## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Maximum group size of 3**: Reduces loafing and ensures meaningful contribution from all members > - **Random grouping made explicit**: Use playing cards or transparent methods to eliminate selection bias and social anxiety > - **Group accountability**: Apply praise and consequences to entire group rather than individuals ## Definition **Group Work**: Collaborative learning strategy using small teams of maximum 3 students, most effective when randomly formed and held collectively accountable. ## Connected To [[Low-Floor High-Ceiling]] | [[Turn and Talk]] | [[Participation]] | [[Norms]] | [[Classroom Management]] --- ## Core implementation principles Group size is important. Groups of three reduce the number of loafers and ensure all voices can be heard (Karau & Williams, 1993). Larger groups create opportunities for hiding and inequitable contribution. Research shows that groups of 3-4 students produce better learning outcomes than larger groups (Lou et al., 1996). Groups should be formed randomly rather than by student choice. Use playing cards and have students split based on suit. This eliminates friendship bias and selection anxiety whilst ensuring transparency in group formation (Cohen, 1994; Kagan, 1994). Providing A3 whiteboards allows groups to write down their thinking so all members can see and contribute to the work. Accountability operates at the group level rather than the individual. Praise and apply sanctions to the group, not individuals. This structure encourages peer regulation and collective responsibility (Slavin, 1996; Webb, 1991). ## Most effective task types for group work Low-floor high-ceiling tasks work well in group settings. Maths Venns use classification activities with overlapping categories. Open-middle problems have a closed beginning and end but offer multiple solution pathways. Card sorts involve categorising examples, definitions, or problems. These task types succeed because they provide multiple entry points for different ability levels, create rich discussion opportunities about reasoning, enable natural division of labour, and offer extension challenges for advanced students. Structured group work with clear accountability produces learning gains, whereas unstructured collaboration can increase cognitive load without corresponding benefits (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Kirschner et al., 2018). ## Managing group work Effective group work requires attention at three stages. Before starting, establish clear expectations, visible time limits, and specific success criteria. During work, visit all groups within 2 minutes, listen before intervening, and address the whole class if multiple groups struggle with the same issue. After completion, use random selection to share outcomes rather than asking for volunteers. Focus discussion on reasoning and approaches, comparing different methods across groups. ## Communities of practice: learning through participation Learning occurs through participation in communities of practice, defined as groups of people who share concerns, problems, or passions about topics and deepen their knowledge through ongoing interaction (Wenger, 1998). ### Three characteristics of communities of practice Communities of practice have three crucial characteristics (Wenger, 1998). Domain represents a shared area of interest that members are committed to. Community means members interact and learn together through regular engagement. Practice involves members developing a shared repertoire of resources, experiences, and ways of addressing problems. Learning involves developing identity within the community, moving from legitimate peripheral participation to fuller participation. ### Research evidence Research on Xerox photocopier repair technicians showed that most learning occurred through informal interaction with colleagues rather than through official training manuals (Wenger, 1998). Technicians developed expertise by sharing experiences, discussing problems, and collectively solving challenges. This demonstrates how authentic learning happens through participation in communities that value practical problem-solving. ### Implications for classrooms Classrooms can function as communities of practice where students develop shared understanding through collaborative work. Teachers should facilitate peer interaction, collective problem-solving, and development of shared knowledge. Online communities can extend learning beyond classroom walls. However, effective communities require careful development of norms, shared goals, and mutual engagement (Wenger, 1998). The community of practice framework differs from traditional group work by emphasising identity development, shared practices, and long-term participation rather than short-term task completion. Students learn not just content but also ways of thinking and acting valued within the discipline. ## References Wenger, E. (1998). *Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity*. Cambridge University Press. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. *Review of Educational Research*, 64(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. *Theory Into Practice*, 38(2), 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834 Kagan, S. (1994). *Cooperative learning*. Kagan Cooperative Learning. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 65(4), 681-706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Kirschner, F. (2018). Cognitive load theory and collaborative learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), *International handbook of the learning sciences* (pp. 45-54). Routledge. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d'Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. *Review of Educational Research*, 66(4), 423-458. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004423 Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. *Contemporary Educational Psychology*, 21(1), 43-69. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004 Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. *Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*, 22(5), 366-389. https://doi.org/10.2307/749186