29
http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v18n2.53364
Exploring University Teacher Perceptions
About Out-of-Class Teamwork
Explorando las percepciones de profesores universitarios
acerca del trabajo en equipo fuera de clase
Elizabeth Ruiz-Esparza Barajas*
Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Mexico
Cecilia Araceli Medrano Vela**
Universidad de Juárez del Estado de Durango, Durango, Mexico
Jesús Helbert Karim Zepeda Huerta***
Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Tepic, Mexico
This study reports on the first stage of a larger joint research project undertaken by five universities in
Mexico to explore university teachers’ thinking about out-of-class teamwork. Data from interviews were
analyzed using open and axial coding. Although results suggest a positive perception towards teamwork,
the study unveiled important negative opinions. These opinions suggest the lack of success in promoting
deep learning and in developing students’ socio-cognitive abilities. Findings were used to develop a survey
to be applied to more teachers to gain a broader perspective and to corroborate results.
Key words: Higher education, out-of-class teamwork, teacher educators, teacher perceptions.
Este estudio reporta la primera etapa de una investigación en conjunto con cinco universidades mexicanas,
en donde se explora el pensamiento de profesores universitarios acerca del trabajo en equipo fuera
de clase. Los datos recolectados a través de entrevistas fueron analizados utilizando la codificación
abierta y axial. Aunque los resultados sugieren una percepción positiva hacia el trabajo en equipo, el
estudio reveló opiniones negativas importantes. Estas opiniones sugieren la falta de éxito en promover
el aprendizaje profundo y en desarrollar las habilidades socio-cognitivas en los alumnos. Los hallazgos
se utilizaron para elaborar una encuesta a aplicarse a más profesores para obtener una perspectiva más
amplia y comprobar resultados.
Palabras clave: enseñanza superior, formadores de docentes, percepciones de profesores, trabajo en
equipo fuera de clase.
* E-mail: elruiz@guaymas.uson.mx
** E-mail: cecymedrano@ujed.mx
*** E-mail: jesushzepedah@uan.edu.mx
How to cite this article (apa, 6th ed.): Ruiz-Esparza Barajas, E., Medrano Vela, C. A., & Zepeda Huerta, J. H. K. (2016). Exploring univer-
sity teacher perceptions about out-of-class teamwork. profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(2), 29-45. http://dx.doi.
org/10.15446/profile.v18n2.53364.
This article was received on October 1, 2015, and accepted on March 28, 2016.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License. Consultation is possible at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
PROFILE Vol. 18, No. 2, July-December 2016. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 29-45
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras30
Ruiz-Esparza Barajas, Medrano Vela, & Zepeda Huerta
Introduction
The use of group work as a learning strategy may be
recently gaining importance in the Mexican university
learning context due to the emerging global challenges
of the work environment where the ability to work on a
team has been regarded as a valuable asset (Kremer &
McGuiness, 1998; Portillo Mares, 2011). Authorities of
Mexican universities preparing individuals for the work
environment also agree on the benefits of teamwork,
such as the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (uam),
which states on its webpage that teamwork should be
used as a pedagogic technique for student centered
learning (uam, 2013).
Mexican education at all levels has traditionally been
lecture-centered. Students sitting in lockstep listen to the
teacher or work on their own (Stein, 2004). It is not only
students who are used to a lecture-centered classroom
environment, but also teachers who are used to being
the center of attention (Smith & MacGregor, 1992; Stein,
2004). Teamwork, as a relatively new pedagogic approach
in higher education in Mexico, presents a challenge
by confronting expectations of the classroom working
environment (Borg, 2006). A colorful kaleidoscope of
perceptions, expectations, beliefs, and methods when
using teamwork is expected to be found among teachers
within the country. Teamwork “used both in and out
of class” (Davis, 1999, p. 1) may be used for short tasks
within a class period or for longer projects during the
entire school term.
Ten researchers from five public Mexican universities
became interested in exploring teachers’ and students’
perceptions on out-of-class group work. The voice of
teachers from the universities of Sonora (unison),
Durango (ujed), Nayarit (uan), Colima (ucol), and
Guerrero (uagro) are here presented as the results of
the first phase of a larger study. The aim of the study
is to delve into the factors influencing the use of this
pedagogic strategy within Mexican undergraduate
foreign languages or language teaching programs.
Researchers who are members of the recale (Foreign
Languages and Academic Bodies Network, for its initials
in Spanish) collaborated in the design and collection of
data from faculty and students at their home university.
The views of ten teachers, two from each university,
were explored and used to design a questionnaire which
will be administered to all of the teachers of the above
mentioned programs.
Since there appears to be no consensus in the
literature about a clear division among the terms group
work, teamwork, and collaborative learning, they may
be used indistinctly in the present paper to refer to three
or more students working together “mutually searching
for understanding, solutions, or meanings, or creating
a product” (Smith & MacGregor, 1992, p. 10).
From Traditional Teaching
to Group Work
From its origins, learning has been an instinctive
and natural social process in which individuals learn
from each other starting with their very early days (Race,
2014). Modern pedagogies, such as socio-constructivism,
emphasize the implementation of teamwork as conducive
to learning (Blatchford, Kutnick, Baines, & Galton,
2003). According to Race and Pickford (2007), more
learning happens when students work in small groups,
rather than listening to lectures. Moreover, they claim
that learning can be enhanced when “students interact
simultaneously with each other, and learn from each
other” (p. 32) in out-of-class small group meetings by
discussing and exchanging ideas.
