This study examined whether college students' perceptions of the positive and negative attributes of group work are associated with their tolerance for ambiguity, tolerance for disagreement, conversational sensitivity, and cognitive flexibility. Participants were 192 undergraduate students who completed a series of quantitative measures referencing their feelings toward group work and their communicative and personality traits. Results indicated that (a) students' perceptions of the positive attributes of group work were correlated positively with tolerance for ambiguity, tolerance for disagreement, conversational sensitivity, and cognitive flexibility and (b) students' perceptions of the negative attributes of group were correlated positively with conversational sensitivity. Future research should continue to explore the impact of students' traits on their perceptions of classroom group work. ********** Despite the pedagogical value associated with small group work in the college classroom (Allen & Plax, 2002), one downside to group work is the range of perceptions students have about group work (Myers & Goodboy, 2005). These perceptions, however, may be differentiated by the personality and communication predispositions students have toward working on tasks in general, which then may affect how students approach group work, a specific group task, or group members. The purpose of this study is to examine whether college students' perceptions of the positive and negative attributes of group work are associated with their tolerance for ambiguity, tolerance for disagreement, conversational sensitivity, and cognitive flexibility. Review of Literature For many college students, small group work is an inevitable component of their coursework. Used extensively across academic disciplines (Adams & Slater, 2002; McKinney & Graham-Buxton, 1993; Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006; Vik, 2001; Warnemunde, 1986), small group work is believed, at least from the perspective of course instructors, to provide multiple benefits to students. These benefits include developing an extensive understanding and retention of small group concepts (Young & Henquinet, 2000) and course content (Wardrope & Bayless, 1999), becoming more proficient in social and interpersonal communication skills (Kendall, 1999; Winter & Neal, 1995), and becoming adequately prepared for future vocational and career endeavors (Monk-Turner & Payne, 2005; Page & Donelon, 2003). Although many students feel they accomplish more by working in a group than by working alone (Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006; Payne, Monk-Turner, Smith, & Sumter, 2006; Winter & Neal, 1995), not all college students recognize the benefits associated with small group work nor do all college students appreciate group work (Keyton, 1994; Schullery & Gibson, 2001). Keyton, Harmon, and Frey (1996) posited that the impressions students hold about group work fall into two categories: the identification of positive attributes of group work and the identification of negative attributes of group work. Some positive attributes are being able to contribute to the group task, learning something from group members, sharing the workload with their group members, and perceiving the group experience as helpful for their future careers; some negative attributes are problems with task assignment and coordination, group member conflict, and group members who are uncooperative, who fail to participate or contribute to the group task, or who do not attend group meetings (Colbeck, Campbell, & Bjorklund, 2000; Duin, 1990; Dyrud, 2001; Livingstone & Lynch, 2000; Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006; Winter & Neal, 1995). Students' impressions also are influenced by issues such as time constraints, a focus on grades, and competing demands such as jobs, friends, and romantic relationships (Freeman, 1996; Monk-Turner & Payne, 2005). …
The purpose of this study was to probe the presence of slackers in college classroom work group, how students react to slackers, and the recommendations students would make for working with slackers in future group projects. Thirty-seven college students participated in one of five focus groups. Results indicate that (a) college students working in classroom work groups report working with slackers to be frustrating due to a lack of indifference on the slackers' part, (b) they deal with slackers by either ignoring them or including them in the group task, and (c) they would confront slackers in future work group endeavors. Future research should examine the influence of slackers on group members' feelings of grouphate. ********** Most college students have favorable impressions about participating in group work in their courses (Payne, Monk-Turner, Smith, & Sumter, 2006). Students believe that they accomplish more by working in groups by working alone (Winter & Neal, 1995), they are able to contribute to their group projects in a meaningful way (Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006), and they enjoy learning about and gaining new perspectives from their group members (Duin, 1990). Moreover, group work provides students with immediate educational and social benefits as well as exposure to future career skills (Colbeck, Campbell, & Bjorklund, 2000; Monk-Turner & Payne, 2005). Yet, as researchers (Duin, 1990; Livingstone & Lynch, 2000) have noted, one complaint students have about group work centers on personnel (i.e., group members) issues. One issue in particular is dealing with slackers, which is the label given to group members who fail to contribute equally or equitably to a group task. Considered to be deviant group members (Gillespie, Rosamond, & Thomas, 2006), the presence of slackers can be debilitating to a group. For example, students who have worked with slackers report that they are less likely to agree that group members learned from them, less likely to agree that they learned from group members, and less likely to look forward to future group work than students who have not worked with slackers (Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006). Although students worry about having slackers in their groups, their most common solution is to avoid them (Colbeck et al., 2000). This solution is not altogether surprising, given that not only are many students conflict avoidant when it comes to work groups (Schullery & Gibson, 2001), but dealing with disputes and coordinating member tasks are two issues with which students in work groups face difficulty (Duin, 1990). To probe further the presence of slackers in small groups and how students react to slackers, the following two research questions are posed: RQ1: What do group members find frustrating about working with slackers? RQ2: How do group members deal with slackers? Because a negative group experience impacts how students view their next small group experience (Gillespie et al., 2006), it is possible that working with slackers provides group members with the impetus to develop ways to cope with slackers in future classroom work groups. Among the recommendations made generally by students on how to work effectively in small groups are for members to be willing to work together, share all aspects of the project, and communicate with each other (Payne et al., 2006). To identify the recommendations students would make for working with slackers, the following research question is posed: RQ3: What recommendations would group members make for dealing with slackers? Method Participants were recruited from students enrolled in an introductory small group communication course. Approximately halfway through the semester, students were invited to participate in one of five hour-long focus group sessions. Students were informed that (a) their participation was voluntary, (b) the purpose was to identify their feelings about working in a small group, (c) their contributions would be confidential, (d) their participation would not affect their course standing, and (e) the focus group would be audiotaped. …
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)