Effect of different grouping arrangements on students’ achievement and experience in collaborative learning environment

References

• First Author et al., 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Adesoji, F. A., Omilani, N. A., & Nyinebi, O. M. (2015). The effect of homogeneous and heterogeneous gender pair cooperative learning strategies on students’ achievement in chemistry. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 11(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJESBS/2015/19537
   Google Scholar
• Adodo, S. O., & Agbayewa, J. O. (2011). Effect of homogenous and heterogeneous ability grouping class teaching on students interest, attitude and achievement in integrated science. International Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 3(3), 48–54.
   Google Scholar
• Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in organizations. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work (pp. 369–411). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Baer, J. (2003). Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596434
   Google Scholar
• Clinebell, S., & Stecher, M. (2003). Teaching teams to be teams: An exercise using the Myers-Briggs® type indicator and the five-factor personality traits. Journal of Management Education, 27(3), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903027003006
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, D. A., Connell, G. L., & Grunspan, D. Z. (2018). Student learning outcomes and attitudes using three methods of group formation in a nonmajors biology class. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), ar60. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X52337
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregory, R., & Thorley, L. (2013). Using group-based learning in higher education. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hartigan, J. A., & Wong, M. A. (1979). Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 28(1), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/2346830
   Google Scholar
• Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(4), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.2190/T26C-3FTH-RNYP-TV30
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, Z. (1998). Extensions to the k-means algorithm for clustering large data sets with categorical values. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(3), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009769707641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen, R. S., Lakens, D., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2017). An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review, 22, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Using cooperative learning in math. In Cooperative learning in mathematics: A handbook for teachers (pp. 103–125). Davidson, Neil, Ed., Addison-Wesley Publishing Company).
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/0218879020220110
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jovanovic, M., Vukicevic, M., Milovanovic, M., & Minovic, M. (2012). Using data mining on student behavior and cognitive style data for improving e-learning systems: A case study. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 5(3), 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2012.696923
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemper Patrick, S. (2020). Homogeneous grouping in early elementary reading instruction: The challenge of identifying appropriate comparisons and examining differential associations between grouping and reading growth. The Elementary School Journal, 120(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1086/708666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kooloos, J. G., Klaassen, T., Vereijken, M., Van Kuppeveld, S., Bolhuis, S., & Vorstenbosch, M. (2011). Collaborative group work: Effects of group size and assignment structure on learning gain, student satisfaction and perceived participation. Medical Teacher, 33(12), 983–988. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.588733
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091
   Google Scholar
• Miller, H. B., Witherow, D. S., & Carson, S. (2012). Student learning outcomes and attitudes when biotechnology lab partners are of different academic levels. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-10-0094
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Li, M., Lobczowski, N. G., Duke, R. F., … & Croninger, R. M. (2017). Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peeters, M. A., Rutte, C. G., Tuijl, H. F., & Reymem, I. M. (2006). The big five personality traits and individual satisfaction with the group. Small Group Research, 37(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405285458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K., & Vekaria, P. C. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9431-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfaff, E., & Huddelston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate group work? What impacts students attitudes towards group work. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475302250571
   Google Scholar
• Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, L. H. (1978). A general empirical solution to the macro software sizing and estimating problem. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 4(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.1978.231521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 33(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-6405-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanz-Martínez, L., Er, E., Martínez-Monés, A., Dimitriadis, Y., & Bote-Lorenzo, M. L. (2019). Creating collaborative groups in a MOOC: A homogeneous engagement grouping approach. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(11), 1107–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1571109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saqr, M., Nouri, J., & Jormanainen, I. (2019, September). A learning analytics study of the effect of group size on social dynamics and performance in online collaborative learning. In European conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 466–479). Springer, Cham.
   Google Scholar
• Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2006). Are heterogeneous or homogeneous groups more beneficial to students? Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 542–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905277305
   Google Scholar
• Sfetsos, P., Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., & Deligiannis, I. (2006, June). Investigating the impact of personality types on communication and collaboration-viability in pair programming–an empirical study. In International conference on extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering (pp. 43–52). Springer, LNCS 4044.
   Google Scholar
• Shen, H. H. (2003). A comparison of written Chinese achievement among heritage learners in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Foreign Language Annals, 36(2), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb01475.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. C. (1989). The personality of the systems analyst: An investigation. ACM SIGCPR Computer Personnel, 12(2), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/1036387.1036389
   Google Scholar
• Stapleton, J. L. (2007). Effects of team composition on problem solving: An empirical investigation of the assembly effect. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 49(2), 94–108.
   Google Scholar
• Tett, R. P., & Murphy, P. J. (2002). Personality and situations in co-worker preference: Similarity and complementarity in worker compatibility. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019685515745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wichmann, A., Hecking, T., Elson, M., Christmann, N., Herrmann, T., & Hoppe, H. U. (2016, August). Group formation for small-group learning: Are heterogeneous groups more productive? In Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on open collaboration (pp. 1–4) Foteini Grivokostopoulou, ACM).
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Developing a model of quality talk about literary text. In M. G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 142–169). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zamani, M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping of Iranian EFL learners in a writing context. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1149959. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1149959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar