Dynamic Research Journals (DRJ)

Journal of Economics and Finance (DRJ-JEF)

Volume 2 ~ Issue 4 (April, 2017) pp: 30-37
ISSN (Online); 2520-7490
www.dynamicresearchjournals.org

University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of Group

Assignments: A Case Study of Great Zimbabwe University
1Makaye J, 2Chimugoti W & 3Mapetere K
Great Zimbabwe University, Box 1235, Masvingo, Zimbabwe

Abstract: This study explores the perceptions of university students of the utility of group assignments given to
them by their lecturers for assessment. A descriptive survey design in which eighteen students were conveniently
selected to participate in the study was employed. The selected students responded to the closed questionnaire
and five students were further purposively selected to respond to semi-structured interviews. Results indicate
that students felt that the group assignments as an instructional method is quite helpful in assisting them cross
pollinate ideas though they had reservations on the total participation of all the students in the group. The issue
of free riding was raised as a serious concern curtailing the credibility of group work and it was recommended
that lecturers should take stringent measures to ensure that all participants participate and grading of marks
should be done accordingly.
Key words: Assessment; Group Assignment; Free Riding.

Citation: Makaye J, Chimugoti W and Mapetere K (2017). University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of
Group Assignments: A Case Study of Great Zimbabwe University. Dynamic Research Journals Journal of
Economics and Finance (DRJ-JEF), Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 00-00.

I. INTRODUCTION
Group assignment or group work is a widely used method of instruction, assessment and subsequently
evaluation in educational institutions the world over. It is also a common practice in most universities the world
over in their endeavour to dispense and produce quality products. Great Zimbabwe University has no exception
in using group assignments as both an instructional and assessment method. However, the use of this method
has drawn a lot of controversy and debate among some students and lecturers on the effectiveness and validity
of the method. Against this backdrop the study sought to explore university students beliefs and perspectives of
group assignment.

II. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The issue of instructing and assessing students wherein students are grouped seems to be a common
practice amongst universities and colleges (Morgan, 2002; Vittrup,2015). Students are assigned to work on a
topic (task) in groups and are asked to write a group paper or present it in which a grade / mark is given. In
many cases students in the same group are given the same mark or grade contributing towards their final
assessment completing the group assignment. However, there have been serious concerns from both tutors and
students on the effectiveness of the instructional approach particularly on instilling individual competencies and
skills. There appears to be a serious lack of commitment in terms of participation once students realise that their
grade or mark will be as a result of group assessment. The scenario therefore in many universities is that many
students continue to benefit despite putting little or no effort at all. In this case the consequences of group
assignments wherein most students should benefit may not be realised. Group assignments can help students
develop a host of skills that are increasingly important in the professional world (Caruso & Woolley, 2008).
Positive group experiences have been shown to contribute to student learning, retention and overall college
success (Astin, 1997).
Universities, Teacher`s colleges, Polytechnic colleges, and almost all other institutions of higher
learning use group assignment to instruct and subsequently assess students in their various courses, topics or
subjects taught in class. This contributes towards the final mark obtained by the student. Gibbs (1995) posits
that University lecturers generally agree that they need to assist students in developing their critical- thinking
skills, problem-solving abilities, and teamwork values. However, experiences by the current researchers have
shown that group work has also been employed to mitigate against the large teaching loads by lecturers and the
limited time lecturers are supposed to cover the expected course content. As a result, assigning students to group
topics would ensure coverage of work as well as relieving lecturers of the burden to mark individual
assignments. However, little has been explored on the dynamics of group interactions and results thereof to
promote effective learning from both the lecturers and students perspective. Although group assignments are

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 30 | P a g e
 University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of Group Assignments: A Case Study of Great Zimbabwe University

currently the most widespread technique to develop teamwork skills in graduates, little research has been done
to investigate, from students perspective, the benefits and difficulties of group formation, process monitoring,
team performance, and assessment for group assignments.
UNSW (2003) reports that group work contributes to team work and The University of New South
Wales, for example has incorporated teamwork skill development in its policy on Graduate Attributes (UNSW,
2003) and Guidelines on Learning that Informs Teaching (UNSW, 2004). Teamwork skills are also highlighted
in Zou, P.X.W., Scoufis, M, Earl, G, Uher, T, Phua, F, Kim, J, & Pratt (2004) where skills required for
collaborative and multi-disciplinary work (UNSW, 2003) are considered as an essential attribute of graduates
from the employers perspective. Universities have been trying to enrich their programs in ways to meet the
industry expectations in relation to teamwork by incorporating collaborative and cooperative learning methods
such as Group assignments into their curricula. However, the extent to which group work is employed to meet
university expectations needs further inquiry. How do lecturers use group work and how do students perceive of
group work is a source of debate? Burtis and Turman (2006) aver that if students merely divide up the tasks and
then proceed to work in isolation and then ensemble the pieces of information at the end for presentation or
paperwork the benefits of group work are lost. Our experience has shown that little attention is given to how
students work in groups and supervision and monitoring seem to be compromised. In most cases lecturers would
only expect students to have a paper or a presentation of the group at the end. If group work is done any how its
benefits are likely not to be realised and students are likely to perceive it otherwise. Vittrup (2015) in his study
established that most of the students did not like the use of group work as they did not realise benefits from it,
and hence putting the study on group work on the spotlight in education.
On the contrary, Gibbs (1995) argues that by using group work universities not only develop skills
required by the industry in their graduates but also utilize other benefits of such methods, like improved
students performance, improved support to students, resource saving, learning in a more comfortable
environment. Hammar Chiriac (2014), Forrest and Miller (2003) advance other benefits of group work such as
promoting communication skills, critical thinking skills, time management, problem solving skills, cooperation
and reinforcement of knowledge. Over and above these they indicated that group work fosters and promotes a
collaborative attitude and ability to work with others which are important at most places of employment. The
overarching question is how do students perceive of group work employed by lecturers? Understanding their
perceptions is likely to leverage on how best lecturers and students could maximise the benefits accrued from
group work. Thus, effective ways and approaches to group work may be employed.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The major question to be addressed by the study is; what are university students beliefs and
perceptions of group assignments? Thus, the sub questions derived from the main question are; What benefits
are accrued from group work? What challenges if any do students encounter? And how can these challenges be
overcome to realise potential benefits from group work?

III. LITERATURE REVIEW & CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Three conceptual frames help us understand group work or group assignment and how it is perceived
by students. These are group attributes, benefits of a group and ways of maximising group work. Jacques (2001)
proffers several attributes of a group namely collective perception, needs, shared aims, independence, social
organisation, cohesiveness and membership. Group work thus, is concerned with the recognition and use of
processes which occur when three or more people work together towards a common purpose (Doel,2000). This
can be in class during the lecture or outside. This study considers group work students undertake after
instruction. In other words, it refers to group assignment. Guided by the attributes; group members should be
conscious of the existence of its constituent members. Such recognition fosters the togetherness of the group and
its subsequent realisation of objectives as a team. It should uphold the espirit -decorp. Secondly, group members
should recognise that a group will potentially be able to help individuals within a group. Members of a group
come into the group with different capabilities hence these need to be assisted by others. Some may have
inadequate resources or abilities to effectively perform in the group as expected hence the members should work
together to ensure that needs of individual members are addressed (Zou P, X, W, 2005). This attribute is similar
to that of shared aims. Davis Jacques (2001) says that members of a group are motivated by recognizing that
they share the same aim or vision. Another characteristic of group is interdependence wherein members are
expected to depend on each other. There should be team work and active interaction of members within a group.
Jacques (2001) argues that the potential of communicative exchange must occur within groups even if they may
not be geographically in the same place (thus allowing for virtual groups). Members of the group should be
bound to the group and to each other. They should show commitment and have a desire to contribute to, and
benefit from it (Kerr, 1983 & Jacques, 2001). Lastly, a group is defined by the extent of its membership
relations. There should be collegiality amongst group members and members should have a sense of belonging.

