San Francisco State University Student Research
While at San Francisco State University (SFSU) I had the pleasure of working on many research projects both as an undergraduate and graduate student. Highlights include:
SFSU/UCSF BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
Quality of Life Among Breast Cancer Survivors From Diverse Populations
January 2003 to August 2007
As a research assistant, I conducted tape-recorded structured interviews and facilitated survivors’ completion of a battery of psychological assessment measures, providing principal investigators interview transcriptions and personal field notes for “Quality of Life Among Breast Cancer Survivors from Diverse Populations.” This was a joint San Francisco State and UCSF study funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities collecting qualitative and quantitative data from Bay Area minority breast cancer survivors to assess how being a breast cancer survivor affects the trajectory of quality of life in different race/ethnic groups, and how that relationship is modified by social support, depression, and spirituality. Asian, African-American, Latina and White participants are interviewed every six months over a two-year period. I worked with all populations who lived in the city of San Francisco.
Quality of Life Among Breast Cancer Survivors From Diverse Populations
January 2003 to August 2007
As a research assistant, I conducted tape-recorded structured interviews and facilitated survivors’ completion of a battery of psychological assessment measures, providing principal investigators interview transcriptions and personal field notes for “Quality of Life Among Breast Cancer Survivors from Diverse Populations.” This was a joint San Francisco State and UCSF study funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities collecting qualitative and quantitative data from Bay Area minority breast cancer survivors to assess how being a breast cancer survivor affects the trajectory of quality of life in different race/ethnic groups, and how that relationship is modified by social support, depression, and spirituality. Asian, African-American, Latina and White participants are interviewed every six months over a two-year period. I worked with all populations who lived in the city of San Francisco.
Student Perceptions of Group Projects
Despite the fact that research appears to demonstrate that students who participate in collaborative learning display greater achievement, productivity, critical-thinking abilities, social support and self-esteem, as compared to students exposed to traditional, competitive educational models -- real student experiences in university classes that utilize collaborative features such as group report or presentation projects are less enthusiastic.
Why do some students love these groups while others absolutely hate them? For my Master's In Education thesis project I invited SFSU undergrads to tell me.
What did I learn? From my concluding chapter:
Individual Differences
Individual differences may be used to characterize the possible underlying answers to the first three questions that explore students’ perceptions of their group experiences in undergraduate classrooms. To answer the first: “How might students who dislike participating in group projects differ from those who claim to enjoy such constructivist learning processes?” students were asked to categorize the project they were basing their responses on as either their “best,” “worst,” “typical,” or “only” experience. Crosstab analyses were conducted comparing students who described their “worst” experiences as compared to those who described their “best” experience. Chi Square Tests of Independence were calculated to determine significant differences in responses and Cramer’s V values were calculated to determine the strength of the relationships found. Students who categorized their group projects as “worst” were significantly less likely to have participated in group-focused classroom projects as part of their elementary or junior high school experiences (see Table 18, Appendix A). Barfield (2003) found the less group grade experience a student has, the more likely the student was to agree that everyone deserved the same grade. It is reasonable to conclude that students’ prior experiences with group learning will determine their overall levels of satisfaction and abilities to perform as effective group members within undergraduate group projects.
Students who categorized their projects as “worst” chose significantly different responses to the question “Which of the following best describes your Group Project experience?” The majority of these students choose the option “none of the above,” rather than any of the other four options. The four options were designed to describe interactions within group projects from the barely cooperative (dividing the project up, working independently, putting the pieces together at the end) to very cooperative (meeting weekly in person as well as daily electronic communication, learning from each other before taking the next step, etc.). All of the responses to the “none of the above” option had been coded as one of three response types: someone describing a collaborative experience, someone who could be described as bullying the rest of the group, or someone primarily complaining about either the other group members or how much harder they had worked than anyone else had. Each of the respondents who described their group as “worst” and chose “none of the above” had been coded as a “complainer.” In comparison, those who categorized their group as “best” and chose “none of the above,” were all coded “collaborator.” Those individuals who categorized their groups as “typical” and chose “none of the above” were coded as all three – “bully,” “collaborator,” or “complainer” (see Table 19, Appendix A).
When compared to the nine key Likert-type questions, students who categorized their experience as “worst” were significantly more likely to have chosen the two most negative responses to all nine questions. Cramer’s V for all items ranged from 0.44 to 0.97 demonstrating the strength of the relationships. Students who categorized their group experiences as “worst” did not believe that group work contributed to their understanding, rated their group experiences as not at all positive, rated their social interactions within the project group as not at all positive, suggested their participation did not contribute to their mastery or understanding the class material, rated presentations by other groups as not at all positive, and suggested watching other group presentations did not contribute to their mastery or understanding of the class material (see Table 20, Appendix A). As expected, students who categorized their groups as “best” were more likely to have chosen the two most positive responses to these same questions.
