THE PERCEPTIONS OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL HUMSS STUDENTS ON TEACHER

AND STUDENT-SELECTED GROUPS IN DIHS: AN ANALYSIS ON GROUP

SELECTION METHODS

A Research Paper Submitted to the

Faculty of Senior High School Department

Dasmariñas Integrated High School

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of

Practical Research I

HUMSS 11 – A Group 2

Submitted by:

Ryan Angelo Biadnes

Jefferson C. Galvez

Felix Anthony D. Petilos

Cris Adrian M. Susana

Kathylyn Best M. Mercado

Aivielyn C. Rodriguez

Caitlin Lucianne G. Rogero

March 2020
 ABSTRACT

Rogero, Galvez, Petilos, et al. 2020 THE PERCEPTIONS OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

HUMSS STUDENTS ON TEACHER AND STUDENT-SELECTED GROUPS IN DIHS:

AN ANALYSIS ON GROUP SELECTION METHODS. Dasmariñas Integrated High School.

Humanities and Social Sciences Strand - SHS.

Teacher: Mr. Carl Kenneth Reyes

The study focused on the perceptions and opinions of students towards group selection

methods. In conducting the study, purposive quota group sampling was used. A total of 30

students from the HUMSS strand were surveyed for their perceptions in group selection

methods, generating a comparison of experiences in terms of three dynamics: communication,

cohesiveness, and collaboration. While there were some discrepancies in most of the questions'

answers, it was evident that student-selected groups were most preferred by the respondents,

supported by reasons that majorly lead to their consideration of friendship. All in all, it is

recommended to the future researchers to revise the survey and find more questions that

will provide more in-depth data from the respondents. It is also recommended to increase the

population of target respondents to represent a bigger portion of the populations’ perceptions.

 INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

In the past few years, the use of groups in the school has become so common that is

considered that groups can be found anywhere (Chapman K,J., Meutur, Toy and Wright, 2010).

Group selection is an effective way of assessing students knowledge, abilities, and socializing

skills. The ability to work effectively in a group is not just a sufficient requirement for the success

of a student, but it is a necessity (Johnson and Jonhson 1989). Group selection can lead to the

spread of group beneficial characteristics in many different grouped settings of agents populations

(Boyd,2002). This study will set out the perspective of students in terms of group selection

(student-selected and teacher-assigned) while they were engaged in different activities. According

to Harmer (2007), either the teacher forms the groups or allows the students themselves to select

whom they are going to work with. Literature refers to these two conditions as teacher/ instructor

– selected/assigned and student/self – selected, respectively. Several studies (Basta, 2011;

Chapman et al., 2006; Mitchell, Reilly, Bramwell, Solnosk, & Lilly, 2004) indicate that whenever

students are set free to do the group member selection, they prefer to work with their friends with

whom they feel more relaxed. Teachers, however, form groups either at random or based on certain

criteria including personality traits, academic heterogeneity and so forth (Harmer, 2007).
 According to Vygotsky (1978), the founder of sociocultural theory, during the process of

interaction which is inherent in pair or group work, knowledge is co-constructed and facilitated

through scaffolding. That is, when students who are working together on a task confront a

problem, they can pool their knowledge of language to solve it. From a cognitive perspective,

interaction provides learners with meaningful input. It also gives learners opportunities to

experiment through production and to obtain feedback, thereby facilitating second language

development (Gass & Mackey, 2007; Long, 1996)

Statement of the Problem

Both teacher and student-selected groups tend to have issues like non-cooperation,

incompetence, communication barriers, and etc. Problems like this greatly affect the research

within a group and may delay it too. Solving this problem can help the group works performance

improves.

In a group research communication and being attentive is highly needed for better results in a

group work. Making a better work place or atmosphere within a group makes the members show

their potential and also their growth.

Significance of the Study

The study of teacher and students selected groups can be a paradigm for the subject(s) to

solve the problems that may happen.

This study’s goal is for teachers and students to get information how to deal with issues that

may occur in an assigned group, like conducting an open forum to discuss other problems and how

to solve them.

Scope and Limitation

The study used convenience sampling to select the respondents, so it was limited to

descriptive analysis. Not all of the grade 11 HUMSS B, C, D, and E and grade 12 HUMSS C

students answered the survey questionnaire. A total of 30 respondents out of 244 students

participated in the study. The respondents under HUMSS 11 - B, C, D, and E class were all

under Physical Science subject. Meanwhile, HUMSS 12 - C, were under the 3I's subject, had

students that currently take two senior high school level.

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study were to:

a) to determine the dominating preference of HUMSS senior high school students between the

two types of group selection method

b) to investigate how group selection method influences group dynamics

c) describe the factors that may affect their preferred group selection method
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Bacon et al. (1999) explored how a set of teacher-controlled contextual variables including

team assignment method affects students' group experience. To this end, they surveyed a number

of MBA students about their best and worst experiences. The results reported self-selected

grouping as positively associated with best team experiences. Particularly, high degrees of

cooperativeness, goal commitment and the feeling of group member's indispensability were

among the major benefits that students linked to self-selection. More recently, the result of

studies by Hilton and Philips (2008) and Russell (2010) led to the same conclusion. A more in-

depth study of this issue was conducted by Chapman et al. (2006) who developed a survey to

investigate the effect of two group formation methods (random or self-selected) on a variety of

group experiences including group dynamics, students' attitude toward the group experience and

outcomes.

The study indicated that self- selected method led to better results concerning all of the

variables under investigation. Specifically, students who were allowed to select their own group

members were better able to communicate together, more enthusiastic about group work, more

interested in their group members, more positive toward group work, better able to deal with

intra-group conflicts and had higher sense of group accomplishment but were less task-oriented

than students of teacher-assigned groups. While several studies confirm the positive effects of

self-selected group formation method, not all research studies favor the use of this method in
classroom setting. Having allowed students to choose between self-selected and teacher assigned

grouping method, Mitchel et al. (2004) investigated how the choice of group membership

influences students' preferences for choosing their working partners. To this end, both groups'

attitude toward group member selection was assessed both before (pre-test) and after group work

(post-test). Results revealed that attitude of self-selected groups negatively changed from pretest

to posttest, while no significant difference was reported among those of teacher assigned. To

further explore this issue, the students were inquired about the reason for this shift in attitude.

The most recurrent theme emerged from students' comments referred to the strong tendency

among self-selected groups to talk rather than work. Johnson et al. (1993, as cited in Mitchell et

al. 2004) further admit that groups which are formed according to the selection of students are

less task oriented than those of other methods. However, the use of self-selection as a grouping

method has not received strong support in the literature. Mitchell et al. (2004) investigated how

the choice of group membership influences students’ preferences for choosing their group mates.

Comparison of students’ attitude toward group member selection both before (pre-test) and after

group work (post-test) showed that the attitude of self-selected groups negatively changed from

pretest to posttest. When asked about this shift in attitude, many students pointed to the

realization of the difference between a ‘good friend’ and a ‘good group member’. They

complained that the self-selected groups (which consisted of friends) suffered from a debilitative

tendency to talk about unrelated matters rather than to work on the task. In a similar vein,

Chapman et al.’s (2006) survey indicated that although the students who were allowed to select

their own group mates were better able to communicate together, were more enthusiastic about
group work, and were more interested in their group members, they were less task-oriented than

the students of teacher-assigned grouping. This is highly significant given that any moment in

learning environments which is spent off-task influences the quality of learning (Baker, Corbett,

Koedinger & Wagner, 2004; Goodman, 1990; Karweit & Slavin, 1981; Lee, Kelly & Nyre,

1999; McKinney, Mason, Perkerson & Clifford, 1975).

 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

A. Research Method to be Used

The research study conducted about the perception of senior high school students in DIHS used

qualitative research method. The researchers believe that the research design used is appropriate

and right as the answers provided by the respondents are detailed and their behaviors closely.

B. Participants

Thirty (30) students from the 2 senior grade levels of Humanities and Social Sciences strand

agreed to participate in the study. The respondents’ age ranged from 16-20 years old. Besides,

they were informed about the general purpose of the study and were assured that all the

information would be kept confidential.

C. Instrumentation

The questionnaire was divided into three parts, each one evaluating a certain dynamic

within the group. All 11 questions had the same structure, with the respondents given a choice

between which [student and teacher assigned group] they prefer more in the given criteria,

together with a reason to justify/support their choice. It was composed of three parts.

The first part consisted of the respondents’ code number, section and subject taken.

The second was the survey proper. Students were asked to choose which group selection method
applies to the group given.
For the third part, the respondents were asked for their opinions on (1) group collaboration-
when two or more people work together through idea sharing to accomplish a common goal,(2)
communication- whether group members feel that they can state their opinions without fear and
(3) cohesiveness- the extent to which members are attracted to the group and to each other.