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 31 | P a g e
 University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of Group Assignments: A Case Study of Great Zimbabwe University

The afore discussed attributes of a group sometimes help cement its members together as well as make them
realise the maximum benefit of it.
On the other hand, other members may take advantage of the group cohesion and decide not to
contribute to the group task knowing that guided by the spirit of oneness group members will protect him/her.
Such cases where members renege responsibilities are common in groups and may affect the whole essence of
group work. Johnson & Johnson (1991) acknowledge that more often than not there is an implicit assumption
that group skills will be learned by just being part of a group and regrettably no formal or informal instruction
related to group behaviour or interpersonal dynamics is provided. It is likely that groups will be formed with
little consideration given to personality, life experience, ability or aptitude, so that a successful mixture of
individuals is more likely to be achieved by happy accident rather than design. The study sought therefore to
find out whether student perceptions concur with the afore discussed attributes as stated in literature.

Benefits of group assignment

Several authors agree that group assignments offer great benefits to the students (Entwistle &
Waterston,1988., Kremer &McGuiness,1998., Ruel et al., 2003, McGraw & Tidwell,2001). The authors concur
that group assignments promote deep as opposed to surface learning. Furthermore, authors do agree that
the cohesiveness in a group is also critical. It promotes active as opposed to passive learning (Nance &
Mackey-Kallis, 1997). However, it is of paramount importance to note that if challenges encountered by
students in group work are more than the strength the net effect will be negative to group work as a method of
instruction in higher and tertiary education. Additionally, group assignments promote experiential, collaborative
and cooperative learning (Ackermann & Plummer,1994; Lee et al.,1997; Mahenthiran & Rouse,2000). Dolmans
et al., 2001 & Hendry et al.,1999) asset that group assignment can be justified on the grounds of promoting the
construction of knowledge and enhancement of problem-based learning among students. There is however, the
need to ensure that strategies are put in place in order for the strengths to be fully realised. The study seeks to
reveal what students perceive as the right strategies to be put in place by enquiring from them. Maguire and
Edmondson (2001) also states that group assignment is also an authentic form of assessment in terms of a
students later employability, as working in groups is an essential part of an individuals career and recruiters
often ask students about their experience working in group settings. Do students concur with this assertion?
What are the student`s beliefs? These and other questions are what the study sought to unravel.
Watkins (2004) assets that if group assignment is used effectively, it is an efficient way of dealing with
the increased growth in student numbers in higher education, especially in regard to reducing time taken in
assignment marking and allowing reduction in class time. In addition, it can be a way of dealing with larger
numbers of students in the same amount of class time. The fact however still remains, is group work effective
and how do students perceive it? Answers to these questions are what the study tries to address. Group
assignment is also one of the most expedient ways, along with work placement, of ensuring that students
develop transferable skills for life-long learning such as teamwork, leadership, project management skills,
communication skills. This has largely been in response to industry demands for more flexible workers. Group
assignment aids in fostering social membership in a mass education environment which can be alienating and
confusing for students. Peer groups help students by providing an informal forum in which new ideas can be
discussed and assimilated (Brooks & Ammons, 2003).

