# data[].attributes.body
-studnets picking groups

-assessing student understanding separate from the group

- behavior

# data[].attributes.body
- working with specific students

- some students do all the work / some none

- group hate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author Information

Classrooms are social settings; teaching and learning occur through social interaction between teachers and students. In classrooms as few as two people can form groups, as long as the paired individuals have mutual influence through communication and mental contact. When the teacher engages the whole class in a learning activity common to all, then everyone forms into a single group, or as Herbert A. Thelen wrote, a "miniature society." The students of a class form a miniature society with peers, teacher, and teaching assistants in which they experience interdependence, interaction, common striving for goals, and structure. Many subgroups in the class affect how the larger classroom society works and how individuals relate to one another.

John Mark King in jorabek.com defined pair and group work as the act of dividing students so that they work cooperatively with only a small number of their classmates on a specific task assigned by their teacher. According to him pair and group work first came into usage in the 1970s when teachers first noticed that more than 80% of all classroom talk was teacher talk. Dr Bilash in education.alberta.ca suggested that pair work, group work and individual work can all be effective, if used at the right times and if structured in an appropriate way. For teachers, pair work and group work can be excellent tools to promote student interaction; individual work, on the other hand is easier to assess and often appeals to students with intrapersonal intelligences. As a teacher it is important to vary groupings depending on the goals and context of the activity and it is important to know what supports to offer students for each situation. A benefit of students working together is that, by explaining a concept or idea to peers, that idea or concept becomes clearer to the student doing the explaining.

A skillful teacher makes groups when she/he wants to develop team spirit and co-operation among the students. James R Davis in his book "Better Teaching, More Learning" describes about importance of the setting in a classroom. Teaching is affected by the setting in which it takes place. Research on group working (ncrel, 1997) suggested that a group setting facilitates hands-on learning and directly engages students in the processes of education. Doing something useful requires learning skills associated with communication and cooperation as well as procedures associated with inquiry. In some cases it is beneficial to assign roles (with "job titles") to members of groups and to consciously establish heterogeneous groupings. It also seems important to communicate explicit expectations for both individuals and groups and to structure activities so interdependence is essential to successfully completing the assigned tasks. It is also important, however, to not provide too much direct guidance to groups; collaborative problem solving is to be encouraged over "getting the right answers". Blosser (1992) suggested that various cooperative learning strategies seem particularly useful in classrooms. In general, once students learned how to work productively in groups, one should resist the temptation to jump in too early and put the students on the right path. An essential part of the learning is finding out how to identify a path of inquiry and negotiate the path in collaboration with others. It is said "If we expect students to work together, we must teach them social skills just as purposefully and precisely as we teach them academic skills" (Ostlund, 1995).

According to Dr. Bilash in education.alberta.ca there are advantages and disadvantages of individual, paired and group work. In individual type of student work, the benefits are that students work at their own pace, they are confident about what they know and what they need to send more time on, they can use their preferred learning styles and strategies. The disadvantage is that students don't get the benefit of learning from peers as well as working with their peers. Individual type of student work is suitable when teacher wants students to do their final task or assignment. In paired type of student work, the advantages are that students have the chance to work with and learn from their peers; struggling students can learn from more capable peers; it is especially useful for students who prefer interpersonal learning settings. There are challenges involved in paired work. If students are not matched up well (i.e. low students together, high students together, a higher student with a low student but they don't work well together, etc.) pair work won't be useful; the ability of the students to work in this way needs to be taken into consideration. Paired work is suitable in inductive learning activities in which instead of explaining a given concept and following this explanation with examples, the teacher presents students with many examples showing how the concept is used. The intent is for students to notice by way of the examples, how the concept works. As a conclusion to the activity, the teacher can ask the students to explain the rule as a final check that they understand the concept.

Group type of student work also have benefits and challenges. It involve benefits such as it provides more opportunity for practice, an increased variety of activities is possible and an increased student creativity. The challenges may be that as with pair work, the groups must be carefully selected to ensure students can work productively; not all students are able to work to their full potential in this situation; assessment of student progress can be challenging. It is suitable when there is assessment of learning as described by Dr. Bilash in education.alberta.ca. By dividing the class into groups students get more opportunities to talk than in full class organization and each student can say something. Penny Ur recommends that teachers working with large classes should divide them into five groups which is the most effective organization for practising speaking. (Ur, 1996, p.232). When learners work in pairs or groups it is impossible for the teacher to listen and correct all the mistakes they make and this is not the purpose of the activity. However, he/she can reduce the number of mistakes before the students start working by demonstrating the activity to the class first and by asking pairs or groups to perform in front of the class afterwards and discussing what they said and pointing out the most common mistakes.(Doff, 1988, p.141).