All of the students (100%) who categorized their groups as “worst” responded “yes” when asked if “scheduling times when group members could meet outside class” was a problem,” whereas only 56% of those who categorized their groups as “best” had difficulties scheduling group meetings (see Table 18, Appendix A). While not statistically significant (see Table 21, Appendix A), students who categorized their groups as “worst” reported lower group grades (M=3.27, SD=1.10) for their participation when compared to those who categorized their groups as “best” (M=3.93, SD=0.25). From these numbers one can see that most students who categorized their group experiences as “best” got consistently good grades for the project (A or A-) whereas those who categorized their experience as “worst,” ranged from As to Bs (for grade conversion scale used to calculate means see Table 15, Appendix A).
There were no significant differences found between those choosing “best” or “worst” regarding age, gender, ethnicity, language, number of units taken, whether students were also working, or the presence of specified instructor supports.
Is there a relationship between grades and whether students perceive benefits from participation in constructivist learning situations? Half (53%) of the respondents reported receiving an A in their group project classes. Students who got As were significantly more likely to be fulltime rather than part-time students.
Students who got As were also more likely to form a bell curve in response to how much the group project contributed to their mastery of the subject than other students (see Table 22, Appendix A). The largest percentage (32%) choose the middle position of the 5-step scale while 38% chose “4” or “5 greatly contributed” and 30% chose “2” or “1 did not contribute.” Students who received an A minus were significantly more likely to choose “4” or “5 greatly contributed” than were other students (see Table 23, Appendix A). Students who got As were also significantly more likely to rate their overall group experience “4” on a scale of “5 extremely positive” to “1 not at all positive.”
Students who reported getting As were also significantly more likely to choose “we divided the project up into pieces,” the least cooperative description of how their group functioned (see Table 24, Appendix A). Of the 12 who selected “none of the above” only four provided a description coded as “collaborative,” the others were coded as “bully” or “complainer” (see Table 19, Appendix A). A students perceive themselves to be under a great strain to retain good GPAs and will do nearly anything to ensure they get an A. As one student commented:
As always in groups, I find they tend to slow [me] down. Members have different goals and levels of motivation. When taking classes, I really want to maintain my 4.0 GPA and as a result end up doing whatever is necessary to do that. If members of the group are not motivated to achieve the same level, I need to add their workload to mine. Non-motivated group members also receive the benefit of my increased contribution and that just makes me mad.
Looking at within-group conflicts, it was asked if “within-group conflicts are related to race, ethnicity, gender, or age differences?” Students were asked directly if age, gender, race/ethnicity, or language differences impacted their groups. Only 14.6% of respondents stated age differences impacted their groups, 10.8% identified gender differences, 8.8% language difference, and 8.2% race/ethnicity differences. Of the 46 individuals who replied “yes” to any of the four questions, 12 responded “yes” to more than one (see Table 25, Appendix A). Two women described difficulties within their groups for all four, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and language. Only those who suggested age differences impacted their groups were significantly less enthusiastic about the social interactions within their groups (see Table 26, Appendix A). Those who indicated gender differences impacted their groups were significantly more likely to positively endorse that group work contributes to understanding (see Table 27, Appendix A). Not all differences were negative; some respondents described the positive impacts of multiple points of view such as this comment: “The one African American woman in the group provided wonderful insight into specific needs of aging persons in the African American community that we may have overlooked without her in the group.”
Based on the responses to this survey, it appears race, ethnicity, gender and age play far smaller roles in within-group conflicts than does the conflict of who is contributing equally to the group effort. Students were asked to describe the most negative aspect of participating in their group project. The presence of social loafers in the group was the chief complaint (28%), with an additional 15% of responses coded as “bully.” Individuals who complained about doing all the work, whether they also attributed the problem to someone not fully contributing were coded as a “bully.” The next largest group (12%) described trouble scheduling times for the group to meet as the biggest problem. The number of individuals who identified someone else bullying the group or having to depend on someone else for their grades was roughly equal to the numbers of individuals who experienced difficulties due to age, gender, language, and race/ethnicity.
Roughly 40% of the sample in Payne and Monk-Turner’s (2006) study said they had a slacker in their group and working with a slacker was identified as the factor that had the strongest impact on attitudes about group work. The choice was made not to ask about the presence of “slackers,” “free loaders” or “social loafers” in this survey to avoid priming the students, providing a more grounded theory approach of allowing the students to identify the problems they experienced. Nearly 30% of the respondents identified social loafers as problems in their groups, and many of those coded as “bully” implied or stated directly their need to take control was because of the presence of someone not fully contributing. A more politically correct label for those coded as “bully” would have been “social dominators” as identified in the work of Cohen (1998). Regardless of the label, these students tend to take over the group, tell others what to do next, and often insist on doing all the work themselves. Typical of the responses coded as “bully” was this student’s comment: “My group members got the same grade as me even though they did nothing. I had to even write out what they had to do for their presentation part. It really sucked.”