Challenges associated with group operations

Kerr and Bruun (1983) and Morgan (2002) concur that motivation of participants has been noted to be
one of the most serious problems in group assignment. Considering that the learners as members of the same
group are often given the same mark for the group effort some group members may be reluctant participants in
assessment tasks and be uncommitted to the aims of the group and the subject for that matter (Mulvey & Klein,
1998). Examples of such motivational issues associated with group assignment are social loafing and free riding.
Loafing and free-riding could be prevalent at Universities yet every member of the group is awarded the same
mark in most cases. It becomes pertinent to study the attitudes of students and consequently formulate strategies
on how group member participation can be enhanced.
The relationship between the mix of students in a group and grades has also been the subject of
discussion as a problem with group work tasks. Kerr (1983) explains that the Sucker effect refers to individuals
responding to others free-riding upon their efforts by also free-riding themselves. It appears that competent
students try to avoid being suckers. They make a calculation of whether or not they are the subject of free-riding
from others in the group. If they are, and they feel it unjustifiable, they try to avoid being a sucker by reducing
their own input to the task. Kerr (ibid) has shown that students may even choose to fail as a group rather than be
a sucker. It is suggested that the sucker effect problem is the cause of procrastination in many group work
activities. Conscious students find it hard to get the attention and compliance of free-riders and decide not to
proceed alone until a deadline is imminent (Strong & Anderson,1990). Watkins (op cit.) claims that competent
students are less likely to think of themselves as suckers if they genuinely feel that they are covering for a

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 32 | P a g e
 University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of Group Assignments: A Case Study of Great Zimbabwe University

member of the group who is unlikely to succeed by themselves and one way of minimising the sucker effect is
to allow members of groups to get to know each other better. If this happens, competent students may be less
inclined to feel like suckers and are less likely to free-ride (Watkins, 2004)
Group composition can be another obstacle to group work. Melles (2004) cites another way in which
the composition of groups might be negative. This is when most of the written work is taken over by the
students with the best language fluency. It may be an understandable practice, but an unfair one. This is
particularly a problem in some universities where very large numbers of students from Non English speaking
backgrounds (NESB) are being educated. Careful selection of group work tasks with multiple duties (not all
requiring a high level of competence in English) might be a partial solution to this. Instituting a policy of
multicultural diverse groups is therefore, not in itself negative, as long as practices to minimise free-riding are
adopted in parallel. In the same vein it is of paramount importance to note that the group understudy comprised
of Ph.D., masters degree holders and learners of different back grounds. The question to be asked is; how do
students feel about this group mix.

Groups and their sizes

Strong and Anderson (1990) advise that the size of groups is critical for effective group work. The
study sought to establish students perception pertaining to the group size. Ingham et al. (1974) and Kerr and
Bruun (1981) conceive of the effect of group size in terms of the Ringelmann Effect. This describes the
inverse relationship between the size of a team and the magnitude of a group members individual contribution
to the accomplishment of the task. The larger the group, the smaller the effort expended by group members, and
the greater the likelihood of social loafing and free-riding.
Literature on social loafing has shown a positive curvilinear relationship and positive correlation
between loafing and group size in groups varying from two to six members using additive, unitary and
maximising tasks (Ingham et al.,1974., Kerr & Bruun,1981; Lantane et al., 1979., Petty et al.,1977., Strong &
Anderson, 1990). Bonacich et al. (1976) indicated that cooperation among group members appears to decrease
with increasing group size while Harkins and Petty (1982) and Jackson and Williams (1985) posit that it is
recognition of individual contributionnot size of groupthat influences the effort expended. They argue that
maximising tasks give opportunities for discrete, additive contributions from members thereby reducing chances
of loafing, regardless of group size. In this regard the study wishes to confirm what strategies learners believe as
necessary to implement in order to achieve collaboration in a group.
Most of the literature is consistent, however, in reporting the positive correlation between group size
and free-riding/loading effects. Once groups become too large there is the danger of lower contributions from
individual members, and even dissolution of groups. A study by Strong and Anderson (1990) suggests that the
ideal group size for minimising free-riding is a group of no more than two individuals. However, groups of this
size maybe impracticable in an educational context including in the context understudy where enrolments are
too large, hence the study seeks to establish the views of students towards group sizes.