.
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Q1. Each member contributes to the

desired outcomes

4%
Friendship
29%
46% Productivity

Cooperation
21% Left Unanswered

Figure 1: Each member contributes to the desired outcomes

6 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 24

out of 30 chose student selected group.

The graph indicates that, 46% of the respondents answered member

contributes to the desired outcomes in friendship, while 29% of the respondents answered member

contributes to the desired outcomes cooperation, 21% of respondents answered member

contributes to the desired outcomes productivity, lastly 4% of the respondents left unanswered.
 Q2. Group meetings are very
productive

Productivity
12%
6% 26% Responsibility

Friends

Left Unanswered
35% 21%
Cooperation

Figure 2: Group meetings are very productive

5 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 25

out of 30 chose student selected group.

The graph shows that, 35% of the respondents answered that group meetings

are very productive in friends, 26% of the respondents answered that group meetings are very

productive in productivity, 21% of the respondents answered that group meetings are very

productive in responsibility, then 12% of the respondents answered that group meetings are very

productive in cooperation, while the remaining 6% of the respondents left unanswered. According

to Vygotsky (1978), the founder of sociocultural theory, during the process of interaction which is

inherent in pair/group work, knowledge is co-constructed and facilitated through scaffolding. That

is, when students who are working together on a task confront a problem, they can pool their

knowledge of language to solve it. From a cognitive perspective,

interaction provides learners with meaningful input. It also gives learners opportunities to

experiment through production and to obtain feedback. (Gass & Mackey, 2007; Long, 1996).

Q3. Every member in the group is

participating

7% 11% Grades
18% Cooperation
21%
Friends
Left Unanswered

43% Responsibilty

Figure 3: Every member in the group is participating

7 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 23

out of 30 chose student selected group.

The graph above states that 43% of the respondents answered that every

member in the group is participating in friends, while 21% of the respondents answered that every

members in the group participating in cooperation, 11% of the respondents answered that every

members in the group participating in grades, 7% of the respondents answered that every members

of the group participating in responsibility, lastly 18% of the respondents left unanswered. There

are studies (Bacon et al ;1989) that have investigated the effectiveness in terms of group dynamics,

which are related to group’s internal characteristics, and include

elements such as group collaboration, trust, acceptance, commitment and other elements that

concern teamwork.

Q4. Members have communicated

well as a group

7%
4%
Friends
3%
Cooperation
18% Grades

68% Diversity
Left Unanswered

Figure 4: Members have communicated well as a group

0 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 30

out of 30 chose student selected group.

As can be seen in the graph the 68% of the respondents answered that members

communicated well as a group in friends, 18% of the respondents answered that members

communicated well as a group in cooperation, 4% of the respondents answered in diversity and

3% in grades, lastly 7% of the respondents left unanswered. Chapman et al.’s (2006) survey

indicated that although the students who were allowed to select their own groupmate were better

able to communicate together, were more enthusiastic about group work,

and were more interested in their group members, they were less task-oriented than the students of

teacher-assigned groupings. This is highly significant given that any moment in learning

environments which is spent off-task influences the quality of learning (Baker, Corbett, Koedinger

& Wagner, 2004; Goodman, 1990; Karweit & Slavin 1981; Lee, Kelly & Nyre 1999; McKinney,

Mason, Perkerson & Clifford, 1975).

Q5. Disagreements are dealth with in

a proper manner in the group

Friends
10%
21% Professionalism
21% Productivity

17% Ease
7% Left Unanswered
24%
Disorder

Figure 5: Disagreements are dealt with in a proper manner in the group

16 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 14

out of 30 chose student selected group.

The graph above shows that, 24% of the respondents answered that

disagreements are dealt with a proper manner in the group in productivity, 17% of respondents

answered in professionalism, 10% in disorder, 7% in ease, both 21% on friends and left

unanswered. As Clark and Clark (2008, p. 106) put it, it is ‘the kind of behaviors and relationships

exhibited by the participants when working together to complete the task that
determines the quality of the learning process’. Askew (2000), in particular, regards equality,

sharing, collaboration and reciprocity as the key characteristics of high-quality dialogues, and

Storch (2002) categorizes such behavior as a collaborative relationship.

Q6. Members give each other

feedback about the group's
performance

11%
Friends

54% Productivity
35%
Left Unanswered

Figure 6: Members give each other feedback about the groups

5 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 25

out of 30 chose student selected group.