The view of a group of students working together
in the classroom to achieve a common task or learning
objective is gradually becoming more frequent around
the world as this paradigm gradually pervades former
lockstep environments in higher education (Lillo
Zúñiga, 2013; López Hurtado & Viáfara González,
2007). However, the inclusion of a new teaching-
learning strategy involves more than just organizing
students into groups to work together (Lillo Zúñiga,
2013; Portillo Mares, 2011). Teachers are perceived more
31
Exploring University Teacher Perceptions About Out-of-Class Teamwork
as organizers or facilitators of learning experiences,
while students are seen as active agents interacting with
the course content (Zárate & Moiraghi de Pérez, 2004).
Teachers who prepare group work activities no longer
perceive of themselves as know-it-all experts delivering
their wisdom, but as expert promoters or “designers of
intellectual experiences” (Smith & MacGregor, 1992,
p. 10) for their students.
Benefits of Group Work
Group work has been reported to increase student
active participation and enhance learning outcomes
(Davis, 1999). The development of the highly valued
transferable skills such as oral communication and
the ability to solve problems has also been observed in
small groups. Developing the ability to listen to others’
ideas thoughtfully and analytically and build on others’
work can only be done when working with others (Race,
2014). For the language classroom the use of group work
increases each student’s opportunity to use the target
language (Long & Porter, 1985).
Despite benefits and advantages, misinterpretation of
what group work entails and assuming that all individuals
will naturally work in groups without problems or
misunderstandings may yield a number of undesired
outcomes. The challenge of out-of-class group work may
be enhanced by the absence of a figure of authority to
monitor the groups’ activity. However, Fiechtner and
Davis (1984) suggest that those groups that work in
class and out-of-class create a more cohesive group,
enhancing the learning experience through group work.
Problems Acknowledged
in the Literature
Motivation to work in a group is considered to be a
severe obstacle when setting group work tasks (Kerr &
Bruun; Morgan; as cited in Davies, 2009). Uncommitted
group members may influence the whole group effort
and dynamic when committed group members reduce
their own efforts upon perceiving they are doing all of
the work. One of the common problems observed by
both teachers and learners is the free rider, who seeks
to take advantage of the work of others while reaping
the benefits (Davies, 2009; Davis, 1999; McGraw &
Tidwell, 2001; Medrano Vela & Delgado Alvarado,
2013; Quinn, 2012). Students’ reaction to free riders
may result in the sucker effect (Kerr as cited in Davies,
2009), which makes another group member become a
free rider too. Large groups may promote the number
of free riders, the sucker effect, or social loafing. A
group member who does not feel part of the group may
become a social loafer. Social loafing is characterized
by a reduction of effort when forming part of the group
in which members do not feel committed to the group
(Davies, 2009).
Another common undesired outcome could be that
students divide the work to be done into equal parts, later
collected by the group member responsible for putting
all the parts together and turning in the completed work.
Though apparently every student would be working
and doing his or her part, there is no discussion or
interaction among group members (Medrano Vela &
Delgado Alvarado, 2013; Oakley, Brent, Felder, & Elhajj,
2004), being unaware of the actual contents of the rest
of the final product. Other problems faced by group
members are type and quality of communication among
group members, difficulty in attending out-of-class
meetings, different perceptions on ethics and on the
way the work should be approached, having different
grade expectations and clear leadership among group
members (McGraw & Tidwell, 2001).
A disadvantage observed specifically in language
classroom group work may be that students with a
higher command of the language, either written or oral,
do most of the work (Davies, 2009). It is not only that a
teacher may well perceive that the written paper or the
oral presentation does not reflect the language ability of
weaker students, the problem goes beyond that. Language
level heterogeneity among group members may result
in stronger students doing all the work without much
PROFILE Vol. 18, No. 2, July-December 2016. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 29-45
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras32
Ruiz-Esparza Barajas, Medrano Vela, & Zepeda Huerta
participation from weaker students, depriving both
strong and weak students from the benefit of discussion
and ideas exchange.
Grouping Students
The way groups are conformed is another aspect
which may influence interaction among participants,
thus affecting the group’s outcome. Although teachers
may think that students prefer selecting their group
members, a study involving 155 students revealed that
only one out of two participants reported having a good
group experience in this situation (Fiechtner & Davis,
1984). The authors concluded that their worst experience
in group work was with self-selected members, rather
than with teacher-selected group members. Race (2014)
claims that allowing students to decide who to work
with could bring the advantage of members having a
sense of belonging, though there is the risk of some
students left without a group.
While some authors favor a teacher decision on
group formation, though carefully planned (Blatchford
et al., 2003; Hassanien, 2006; Johnson & Johnson,
1999; Parmelee & Michaelsen, 2010), others consider
that some students may feel uncomfortable with the
decision, and they should be allowed to change groups
(Oakley et al., 2004; Zárate & Moiraghi de Pérez, 2004).
Self-selected groups are reported to “have a higher
propensity for cheating” (Oakley et al., 2004, p. 11) or
to cover for one another, as illustrated in a recent study
in México (Medrano Vela & Delgado Alvarado, 2013)
where high achievers complained about working with
free riders during the whole semester due to pre-existing
relationships. High achievers felt relieved when final
project group members were teacher-selected (Medrano
Vela & Delgado Alvarado, 2013).