IV. METHODOLOGY
The study employed the descriptive survey design. Descriptive survey describes situations which are
there. It helps to provide answers to questions of who? What? and how? (Leedy,2005) and this can include
attitudes and perceptions. Huberman (2000) assets that descriptive research is used to describe the current status
of the phenomena and what exists with respect to the variables or condition in a situation. In this study the
researchers wanted to establish the existing perceptions and beliefs of university students with regard to the
utility of group work. The study targeted university students, in particular those who were in the post graduate
diploma in higher and tertiary education programme. These students were unique in that they comprised
lecturers, teachers and clergymen of varied academic qualifications ranging from first degree to PhD. The
cosmopolitan grouping of participants would yield interesting views with regard to students attitudes and
beliefs about group work. Eighteen students were conveniently selected to respond to a questionnaire survey
with a four point likert response (Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree & Strongly disagree). Four of the students
were further interviewed to complement data from questionnaires. Findings from questionnaires were subjected
to statistical computations where means and standard deviations were used. The data were presented in table
form for further analysis. Trends on the strengths and weakness of group assignments by rank could be easily
revealed. Data from interviews were presented in form of thick descriptions to complement data from
questionnaires as well as authenticate study results.

V. FINDINGS
A total of eighteen students ,10 females (56%) and 8 males (44%) responded to the questionnaires. The
respondents gave their responses on what they perceived as the strengths of group assignments over individual
assignments, challenges as well as on what they believe should be done to improve on the effectiveness of group
work.

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 33 | P a g e
 University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of Group Assignments: A Case Study of Great Zimbabwe University

Table 1: Strengths of Group Assignments (N=18)

Ranking Strengths MEAN STANDARD
DEVIATION

1 Helps students to develop confidence and become active learners 4.12 0.75
2 Develops organisational skills 4.00 0.86
3 Results in an outcome with a greater depth and breadth than an 3.87 1.04
individual assignment
4 Facilitates a deeper understanding of the course content 3.77 0.82
5 Facilitates collaboration and support as well as competition 3.75 0.66
6 Develops leadership skills 3.71 0.96
7 Facilitates social interaction between students 3.69 0.84
8 Develops student`s negotiation skills 3.66 1.01
9 Allows students to experience teamwork situations similar to the 3.65 1.00
workplace
10 Develops conflict management skills 3.63 0.89

Results in Table 1 indicate some consistency between mean values and standard deviation implying
that views of participants were consistent despite their varied experiences and qualifications. The five top
ranked strengths or benefits of group assignments are; helping students develop confidence and become active
learners, development of organisational skills, results in an outcome with a greater depth and breadth than an
individual assignment, facilitating a deeper understanding of the course content, collaboration, support as well
as competition.
It is pertinent to note that facilitating a deeper understanding of the course content was ranked 4th,
while resulting in an outcome with a greater depth and breadth than an individual assignment was ranked third.
Lecturers normally regard these two issues as important benefits and the students perception confirmed this.
Challenges of group assignment
Table 2 Challenges of group assignment by rank (No=18)
Ranking Challenges Mean Standard
Deviation
1 Free riders, slackers, member not participating 3.56 1.50
2 One member dominating the group work (takes over the control 3.50 1.46
of everything and decreases other members participation
3 Unfair assessment (everyone receiving the same mark regardless 3.48 1.42
to their contribution)
4 Not learning all the materials covered in the course because of 3.43 1.41
dividing the work
5 Member(s) not willing to share their ideas or knowledge 3.38 1.28
6 Low quality work done by some member(s) in the group 3.34 1.44
7 Different expectation resulting in dissatisfaction of some students 3.29 1.96
8 Dispute over assignment related issues 3.19 1.63
9 Having non competent student(s) in the group 3.10 1.54
10 Confrontation and clash between some members 2.99 1.44

Table 2 shows the ranking of the relative problems and difficulties that can occur with the use of group
assignment. The top two of the top four ranked challenges were directly or indirectly related to individual
contributions within the group members and these were free riders, slackers and one member dominating the
group work (takes over the control of everything) and decreases other members participation. These challenges
are commonly cited by several researchers as common to group work. Whilst such problems occur respondents
concur that confrontational cases were minimal indicating that group members would always want to maintain
peace with each other. Thus, upholding the group principle of collegiality. One member had this to say; ...sa
Doc havatombouyi zvavo kumadiscussions [Like the Dr does not turn up for discussions]. The researchers tried
also to find out from those accused of free riding who indicated that they were preoccupied with work since the
block session comes during the peak of the semester. We concluded that students particularly part-time need to
take study leave whenever they are studying this will ensure that they do not comprise their studies.

