This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]

On: 21 November 2014, At: 12:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Teacher
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmt20

Students' Perceptions of Classroom

Group Work as a Function of Group
Member Selection
Scott A. Myers
Published online: 23 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Scott A. Myers (2012) Students' Perceptions of Classroom Group Work
as a Function of Group Member Selection, Communication Teacher, 26:1, 50-64, DOI:
10.1080/17404622.2011.625368

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2011.625368

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Communication Teacher
Vol. 26, No. 1, January 2012, pp. 50
64

Students’ Perceptions of Classroom

Group Work as a Function of Group
Member Selection
Scott A. Myers
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

Course: Small Group Communication

The purpose of this assessment was to examine whether differences exist between students
who self-select their classroom work group members and students who are randomly
assigned to their classroom work groups in terms of their use of organizational citizenship
behaviors with their work group members; their commitment to, trust in, and relational
satisfaction with their work groups; and their self-reports of affective learning and
cognitive learning. Participants were 126 students enrolled in a small group commu-
nication course. While students who self-select their group members and students who
are randomly assigned to their groups do not differ in their use of organizational
citizenship behaviors with their classroom work group members, students who self-select
their classroom work group members do report higher levels of commitment, trust, and
relational satisfaction, as well as more affective learning and more cognitive learning,
than students who are randomly assigned to classroom work groups.

Keywords: organizational citizenship behaviors; commitment; trust; relational satisfac-

tion; affective learning; cognitive learning

Although college students report that participating in work groups generally is a

satisfying and productive learning experience (Espey, 2010; Gillespie, Rosamond, &
Thomas, 2006), their participation in these groups is not without problems. These
problems include, among others, time management, schedule coordination, and both
the distribution and completion of unequal or inequitable work assignments
(Burdett, 2003; Gottschall & Garcı́a-Bayonas, 2008). A more salient problem students
face, however, centers on having to work with group members who do not share the

Scott A. Myers (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1995) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies,
P.O. Box 6293, 108 Armstrong Hall, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293, USA. Email:
smyers@mail.wvu.edu

ISSN 1740-4622 (print)/ISSN 1740-4630 (online) # 2012 National Communication Association

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2011.625368
 Communication Teacher 51
same predispositions or attitudes toward group work. In some cases, students
are required to work with members who either fail to contribute to the group task or
are unmotivated to work with a group (Duin, 1990; Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006); in
other cases, students are required to work with members who possess unfavorable
attitudes toward group work, report a strong dislike for group work, do not share the
same expectations about group grades, or express a lack of concern about group
grades (Barfield, 2003; Gottschall & Garcı́a-Bayonas, 2008; Myers & Goodboy, 2005;
Payne, Monk-Turner, Smith, & Sumter, 2006).
According to Mills (2003), one way in which this problem can be alleviated is by
allowing students in classroom work groups to select the members with whom they
will work. Allowing students to self-select (i.e., self-selection) their members is one of
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

several methods instructors can utilize to assign students to classroom work groups;
another method instructors commonly use is random assignment (Chapman, Meuter,
Toy, & Wright, 2006; Mahenthiran & Rouse, 2000; Muller, 1989). With self-selection,
instructors allow students to choose all their group members without any direction,
interference, or guidance by the instructor; with random assignment, instructors
predetermine the number of groups and the number of students to be placed in
each group, and simply assign students to one of these groups (Chapman et al., 2006).
Of these two methods, researchers have posited that self-selection offers the best
advantages for students in classroom work groups (Connerley & Mael, 2001;
Koppenhaver & Shrader, 2003; Strong & Anderson, 1990). To further explore this
position, the purpose of this assessment is to examine whether differences exist
between students who self-select their classroom work group members and students
who are randomly assigned to their classroom work groups in terms of their use
of organizational citizenship behaviors with their work group members; their
commitment to, trust in, and relational satisfaction with their work groups; and
their self-reports of affective learning and cognitive learning.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Work Groups