Developing Group Work Skills
Undesired experiences and a sense of unworthiness
may be avoided if sufficient attention is given to
understanding the benefits and expectations of group
work (Hassanien, 2006; McGraw & Tidwell, 2001)
by all those involved. Oakley et al. (2004) claim that
the management and interpersonal skills required to
effectively participate in teamwork are not innate in
students nor are they in teachers. Becoming effective
group members who aim at effectively contributing and
cooperating in the group’s task achievement requires
conscious effort on behalf of both the participants and
the teachers. Students need to be helped in understanding
the importance that being able to work in groups may
have in their professional life (Oakley et al., 2004).
However, working in groups requires the development
or enhancement of the necessary skills. Oakley et al.
add that students should be gradually introduced to
group work participation and its characteristics. Ground
rules established at the beginning of the task and clear
establishment of roles, responsibilities, consequences,
and expectations may be crucial for successful group
work. Although participants should be able to take
over the group’s dynamics, the teacher may intervene
when necessary.
The teachers’ role is to provide appropriate scaffolding
which will lead students to perceive the need to exchange
ideas and discuss their points of view in route to building
their own understandings and contribute to the groups’
task (Lillo Zúñiga, 2013). Undeniably, it is the teacher’s
task to guide students who, upon arrival at university,
may lack the required skills for being effective group
members (Davies, 2009; Dolmans, Wolfhagen, van der
Vleuten, & Wijnen, 2001; Hassanien, 2006; Smith &
MacGregor, 1992).
Previous Experiences
and Group Work
It should not be expected for someone to be able to
appropriately guide students on effective group work
approaches when previous learning experiences have
not included this approach to learning and teaching
(Borg, 2006). Implementing group work requires more
than changing the seating arrangement (Portillo Mares,
33
Exploring University Teacher Perceptions About Out-of-Class Teamwork
2011; Quinn, 2012; Stein, 2004). Research literature has
highlighted the importance of teachers’ perceptions and
beliefs which filter every interpretation of their work
(Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Prieto Navarro, 2007; Woods
& Çakir, 2011). Teachers who have only experienced a
traditional approach to teaching will be guided by this
principle in the classroom unless deep seated beliefs are
challenged and modified, resulting in the adoption of
new teaching practices (Borg, 2006). Only when existing
beliefs based on previous experiences are challenged
can these previous perceptions be reconsidered and
modified (Hayes, 1995).
A review of the literature reveals that most
studies regarding the implementation of group work,
interactions, and teachers’ and students’ beliefs have
mostly taken place in North America and Europe with
few studies conducted in Ibero-America where Mexico
is located. An example is a research project conducted
in 2004 and 2005 where López Hurtado and Viáfara
González (2007) look into the implementation of a
cooperative learning approach in the public school
context in Colombia. The ability to work on teams is one
of the generic competences many Mexican universities
seek to help students develop. The researchers from
the five universities involved in this research project
considered that, in order to plan the development of
this competence, it was first necessary to find out the
beliefs regarding group work of those involved in its
implementation: teachers and students.
Description of the Study
Aim
As stated above, the aim of this study was to explore
university teacher perceptions of the ba in English
language teaching (elt) or similar programs at the five
universities previously described about out-of-class
teamwork. Specifically, the study sought to find out
teachers’ opinions of teamwork in relation to learning
and whether these teachers assigned students activities
to be carried out in teams and out-of-class. The study
also aimed to discover whether the teachers organize
this type of work and the ways in which they carry out
this organization.
Research Design
This is the first phase of a larger mixed-mode
research project which seeks to find out the teachers’ and
students’ perceptions about out-of-class teamwork and
whether problems are common in five state universities
in Mexico in the Bachelors in the elt program or
similar programs with the purpose of finding solutions.
Therefore, this study will collect qualitative data from
a small sample of teachers from the five universities to
find out these perceptions. The information from the
data will serve to develop a questionnaire to be applied
to the rest of the teachers and students to compare
the results. Therefore, the present study is one of the
most relevant parts of the whole research since it is
foundational to the development of the instruments
to be applied in future stages of the research to all of
the teachers and students of the mentioned programs
in participating universities.
In exploring teacher thinking, the current paper is
qualitative in nature and consistent with Denzin and
Lincoln’s (1994) description of the nature of qualitative
inquiry by exploring and “understanding phenomena
from the point of view of the participants” (p. 2). The
instrument was a semi-structured interview which
provided uniformity and flexibility by guiding the
interviewing process with the questions but at the
same time giving researchers freedom to delve into
interesting aspects and issues of responses. There were
seven questions in the interview which was carried out in
Spanish, the participants’ mother tongue (see Appendix
a for the English version of the interview). The purpose
of the first question was to find out teachers’ opinion
about teamwork in general while the second question
intended to uncover whether teachers used out-of-class
teamwork and the type of work they assigned. The
PROFILE Vol. 18, No. 2, July-December 2016. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 29-45
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras34
Ruiz-Esparza Barajas, Medrano Vela, & Zepeda Huerta
third question investigated whether this collaboration
was of common use while the fourth question tried to
detect the way teachers organized teamwork. The fifth
and sixth questions sought to discover the advantages
and disadvantages teachers perceived about out-of-
class teamwork while the last question asked for their
perception about what students thought about this topic.
Participants
The participants were a small group of ten teachers
belonging to the five universities. One full-time teacher
and one part-time teacher from each university were
interviewed to collect data from the two types of teachers
who work at these five state universities.
Data Collection
One researcher in each university got in touch with
the teachers, briefly explaining the research and asking
for their collaboration. A consent form was signed by
those willing to participate, allowing for the interview
to be audio recorded. Five of the researchers and the
ten teachers agreed on the time and place for the
interview to take place, which lasted approximately an
hour. Recordings were later transcribed. Confidentiality
is guaranteed by referring to participant teachers as
Teacher 1 (t1), Teacher 2 (t2), and so on.