Each type of work that may be individual, pair and group has its place in the classroom. As the above table shows, there are certain pros and cons of each approach, but all can be connected to theory dealing with effective language learning. Some activities and topics may be best suited to one particular style of work, but the key is to use variety and give students a sufficient number of opportunities to work and learn from one another.

References:

Thelen, Herbert A. (1981). The Classroom Society. New York: Wiley.

Davis, James R (1997) Better Teaching, More Learning. American Council on Education/Oryx Press Series on Higher Education. Patricia Blosser (1992).Using Cooperative Learning in Science Education

Ostlund. K. L. (1995). Science Process Skills: Assessing Hands on Student Performance. Menlo Park. CA: Addison Wesley.

http://www2.education.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.Bilash/best%20of%20bilash/pairwork.html

http://www.jorabek.com/pairandgroupwork.pdf

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/eric/eric-7.htmA

Ur, Penny. (1996). A course in language teaching, CUP. Doff, Adrian. 1988. Teaching English, CUP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advantages And Disadvantages Of Pair And Group Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Classrooms are social settings; teaching and learning occur through social interaction between teachers and students. In classrooms as few as two people can form groups, as long as the paired individuals have mutual influence through communication and mental contact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author Information

Classrooms are social settings; teaching and learning occur through social interaction between teachers and students. In classrooms as few as two people can form groups, as long as the paired individuals have mutual influence through communication and mental contact. When the teacher engages the whole class in a learning activity common to all, then everyone forms into a single group, or as Herbert A. Thelen wrote, a "miniature society." The students of a class form a miniature society with peers, teacher, and teaching assistants in which they experience interdependence, interaction, common striving for goals, and structure. Many subgroups in the class affect how the larger classroom society works and how individuals relate to one another.

John Mark King in jorabek.com defined pair and group work as the act of dividing students so that they work cooperatively with only a small number of their classmates on a specific task assigned by their teacher. According to him pair and group work first came into usage in the 1970s when teachers first noticed that more than 80% of all classroom talk was teacher talk. Dr Bilash in education.alberta.ca suggested that pair work, group work and individual work can all be effective, if used at the right times and if structured in an appropriate way. For teachers, pair work and group work can be excellent tools to promote student interaction; individual work, on the other hand is easier to assess and often appeals to students with intrapersonal intelligences. As a teacher it is important to vary groupings depending on the goals and context of the activity and it is important to know what supports to offer students for each situation. A benefit of students working together is that, by explaining a concept or idea to peers, that idea or concept becomes clearer to the student doing the explaining.

A skillful teacher makes groups when she/he wants to develop team spirit and co-operation among the students. James R Davis in his book "Better Teaching, More Learning" describes about importance of the setting in a classroom. Teaching is affected by the setting in which it takes place. Research on group working (ncrel, 1997) suggested that a group setting facilitates hands-on learning and directly engages students in the processes of education. Doing something useful requires learning skills associated with communication and cooperation as well as procedures associated with inquiry. In some cases it is beneficial to assign roles (with "job titles") to members of groups and to consciously establish heterogeneous groupings. It also seems important to communicate explicit expectations for both individuals and groups and to structure activities so interdependence is essential to successfully completing the assigned tasks. It is also important, however, to not provide too much direct guidance to groups; collaborative problem solving is to be encouraged over "getting the right answers". Blosser (1992) suggested that various cooperative learning strategies seem particularly useful in classrooms. In general, once students learned how to work productively in groups, one should resist the temptation to jump in too early and put the students on the right path. An essential part of the learning is finding out how to identify a path of inquiry and negotiate the path in collaboration with others. It is said "If we expect students to work together, we must teach them social skills just as purposefully and precisely as we teach them academic skills" (Ostlund, 1995).