Students view of appropriate group size

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 34 | P a g e
 University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of Group Assignments: A Case Study of Great Zimbabwe University

Data indicate that almost all students expect small groups of not more than five members. More than
half (58%) of the respondents preferred groups of five members with the rest of the respondents preferring less
than that. Strong and Anderson (1990) assert that the larger the group, the more challenging it would be for the
members to work together collaboratively and coordinate efforts, the easier it will be for students to hide, and
the harder it would be for teachers to assess contributions. Conversely, the larger the group size, the more
complicated and complex assignments tasks can be used and the more ideas may be generated. In this study
most of the students were in groups ranging from two to four members.
Responding to the supervision methods used by lecturers, almost all students (98%) indicated that
lecturers did supervise or monitor group assignments. They cited feedback, class presentations and discussions
as the major strategies of monitoring and evaluating group effectiveness.
The questionnaire-survey solicited for respondents perception on group composition. The majority of
the students (90%) were of the opinion that groups should be composed of learners of diverse backgrounds. It
was revealed that in most cases students organise themselves since lecturers did not organise students into
strategically mixed groups. Therefore, in some instances homogeneous groups ended up being created, for
instance, females or those of the same status. One respondent had this to say:
Some of the students who have PhD qualifications did not want to mix with others. Lecturers were expected to
organise the groups by ensuring that learners did not segregate themselves into groups according to their
status. Others would choose where they would be free riders or alternatively where they would dominate and do
the assignment themselves with very little input from others.
Strong and Anderson (1990) emphasise the importance of task type to be allocated to learners in a
group. Findings indicate that lecturers employed two task types, discretionary (66%) and additive (34%) to
allocate students into groups. Those who indicated discretionary commented that they were left alone to decide
on how to organise the group.
The study also sought to establish how students perceive of the quality of group assignments. The
majority of the respondents (64%) indicated that the quality of group assignments was generally good. One of
the interviewee commented:
Actually the quality is better than individual assignments as members come up with divergent responses not
possible with one person. There is need however, for a good presenter, one who would put the bits and pieces
into a final product.
Responding to how they processed and presented group assignments students indicated that they
divided the assignment into parts and each member completed his/her own part and quite often students worked
together in groups without necessarily sharing the work to be done. Thus, the final submission was simply a
compilation of the parts or one member would be assigned the role of scribing what would have been discussed.
Sometimes the final document was not checked, nor proofread by other members in the group but most often
each member would be given the opportunity to proofread the whole document. Data from respondents
indicated that seventy-eight percent (78%) of them were always aware of the contents of the final submission
with just 2% indicating ignorance of the content of the final document. This small number could represent the
percentage of free riders. Eighty-two percent of the respondents however raised concern that lecturers should
supervise the whole process of group assignments with the rest indicating that it was not necessary. What
remained unanswered was the implication of the monitoring of the process. Is it not prohibiting group
autonomy?

VI. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Findings revealed varied student views with regard to group assignments. The study revealed that
students view the most important benefits of group assignments as closely linked to helping students develop
confidence and become active learners, development of organisational skills resulting in an outcome with a
greater depth and breadth than an individual assignment. This concurs with Ackermann and Plummer (1994);
Bourner et al. (2001); Maguire and Edmondson (2001) who noted that group assignments improve the
confidence of learners and as a result outcomes are of greater depth and breadth. These skills and attributes are
important in industry and the world of work. However, how best lecturers should go about organising group
work needs further exploration. It was also revealed that group assignments facilitate a deeper understanding of
the course content and facilitate collaboration and support as well as competition. Echoed by one respondent,
Views from a group are more divergent than those from an individual, thus, a topic is dealt with in depth. In
addition, development of organisational skills was one of the highly rated strength. It was rated higher than
facilitation of social interaction as suggested by Brooks and Ammons (2003). Albeit the benefits, findings
revealed free riding as a major challenge above the rest. Several authors concur, Jones (1984); Lantane et al.
(1979); Ruel et al. (2003); Strong and Anderson (1990); Watkins (2004) that free riding or sometimes known as
social loafing is a major challenge in group work. Further, Kerr (1983) warns that capable students reduce their
input into the group work when they experience free-riding. On the contrary, results from the study indicated
that those who seem to be capable were found to be free-riding though interviews revealed that they were tied