For any work group to be productive, it is essential that its members engage in what
researchers have termed organizational citizenship behaviors (Bachrach, Bendoly, &
Podsakoff, 2001). Conceptualized initially by Organ (1988), organizational citizen-
ship behaviors refer to ‘‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate,
promotes the effective functioning of the organization’’ (p. 4). The use of these
behaviors is voluntary, is independent of any individual’s organizational position or
job description, and implies a selfless sensitivity to both coworkers and the workplace
(Cox & Sims, 1996; Organ, 1997). Some common examples of these behaviors used
by coworkers in the workplace include assisting each other with a task, volunteering
to complete an additional task, being punctual, applying extra effort to task
completion, and having exemplary attendance (Borman, 2004; Fahr, Podsakoff, &
Organ, 1990). While it is not essential for organizational members to engage in these
behaviors when completing their assigned tasks, members who use these behaviors
 52 Communication Teacher
contribute indirectly to the maintenance of the social and psychological structures of
the workplace that support the completion of these tasks (Babcock-Roberson &
Strickland, 2010; Borman, 2004).
Although several typologies of organizational citizenship behaviors exist (see
Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006, for a review), researchers generally agree that
three behaviors*helping, civic virtue, and sportsmanship*are salient to the work
group (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994).
When group members use the helping behavior, they voluntarily help their peers
prevent or solve work-related problems (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,
1990; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). These members are thought-
ful and considerate of each other; prevent, resolve, and manage any interpersonal
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

conflicts; and celebrate each other’s accomplishments (Podsakoff & MacKenzie,

1994). When group members use the civic virtue behavior, they voluntarily
demonstrate their commitment to their group by participating actively in the group
governance process (Organ et al., 2006) because they are concerned about the life of
the group (Podsakoff et al., 1990). They do so by expressing their opinions and
offering comments as to how the group should function, taking into consideration
the best interests of the group independent of their own interests, and remaining
informed about what is happening in the group (Allison, Voss, & Dryer, 2001;
Podsakoff et al., 2000). When group members use the sportsmanship behavior, they
refrain from engaging in destructive group behavior that could threaten the group’s
effectiveness (Organ et al., 2006). These behaviors include complaining about feeling
slighted or inconvenienced, feeling offended when other members do not consider
their suggestions or ideas, having a negative attitude, sacrificing their personal goals
for group goals, and tolerating less than ideal work circumstances (Allison et al.,
2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2000).
When group members use organizational citizenship behaviors, they may do so
because they are committed to, place trust in, and experience relational satisfaction
with their work group. Commitment refers to the extent to which members associate
feelings of identification, involvement, and loyalty with their group (Buchanan,
1974); trust refers to the extent to which members are confident in each other’s
actions and place faith in their group member’s intentions to be trustworthy (Cook &
Wall, 1980); and relational satisfaction refers to the extent to which members build
and maintain gratifying communicative relationships with each other (Anderson,
Martin, & Riddle, 2001). Indeed, extant research conducted among organizational
employees has found that their self-reported use of organizational citizenship
behaviors is linked positively to their commitment to their group (Pearce & Herbik,
2004), their trust in their group leaders (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), and their
satisfaction with both their co-workers and the task (Lowery, Beadles, & Krilowicz,
2002; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).
 Communication Teacher 53

Purpose of the Assessment

Whether students in classroom work groups use the helping, civic virtue, and
sportsmanship citizenship behaviors, as well as experience commitment, trust, and
relational satisfaction with their groups, may be dependent on the method (i.e., self-
selection, random assignment) by which they were assigned to their classroom work
groups. Generally, students who are assigned to their classroom work group through
self-selection perceive their group experience to be more favorable than students who
are assigned to their classroom work groups through random assignment (Bacon,
Stewart, & Silver, 1999). Not only do students who self-select their group members
report that their communication with group members is more effective, but they also
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

report that they take greater interest in each other, are comfortable asking each other
for help, express confidence in each other’s abilities, and enjoy working with each
other more so than students who were randomly assigned to their classroom work
groups (Chapman et al., 2006). Moreover, when students in classroom work groups
are randomly assigned to their classroom work groups, group members report greater
group satisfaction and more positive perceptions of group performance when their
group contained randomly assigned pairs of friends than members whose groups
consisted of all randomly assigned members (Mahenthiran & Rouse, 2000). To assess
whether students in classroom work groups who self-select their group members differ
in their use of organizational citizenship behaviors and their perceptions of work
group outcomes from students who are randomly assigned to their classroom work
groups, the following two research questions are posed:
RQ1: Will students who belong to self-selected classroom work groups report
using the helping, civic virtue, and sportsmanship citizenship behaviors
with their group members at a higher rate than students who belong to
randomly assigned classroom work groups?
RQ2: Will students who belong to self-selected classroom work groups report
greater commitment to, greater trust in, and greater relational satisfaction
with their classroom work groups than students who belong to randomly
assigned classroom work groups?
Because having students work in groups is the best way for them to gain insight
into group work (Mello, 1993), it is curious whether students’ reports of their
affective learning and cognitive learning differ based on the method by which they are
assigned to their classroom work groups. Affective learning refers to students’
development of a favorable attitude toward the skills and knowledge they acquire,
whereas cognitive learning refers to students’ acquisition, comprehension, and
retention of knowledge (McCroskey, 2002). For students enrolled in small group
communication courses, their dislike for working in groups is associated negatively
with their perceived affective and cognitive learning (Myers & Goodboy, 2005). Yet,
members of self-selected groups perceive that they learn more from their group
experience than members of instructor-selected groups (Latting & Raffoul, 1991) and
when students belong to classroom work groups composed solely of acquaintances
(i.e., they fail to develop relationships with their group members), they report less
 54 Communication Teacher
affective and cognitive learning than students who belong to classroom work groups
composed of members whom they consider to be friends (Myers et al., 2010). To
assess whether differences in affective learning and cognitive learning exist based on
the method by which students are assigned to classroom work groups, the following
research question is posed:
RQ3: Will students who belong to self-selected classroom work groups report
more affective learning and cognitive learning than students who belong to
randomly assigned classroom work groups?

