education, evaluating its
effectiveness in enhancing generic skills was not given enough attention from the
students’ perspective. There also has been less research conducted to investigate the
perceptions of students with regards to generic skills in groupwork environment
particularly in the context of information system education, especially in developing
country like Malaysia. Thus, this research will attempt to fill some of that gap.
This paper is organized into five sections. This section has introduced the research
area. A review of literature is in section two. Section three depicts the research
objectives and research model. Section four presents the methodology. The last
section provides the conclusion of this study.
2. Literature review
This section reviews the literature on the generic skill of groupwork, the nature of
groupwork and subsequently groupwork in the context of diploma program.
2.1 Generic Skill of Groupwork
The development and assessment of university students’ generic skills is receiving
great attention. The generic skills that asociated with university education among
others include high level skills in communication (i.e. written and oral), problem
solving, groupwork, thinking (i.e. critical and analytical), independent learning and
information literacy (Harris et al. 2007). Nowadays, generic skills and groupwork are
taking on increased importance in universities, and much favoured by employers and
industries. These skills are important for a graduate's successful transition to the
workplace because jobs today require flexibility, initiative and the ability to
undertake many different tasks.
Groupwork, teamwork, task forces, project groups, self-directed work-teams and
committees are commonly encountered terms. There is considerable confusion in the
literature over these terminologies. Nevertheless, these terminologies are given the
same meaning (Watson, 2002). Joe Landsberger (1996) noted that the philosophy of
working in groups involves shared and/or learned values, resources, and ways of
doing things. However, each group, and each individual, will only be as effective as
they are willing to embrace and/or respect differences within the group. The main aim
of any group project is the outcome.
2
2.2 Groupwork Environment
Groupwork is an important generic skill. It is believed to be beneficial in a work
environment and also to have many positive results in academic settings (Davis,
1993). Past research has emphasized that groupwork allows students to explore a
diversity of opinions, better retain learned information, and efficiently solve projects
too large to effectively handle on an individual basis (Gatfield, 1999).
According to DePree (1998) and Thomas (2001), in certain situations, group work is
linked to an increase in students’ confidence levels. Watson (2002) asserted that the
benefits which may be expected from successful groupwork are greater educational
autonomy (students are given more control, choice and decision making power),
generic skill development, greater opportunities to engage in active and interactive
learning of substantive content, understanding of co-operative working and learning
processes from both a theoretical and personal perspective and increased
employability.
In response to the growing demand for university students who can effectively work
in teams, and in light of research that suggests educational benefits resulting from
groupwork, many educational institutions are shifting from traditional teaching
methods which have often relied exclusively on individual work, to methods which
integrate group academic work. For example, college programs as diverse as
educational counseling (Anderson & Price, 2001), business (Gardner & Korth, 1998)
and engineering education (Kamsah & Talib, 2005) are examining the potential
benefits that their students might receive through participation in groups. It has come
to the point, as noted by Houldsworth & Mathews (2000), that it is quite common for
a student receiving an undergraduate degree to have worked in an academic group at
some point in his or her education.
There are four procedures that can be used when a group of students is given a task or
project (Waite et al., 2004):
i.
Sequential segmentation – I work on it for a while, then pass it along to you.
ii.
Parallel segmentation – We break it up and everyone does a piece.
iii.
Natural selection – We each carry it out and then choose the best result, or we
choose the best person and let them do it.
iv.
Collaboration – We interact closely during the task.
In each of the first three procedures (i, ii and iii), the group has to come to some
agreement about how the members will work alone. Meanwhile, procedure (iv), that
is, collaboration, a process by which ability of students to work in group is
inculcated. It is a process by which students can uncover things that they don’t know
and don’t know that they don’t know. According to Waite et al. (2004), it is
impossible to specify a project completely; one member of the group will stumble
over some questionable points when working alone, while another will stumble over
different ones. Therefore, collaboration is needed to share these experiences.
3
2.3 Groupwork in the Context of Diploma Program
The university’s Diploma in Computer Science programme runs for three years.
Each unit or courses are outlined by course objectives, learning outcomes and
course plan which are distributed to registered students during the first meeting
in the semester. Typically, each course is assessed with equal weights of fifty
(50) percent each through course work and a final examination. It is within the
course work that generic skills of students are instilled. Explicit groupwork
assessment is commonly incorporated, developed and evaluated in each course
from the first semester of the programme. This is to ensure the necessary skills
are exposured and practiced through groupwork activities.
Information Systems course is offered in the third year second semester in
computer science diploma programme. During the fifth week and the fourteenth
week students are given two separate assignments involving groupwork.
Students are assigned to groups of threes or fours (the maximum). A designated
date is scheduled for submission of report and presentation of assignment. In
total, groupwork assignments sum up to fifteen (15) percent affecting the
students’ final grades. To determine the smooth running of the assignments,
each member in the group is nominated as facilitator, reporter, time keeper and
recorder. Such division of task requires specific skills such as managing group
meetings, brainstorming, group planning and monitoring, and communication
skills while exercising different roles within the group.
Hence, in this study, we come to a conclusion that final year students are the
best candidate to answer the research objectives as they have gone through
multiple groupwork assignments to better understand the mechanism of
groupwork activities.