Data Analysis
A data-driven approach was used to create a
framework for analyzing all the information provided
by teachers. LeCompte and Goetz (1982) state that
“creating categories for coding is the first step of analysis”
(p. 39) in qualitative research. Therefore, open and
axial coding was carried out first to allow the themes
to emerge from the data following the suggestions for
data reduction made in Creswell (1998) and LeCompte
and Goetz. Open coding was conducted by half of the
researchers. This consisted of reading the ten teachers’
transcripts several times and writing down all the themes
they talked about in order to discover, compare, and
contrast the emerging themes. Axial coding was then
conducted. Themes similar in meaning were grouped
to form broader themes. Data were read again by
these researchers and themes and subthemes were
compared, contrasted, discussed, and agreed upon by
the researchers. Then, transcriptions and the open and
axial coding were sent to the rest of the researchers
to be examined for corroboration, thus conducting a
member check which is getting interpretations revised
by colleagues as suggested by LeComte and Goetz. The
seven broad themes and 14 subthemes that emerged
from the data can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Themes and Subthemes of Teachers’
Perceptions About Teamwork
Theme Subtheme
1. Opinions
a) Positive
b) Negative
2. Assignment Types
a) Class delivered
b) Oral production
c) Virtual
3. Frequency Factors
4. Organizational Processes
5. Advantages
a) Learning
b) Abilities
c) Motivation
6. Problems
a) Organization
b) Training
c) Assessing
7. Perceptions of Students’
Opinions
a) Positive
b) Negative
c) Neutral
d) Group dependent
Results and Discussion
Opinions
Teachers’ perceptions about teamwork were positive
and negative. With regard to the positive perceptions,
Teacher 1 expressed that what an individual student can
do is not comparable in quality to what three can do and
35
Exploring University Teacher Perceptions About Out-of-Class Teamwork
also that teamwork sums ideas, opinions, experiences,
and knowledge. This teacher’s comment reflects what
students reported in Hassanien’s (2006) study where the
exchange of ideas was perceived as a valuable experience.
A very interesting argument was posed by Teacher 7, who
at first said that the importance of teamwork depended
on the theories of learning that teachers support. He
explains that if a teacher conceives learning as a social
process as in socio-constructivism, then the teacher will
logically devise activities to have teamwork. Teacher 7
adds that students need to develop teamwork abilities
for the workplace, as stated by Kremer and McGuiness
(1998), Portillo Mares (2011), and Race (2014). He further
states that teamwork “is fundamental” regardless of
theories of learning because nevertheless, teachers should
prepare students for the labor market where they will
need to work as teams. There were three other teachers
who mentioned the importance of the development
of group work skills for the workplace. Two full time
teachers (t1 and t5) commented that group work is a
process, acknowledging working on teams is not a natural
ability that needs to be developed, as stated above by
Davies (2009), Lillo Zúñiga (2013), López Hurtado and
Viáfara González (2007). Teachers’ statements as a whole
suggested that the reasons for the positive opinions about
teamwork are related to quality of work (t1), theories of
learning (t7), and students’ future employment needs.
Teacher 8 mentioned that it was through group work
that cooperation skills and empathy towards others was
developed, as claimed by Smith and MacGregor (1992).
On the other hand, there were some negative
opinions expressed by three teachers. Teacher 8 considers
teamwork could be effective and enriching, elaborating
on the use of the word “could” because it doesn’t
necessarily occur due to interior group dynamics.
Teacher 9 adds that when real teamwork is carried
out, it is good, but that the students do not really know
how to work on teams. These two comments reinforce
the acknowledgement that working in groups requires
special abilities and skills which may not be innate in all
individuals. These statements unveil teacher awareness
of problems in teamwork but they perceive that the
problems are on the students’ side, disregarding the
teachers’ role in the development of these skills. Two
teachers (t1 and t2) commented that students did not feel
comfortable when working in groups. This comment may
reveal students’ previous negative experiences during
group work; arguably, developing group work skills
could modify those feelings. It is noteworthy that, as a
whole, teachers’ opinions about teamwork are positive.
Assignment Type
Assignment types were very varied and were
classified as class delivered, oral production, and virtual.
Examples of class delivered were planning microteaching,
actual microteaching, videos, and article summaries.
Examples of oral production were presentations,
application of theory in practice, phonetics, different
projects, exhibits and explanations of them. Finally,
examples of virtual assignments were online research
surveys and interviews. Teacher 4 explains that these last
two assignments belong to his Research Methodology
ii course where students have to learn to investigate in
preparation for their thesis work.
Frequency Factors
The frequency of teamwork assignments varied
from two teachers that preferred teamwork carried out
in class to two teachers who planned this type of work
after every unit and for each of the partials, as can be
observed next. Teacher 1 said that in the English class he
assigns teamwork after each unit while Teacher 3 states
that in practical courses it is easier to assign teamwork
of what was seen in class such as designing material for
elt. Teachers also said that the assignments depended on
the type of course (t3), topic, homework, and semester
of instruction as in Teacher 10’s comment in which he
said that he didn’t assign out-of-class teamwork to the
first semester students until they had more experience
carrying out teamwork.