Method
Participants
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

Participants were solicited from a pool of 225 undergraduate students (132 male,
93 female; Mage 21.10, SDage 2.80) enrolled in four sections of an introductory
small group communication course at a large mid-Atlantic university. This intro-
ductory small group communication course is a 100-level course, is worth three credit
hours, and is intended to introduce students to the small group communication
through a combination of instructor lecture, in-class student group work, and out-of-
class student group work. This course is standardized and all instructors use the same
textbook and workbook and follow the same syllabus, assign the same in-class work
and out-of class work, and use the same grading rubrics. In-class group work consists
of each group completing a series of five activities that require members to analyze
their group communication behavior; out-of-class work consists of each group
completing (a) seven hours of volunteer work with a local nonprofit organization and
(b) three assignments based on their volunteer work. Students in each group receive
the same grade for their respective group’s in-class group work and out-of-class group
work, which account for approximately 42% of their overall course grade. (Fifty
percent of their overall course grade is based on their individual performance on three
examinations, with the remaining 8% based on a peer evaluation completed by their
group members.)
During the second week of class, students were assigned to a group of three to five
members, with the majority of students being assigned to a group of five members.
Prior to group assignment, students were informed that group assignments would be
made in one of three ways: (a) students could select all five group members (i.e., self-
selection), (b) students could select one (i.e., dyad) or two (i.e., triad) classmates to be
their group members and they then would be combined with another self-selected
dyad or triad (i.e., instructor-selected), or (c) students could be placed in a group
randomly by the instructor. To place students randomly in a group, instructors
consulted their respective class enrollment roster, removed those students who either
self-selected their group members or were placed in a group using instructor selection,
and used systematic random sampling to place the remaining students into a group.
Because the focus of this assessment was solely on the differences between students
in self-selected groups and students in randomly assigned groups, this assessment
used a convenience sample of 126 undergraduate students (79 male, 47 female;
 Communication Teacher 55
Mage 21.04, SDage 3.44) taken from the pool of 225 students enrolled in the course.
Of the 126 students who served as participants in this assessment, 42 students self-
selected their groups (i.e., 10 groups with three to five members per group; M 4.45,
Mdn5, Mo 5) and 84 students were randomly assigned to their groups (i.e.,
19 groups with three to five members per group; M 4.62, Mdn 5, Mo 5).

Procedures and Instrumentation

During the last week of the semester, participants completed a series of instruments
in reference to the group in which they had worked during the semester. These
instruments included a Measure of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (Podsakoff
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