According to Dr. Bilash in education.alberta.ca there are advantages and disadvantages of individual, paired and group work. In individual type of student work, the benefits are that students work at their own pace, they are confident about what they know and what they need to send more time on, they can use their preferred learning styles and strategies. The disadvantage is that students don't get the benefit of learning from peers as well as working with their peers. Individual type of student work is suitable when teacher wants students to do their final task or assignment. In paired type of student work, the advantages are that students have the chance to work with and learn from their peers; struggling students can learn from more capable peers; it is especially useful for students who prefer interpersonal learning settings. There are challenges involved in paired work. If students are not matched up well (i.e. low students together, high students together, a higher student with a low student but they don't work well together, etc.) pair work won't be useful; the ability of the students to work in this way needs to be taken into consideration. Paired work is suitable in inductive learning activities in which instead of explaining a given concept and following this explanation with examples, the teacher presents students with many examples showing how the concept is used. The intent is for students to notice by way of the examples, how the concept works. As a conclusion to the activity, the teacher can ask the students to explain the rule as a final check that they understand the concept.

Group type of student work also have benefits and challenges. It involve benefits such as it provides more opportunity for practice, an increased variety of activities is possible and an increased student creativity. The challenges may be that as with pair work, the groups must be carefully selected to ensure students can work productively; not all students are able to work to their full potential in this situation; assessment of student progress can be challenging. It is suitable when there is assessment of learning as described by Dr. Bilash in education.alberta.ca. By dividing the class into groups students get more opportunities to talk than in full class organization and each student can say something. Penny Ur recommends that teachers working with large classes should divide them into five groups which is the most effective organization for practising speaking. (Ur, 1996, p.232). When learners work in pairs or groups it is impossible for the teacher to listen and correct all the mistakes they make and this is not the purpose of the activity. However, he/she can reduce the number of mistakes before the students start working by demonstrating the activity to the class first and by asking pairs or groups to perform in front of the class afterwards and discussing what they said and pointing out the most common mistakes.(Doff, 1988, p.141).

Each type of work that may be individual, pair and group has its place in the classroom. As the above table shows, there are certain pros and cons of each approach, but all can be connected to theory dealing with effective language learning. Some activities and topics may be best suited to one particular style of work, but the key is to use variety and give students a sufficient number of opportunities to work and learn from one another.

References:

Thelen, Herbert A. (1981). The Classroom Society. New York: Wiley.

Davis, James R (1997) Better Teaching, More Learning. American Council on Education/Oryx Press Series on Higher Education. Patricia Blosser (1992).Using Cooperative Learning in Science Education

Ostlund. K. L. (1995). Science Process Skills: Assessing Hands on Student Performance. Menlo Park. CA: Addison Wesley.

http://www2.education.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.Bilash/best%20of%20bilash/pairwork.html

http://www.jorabek.com/pairandgroupwork.pdf

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/eric/eric-7.htmA

Ur, Penny. (1996). A course in language teaching, CUP. Doff, Adrian. 1988. Teaching English, CUP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advantages And Disadvantages Of Pair And Group Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Classrooms are social settings; teaching and learning occur through social interaction between teachers and students. In classrooms as few as two people can form groups, as long as the paired individuals have mutual influence through communication and mental contact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

We investigated teacher versus student seat selection in the context of group and individual seating arrangements. Disruptive behavior during group seating occurred at twice the rate when students chose their seats than when the teacher chose. During individual seating, disruptive behavior occurred more than three times as often when the students chose their seats. The results are discussed in relation to choice and the matching law.

Keywords: antecedent interventions, classroom management, elementary students, general education, seating arrangements

Student seating is one of the easiest, most cost-effective classroom management tactics available to teachers. As an antecedent intervention, seating arrangements may help to minimize or eliminate problem behavior without the need for consequence interventions (e.g., differential reinforcement or punishment). For example, Krantz and Risley (1977) showed that simply seating students away from others was nearly as effective in increasing on-task behavior as the systematic use of differential reinforcement and delivery of tangible rewards. Wheldall and Lam (1987) found that on-task behavior doubled when students were seated individually rather than in groups.