PROFILE Vol. 18, No. 2, July-December 2016. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 29-45
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras36
Ruiz-Esparza Barajas, Medrano Vela, & Zepeda Huerta
Organizational Processes
As stated above, teachers perceived the organization
of out-of-class teamwork as a process. The way in which
teamwork is organized by teachers is varied, consisting
of a number of steps. For instance, Teacher 1 divides
the group depending on the number of students and
the course time. He assigns themes, asks for progress,
monitors, and carries out a final revision. Teacher 2
said that if he sees that the group is not integrated, he
makes changes in team members. This comment echoes
Oakley et al. (2004) and Zárate and Moiraghi de Pérez
(2004) above, when stating that there are times when
groups are experiencing difficulties and teachers need
to intervene. Teacher 3 adds that he assigns teamwork
at the beginning of the course presenting instructions,
things to include, places to search for the information,
the things to be evaluated, and the way students are
going to be evaluated.
Data above suggest that teachers are aware that
teacher intervention is important in organizing the
teams, monitoring, rearranging a group when neces-
sary, and providing clear expectations of the work to
be carried out.
One interesting issue that was unveiled and reported
by five teachers was concerning the ways in which
students are organized into groups. While most literature
suggests groups should be teacher-selected (Davis, 1999;
Fiechtner & Davis, 1984), Teachers 6 and 7 expressed
that they let students organize themselves while Teacher
4 said that it was teacher led. In addition, Teachers 3
and 8 commented that they carried out both types of
organization (Fiechtner & Davis, 1984). Finally, Teacher
10 expressed a surprising statement by saying that to
avoid only one or two students working, he does not
organize out-of-class teamwork anymore, only in-class.
This teacher is aware of the common problems taking
place in group work, such as the free rider, the sucker
effect (Davies, 2009), or the division of work without any
discussion among team members (Davis, 1999; Medrano
Vela & Delgado Alvarado, 2013; Oakley et al., 2004).
This statement, in addition to some of the statements
issued for frequency factors in which teachers preferred to
control teamwork in class, suggests problems. Although
most of the teachers stated positive opinions of this
type of work, at a later stage of the interview negative
perceptions started to arise. This point will be discussed
in the Problems section of this paper.
Advantages
The three main advantages perceived by teachers
are related to learning, abilities, and motivation. All the
teachers agreed that by sharing knowledge and discussing
ideas with their peers, student learning is enhanced.
Examples of this interpretation are given as follows:
Teacher 9 said that learning is standardized because
the less knowledgeable students learn from the ones
that know more since the knowledgeable students push
the less knowledgeable ones to reach a higher standard
to complete the assignment. Teacher 7 stated that by
collaborating with each other, students reach a deeper,
meaningful, and permanent level of learning (Davis,
1999). Teacher 7 explained that students share ideas and
argue what should the assignment include and later the
content to be included is revised and agreed upon among
them. Teacher 10 added that it helps students to get used
to problems and allows for strategy development to solve
interpersonal conflicts (Oakley et al., 2004). Therefore,
at the same time that students are involved in deep
learning (Entwistle & Waterston as cited in Davies, 2009),
they develop cognitive and social abilities (Kremer &
McGuiness, 1998; Lillo Zúñiga, 2013). Finally, regarding
motivation, Teacher 2 expressed that the synergy, force,
and energy that the team creates is higher than the
one an individual would produce, boosting students’
motivation. Participants perceived many advantages in
the use of group work as a learning strategy.
Problems
Teachers specified that the problems perceived
in out-of-class teamwork were mostly related to
37
Exploring University Teacher Perceptions About Out-of-Class Teamwork
organization, training, and assessing. For the first
subtheme, organization, Teachers 6 and 7 said that
sometimes teachers cannot afford the amount of extra
work and effort the organization of teamwork requires.
Teacher 7 stated that teachers need to invest time to
convince people, train them, and follow up on their
teamwork. The wording used by Teacher 7 is interesting
since he has to “convince” students which could suggest
that students are not willing to participate. This comment
is consistent with comments above which state that
students need guidance and training when working
on teams and teachers need to have the time to do it.
Another problem mentioned was the selection of group
members, which was regarded as “problematic” by
Teacher 2 since he said that teacher selection functions
partially and student selection functions better.
In relation to the problems of the subtheme, training,
each of the ten teachers emphasized the need for
training students. As Teacher 3 clearly explained, there
are students that do not know how to work on teams,
however, their individual work is quite good. Later,
Teacher 3 added that it would be good to train them so
that they really work on teams. Eight teachers agreed
that all the work is carried out by only some of the team
members and there are ones that do not work but get
the credit. Clearly free riding is a common problem.
Lack of student commitment, difficulties in getting
together, conflict among them, incorrect planning, and
work distribution were also mentioned by participants
as sources of conflict. All these difficulties experienced
by team members reflect a lack of understanding of
what group work really entails. Development of the
abovementioned transferable skills may help them
overcome these negative experiences and learn to
interact with others despite the difficulties encountered.
One quite worrisome issue was that only Teacher
2 stated the need for training teachers to implement
teamwork. This finding suggests that the majority of the
teachers perceive that they do not need any training and
that it is the students who should be trained. Teacher 7
stated that he never imposes on the organization of the
team members while Teacher 3 states that sometimes
there are students that he knows will do the work of their
friends. In addition, Teacher 8 gives the assignment in
written form to make sure students understand the task
and only “sometimes” organizes the groups. This reveals a
lack of awareness of the teachers’ role in helping students
develop group work values and skills. Teachers are to
provide appropriate guidance; however, for such guidance
to be delivered, teachers themselves need to develop the
skills to become effective group work developers.