3. Research Objectives and Research Model
Specifically the objectives of this study are: (1) to present groupwork can be used as a
teaching and learning tool; (2) to evaluate the students’ perceptions of groupwork;
and (3) to identify the groupwork components that are appropriate in information
system education. Therefore, the research model for this study is depicted as in
Figure 1.
4
Attitude
G
R
O
U
P
W
O
R
K
Experience
Product
Individual
Contribution
Figure 1: Research Model
Research variables definition
In our study, definitions of research variables are as follows:
Groupwork: Academic work that is created and submitted for a grade by a
group of three or more students.
Groupwork attitude: Like or dislike of group work, as self reported by
students.
Groupwork experience: Group reflects the whole package of learning,
teaching and assessment activities, and how these blend together.
Groupwork product: Examples of group work result in a product (a report, a
presentation, a poster, a website, etc).
Individual contribution: Contribution that each member made to the group
work.
As illustrated in Figure 1, groupwork comprises components of attitude, experience,
product and individual contribution. It is expected that groupwork components have a
positive impact on student perceptions of generic skills in groupwork environment
and development across the third year of an undergraduate program.
4. Methodology
The research adopted a cross-sectional approach. It involves students from four
different classes or sections. They each followed the same course (information system
course). They were assigned to diverse groups and each group was given a task of
researching and presenting a communication topic (i.e. information systems issues) as
a group. They had two weeks to complete this process. A few weeks later the students
5
were assigned to different but equally diverse groups. These groups had the task of
researching and presenting a written report on some information system issues in
Malaysia.
After a review of the literature, a survey instrument namely, questionnaire, was
created. The variables that had been considered important factors in group work
domain were identified. They include groupwork attitude, groupwork experience,
groupwork product and individual contribution derived from other studies are
incorporated (Parker et al.; Drury et al., 2003). The appropriate demographic
questions are also included to allow for group comparisons to answer the stated
research objectives (eg. age, gender and education).
First, a draft survey was created and pilot-tested. Based on feedback from the pilot,
the survey was modified for the final administration to the target respondents. At the
end of the fourteenth-week group report process, a questionnaire was given out in
class to all students and collected by the researcher. The scope is limited to of the
third year diploma students of computer science.
The results and discussion will be presented during the conference.
5. Conclusions
The objective of the research was to determine whether perceived effectiveness of
generic skills in groupwork environment at diploma level in Malaysian university.
Research on this topic is still in-progress.
Nevertheless, some limitations exist and should be acknowledged. Firstly, the
research used cross-sectional approach and was static in nature. Therefore, the
research did not directly examine the temporal aspects. Future research may consider
longitudinal approach. Employing actual observations or interviews with different
actors conducted at different year levels from other universities to obtain the benefits
of triangulation in understanding the groupwork phenomenon. Secondly, examining
and comparing the perception of students at different year level may provide different
preferences in groupwork attitude, experience, product and individual contribution.
This research examined the proposed research model only from the third year
diploma students’ perspective. Third, analysis of the relationship that includes the
instructor’s perspective would be crucial in developing and sustaining high-quality
understanding of implementation process over time. Finally, results of this research
may not be completely generalized and may have to be carefully interpreted since the
setting was restricted to Malaysia. Furthermore, justification of groupwork in higher
education and the real-life challenges of workplace maybe significantly affected by
other moderating or mediating factors.
References
Anderson, R.D. & Price, G.E. (2001). Experiential groups in counselor education:
Student attitudes and instructor participation. Counselor Education and Supervision,
41(2), 111-19.
6
Chamillard, A. & Braun, K. (2002). The software engineering capstone: structure and
tradeoffs ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. Proceedings of the 31st SIGCSE technical
symposium on Computer Science Education. 32(1), 372-376.
Davis, B.G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
DePree, J. (1998). Small-group instruction: Impact on basic algebra students. Journal
of Developmental Education, 22(1), 2-6.
Drury, H. & Warren, L. (2003). Student satisfaction with groupwork in undergraduate
computer science:do things get better? Proceedings of the 5th Australasian
Computing Education (ACE) Conference, 140 ,77-86.
Gardner, B.S., & Korth, S.J. (1998). A framework for learning to work in teams.
Journal of Education for Business, 74(1), 28-33.
Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer
assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365-77.
Harris, K-L., Krause, K., Gleeson, D., Peat, M., Taylor, C. & Garnett, R. (2007).
Enhancing assessment in the biological sciences: ideas and resources for university
educators. Available at: www.bioassess.edu.au.
Houldsworth, C., & Mathews, B.P. (2000). Group composition, performance and
educational attainment. Education & Training, 42(1), 40-53.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kamsah, M. Z. & Talib, R. (2005). Assessing groupwork activities in engineering
education. Available at: www.ctl.utm.my/research.dft/rtl05.pdf.
Landsberger, Joe. (1996). Organizing and Working on Group Projects. Available at:
www.studygs.net/groupprojects.htm.
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (2005). Soft Skills Development Module for
Institutions of Higher Learning Malaysia. Serdang, Universiti Putra Malaysia Press. 1-5
Thomas, M. (2001). Group project work in biotechnology and its impact on key
skills. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 133-150.
Parker, D. P., Horvath, L., Campion, M., Offermann, L. & Salas, E. (2003). Adult
literacy and lifeskills. Available at: www.ets.org.
Watson, P. (2002). Innovative teaching, teamwork and generic skills in the university
environment. Available at: www.cfl.mq.edu.au
7