Although research on seating arrangements suggests that students behave more appropriately when they sit individually (for a review, see Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008), the role of student choice on seat selection has not been investigated. Offering students choices seems to be ethically responsible and may be an important component of a comprehensive classroom management system ( Cosden, Gannon, & Haring, 1995; Dunlap et al., 1994). However, allowing students to choose their seats might occasion more or less disruptive behavior, depending on where the students are seated. Completing schoolwork is a potentially high-effort response with potentially low-rate and poor-quality reinforcers, which often are delayed. Schoolwork also is in competition with disruptive behavior, which is a potentially low-effort response that can gain immediate access to a high-quality reinforcer (i.e., peer attention). Thus, it might not be in the best interest of the student or teacher to allow students to choose their own seats or to sit in close proximity to each other during independent seatwork. The purpose of this research was to examine classroom disruptive behavior during student- versus teacher-selected seating arrangements in the context of group and individual seating arrangements during independent seatwork.

METHOD

Setting and Participants

We collected data during independent seatwork for reading comprehension (i.e., students were to read passages and answer written questions). Participants included 21 fifth-grade students (ages 10 and 11 years) from a parochial elementary school in the southeast United States. There were 10 boys and 11 girls. Two of the students received special education services. Class attendance averaged 20 students per day (range, 18 to 21). The teacher in the classroom was the second author of this study and was completing the research requirements for a MS degree.

Response Measurement and Interobserver Agreement

Disruptive behavior was defined as talking without permission or touching another student. Talking without permission was recorded when a student verbally addressed a peer or the teacher without first raising his or her hand and getting the teacher's permission. Touching another student was recorded when a student placed any body part on another student that resulted in the other student saying something, moving away, or ceasing his or her work. One observation was conducted per day, typically in the middle of the day before lunch.

Each session ranged from 7 min to 16 min ( M  =  12 min, SD  =  0.42 s), depending on how long the teacher estimated it should take all the students to complete the assignment. It was important to make sure the length of time in each session was proportional to completing the task because if students finished early they would be more likely to disrupt other students. Each observation period was divided into 1-min intervals. Each time a student emitted a target behavior, a tally mark was placed in a cell on the data-collection sheet that corresponded to the student's name and the minute of the observation period. At the end of the observation period, the tally marks were totaled and individual student data were added to calculate a rate of disruptive behavior for the entire class (i.e., total number of disruptions divided by total minutes of observation). To investigate potential differences in the clustering of disruptive behavior by seating arrangement (group vs. individual), we calculated conditional probabilities by adding the number of intervals with disruptive behavior given a preceding disruptive behavior (intervals with disruptive behavior that were either preceded by disruptive behavior or contained multiple disruptive behaviors) and dividing by the total number of intervals with disruptive behavior.

The second author served as the primary observer. A second trained observer independently collected data during 28% of the sessions spaced across all phases of the study. Interobserver agreement was calculated using exact count per interval (number of intervals with exact agreement divided by number of total intervals multiplied by 100%). Agreement ranged from 95% to 100%, with a mean of 98%. To test for procedural integrity, the secondary observer checked seating arrangements, counted the pods of desks, or checked for rows. Procedural integrity was counted as occurring if the desks were in the correct placement for the condition, the students were seated in the correct seats, and if the teacher said to the entire class, "Class, we need to work quietly," when students emitted target behaviors more than once per minute. Procedural integrity checks were conducted across 30% of the sessions, and integrity was 100%.

Design and Procedure

We used a reversal design. During teacher-assigned seating arrangements, the teacher selected a specific seat for each student at the beginning of each week. Once the teacher selected the seat, the student was not moved for that week. However, students may have been placed in different seating arrangements during the next teacher-selection phase. Decisions regarding seating arrangements were based on observations conducted prior to the study. Specifically, the teacher sat students who were easily distracted away from windows and the door. Students who had a history of difficulty paying attention were placed closest to the teacher. The teacher also took into account students who had a history of being disruptive when seated together and did not sit those students near each other. During student-selected seating arrangements, students were allowed to choose their own seats at the beginning of the week. Once students selected their seats, they were not allowed to move to another seat for the week.

During the group condition, students were seated in four groups of four students per cluster and one group of five students per cluster. During the individual seating condition, students were seated individually and in four rows of four students per row and one row of five students.

