↓ Skip to main content

What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10459-016-9680-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. B. Channon, R. C. Davis, N. T. Goode, S. A. May

Abstract

Group work forms the foundation for much of student learning within higher education, and has many educational, social and professional benefits. This study aimed to explore the determinants of success or failure for undergraduate student teams and to define a 'good group' through considering three aspects of group success: the task, the individuals, and the team. We employed a mixed methodology, combining demographic data with qualitative observations and task and peer evaluation scores. We determined associations between group dynamic and behaviour, demographic composition, member personalities and attitudes towards one another, and task success. We also employed a cluster analysis to create a model outlining the attributes of a good small group learning team in veterinary education. This model highlights that student groups differ in measures of their effectiveness as teams, independent of their task performance. On the basis of this, we suggest that groups who achieve high marks in tasks cannot be assumed to have acquired team working skills, and therefore if these are important as a learning outcome, they must be assessed directly alongside the task output.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 151 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Master 19 13%
Lecturer 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Professor 10 7%
Other 39 26%
Unknown 41 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 23 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 10 7%
Psychology 10 7%
Other 41 27%
Unknown 43 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,162,580
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#314
of 852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,607
of 300,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.