Concerning the subtheme of assessing, Teacher 5
argued that the team is evaluated and not the ones who
worked. This comment suggests the awareness of the
presence of free riders or social loafing. Teacher 10 added
that if peer evaluation is carried out, students cover for
each other, assigning maximum marks regardless of their
awareness of work imbalance within the team. Although
the teacher does not mention whether this was a team
where the students selected their group members, it
is clear that there is either friendship or peer pressure
among team members to cover for each other. Although
Teacher 10’s comments reveal knowledge about modern
pedagogies in favor of teamwork promotion, he refused
to assign out-of-class teamwork because he couldn’t be
sure whether all of the group members worked.
Perceptions of Students’ Opinions
Teachers had a variety of comments about students’
thinking in relation to out-of-class teamwork. Positive
assumptions were voiced only by Teacher 5, who stated
that when students become aware that they are actually
learning they get engaged and even enjoy looking at
other teams’ work. In contrast, two participants said
their students thought teamwork undermines their
individual effort (t1, t9) and another two mentioned
they disliked it due to difficulties in getting together
(t5, t7). Other perceptions against teamwork were
related to time consumption (t5, t9) and problems on
agreeing on what is to be done (t2).
PROFILE Vol. 18, No. 2, July-December 2016. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 29-45
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras38
Ruiz-Esparza Barajas, Medrano Vela, & Zepeda Huerta
Neutral views were in terms of students being
indifferent to teamwork (t4) and unawareness of their
students’ perceptions about working on teams (t8, t10).
Finally, under the group dependent subtheme, success
in group work was subject to how members got along
with each other (t3, t8). Negative views referred to
the teachers’ perceptions regarding the students’ lack
of awareness of the importance of teamwork for the
development of the transferable skills, abilities, and
values which are likely to be important in their future
professional life. For instance, the abilities are to carry
out a professional project in the workplace together
with other coworkers, being able to accept constructive
criticism, and arguing, negotiating, and sharing ideas
with others.
To summarize, the participants’ data were very
informative and rich in insights. At the beginning of
the interviews most teachers stated positive perceptions
about teamwork. Their comments disclosed awareness of
the theoretical aspects about modern theories of learning
and pedagogy which emphasize the implementation of
teamwork since the teachers were at ease discussing
the benefits associated with socio-constructivism and
collaborative learning, as should be recalled. Moreover,
a noteworthy issue was that teamwork was judged
“crucial” regardless of the theories of learning because
it was perceived as a skill students needed to acquire
for future employment. However, teachers were also
quite aware of the problems that teachers and students
face. They are related to organization, student training,
and assessing this type of work. As should be recalled,
among the sources for these problems were the difficulty
for students to meet, free riders due to differences in
commitment to the task assigned, and conflicts among
students who only like to work with their friends. All
of the teachers stated that students did not know how
to work as teams. However, it was not mentioned
who would be responsible for providing the training.
Currently, in the Mexican context, it is unlikely for
students to reach university already possessing the
skills to work as teams. Therefore, teachers need to be
prepared to develop these skills in the students.
Half of the participants said their students’ perception
towards teamwork was not positive. The most important
issue that arose from this study was the suggestion
that the benefits of collaborative learning and socio-
constructivism are not being reached. This is because
partial learning is being achieved instead of deep learning
since the lack of student commitment, conflict among
students, incorrect work distribution, and working only
with friends are not conducive to learning.
It should be recalled that the following step in the
research was to develop a survey using the teachers’
perceptions that were stated by them. Because of the
relevance of the findings, it was now considered crucial
by the researchers to continue investigating teachers’
thinking about out-of-class teamwork and to survey
all of the staff of the five universities to have a broader
perspective and to corroborate results.
Designing the Survey
The perceptions taken from the analysis of the
teachers’ data were foundational in designing the new
instrument. All of the teachers’ perceptions were listed
and then separated into single statements so that they
contained only one idea. To simplify the organization of
the survey, similar statements were grouped together in
sections. At the end, the survey contained five sections
and 43 statements. The final version of the survey can
be observed in Appendix b. It is important to mention
that the study was conducted in Spanish since this is the
mother tongue of nine of the teachers to be sampled.
The exception was a French teacher. The measurement
scale used for the five sections corresponded to a 6-point
positively-packed agreement rating-scale consisting of
two negative and four positive points, following Brown
(2004). Number 1 corresponded to strongly disagree and
6 to strongly agree.
The survey was then piloted with two teachers from
each participant university. Upon answering it, they
39
Exploring University Teacher Perceptions About Out-of-Class Teamwork
provided feedback on the content and the format. This
was discussed by five participant researchers and the
survey was edited. Modifications included statement
rewriting for clarity and changing an agreement scale for
a frequency one for the last section of this instrument,
that is, section e, items 33 to 43 (see Appendix b).
Once the survey was completed it was sent to
the other researchers for their comments. The survey
was perceived to be ready (see English version in
Appendix b).
Conclusion
The aim of the study was fulfilled since it was possible
to explore the thinking of a small number of university
teachers of the Bachelors in the elt program or similar
programs in five universities. Teachers’ initial comments
were positive, however, a contrasting point of view was
revealed when addressing practical issues regarding
implementation and follow-up of task assigned. Teachers
perceived group work was not being successful in
promoting deep learning and in developing the social
and cognitive abilities expected in students. This failure
was attributed to students’ lack of knowledge and ability
to work on teams. Student training in this respect was
perceived to be required unanimously.