At the start of each session, the teacher informed the students how much time they had to complete the assignment and started a timer. If more than one disruptive behavior was observed in any single minute, the teacher said, "Class, we need to work quietly." No other consequences were delivered. Students were required to work independently and were not allowed to leave their seats.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

depicts the rates of disruptive behavior emitted across conditions. During group seating when students chose seats, disruptive behavior ranged from 0.82 to 1.82 per minute ( M  =  1.31 per minute, SD  =  0.37) during the first phase and 0.8 to 1.0 per minute ( M  =  0.92 per minute, SD  =  0.07) in the second. When the teacher chose student seats, disruptive behavior ranged from 0.33 to 0.67 per minute ( M  =  0.44 per minute, SD  =  0.13) in the first phase and 0.40 to 0.58 per minute ( M  =  0.49 per minute, SD  =  0.08) in the second. During individual seating arrangements when the teacher chose students' seats, disruptive behavior ranged from 0.1 to 0.29 per minute ( M  =  0.21 per minute, SD  =  0.07) in the first phase and 0 to 0.33 per minute ( M  =  0.12 per minute, SD  =  0.13) in the second. When the students chose their seats, disruptive behavior ranged from 0.44 to 1.1 per minute ( M  =  0.65 per minute, SD  =  0.23) in the first phase and 0.4 to 0.6 per minute ( M  =  0.44, SD  =  0.08) in the second.

Within and across group and individual seating conditions, disruptive behavior occurred less often when the teacher selected the students' seats. In the group seating arrangement, disruptive behavior occurred on average more than twice as often during student seat selection ( M  =  1.12 per minute) than during teacher seat selection ( M  =  0.47 per minute). In the individual seating arrangement, disruptive behavior occurred on average more than three times as often during student seat selection ( M  =  0.55 per minute) than during teacher seat selection ( M  =  0.17 per minute).

The probability that intervals with disruption were preceded by disruptive behavior or contained multiple disruptive behaviors was .47 during the group seating condition when students selected their own seats; it was .20 when the teacher selected the students' seats. When students were sitting in rows and students selected their own seats, the probability that disruptive behavior was preceded by disruptive behavior or contained multiple disruptive behaviors was .10; when the teacher selected the students' seats, it was .05. Anecdotally, it appeared that when one student in the group emitted a target behavior, other students in the group were likely to respond. Disruptive behavior during group seating tended to be clustered. When students were seated in rows, disruptive behavior tended to be isolated. That is, the disruptive behavior of one student did not usually evoke as much disruptive behavior from other students.

Our results are consistent with those of most studies on group versus individual seating arrangements and suggest that teachers may manage inappropriate behavior more effectively during independent seatwork by seating their students in rows. Further, our results suggest that providing students with choices for seating may not produce the positive outcomes demonstrated in other studies on task or reinforcer choice ( Cosden et al., 1995; Dunlap et al., 1994). In fact, providing choices in this study resulted in increases in disruptive behavior in both group and individual seating arrangements. However, if one considers the results from a matching law perspective and seating a student next to any individual student as the opportunities for reinforcement, then the two seat-selection procedures should produce different results. When students self-select seating, it is likely that they choose to sit next to other students who will interact socially. Thus, the self-selection arrangement may set the occasion for more dense reinforcement and higher quality reinforcement for disruptive behavior than appropriate behavior. Our results are consistent with previous research on the matching law in applied settings. For example, Borrero and Vollmer (2002) showed that the proportional rate of problem behavior relative to appropriate behavior approximately matched the proportional rate of reinforcement for problem behavior for three participants during functional analyses. Further, Borrero et al. (2007) demonstrated that vocal responses and eye contact roughly matched the rates of reinforcement for those behaviors during small-group discussions in a college class.

Despite the potential to explain our results in the context of the matching law, procedural refinements would be necessary to draw firm conclusions. Taking preintervention data on the frequency of reinforced talking or touching by students would help to establish true rates of reinforcement that could be plotted to investigate matching during subsequent student seating manipulations. Further, like many studies on choice, the consequence of the choice was confounded with choice making. It is not clear if similar results would have been obtained if the seat assignments during the teacher selection condition were yoked to those in the previous student selection condition.

We also caution that our sample may not be representative of a typical group of fifth graders. We conducted the study in a private school with a mostly homogeneous group of students who were relatively well behaved. Future research should test the generality of these findings with more diverse populations. Further, our results did not show meaningful differences in the amount or quality of completed work during the different seating conditions (these data are available from the corresponding author). However, the work we chose seemed relatively easy, in that most of the students completed all assignments with high accuracy during most of the sessions. Although research suggests that independent practice activities should be at a student's instructional level (90% accuracy) and not at frustration level (below 90% accuracy) ( Blevins, 2001), introducing more difficult schoolwork within the seating and choice arrangements may produce different results with regard to work completion and accuracy.