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 35 | P a g e
 University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of Group Assignments: A Case Study of Great Zimbabwe University

up to their jobs as part-time students. This should be a huge worry for lecturers who should devise strategies to
reduce such malpractice by some students, Students also felt that there was an unfair awarding of marks. The
challenge was ranked second indicating the gravity of the concern. What it implies is that lecturers should
ensure that they supervise group assignments right from the onset up to the end when students present their
group findings. Respondents felt some of their fellow students were reaping where they did not sow which was
perceived as unfair.
It was also evident from the study that students were not impressed by some group members who over
dominated the group. The effects were that others would end up playing a passive role and that defeats the noble
reason for group work. Findings also revealed that respondents considered a group of not more than five as the
most ideal. Reasons to support such a size was that free riders and social loitering would be closely monitored.
Whilst Strong and Anderson (1990) recommended a group of two members Gibbs (1995) on the other hand
argues that the larger the group size, the more ideas may be generated. The effectiveness of that however is
another area of debate. Whether small groups are attainable in institutions where enrolments are large is another
bone of contention.
Results indicated that lecturers used feedback and group presentations as monitoring strategies of group
effectiveness. During group presentation the lecturer would moderate the content. However, the study did not
establish how students felt about the presentations and the effect thereof. Whether presentations should be by a
group representative or members allocated sections to present-that needs further exploration. The study
established that students were given the autonomy to organise their group presentations and allocate each other
sections or sub-topics of which each individual group member is supposed to work on.

VII. CONCLUSION
Drawing from the findings it was concluded that students view group work as very beneficial in terms
of developing their confidence, organisational skills as well as promoting deep learning particularly when there
is effective supervision by the lecturer. The issue of group size is also critical if effective group interaction is to
be enhanced. Where and when group work lacks close monitoring and supervision there are high chances of
free-riding. When such a situation arises most students feel short changed especially when they are awarded the
same mark/grade.

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS
The study recommends that lecturers should assign small groups of not more than five members for
group assignments for effective participation of students. Considering that cases of free-riders in the study were
usually not deliberate, it is suggested that part-time students should take study leave if they are to fully benefit
from group assignments and course deliberations in general. Lastly, studies on the nature and effectiveness of
group presentations may be carried out.

REFERENCES
[1]. Ackermann, A., & Plummer, S. (1994). Examination into the use, place and efficacy of group work in university
courses: A work in progress report of a current research project. Paper presented at the Annual Australian Association for
Research in Education, Newcastle, Australia.
[2]. Brooks, C., &Ammons, J. L. (2003). Free-riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency and specificity of
criteria in peer assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 75(5), 268272.
[3]. Burtis, J., & Turman, P. (2006). Group communication pitfalls: Overcoming barriers to an effective group experience.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[4]. Chang, V. (1999). How can conflict within a group be managed? In Martin, K., Stanley, N. and Davison, N. (Eds),
Teaching in the Disciplines/Learning in Context, 59 - 66. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The
University of Western Australia, February 1999. Perth: UWA. Retrieved November 27, 2002 from the World Wide Web
http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/chang.html
[5]. Denscombe, M. (2003). The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects. Second edition.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
[6]. Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., van der Vleuten, C., &Wijnen, W. (2001). Solving problems with group work in problem-
based learning: Hold on to the philosophy. Medical Education, 35(9), 884889.
[7]. Fall, R., Webb, N. & Chudowski, N. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment: Effects on
students comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 911-9451.
[8]. Forrest, K., & Miller, R. (2003). Not another group project: Why good teachers should care about bad group
experiences. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 244-246.
[9]. Gibbs, G (1994) Learning in Teams: A Student Guide Oxford: The Oxford Centre of Staff Development, Oxford:
Brookes University.
[10]. Gibbs, G (1995) Learning in Teams: A Tutor Guide. Oxford: The Oxford Centre of Staff Development, Oxford
Brookes University.
[11]. Hammar Chiriac, E. (2014). Group work as an incentive for learning: Students experiences of group work. Frontiers
in Psychology, 5, 1-10.