et al., 1997), a modified version of the Organizational Commitment scale and a

modified version of the Interpersonal Trust at Work scale (Cook & Wall, 1980), the
Small Group Relational Satisfaction scale (Anderson et al., 2001), three subscales of
the Instructional Affect Assessment Instrument (McCroskey, 1994), and one item
taken from the Cognitive Learning Loss measure (Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney, &
Plax, 1987). These instruments were completed in one of two sequences to control for
order effects. Prior to instrument distribution, permission to conduct this assessment
was sought and approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.
The Measure of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors is a 13-item instrument that
asks participants to rate their use of helping (six items), civic virtue (three items), and
sportsmanship (four items) behaviors in their work groups. Responses are solicited
using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1).
Podsakoff et al. (1997) reported an alpha reliability coefficient of .95 for the helping
items, an alpha reliability coefficient of .96 for the civic virtue items, and an alpha
reliability coefficient of .88 for the sportsmanship items. In this assessment, the
instrument was modified slightly by changing the wording to reflect the classroom
work group. A Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .88 (M 5.77, SD.92) was
obtained for the helping items, a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .64
(M 5.84, SD .88) was obtained for the civic virtue items, and a Cronbach
alpha reliability coefficient of .77 (M 5.50, SD 1.46) was obtained for the
sportsmanship items.
The Organizational Commitment scale is a nine-item scale that asks participants to
rate the degree to which they identify with, are involved with, and are loyal to their
workplace, whereas the Interpersonal Trust at Work scale is a 12-item instrument that
asks participants to rate the degree to which they are confident in their co-workers’
actions and place faith in the intentions of their co-workers. Responses for both scales
are solicited using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly
disagree (1). In their original work, Cook and Wall (1980) obtained an alpha
reliability coefficient of .85 for the Interpersonal Trust at Work scale and an alpha
reliability coefficient of .87 for the Organizational Commitment scale. In this
assessment, the items on both instruments were modified slightly by changing the
wording to reflect the classroom work group. In doing so, some of the items on the
original instruments were deemed irrelevant to the classroom work group, resulting
 56 Communication Teacher
in the use of a six-item instrument to measure commitment and the use of a six-item
instrument to measure trust.1 A Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .73 was
obtained for the commitment scale (M 5.80, SD 1.00) and a Cronbach alpha
reliability coefficient of .88 was obtained for the trust scale (M 5.74, SD 1.13).
The Small Group Relational Satisfaction scale is a 12-item measure that asks
participants to report their satisfaction with the relationships established within their
work group. Responses are solicited using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Previous Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients
ranging from .86 to .90 have been reported for the scale (Anderson et al., 2001;
Myers & Goodboy, 2005). In this assessment, a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient
of .90 was obtained (M 4.16, SD .63).
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

The Instructional Affect Assessment Instrument is a 24-item, 7-point bipolar

instrument that measures student affect toward the course content, the recommended
course behaviors, and the instructor. In this assessment, three subscales (12 of the
24 items, or four items for each of the three subscales) were used to assess student
affect toward the course content, student affect toward the behaviors recommended in
the course, and student affect toward the likelihood of developing an appreciation for
the course content. In prior research conducted on students enrolled in small group
communication courses, Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients ranging from .82 to
.94 have been obtained for the subscales (Myers & Goodboy, 2005; Myers et al., 2010).
In this assessment, a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .84 was obtained for
student affect toward the course content subscale (M 5.32, SD1.36), a Cronbach
alpha reliability coefficient of .86 was obtained for student affect toward the behaviors
recommended in the course subscale (M 5.52, SD1.26), and a Cronbach alpha
reliability coefficient of .93 was reported for student affect toward the likelihood of
developing an appreciation for the course content subscale (M 4.95, SD 1.60).
The Cognitive Learning Loss measure is a two-item scale that asks participants, using
a scale ranging from 0
9 (0 representing ‘‘nothing’’ and 9 representing ‘‘more than in
any other class’’), to rate how much they have learned from their instructor and how
much they could have learned had they taken the course from an ‘‘ideal’’ instructor.
Following the procedure utilized in prior assessments of students’ perceived learning
in small group communication courses (Myers & Goodboy, 2005; Myers et al., 2010),
in this assessment, the target of the items was changed from the instructor to the small
group and only the first item was used to assess cognitive learning (i.e., ‘‘On a scale of
0
9, with 0 meaning ‘nothing’ and 9 meaning ‘more than in any other group I’ve been
in,’ how much do you think you have learned about group work by having to work in a
group?’’). Because only one item was used, a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient
could not be computed (M 6.18, SD2.20).

Results
Table 1 contains a correlation matrix of the variables investigated in this assessment.
The first research question inquired about whether students who belong to
 Communication Teacher 57
Table 1 Correlation Matrix

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Helping

2. Civic virtue .72 ffl

3. Sportsmanship .37 ffl .31 ffl

4. Commitment .56 ffl .54 ffl .53 ffl

5. Trust .54 ffl .47 ffl .39 ffl .74 ffl

6. Relational satisfaction .48 ffl .43 ffl .34 ffl .54 ffl .53 ffl

7. Affect*Content .29 ffl .24 ffl .16 ffl .21* .25 ffl .44 ffl

8. Affect*Behaviors .31 ffl .29 ffl .22* .20* .21* .40 ffl .82 ffl

9. Affect*Appreciation .35 ffl .30 ffl .16 .20* .17 .30 ffl .62 ffl .64 ffl

10. Cognitive Learning .30 ffl .33 ffl .11 .33 ffl .27 ffl .34 ffl .55 ffl .52 ffl .49 ffl
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

ffl
Notes: *p B.05. pB.01.