The limitations notwithstanding, our data support the use of teacher-assigned seating arrangements and provide further support for seating students in rows for independent seatwork. Such arrangements may prevent problem behaviors and allow teachers to spend more time teaching and facilitating learning.

REFERENCES

Blevins W. Building fluency: Lessons and strategies for reading success. New York: Scholastic Professional Books; 2001. [Google Scholar]

Borrero J.C, Crisolo S.S, Tu Q, Rieland W.A, Ross N.A, Francisco M.T, et al. An application of the matching law to social dynamics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2007;40:589-601. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] Google Scholar]

Borrero J.C, Vollmer T.R. An application of the matching law to severe problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2002;35:13-27. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] Google Scholar]

Cosden M, Gannon C, Haring T.G. Teacher-control versus student-control over choice of task and reinforcement for students with severe behavior problems. Journal of Behavioral Education. 1995;5:11-27. [Google Scholar]

Dunlap G, dePerczel M, Clarke S, Wilson D, Wright S, White R, et al. Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1994;27:505-518. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] Google Scholar]

Krantz P.J, Risley T.R. Behavioral ecology in the classroom. In: O'Leary D.K, O'Leary S.G, editors. Classroom management: The successful use of behavior modification (rev. ed., pp. 349-366) New York: Pergamon; 1977. (Eds.) [Google Scholar]

Wannarka R, Ruhl K. Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and behavioural outcomes: A review of empirical research. Support for Learning. 2008;23:89-93. [Google Scholar]

Wheldall K, Lam Y. Rows versus tables: II. The effects of two classroom seating arrangements on classroom disruption rate, on-task behaviour and teacher behaviour in three special school classes. Educational Psychology. 1987;7:303-312. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF SEATING ARRANGEMENTS ON DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR OF FIFTH GRADE STUDENTS DURING INDEPENDENT SEATWORK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We investigated teacher versus student seat selection in the context of group and individual seating arrangements. Disruptive behavior during group seating occurred at twice the rate when students chose their seats than when the teacher chose. During ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERIC - Effects of Directed Learning Groups upon Students' Ability to Understand Conceptual Ideas, Learning Assistance Review, 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mathematical modeling and directed learning groups were employed in a terminal mathematics course to encourage university students to conceptualize real-world mathematics problems. Multiple assessments were utilized to determine whether students' conceptual development is enhanced by participating in directed learning groups conducted in a learning center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERIC - Doing It Differently: The Ups and Downs of Peer Group Learning, Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2012-Jul

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Peer group learning is the name we have given to a particular type of collaborative learning that has been implemented as part of an action research project designed to improve teaching and learning of first year university mathematics at James Cook University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERIC - Gender-Related Effects of Group Learning on Mathematics Achievement among the Rural Secondary Students, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Problem Statement: Gender differences in the effects of group learning play a contested role in mathematics education. Several researchers concluded that male students perform better on mathematics than female students. Whilst on the other hand, others reported that female students perform best under the group learning setting whereas the male students perform best in the conventional teaching environment.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Mills (2014, p.27), “Two overriding rules of ethics are that the participants should not be harmed in any way – physically, mentally, or socially”.

# data[].attributes.body
Some students prefer to work alone or in groups

Studnets may feel uncomfortable working with specific students

Students embarrassed to have to sit in the front - IEP/504

# data[].attributes.body
Students are free to choose seating

Studnets are comfortable in the classroom

May increase distraction by sitting next to friends.

IEP/504 studnets have preferential seating

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers assign where students sit

Can reduce distraction

Can improve cooperative learning

# data[].attributes.body
Appropriate for group learning

Groups - 3+ desks

Partner rows - 2 desks next to each other

# data[].attributes.body
Appropriate for individual learning

# data[].attributes.body
studnets can work together

Studnets can help each other understand concepts

Can sometimes lead to distractions. Students get off topic.

# data[].attributes.body
Studnets are more focused

Less distracting

Puts more individual responsibility on the student