Literature clearly states that it is the teachers’ task
to develop the skills to work on teams. However, it may
be expected that earlier education levels of instruction
should have developed these skills. The reality in the
Mexican university context is that many of our students
have not acquired the skills which would provide many
benefits during their student life and could empower
them upon joining the world of work. Therefore, it is
essential that teachers include in their courses strategies
to develop teamwork abilities and skills in their students.
In the event that training for students were to be
provided, teachers would also need to develop the
abilities to effectively plan, organize, monitor, and
evaluate teamwork that will enable them to cope with
the challenges which may still arise.
As the results of this study unveiled some serious
issues, the need to confirm the results is of great
importance. Therefore, the survey will collect the
perceptions of all of the full-time and part-time teachers
of the participating ba in English language teaching
program or similar programs, or at least of a greater
sample of teachers in the five different state universities.
References
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003).
Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2),
153-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education:
Research and practice. London, uk: Continuum.
Brown, G. T. (2004). Measuring attitude with a positively
packed self-report agreement rating scale. Psychological
Reports, 94(3), 1015-1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.94.3.1015-1024.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.
Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment:
Common problems and recommended solutions. Higher
Education, 58(4), 563-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-009-9216-y.
Davis, B. G. (1999). Cooperative learning: Students working
in small groups. Speaking of Teaching: Stanford University
Newsletter on Teaching, 10(2), 1-4.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). A handbook of
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.
Dolmans, D. H., Wolfhagen, I. H., van der Vleuten, C. P.,
& Wijnen, W. H. (2001). Solving problems with group
work in problem-based learning: Hold on to the phi-
losophy. Medical Education, 35(9), 884-889. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00915.x.
Fiechtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1984). Why some groups fail:
A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups.
Journal of Management Education, 9(4), 58-73. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/105256298400900409.
PROFILE Vol. 18, No. 2, July-December 2016. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 29-45
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras40
Ruiz-Esparza Barajas, Medrano Vela, & Zepeda Huerta
Hassanien, A. (2006). Student experience of group work
and group assessment in higher education. Journal of
Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 6(1), 17-39. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1300/J172v06n01_02.
Hayes, D. (1995). In-service teacher development: Some basic
principles. English Language Teaching Journal, 49(3),
252-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.3.252.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative
learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67-73. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834.
Kremer, J., & McGuiness, C. (1998). Cutting the cord:
Student-led discussion groups in higher education.
Education + Training, 40(2), 44-49. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/00400919810206848.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reli-
ability and validity in ethnographic research. Review
of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3102/00346543052001031.
Lillo Zúñiga, F. G. (2013). Aprendizaje colaborativo en la
formación universitaria de pregrado [Collaborative
learning in undergraduate university education]. Revista
de Psicología uvm, 2(4), 109-142.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage
talk, and second language acquisition. tesol Quarterly,
19(2), 207-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586827.
López Hurtado, M. E., & Viáfara González, J. J. (2007). Looking
at cooperative learning through the eyes of public schools
teachers participating in a teacher development program.
profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development,
8(1), 103-120.
McGraw, P., & Tidwell, A. (2001). Teaching group process
skills to mba students: A short workshop. Education
+ Training, 43(3), 162-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000005461.
Medrano Vela, C. A., & Delgado Alvarado, N. (2013). Chal-
lenging perspectives in dealing with the drawbacks of
group work. recale Journal, 1(2), 72-85.
Oakley, B., Brent, R., Felder, R.M., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning
student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student
Centered Learning, 2(1), 9-34.
Parmelee, D. X., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2010). Twelve tips for doing
effective team-based learning (tbl). Medical Teacher, 32(2),
118-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01421590903548562.
Portillo Mares, D. M. (2011, July 29). Trabajar en equipo desde
el aula [Teamwork from the classroom]. cnnexpan-
sion. Retrieved from http://www.cnnexpansion.com/
opinion/2011/07/28/trabajar-en-equipo-desde-el-aula.
Prieto Navarro, L. (2007). Autoeficacia del profesor univer-
sitario: eficacia percibida y práctica docente [Efficacy of
university professors: Perceived efficacy and teaching
practice]. Madrid, es: Narcea.
Quinn, T. (2012). g-r-o-u-p-w-o-r-k Doesn’t spell collabo-
ration. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(4), 46-48. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/003172171209400412.
Race, P. (2014). The lecturer’s toolkit: A practical guide to assess-
ment, learning and teaching. London, uk: Routledge.
Race, P., & Pickford, R. (2007). Making teaching work: ‘Teaching
smarter’ in post-compulsory education. London, uk: Sage.
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collabora-
tive learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L.
Smith, & J. T. MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning:
A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 11-30). University
Park, pa: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching,
Learning, and Assessment.
Stein, R. (2004). Mexican and u.s. schools: A world apart.
The Term Paper, 3(1), 4-5.
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. (2013). Técnicas
didácticas centradas en el alumno [Learner-centered
teaching techniques]. Retrieved from http://hadoc.azc.
uam.mx/tecnicas/aprendizaje.htm.
Woods, D., & Çakir, H. (2011). Two dimensions of teacher
knowledge: The case of communicative language teaching.
System, 39(3), 381-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2011.07.010.
Zárate, H. Z., & Moiraghi de Pérez, L. E. (2004). El grupo
en el aprendizaje: ventajas y desventajas de la técnica de
la dinámica de grupo [The learning group: Advantages
and disadvantages of the group dynamics technique].