self-selected classroom work groups would use the helping, civic virtue, and
sportsmanship citizenship behaviors at a higher rate than students who belong to
randomly assigned classroom work groups. Using multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA), significant differences in students’ use of the helping, civic virtue, and
the sportsmanship behaviors were not obtained, Wilks’ l.95, F (3, 122) 2.09,
p .11, partial h́ 2 .05, which indicates that students who belong to self-selected
classroom work groups do not use citizenship behaviors at a higher rate than students
who belong to randomly assigned classroom work groups.
The second research question inquired about whether students who belong to
self-selected classroom work groups would report greater commitment to, trust in,
and relational satisfaction with their classroom work groups than students who
belong to randomly assigned classroom work groups. Using MANOVA, significant
differences in students’ overall reports of commitment, trust, and relational
satisfaction were obtained, Wilks’ l .92, F (3, 122) 3.69, p B.05, partial
h́2 .08. Univariate effects were significant for commitment, F (1, 124) 7.34,
p B.01, partial h́ 2 .06; trust, F (1, 124) 4.22, p B.05, partial h́ 2 .03; and
relational satisfaction, F (1, 124) 9.26, p B.01, partial h́ 2 .07 (see Table 2), which
indicates that students who belong to self-selected classroom work groups report
greater commitment to, trust in, and relational satisfaction with their classroom
work groups than students who belong to randomly assigned classroom work
groups.
The third research question inquired about whether students who belong to
self-selected classroom work groups would report more affective learning and
cognitive learning than students who belong to randomly assigned classroom
work groups. Using MANOVA, significant differences in students’ overall reports
of affective learning and cognitive learning were obtained, Wilks’ l .92,
F (4, 121) 2.57, p B.05, partial h́ 2 .08. Univariate effects were significant for
student affect toward the course content, F (1, 124) 4.00, pB.05, partial h́ 2 .03;
student affect toward the recommended course behaviors, F (1, 124) 5.01, p B.05,
partial h́ 2 .04; student affect toward developing an appreciation for the course
 58 Communication Teacher
Table 2 Mean Score Differences

Assignment method

Self-selecteda Randomb

Variable M SD M SD

Helping 6.02 .85 5.64 .94

Civic virtue 6.09 .78 5.74 .90
Sportsmanship 5.55 1.34 5.47 1.52
Commitment 6.14 .72 5.64 1.08
Trust 6.02 1.02 5.59 1.16
Relational satisfaction 4.39 .57 4.05 .62
Affect*content 5.66 1.20 5.15 1.41
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

Affect*behaviors 5.87 1.03 5.35 1.33

Affect*appreciation 5.52 1.29 4.67 1.68
Cognitive learning 6.88 1.66 5.83 2.36

Notes: an 42 participants; bn84 participants.

content, F (1, 124)8.47, p B.01, partial h́ 2 .06; and cognitive learning

F (1, 124) 6.62, pB.05, partial h́ 2 .05 (see Table 2), which indicates that students
who belong to self-selected classroom work groups report more affective learning
and cognitive learning than students who belong to randomly assigned classroom
work groups.

Discussion
The purpose of this assessment was to examine whether differences exist between
students who self-select their classroom work group members and students who are
randomly assigned to their classroom work groups in terms of their use of
organizational citizenship behaviors with their work group members; their commit-
ment to, trust in, and relational satisfaction with their work groups; and their self-
reports of affective learning and cognitive learning. Three findings were discovered.
First, students who self-select their group members and students who are randomly
assigned to classroom work groups do not differ in their use of the helping, civic
virtue, and sportsmanship citizenship behaviors. Second, students who self-select their
group members report higher levels of commitment, trust, and relational satisfaction
than students who are randomly assigned to classroom work groups. Third, students
who self-select their group members report more affective learning and more cognitive
learning than students who are randomly assigned to classroom work groups.
Based on these findings, it would seem*at least initially*that in terms of the
positive work group outcomes students associate with their work groups (i.e.,
commitment, trust, and relational satisfaction) and students’ self-reports of their own
affective and cognitive learning, allowing students to self-select their group members
offers several advantages over randomly assigning students to work with each other.
Not only do self-selected group members appear to possess a more favorable attitude
toward their work groups as evidenced by their reports of commitment, trust, and
 Communication Teacher 59
relational satisfaction, but also they appear to have liked the course content and
learned about group work more so than students who were randomly assigned to
their work groups. These findings corroborate Chapman et al.’s (2006) observation
that members of self-selected classroom groups perceive group work to be more
valuable, useful, and effective, as well as possess an overall better attitude toward
group work, than members of randomly assigned classroom groups and implicitly
support the notion that students who self-select their group members play a more
active role in their classroom work groups than students who are randomly assigned
to their work groups (Bacon et al., 1999).
Yet, a closer examination of the mean scores (see Table 2) obtained on all the
variables explored in this assessment reveals that while the mean scores are significantly
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

