درگیر شدن دانش آموزان در کارهای گروهی جهت به حداکثر رساندن اشتراک گذاری و استفاده از دانش ضمنی

We investigated how students' interpersonal trust relationships impact on their willingness to share knowledge during group work and whether there is one best method of group allocation to maximise knowledge sharing. Through focus groups with 32 undergraduate and postgraduate students, we found: i) participants had limited experience of sharing skills; ii) they were more frequently engaged in sharing their beliefs, values and ideas; iii) while interpersonal relationships impacted upon the degree to which knowledge sharing took place, the major contributing factor was participants' desired outcomes. Participants identified different advantages and disadvantages for the same allocation methods depending on their motivations for attending their courses. We conclude that the most equitable approach to group work is to allow students to choose the allocation method most appropriate to their needs. Findings can assist educators in making informed decisions about group work to increase student engagement, and support cognition-based trust to enhance knowledge sharing.

Group-working has now become firmly established in higher education (Gregory and Thorley, 1994, Lejk et al., 1997, Li, 2001 and Strauss and A, 2007) and is used across multiple disciplines for a variety of purposes (Gregory & Thorley, 1994). Among the numerous benefits ascribed to the use of group-work within higher education, are that group-work provides opportunities for the transfer of student skill-sets (Livingstone & Lynch, 2000) and as with other forms of peer-learning, for the sharing of knowledge, ideas and experiences (Boud, 2001). The authors of this paper regularly make use of group-work in their teaching at both undergraduate and post-graduate level. When we do so, it is with the intention that students will share and learn from both the practical skills, and personal insights that they possess. Successful knowledge transfers of this kind are reported in the pedagogic literature (see for example, Cresswell, 1998, Livingstone and Lynch, 2000 and Plastow et al., 2010). The authors are firmly in favour of group-work, agreeing with Gregory and Thorley's (1994, p. 20) statement that: Groups provide opportunities that cannot be realized through individual learning situations. They provide expertise from the rest of the group not available to the solitary individual…The group is a place where individual views of reality can be challenged and new insights obtained from debate. Yet despite this enthusiasm for group-work, we note that student perceptions can vary (Hillyard, Gillespie, & Littig, 2010) and so too, in our experience, can the degree to which students work well together, share knowledge, complete set tasks and achieve their learning objectives. Numerous factors can impact the group-work process, including differences in group composition with respect to gender, local versus overseas students (Gordon and Connor, 2001 and Sampson and Cohen, 2001b), culture and religion (Sampson & Cohen, 2001b), peers not liking each other (Sampson & Cohen, 2001b) and concerns over free-riding (Sampson & Cohen, 2001a), with the latter being a problem that is well documented in the pedagogical literature (Maiden & Perry, 2011). Furthermore, readers of this journal will be aware of recent research (Woods, Barker, & Hibbins, 2011) that provides insights into, and guidelines for managing multicultural group-work. Given that these factors are concerned with students' interpersonal relationships it is unsurprising that a common dilemma is on what basis to allocate students to groups (Huxham & Land, 2000) and we assert that the choice is crucial, agreeing with Robson's (1994) contention that the success of group-based exercises requires the formation of groups in which participants feel willing and able to contribute. Within this paper the authors present findings from an Higher Education Academy (HEA) Wales Enhancement Fund project conducted May–July 2011 that addresses the issue of group-allocation for group-work when the objective is to maximise knowledge sharing, focussing in particular on the interpersonal trust relationships that exist between students. In doing so we have provided answers to the following four questions that we contend have implications for both theorists and practitioners: 1. To what extent are students willing to share knowledge and use that gained from others during group work? 2. What are the motivators and barriers to these behaviours? 3. Are students' interpersonal trust relationships an important antecedent of these behaviours? 4. Is there one best method of group-allocation to maximise knowledge sharing and use amongst students during group-work? The importance of interpersonal trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing has received considerable attention within the knowledge management literature (see for example, Eppler and Sukowski, 2000, Holste and Fields, 2010, Lucas, 2005, McDermott and O’Dell, 2001, Nonaka et al., 2000 and Viitala, 2004) but relatively little within the pedagogic literature. In this study, we have adopted concepts from the knowledge management and psychology literature to answer our research questions. These concepts and a review of the relevant literature are presented below.

The analysis of participants’ discussions of preferences for group allocation did not provide any rationale for adopting anyone method of group allocation to maximise knowledge sharing amongst students. Preferences for group allocationdepended on three considerations: their motivations and desired aim of group work; the point in time in which the groupwork assignment took place; and their perceptions of the implications of the three methods.Importantly, while those who were primarily focussed on exchanging views and ideas with others, and more generally learning from the experience of group work, favoured tutor led allocation methods, those who were focused on attainment preferred to self-select their groups. Given that for postgraduates these views were also dependent on the point in time in which group work occurred, it is clear that it is untenable to recommend one particular method of group allocation. The authors contend that the most equitable way to proceed with group work is for educators to make multiple allocation methods available and then allow individual students to choose the method that they feel is most appropriate to their needs. For example, in a given class, one set of groups may be comprised of students who have opted for self-allocation, while another set may be comprised of students who have chosen to be allocated randomly. It is contended that this returns a degree of ownership to students, and provides the best possible opportunity for students to work with like-minded colleagues to pursue their own aims and fulfil their individual needs through their group work experiences.