The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assigning Students in Group Work Projects. Can We Do Better than Random?
Open accessAbstract
Group work projects are increasingly used in higher education, but there is little guidance on how best to allocate students to groups. If groups can be engineered to contain compatible people, then the process of group work may be easier and more productive. The Honey and Mumford learning styles questionnaire provides a quick and easy way in which students might be classified into purportedly complementary categories. This paper discusses a comparison of the performance of student groups formed randomly, with those formed using the learning styles questionnaire. We found no significant differences in the performances of these two sets of groups, and we discuss some possible reasons for this.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Research identifies three main methods of student group formation: self-selection, random assignment, and intentional grouping (Huxham & Land, 2000).”
From Intentional Grouping: Impacts on Cognitive and Social Presence in a Hybrid Classroom (2025) · cites this paper as Huxham & Land, 2000
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Katzenbach, J and Smith, D (1993) The Wisdom of Teams. Creating the High Performance Organisation, McGraw Hill, New York.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Intentional Grouping: Impacts on Cognitive and Social Presence in a Hybrid Classroom
Scheidler, B., Layne, K., Gillard, M., & Doucet, B. M. (2025) · Journal of Occupational Therapy Education · doi:10.26681/jote.2025.090210
Metadata
- Authors
- Huxham, M., & Land, R.
- Venue
- Innovations in Education and Training International
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-22
- ISSN
- 1355-8005 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8420
- OpenAlex
- W2076354890
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Innovations in Education and Training International (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion)
- Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
- Keywords
- group work, student grouping, group composition, learning styles, random assignment, group performance, university teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
