ArticleCBE life sciences education2024
Try Before You Buy: Are There Benefits to a Random Trial Period before Students Choose Their Collaborative Teams?
Article in CBE life sciences education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing anatomy dissection teams using the Yukari method: A peer compatibility-based approach.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
- Strategically creating maximally heterogeneous lab groups did not improve group performance in an introductory biology lab class.PloS one · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cognitive and performance benefits of group work in undergraduate courses depend on understanding how to structure groups to promote communication and comfort while also promoting diversity and reducing conflict. The current study utilized social network analysis combined with self-reported survey data from 555 students in 155 groups to understand how students identified group members whom they wished to work with. Students' willingness to work with their peers was positively associated with behavioral traits pertaining to attention, participation, and preparedness in class. We tested whether preventing students from choosing their group members until completing a multiweek period of random assignment to different groups each week influenced group selection criteria, and we found little effect. Students continued to depend on demographic similarities such as gender and ethnicity when selecting groupmates and enforcing random interactions before the group formation did not influence group satisfaction and/or grades. Random interactions before group formation did influence the willingness of students to continue working with peers who were persistently poorly rated based on behavioral attributes and contribution to the group work. Thus, the effort of random assignment could be beneficial to identify struggling students and improve collaboration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.