You can choose to form study groups based on different criteria. The criteria you choose will depend on the purpose of the study groups on your particular course. You might like to prioritise:
Specific criteria. The students are grouped together based on specific criteria, such as their academic background, interests, geographical location or skills.
Types of students. The students are grouped together with good collaboration in mind, for example based on their roles in the group.
Randomisation. The students are randomly grouped together, often resulting in heterogeneous groups.
Self-chosen groups. Students form their own groups. This often results in homogenous groups.
When forming study groups, consider whether it is important that students are in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups.
Homogenous groups bring together students who are similar. For example, students have the same academic competencies, expectations of group work, interests, personalities or backgrounds. Allowing students to create their own groups often results in homogenous groups. Some studies have found that homogenous groups can be beneficial when working with highly specialised skills such as language learning, because the group members can communicate on the same level (Aranzabal et al. 2021).
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
|
|
Heterogeneous groups bring together students who don’t think alike. Students can be put into heterogeneous groups based on criteria such as academic background, skills or opinions.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
|
|
Consider whether students should be in permanent groups, or whether they need to change groups on a regular basis to meet and work with other people in the class.
You may want to have alternating study groups in the first year of the students’ degree programme or on smaller programmes where it’s important that students get to know the whole year group. Alternating groups also promotes variation and teaches students about their own preferences for group work. This prepares them for the labour market, where they will work with many different people. Click here to see an example of how to create rotating study groups and how to try out different constellations.
Permanent groups help students develop good routines for working together and solving tasks more efficiently. They also force students to deal with any disagreements or conflicts that may arise, which develops and improves their collaborative skills.
You can group people together based on their personalities (e.g. using an Insights test) or their roles in the group (e.g. using a Belbin test). The original versions of these tests are expensive and require authorisation from the testers. However, there are some free versions that can be used.
Belbin’s theory is about the roles people take on in groups. The theory can be used to understand how a group works and how each individual contributes to it. According to the theory, nine different roles are needed for good team work:
Thinking roles: plant, monitor evaluator and specialist
Action/task roles: shaper, implementer and completer-finisher
Social roles: coordinator, resource investigator, team worker
No roles are wrong or bad – they are all important in the group. One person can take on multiples roles in the same group – and take on completely different roles in another group. Belbin’s theory can help raise students’ awareness about collaborative skills. It also provides them with vocabulary to talk about their collaboration, by highlighting the different roles taken on by members of the group, rather than criticising members for being wrong or different. This is a good starting point for talking about group work and what to do to solve any problems in the group. This can also apply to future workplaces.
A test has been developed based on Belbin’s theory. Groups can be formed based on this test, and it can be used to talk about the cooperation and contribution of each member in a group in a constructive manner (Aranzabal et al. 2021; Mac 2013).
Talking about group roles can help identify the strengths and weaknesses of the group. This can help the group to take into account how the roles are distributed between the members.
Please note: The original Belbin test consists of both a self-assessment and a peer assessment. It is not possible to include the peer assessment when using the Belbin test without authorised testers.
| Team role | Typical strengths | Typiske svagheder |
|---|---|---|
| Plant | Talented, creative and full of ideas. Looks at difficult issues from a new perspective. | May not be able to communicate effectively. Forgetful and not hands-on in their work. Sensitive to criticism. |
| Resource investigator | Outgoing, enthusiastic, curious and communicative. Explores opportunities and develops contacts. | Fleeting. Loses interest once the initial enthusiasm has passed. Talks a lot. |
| Coordinator | Mature, confident, trustworthy. Can prioritise. Clarifies goals and drives decisions. Recognises the talents of others. | Can be manipulative and controlling. Not necessarily the most knowledgeable in the team. |
| Shaper | Dynamic, driven and restless. Challenges and thrives on pressure, finds ways to overcome obstacles. | Can be hot-tempered. Is impatient, opinionated and stubborn. Can be provocative. |
| Monitor evaluator | Analytical, sober and objective. Precise judgement. Sees all rational aspects of a case. | Can be seen as very direct, critical and sceptical. Rather slow and uninspiring to others. |
| Team worker | Socially oriented, outgoing and observant. Sensitive, diplomatic and flexible. Listens and averts friction. | Can be indecisive and insecure in crunch situations. Can be overly sensitive. |
| Organisator | Disciplined, reliable and loyal. Efficient in implementation phases. Realistic and practical. | Rather inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities and slow to adapt. |
| Completer-finisher | Thorough and conscientious. Searches out errors. Perfectionistic, persistent and precise. | Tends to worry unduly. Overzealous and afraid to make mistakes. Reluctant to delegate. |
| Specialist | Provides specialist knowledge and technical skills. Strong academic engagement and confidence. Highly focused on their goals and tasks. | Tends to isolate themselves and be uninterested in other people. Defends its area of expertise and only contributes knowledge from within this area. |
The above table is based on https://potential.dk/
There are many different types of personality profiles. Some programmes at AU have previously used Insights to create groups with different types of students. Insights works with eight different personality types, and the groups are put together as heterogeneously as possible based on these.
The eight types and their key skills are as follows:
| Type | Key skills |
|---|---|
| Director | Focused on results, decisive, confident |
| Motivator | Driven, enthusiastic, positive thinking |
| Inspirer | Persuasive, creative, socially skilled |
| Helper | Flexible, helps others, shares ideas |
| Supporter | Listens, loyal, cooperative |
| Coordinator | Plans, organises, manages time |
| Observer | Sets standards, knowledgeable, analyses |
| Reformer | Strong-willed, monitors performance, disciplined |
The above is based on Insights Discovery.
Unihelper is a company started by students in 2018. The company has created a survey to help teachers put study groups together. The survey contains 24 questions for students to answer. Based on the students’ answers, teachers can create study groups that aim to bring together students with as many different competencies as possible. Two of the questions in the survey relate to expectation alignment, and here it’s important to bring together students with similar answers. The teacher can also add one or two questions of their own.
A. Aranzabal, et al. (2022): Team formation on the basis of Belbin’s roles to enhance students’ performance in project based learning. In: Education for Chemical Engineers, Volume 38, 2022, Pages 22-37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.09.001.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1749772821000452)
Mac, Anita (2013): Projektgruppe og roller i projektgruppen. I: Mac, Anita og Hagedorn-Rasmussen, Peter (red.) (2013). Projektarbejdets kompleksitet. Viden, værktøjer og læring. Samfundslitteratur.
Please contact the editors at AU Educate if you have any questions about the content of the platform or if you need consultation on your teaching from one of the many skilled professionals at the Centre for Educational Development.