Retrieved from http://www.unne.edu.ar/unnevieja/Web/
cyt/com2004/1-Sociales/S-039.pdf.
41
Exploring University Teacher Perceptions About Out-of-Class Teamwork
About the Authors
Elizabeth Ruiz-Esparza Barajas holds a Doctor of Applied Linguistics from Macquarie University at
Sydney and an ma in Education from the University of London. She is a full time professor and researcher
at the University of Sonora in Mexico. She has held different administrative positions. Her research interests
are teacher education and assessment.
Cecilia Araceli Medrano Vela has an ma in Educational Technology and elt from the University of
Manchester and is currently a phd student at the University of Southampton. She is a full time professor
and researcher at the University of Durango in Mexico. Her research interests are competence development
and assessment.
Jesús Helbert Karim Zepeda Huerta has an ma in Applied Linguistics from the Universidad Autónoma
de Nayarit where he teaches economics, technology, material design, and language teaching. He participated
in exchange programs for English language teacher education in the usa. He belongs to the educational poli-
cies, language, and tourism research group.
PROFILE Vol. 18, No. 2, July-December 2016. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 29-45
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras42
Ruiz-Esparza Barajas, Medrano Vela, & Zepeda Huerta
Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview for Teachers1
1. What is your opinion about teamwork?
2. What type of out-of-class teamwork assignments do you plan for students to carry out?
3. How often do you assign out-of-class teamwork?
4. How do you organize from your classroom out-of-class teamwork? What else do you do?
5. What advantages have you seen in out-of-class teamwork?
6. What are the main problems that you have encountered in out-of-class teamwork?
7. On a scale of 1 to 10, to what extent do your students like you to assign them out-of-class teamwork? Why?
1 The English translation of the interview was made for publication purposes since the original language was Spanish.
43
Exploring University Teacher Perceptions About Out-of-Class Teamwork
Appendix B: Out-of-Class Teamwork Research Project Survey2
Dear university teacher:
The purpose of the present research project is to look into university teacher perceptions about out-of-class teamwork.
Several teachers working at five Mexican state universities (unison, ucol, uan, ujed, and uagro) will be asked to
comment on this teaching strategy. We would appreciate your collaboration in answering the present survey if you
use out-of-class teamwork as part of your teaching practice. The group of researchers participating in this study
ensures you that no personal information will be revealed, and neither will individual opinions be disclosed.
Please select the option that best reflects your opinion according to each statement.
Item
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
agree
Moderately
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
a. Out-of-class teamwork: 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Encourages collaboration.
2. Encourages student
integration.
3. Promotes interaction.
4. Prepares students for a
professional life.
5. Is a process that takes time
for students to assimilate.
6. Develops social abilities.
7. Develops cognitive abilities
(e.g., critical thinking,
problem solution, strategies,
etc.)
8. Is more work for the teacher.
9. Ends with a team product.
10. Optimizes class time.
11. Socializes knowledge and
abilities among members.
12. Makes every student work.
13. Functions depending on
group attitude.
14. Must be carried out by
dividing work among group
members.
15. Depends on participants’
affinities.
16. Requires teacher follow-up.
2 The English translation for the survey was made for publication purposes since the original language is Spanish.
PROFILE Vol. 18, No. 2, July-December 2016. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 29-45
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras44
Ruiz-Esparza Barajas, Medrano Vela, & Zepeda Huerta
17. Reflects homogeneous
knowledge of group
members.
b. The teamwork assignment: 1 2 3 4 5 6
18. Is of better quality than
individual work.
19. Sums each team member’s
potential.
20. Reflects application of
theory into practice.
21. Impacts individual grades.
c. The frequency of teamwork
assignments depends on:
1 2 3 4 5 6
22. The topic.
23. The subject matter.
24. The course content
organization.
d. The students: 1 2 3 4 5 6
25. That work harder learn more.
26. Know how to work on teams.
27. Are equipped with socio-
cognitive skills (e.g., can
discuss experiences adding
new ideas and knowledge,
know how to argue, etc.).
28. Present better work in
groups than individually.
29. Work individually despite
being assigned to work in
teams.
30. Divide the work and then
put it together.
31. Re-group inside the team.
32. Tend to report that every
member worked although it
isn’t always true.
Never Seldom Sometimes Fairly often
Very
often
Always
e. I as a teacher: 1 2 3 4 5 6
33. Give instructions and
explain the expected work
well.
45
Exploring University Teacher Perceptions About Out-of-Class Teamwork
34. Give students practice in
class prior to the teamwork
that will be requested.
35. Organize the team (I decide
who the team members are).
36. Intervene if necessary and
make changes (e.g., I change
members on already made
teams).
37. Make sure work has been
done as teams (everybody
worked the same).
38. Use rubrics to mark/grade.
39. Explain all the elements I’m
going to mark when work is
assigned.
40. Ask for work that develops
research skills.
41. Ask students to prepare for
oral presentations on a topic
in class.
42. Request students to use
electronic media when
carrying out the assignments.
43. Request students to present
their teamwork using
electronic media (e.g.,
PowerPoint, Flash, web
pages, etc.).
Thank you for your time and collaboration! Please select or provide data:
Full-time teacher______, Hourly-based_________,
Academic degree(s) _________________________________________________________
Age between -25____, 26-35____, 36-45____, 46-55____, 56-65_____, more_____
Years of teaching experience (in general) ____________
Sex: Male____, Female ____
PROFILE Vol. 18, No. 2, July-December 2016. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 29-45