The perception of individual contributions to the group process appears to be far more salient to students’ perceptions of their group projects than specific individual differences between students such as race, age, gender, or language differences. Instructors planning on using group projects in undergraduate classrooms need to address providing mechanisms that allow students to be graded both as individuals and as a group for students to believe that all members of each group will be graded fairly according to their contributions. Undergraduate respondents to this study appear to have learned the lessons of multiculturalism and an appreciation of multiple perspectives contributing positively to projects, but they do expect that mechanisms will be in place to ensure that those who do not contribute at all will not reap rewards they have not earned.
To view the appendixes or review the full text of the thesis you are welcome to visit:
app.box.com/s/0xg6gbsi9dmas0jk13usk1cuguj0uvy9
Why do some students love these groups while others absolutely hate them? For my Master's In Education thesis project I invited SFSU undergrads to tell me.
What did I learn? From my concluding chapter:
Individual Differences
Individual differences may be used to characterize the possible underlying answers to the first three questions that explore students’ perceptions of their group experiences in undergraduate classrooms. To answer the first: “How might students who dislike participating in group projects differ from those who claim to enjoy such constructivist learning processes?” students were asked to categorize the project they were basing their responses on as either their “best,” “worst,” “typical,” or “only” experience. Crosstab analyses were conducted comparing students who described their “worst” experiences as compared to those who described their “best” experience. Chi Square Tests of Independence were calculated to determine significant differences in responses and Cramer’s V values were calculated to determine the strength of the relationships found. Students who categorized their group projects as “worst” were significantly less likely to have participated in group-focused classroom projects as part of their elementary or junior high school experiences (see Table 18, Appendix A). Barfield (2003) found the less group grade experience a student has, the more likely the student was to agree that everyone deserved the same grade. It is reasonable to conclude that students’ prior experiences with group learning will determine their overall levels of satisfaction and abilities to perform as effective group members within undergraduate group projects.
Students who categorized their projects as “worst” chose significantly different responses to the question “Which of the following best describes your Group Project experience?” The majority of these students choose the option “none of the above,” rather than any of the other four options. The four options were designed to describe interactions within group projects from the barely cooperative (dividing the project up, working independently, putting the pieces together at the end) to very cooperative (meeting weekly in person as well as daily electronic communication, learning from each other before taking the next step, etc.). All of the responses to the “none of the above” option had been coded as one of three response types: someone describing a collaborative experience, someone who could be described as bullying the rest of the group, or someone primarily complaining about either the other group members or how much harder they had worked than anyone else had. Each of the respondents who described their group as “worst” and chose “none of the above” had been coded as a “complainer.” In comparison, those who categorized their group as “best” and chose “none of the above,” were all coded “collaborator.” Those individuals who categorized their groups as “typical” and chose “none of the above” were coded as all three – “bully,” “collaborator,” or “complainer” (see Table 19, Appendix A).
When compared to the nine key Likert-type questions, students who categorized their experience as “worst” were significantly more likely to have chosen the two most negative responses to all nine questions. Cramer’s V for all items ranged from 0.44 to 0.97 demonstrating the strength of the relationships. Students who categorized their group experiences as “worst” did not believe that group work contributed to their understanding, rated their group experiences as not at all positive, rated their social interactions within the project group as not at all positive, suggested their participation did not contribute to their mastery or understanding the class material, rated presentations by other groups as not at all positive, and suggested watching other group presentations did not contribute to their mastery or understanding of the class material (see Table 20, Appendix A). As expected, students who categorized their groups as “best” were more likely to have chosen the two most positive responses to these same questions.
All of the students (100%) who categorized their groups as “worst” responded “yes” when asked if “scheduling times when group members could meet outside class” was a problem,” whereas only 56% of those who categorized their groups as “best” had difficulties scheduling group meetings (see Table 18, Appendix A). While not statistically significant (see Table 21, Appendix A), students who categorized their groups as “worst” reported lower group grades (M=3.27, SD=1.10) for their participation when compared to those who categorized their groups as “best” (M=3.93, SD=0.25). From these numbers one can see that most students who categorized their group experiences as “best” got consistently good grades for the project (A or A-) whereas those who categorized their experience as “worst,” ranged from As to Bs (for grade conversion scale used to calculate means see Table 15, Appendix A).
There were no significant differences found between those choosing “best” or “worst” regarding age, gender, ethnicity, language, number of units taken, whether students were also working, or the presence of specified instructor supports.