different (with the exception of the mean scores of the helping, civic virtue, and
sportsmanship citizenship behaviors) between both groups of students (i.e., self-
selected, randomly assigned), the mean scores reported for both groups are above the
midpoint (i.e., 3.0 for the Small Group Relational Satisfaction scale, 4.5 for the one item
taken from the Cognitive Learning Loss measure, and 4.0 for the remaining measures)
of the rating scale used for each instrument. That is, regardless of the method by which
students were assigned to their classroom work groups, the students who participated
in this assessment generally held positive impressions about their perceptions of their
work groups and their levels of learning. These positive impressions, then, may exist
independently of the method by which students are assigned to their classroom work
groups*which may explain why students generally hold favorable impressions about
classroom group work (Payne et al., 2006)*and should be considered when
conducting future assessments in the small group communication course, particularly
because the method by which students are assigned to a classroom work group may not
be that important to them. For instance, in a sample of undergraduate business
students, Chapman et al. (2010) found that when it comes to exhibiting a preference for
group assignments, 48% of their participants preferred self-selection and 52% of their
participants preferred random assignment.
For the students who participated in this assessment, however, there may be a
possible explanation for why students who self-selected their group members rated
their classroom work group experience significantly more favorably than students
who were randomly assigned to their classroom work groups, despite the observation
that all the participants generally rated their classroom work group experience
favorably. This explanation centers on the reasons why students choose to work with
their peers. As Mael and Connerly (2001) reported, the criteria students use to select
group members can range from choosing members who embody a positive attitude
toward hard work and school in general, to members who have the ability to work
well in groups, to members who share the same social networks. When given a choice
to select group members, students usually choose their friends first, followed by
classmates who sit in close proximity or are perceived, for whatever reasons, to be
‘‘good’’ students (Chapman et al., 2006). One limitation of this assessment is that the
reasons for why students who self-selected each other as group members were not
gathered. Although this course is a 100-level course intended for first year students,
 60 Communication Teacher
the course historically enrolls students from across the university (in part because it
fulfills a General Education requirement) and it is not uncommon to have a large
number of upperclassmen (e.g., students with junior or senior status) enrolled in the
course. Quite likely, several students in this course may have had a prior history of
working together (e.g., classmates, co-workers), may belong to the same campus
organization (e.g., Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA), fraternity,
or sorority), or have established a friendship, which influenced their decision to work
with each other. As such, they may have had higher expectations of each other than
those students who were randomly assigned to a group, which may have acted as a
deterrent to engaging in any unproductive or dysfunctional work group behavior. It
also is possible that because they chose to work with their friends, not only have they
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

developed cohesive ties (Strong & Anderson, 1990) and a sense of ‘‘cronyism’’
(Chapman et al., 2006) with each other, but also they likely were homogenous in their
demographic and attitudinal composition, which subsequently (and positively)
inflated their feelings about both their group and their group members. While these
ideas are speculative, they should be considered in future assessment attempts.
To ascertain more definitively whether the method by which students are assigned
to a group affects their classroom performance or course learning, given the findings
of this assessment, instructors of small group communication courses should
consider providing students with guidance or direction if instructors choose to let
their students select group members. One way is to require students to interview each
other about issues that are known to cause dissention among students in classroom
work groups prior to allowing them to select their group members. These issues,
among others, include attitudes toward group work in general, attitudes toward
the class or the subject matter in which group work will be utilized, the desired
course grade, and members’ school and work schedules. At the least, Mello (1993)
recommended that students interview each other to determine if they have
compatible goals and compatible schedules. Students also can be asked to identify
the strengths (e.g., computer skills, time management) and weaknesses (e.g., being
conflict avoidant, disliking group work, being shy and impatient, and lacking
proficiency in oral communication skills; Schullery & Gibson, 2001) they bring to a
classroom work group. By identifying these weaknesses prior to working together as
a group, members can determine how to address and minimize these weaknesses as
they progress through the semester. Similarly, instructors can have students rate their
self-perceived proficiency in work group skills (e.g., analytical skills, public speaking
skills, computer skills, or design skills) and then encourage students to select their
group members in a way that potential members’ skills sets are complementary
(Blowers, 2003). Another way is to ask students to identify whether they have pre-
existing relationships with each other and to group them accordingly. When students
work in groups with members with whom they have developed a relationship,
they report higher levels of cohesion, relational satisfaction, and consensus than
students who work in group with members whom they consider to be acquaintances
(Myers et al., 2010).
 Communication Teacher 61
One limitation to this assessment is that the participants were all enrolled in the
same small group communication course, albeit taught by different instructors, at the
same university, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings. A second limitation
is the unit of analysis (i.e., the student) used in this assessment. While small group
communication researchers have advocated using the group as the unit of analysis
rather than each individual member, issues raised by the university’s Institutional
Review Board prevented the identification of the specific group to which each
participant belonged. Using the group as the unit of analysis undoubtedly would have
informed the findings identified in this assessment by focusing on the group as a
collective unit rather than each individual group member (Poole, Keyton, & Frey,
1999) and acknowledges the influence that group members’ have on each other’s
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