The graph shows that, 54% of the respondents answered members give each

other feedback about the group’s performance in friends, 35% of the respondents answered

productivity in feedback about groups performance, and lastly 11% of the respondents left

unanswered. 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).

Q7. You feel like you could trust the

members of your group

18% Friends

7% Skill

11% Productivity
64%
Left Unanswered

Figure 7: You feel like you could trust the members of your group

3 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 27

out of 30 chose student selected group.

As the graph indicates, 64% of the respondents answered that they could trust

the members of their group in friends,11% of the respondents answered they could trust the

members of their group in skills, 7% in productivity and, lastly 18% of the respondents left
unanswered. 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

Q8. You feel the sense of

belongingness in the group

11%
7% Friends
Familiarity
Left Unanswered
82%

Figure 8: You feel the sense of belongingness in the group

2 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 28

out of 30 chose student selected group.

As the graph shows, 82% of the respondents answered that they feel belongingness in their group

of friends, 7% in familiarity and, lastly 11% of the respondents left the question unanswered.

Q9. The Members of the group count

on each other for encouragement
and support

24% Friends

4% Grades

72% Left Unanswered

Figure 9: The members of the group count on each other for encouragement and support.

1 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 29

out of 30 chose student selected group.

As can be seen in the graph, 72% of the respondents answered that members

of the group count on each other for encouragement and support in friends, 4% on grades and,

lastly 24% of the respondents left unanswered. 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

workgroup (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 thoughtful and considerate of each

other; prevent, resolve, and manage any interpersonal 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).

Q10. What problems have you had

interacting as a group?

Incompetence
18% 14%
None
11% Disorder

25% 11% Non-Cooperation

Communication
21%
Left Unanswered

Figure 10: What problems have you interacting as a group?

15 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 15

out of 30 chose student selected group.

As the graph shows, 25% of the respondents answered communication, 21% in non-cooperation,

14% in incompetence, both 11% on none and disorder, lastly 18% of the respondents left

unanswered.

Q11. Do you mind owing other's

favors?

29% Friends
No
53% Diversity
4%
14% Left Unanswered

Figure 11: Do you mind owing others favors?

5 out of 30 respondents chose teacher selected group while the remaining 25

out of 30 chose student selected group.

As the graph indicates, 53% of the respondents answered owing others favors

in friends, 14% answered no, 4% on diversity, and lastly 29% of respondents left unanswered.
 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

Conclusion

In finding the perceptions between teacher-selected groups and student-selected groups

of Grades 11 and 12 HUMSS students, the researchers found out that student selected groups

were the most preferred group from their entire population. From the first question, the highest

percentage of reasons that the findings showed were related to friendship, always toppling with

at least 20% of the entire group of answers it was answered to, it also correlated to students-

selected groups, which were answered percentage from said questions. While question no. 5,

friendship, a top scorer from all reasoning, got a similar percentage with another, 23% of the

answered reasons by friendship another 23% by productivity.

Recommendation

Purposive convenience sampling was used in the present study to select the respondents,

thus the results gathered could only give an idea of their perceptions about group selection

methods and its dynamics, making it open for other interpretations. It is recommended to use

quota sampling, and expand the target respondent to 40% of the population of the whole senior

high school students, instead of 30 respondents that will represent a higher number of the

population that will help the study have more reliable data and conclusion. It is also

recommended to revise the survey questions wherein it will gather more in-depth data from the

respondents.
 REFERENCES

Sakti, A. (2015). THE IMPACT OF GROUP FORMATION METHOD (STUDENT-

SELECTED VS. TEACHER-ASSIGNED) ON GROUP DYNAMICS AND

OUTCOME.

Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on

collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21 (4).

Lilly, F., Relly, R., Bramwell, G. (2004) Friendship and choosing groupmates: Preferences for

teacher-selected versus student-selected groupings

Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260126003

Mozaffari, H., & Hassaskhah, J. (2015). The Impact of Group Formation Method (Student-

selected vs. Teacher-assigned) on Group Dynamics and Group Outcome in EFL Creative

Writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6.

Henry, T. R. (n.d.) Creating effective student groups: an introduction to groupformation.org.

Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2445196.2445387

Hilton, S., & Philips , F. (n.d.) Instructor-Assigned and Student-Selected Groups: A View from

Inside. Retrieved from https://www.aaajournals.org/doi/abs/10.2308/iace.2010.25.1.15