Is there a relationship between grades and whether students perceive benefits from participation in constructivist learning situations? Half (53%) of the respondents reported receiving an A in their group project classes. Students who got As were significantly more likely to be fulltime rather than part-time students.
Students who got As were also more likely to form a bell curve in response to how much the group project contributed to their mastery of the subject than other students (see Table 22, Appendix A). The largest percentage (32%) choose the middle position of the 5-step scale while 38% chose “4” or “5 greatly contributed” and 30% chose “2” or “1 did not contribute.” Students who received an A minus were significantly more likely to choose “4” or “5 greatly contributed” than were other students (see Table 23, Appendix A). Students who got As were also significantly more likely to rate their overall group experience “4” on a scale of “5 extremely positive” to “1 not at all positive.”
Students who reported getting As were also significantly more likely to choose “we divided the project up into pieces,” the least cooperative description of how their group functioned (see Table 24, Appendix A). Of the 12 who selected “none of the above” only four provided a description coded as “collaborative,” the others were coded as “bully” or “complainer” (see Table 19, Appendix A). A students perceive themselves to be under a great strain to retain good GPAs and will do nearly anything to ensure they get an A. As one student commented:
As always in groups, I find they tend to slow [me] down. Members have different goals and levels of motivation. When taking classes, I really want to maintain my 4.0 GPA and as a result end up doing whatever is necessary to do that. If members of the group are not motivated to achieve the same level, I need to add their workload to mine. Non-motivated group members also receive the benefit of my increased contribution and that just makes me mad.
Looking at within-group conflicts, it was asked if “within-group conflicts are related to race, ethnicity, gender, or age differences?” Students were asked directly if age, gender, race/ethnicity, or language differences impacted their groups. Only 14.6% of respondents stated age differences impacted their groups, 10.8% identified gender differences, 8.8% language difference, and 8.2% race/ethnicity differences. Of the 46 individuals who replied “yes” to any of the four questions, 12 responded “yes” to more than one (see Table 25, Appendix A). Two women described difficulties within their groups for all four, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and language. Only those who suggested age differences impacted their groups were significantly less enthusiastic about the social interactions within their groups (see Table 26, Appendix A). Those who indicated gender differences impacted their groups were significantly more likely to positively endorse that group work contributes to understanding (see Table 27, Appendix A). Not all differences were negative; some respondents described the positive impacts of multiple points of view such as this comment: “The one African American woman in the group provided wonderful insight into specific needs of aging persons in the African American community that we may have overlooked without her in the group.”
Based on the responses to this survey, it appears race, ethnicity, gender and age play far smaller roles in within-group conflicts than does the conflict of who is contributing equally to the group effort. Students were asked to describe the most negative aspect of participating in their group project. The presence of social loafers in the group was the chief complaint (28%), with an additional 15% of responses coded as “bully.” Individuals who complained about doing all the work, whether they also attributed the problem to someone not fully contributing were coded as a “bully.” The next largest group (12%) described trouble scheduling times for the group to meet as the biggest problem. The number of individuals who identified someone else bullying the group or having to depend on someone else for their grades was roughly equal to the numbers of individuals who experienced difficulties due to age, gender, language, and race/ethnicity.
Roughly 40% of the sample in Payne and Monk-Turner’s (2006) study said they had a slacker in their group and working with a slacker was identified as the factor that had the strongest impact on attitudes about group work. The choice was made not to ask about the presence of “slackers,” “free loaders” or “social loafers” in this survey to avoid priming the students, providing a more grounded theory approach of allowing the students to identify the problems they experienced. Nearly 30% of the respondents identified social loafers as problems in their groups, and many of those coded as “bully” implied or stated directly their need to take control was because of the presence of someone not fully contributing. A more politically correct label for those coded as “bully” would have been “social dominators” as identified in the work of Cohen (1998). Regardless of the label, these students tend to take over the group, tell others what to do next, and often insist on doing all the work themselves. Typical of the responses coded as “bully” was this student’s comment: “My group members got the same grade as me even though they did nothing. I had to even write out what they had to do for their presentation part. It really sucked.”
The perception of individual contributions to the group process appears to be far more salient to students’ perceptions of their group projects than specific individual differences between students such as race, age, gender, or language differences. Instructors planning on using group projects in undergraduate classrooms need to address providing mechanisms that allow students to be graded both as individuals and as a group for students to believe that all members of each group will be graded fairly according to their contributions. Undergraduate respondents to this study appear to have learned the lessons of multiculturalism and an appreciation of multiple perspectives contributing positively to projects, but they do expect that mechanisms will be in place to ensure that those who do not contribute at all will not reap rewards they have not earned.
To view the appendixes or review the full text of the thesis you are welcome to visit:
app.box.com/s/0xg6gbsi9dmas0jk13usk1cuguj0uvy9