thoughts, behaviors, and thoughts (Bonito, 2002).

A third limitation rests with being unable to examine whether group productivity,
as measured through grades received on the group in-class work and out-of-class
group work, is differentiated between members of self-selected groups and members
of randomly assigned groups. In this course, group members were not held
accountable individually for any graded group in-class or out-of-class work and
the grade received on any group work was shared fully by the group. This course
policy, which is stated in the course syllabus and reiterated several times during the
semester, initially was developed as a way to encourage groups to develop a sense of
interdependence as they worked together during the semester. Although the
participants in this assessment who were members of self-selected groups reported
more affective learning and cognitive learning than members of randomly assigned
groups, it is not possible to determine whether these self-reported differences in
learning can be attributed to the individual student or whether students in self-
selected groups may have considered this policy when they chose their group
members as a way to minimize the chances that their group’s work would be
penalized academically or to avoid the presence of slackers in their work groups,
thereby increasing their learning.

Conclusion
Examining whether the method of group member selection (i.e., self-selection,
random assignment) affects how students in classroom work groups communicate
with each other is important because it provides instructors of small group
communication courses with a greater understanding of the role that group member
relationships play in the small group communication learning process. Based on the
results of this assessment, while group members who choose to work with each other
may not use helping, civic virtue, and sportsmanship citizenship behaviors more so
than members who were assigned to work with each other, they report greater
commitment to their group, place more trust in, and are more relationally satisfied
with their group than members who were randomly assigned to work with each
other. They also report more affect toward both the course content and the behaviors
recommended in the course, more affect toward a greater likelihood of developing an
 62 Communication Teacher
appreciation for the course content, and more cognitive learning. These findings may
explain why students who work in classroom groups with members whom they are
able to choose generally work well together and consider each other to be cooperative
and indispensable (Bacon et al., 1999; Chapman et al., 2006). Because the primary
teaching goal of many small group communication courses is to provide students
with the opportunity to learn firsthand about small group communication through
active participation in classroom work groups, allowing students to self-select their
group members may offer some advantages in how students gain insight into small
group work and the small group communication process. However, these advantages
need to be taken into consideration by the instructor in light of the objectives of the
particular small group communication course and the desired course learning
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

outcomes.

Note
[1] The six items used to measure commitment were ‘‘I was quite proud to be able to tell people
which group I belonged to,’’ ‘‘I was not willing to put myself out just to help my group,’’
‘‘I felt like I was a part of my group,’’ ‘‘In my group, I felt like I made some effort, not just for
myself but for the group as well,’’ ‘‘I would not recommend that my classmates work with my
group members,’’ and ‘‘To know that my own work has made a contribution to the good of
my group pleases me.’’ The six items used to measure trust were ‘‘If I got into difficulties with
the group task, my group members would try and help me out,’’ ‘‘I could trust the group
members I work with to lend a hand if I needed it,’’ ‘‘I felt quite confident that my group
always tried to treat me fairly,’’ ‘‘Most of my group members could be relied upon to do what
they said they would do,’’ ‘‘I had full confidence in the skills of my group members,’’ and
‘‘I could rely on my group members not to make my contributions more difficult by them
doing careless work.’’

References
Allison, B.J., Voss, R.S., & Dryer, S. (2001). Student classroom and career success: The role of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 282
288.
Anderson, C.M., Martin, M.M., & Riddle, B.L. (2001). Small group Relational Satisfaction Scale:
Development, reliability, and validity. Communication Studies, 52, 220
234.
Babcock-Roberson, M.E., & Strickland, O.J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic
leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Psychology,
144, 313
326.
Bachrach, D.G., Bendoly, E., & Podsakoff, P.M. (2001). Attributions of the ‘‘causes’’ of group
performance as an alternative explanation of the relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
1285
1293. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1285
Bacon, D.R., Stewart, K.A., & Silver, W.S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team
experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23,
467
488.
Barfield, R.L. (2003). Students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with group grades and the group
experience in the college classroom. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28,
356
369. doi:10.1080/0260293032000066191
 Communication Teacher 63
Blowers, P. (2003). Using student skill self-assessments to get balanced groups for group projects.
College Teaching, 61, 106
110.
Bonito, J.A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and conceptual
issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33, 412
438.
Borman, W.C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 13, 238
241.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533
546.
Burdett, J. (2003). Making groups work: University students’ perceptions. International Education
Journal, 4, 177
191.
Chapman, K.J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups?:
The influence of group selection methods on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of
Management Education, 30, 557
569. doi:10.1177/1052562905284872
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

