Self-selected and randomly formed small groups show larger achievement effects than ability-based grouping, and groups of three to five students outperform pairs¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Self-selected groups (d = 0.51) and random selection (d = 0.46) produced higher effect sizes than ability grouping by GPA and SAT scores (d = 0.21). → Kalaian 2018 q3 i1 Studies with groups of three to five students produced larger effect sizes (d = 0.49) than studies with two-student groups (d = 0.31). → Kalaian 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Kalaian 2018¶

Kalaian, S. A., Kasim, R. M., & Nims, J. K. (2018). Effectiveness of Small-Group Learning Pedagogies in Engineering and Technology Education: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Technology Education, 29(2). https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup analysis of group-placement moderator (Table 3): self-selected groups (11 effect sizes, d = 0.51, p = 0.00), random selection (11, d = 0.46, p = 0.001), ability grouping by GPA and SAT (4, d = 0.21, p = 0.29, nonsignificant).

"the primary studies that placed the students into small groups by students' selecting their own groups produced much higher effect sizes (d = 0.51) than the studies that placed students in the groups by random selection (d = 0.46) and much less than the studies that placed the students in groups based on abilities"

Kalaian 2018 (2)¶

Kalaian, S. A., Kasim, R. M., & Nims, J. K. (2018). Effectiveness of Small-Group Learning Pedagogies in Engineering and Technology Education: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Technology Education, 29(2). https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup analysis of group size (Table 3): two-student groups (6 effect sizes, d = 0.31, p = 0.22, nonsignificant) versus three (12, d = 0.48), four (6, d = 0.49), and five-student groups (2, d = 0.49), all statistically significant.

"the primary studies with small groups of three to five students produced larger effect sizes (d = 0.49) than the studies with groups of two students (d = 0.31)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Cooperative and collaborative learning show larger achievement effects than problem-based and peer-led team learning in engineering and technology classrooms — related
• In school studies, cooperative and peer-learning methods that reward groups on every member's individual learning raised achievement more than methods without such rewards — related
• Small-group learning improves undergraduate STEM achievement — related