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 36 | P a g e
 University Students Beliefs and Perspectives of Group Assignments: A Case Study of Great Zimbabwe University

[12]. Hendry, G. D., Frommer, M., & Walker, R. A. (1999). Constructivism and problem-based learning. Journal of Further
and Higher Education, 23(3), 369371.
[13]. Huberman, A. (2002). The qualitative Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
[14]. Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary
schools: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 66, 459 - 506.
[15]. Johnson, L & Miles, L (2004) Assessing Contributions to group assignments, Assessment &Evaluation in Higher
Education, 29(6), 751-768
[16]. Kerr, H. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(4), 819828.
[17]. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(2), 224231.
[18]. Kerr, N. L., &Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses; Free Rider effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 7894. Kremer, J., & McGuiness, C. (1998). Cutting the cord: Student-
led discussion groups in higher education. Education Training, 40(2), 4449.
[19]. Lee, C., Ng, M., & Jacobs, G. (1997). Cooperative learning in the thinking classroom: Research and theoretical
perspectives. Paper presented at the International Conference on Thinking, Singapore.
[20]. Leedy, P.D & Omrod, J. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and Design. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
[21]. Maguire, S., & Edmondson, S. (2001). Student evaluations and assessment of group projects. Journal of Geography in
Higher Education, 25(2), 233240. Mahenthiran, S., & Rouse, P. J. (2000). The impact of group selection on student
performance and management. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(6), 255264.
[22]. McGraw, P., & Tidwell, A. (2001). Teaching group process skills to MBA students: A short workshop. Education?
Training, 43(3), 162170.
[23]. Mutch, A. (1998). Employability or learning? Group work in higher education. Education? Training, 40(2),5056.
[24]. Nance, T., & Mackey-Kallis, S. (1997). Cant you just talk to them? Small group work in a senior thesis course. Paper
presented at the 83rd Annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Ill.
[25]. Ruel, G., Bastiaans, N., & Nauta, A. (2003). Free riding and team performance in project education. International
Journal of Management Education, 3(1), 2638.
[26]. Strong, J. T & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data.
Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 6167
[27]. UNSW -- University of New South Wales (2003), UNSW Graduate Attributes,
http://info.library.unsw.edu.au/skills/attributes.html (accessed on 28 April 2016)
[28]. UNSW -- University of New South Wales, (2004), Guidelines on learning that informs teaching at UNSW, University
of New South Wales, 33 pages.
[29]. Vittrup, B. (2005). How to Improve Group Work: Perspectives from Students. Teaching and Learning.
[30]. Watkins, R. (2004). Groupwork and assessment: The handbook for economics
lecturers.EconomicsNetwork,fromhttp://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook/printable/groupwork.pdf.
[31]. Webb, M. (1993). Postgraduate Research: Giving feedback and Assessing Process. Centre for Teaching and Learning
Workshop.
[32]. Zou, P.X.W. (2005). Developing Teamwork Skills Through Group Assignments: A Guideline for Conducting Group
Assignments. Sydney: FBE, University of New South Wales.
[33]. Zou, P.X.W., Scoufis, M, Earl, G, Uher, T, Phua, F, Kim, J, & Pratt, C (2004) Achieving Graduate Attributes:
University, Student, and Industry Perspectives. Sydney: FBE, University of New South Wales.

www.dynamicresearchjournals.org 37 | P a g e