Chapman, K.J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2010). Are student groups dysfunctional?:
Perspectives from both sides of the classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 39
49.
doi:10.1177/0273475309335575
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and
personal non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39
52.
Cox, J.F., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1996). Leadership and team citizenship behaviors: A model and
measures. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies, 3, 1
41.
Duin, A.H. (1990). Terms and tools: A theory and research-based approach to collaborative writing.
The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 53(2), 45
50.
Espey, M. (2010). Valuing teams: What influences student attitudes? NACTA Journal, 54, 31
40.
Fahr, J.-L., Podsakoff, P.M., & Organ, D.W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship
behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16,
705
721.
Gillespie, D., Rosamond, S., & Thomas, E. (2006). Grouped out? Undergraduates’ default strategies
for participating in multiple groups. JGE: The Journal of General Education, 55, 82
102.
Gottschall, H., & Garcı́a-Bayonas, M. (2008). Student attitudes towards group work among
undergraduates in business administration, education and mathematics. Educational
Research Quarterly, 32, 3
28.
Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 656
669.
Koppenhaver, G.D., & Shrader, C.B. (2003). Structuring the classroom for performance:
Cooperative learning with instructor-assigned teams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 1, 1
21.
Latting, J., & Raffoul, P. (1991). Designing student work groups for increased learning: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Social Work Education, 27, 48
59.
Lowery, C.M., Beadles, N.A., II, & Krilowicz, T.J. (2002). Note on the relationships among job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizen behavior. Psychological
Reports, 91, 607
617.
Mael, F.A., & Connerley, M.L. (2001). The importance and invasiveness of student team selection
criteria. Journal of Management Education, 25, 471
494.
Mahenthiran, S., & Rouse, P.J. (2000). The impact of group selection on student performance and
satisfaction. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14, 255
264.
McCroskey, J.C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction
in communication. In S. Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.), Assessing college student competency in
speech communication (pp. 56
71). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
McCroskey, J.C. (2002). Learning goals and objectives. In J.L. Chesebro & J.C. McCroskey (Eds.),
Communication for teachers (pp. 3
7). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mello, J.A. (1993). Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings.
Journal of Management Education, 17, 253
259.
 64 Communication Teacher
Mills, P. (2003). Group project work with undergraduate veterinary science students. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 527
538. doi:10.1080/0260293032000120398
Muller, T.E. (1989). Assigning students to groups for class projects: An exploratory test of two
methods. Decision Sciences, 20, 623
634.
Myers, S.A., & Goodboy, A.K. (2005). A study of group hate in a course on small group
communication. Psychological Reports, 97, 381
386.
Myers, S.A., Shimotsu, S., Byrnes, K., Frisby, B.N., Durbin, J., & Loy, B.N. (2010). Assessing the role
of peer relationships in the small group communication course. Communication Teacher, 24,
43
57. doi:10.1080/17404620903468214
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10, 85
97.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 12:33 21 November 2014

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Its
nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Payne, B.K., & Monk-Turner, E. (2006). Students’ perceptions of group projects: The role of race,
age, and slacking. College Student Journal, 40, 132
139.
Payne, B.K., Monk-Turner, E., Smith, D., & Sumter, M. (2006). Improving group work: Voices of
students. Education, 126, 441
448.
Pearce, C.L., & Herbik, P.A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The effects of
team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size. Journal of Social
Psychology, 144, 293
310.
Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and
the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
262
270.
Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351
363.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107
142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513
563.
Poole, M.S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L.R. (1999). Group communication methodology: Issues and
considerations. In L.R. Frey (Ed.), D.S. Gouran & M.S. Poole (Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of
group communication theory and research (pp. 92
112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richmond, V.P., McCroskey, J.C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T.G. (1987). Power in the classroom VII:
Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education,
36, 1
12.
Schullery, N.M., & Gibson, M.K. (2001). Working in groups: Identification and treatment of
students’ perceived weaknesses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 9
30.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653
663.
Strong, J.T., & Anderson, R.E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and
preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 61
67.