Pair and Group Work in TESOL/TEFL

TESOL/TEFL: Disadvantages in pair or group work

1) The openness and apparent relinquishment of ‘control’, which characterize constructivist situations that incorporate active and experiential learning in pairs or groups, introduce levels of complexity and challenge that the teacher needs to take seriously. ‘Student-focused’ does not imply that students dictate or exert authority in a way that undermines learning objectives.
2) Groups and pairs move the focus of attention. In a horseshoe arrangement or a circle, the trajectory of interaction is between teacher and individual students and between the teacher and the class. In pair and group work, the trajectory is between participants with the teacher as a monitor and commentator. Pairs and groups are therefore most suitable for situations following the presentation and written practice phases. They are less satisfactory for individualized activity.
3) Inappropriately constituted groups may reinforce undesirable power relations. While mixing stronger and weaker students has advantages, this can also lead to situations where strong students dominate and the weaker student is either subjugated or relieved of his/her responsibility for learning. Similarly, groups comprising only strong students and only weaker students may lead to obvious differences in competence and proficiency: accomplished learners could become bored and the less-accomplished embarrassed, sensitive and discouraged.
4) Linguistically and/or culturally homogenous groups may encourage the formation of factions and to practices, such as the use of the L1, that inhibit acquisition of the target language. Further, although teachers are not custodians of cultural heterogeneity, the electricity and ‘mind-expansion’ that can come about as a consequence of exposure to ‘the other’ would be diminished. Accordingly, the composition of pairs and groups should aim at creating a wide range of interactions over the period of tuition.
5) If group formation is static, undesirable alliances and allegiances may be entrenched. This could increase the potential for disruption and decrease opportunities for effective learning.
6) Groups and pairs may pose noise and discipline problems. Personally, I find it strange that noise and healthy, competitive interactions should be considered disruptive. Nevertheless, within a school this concern may arise. A reasonable measure of control is necessary.
7) Where groups are assigned, the potential for personal likes and dislikes can threaten the teacher’s authority and the class’s harmony. Both in South Africa and overseas, I have encountered racial, cultural, religious, ethic and personal prejudice. There is no place for these in any teaching environment (unless specifically mandated by the institution, for example, gender separation). In making up groups, the teacher needs to be firm and sensitive to undercurrents of tension. It would be foolhardy persistently to link incompatible personalities. Similarly, always endorsing personal feelings is unworkable and unethical.
8) Certain tasks (for example, individual reading, embedding new knowledge in written practice, quiet time for reflection and research) are clearly suited to work outside groups and pairs. Here groupings would be counter-productive.
9) Some individuals find group and pair work intrusive, particularly if they feel that the burden for completion or excellence is on them. Adjusting groupings and allowing for individual and collective learning should be part of the continuum of the individual lesson and of the course as a whole.
10) Without a clear purpose or objective, forming a group may be counterproductive. Groupings are particularly relevant to oral communication and to the productive stage. A group for its own sake is meaningless.
11) Pair and group work can make it difficult to monitor and assess individual performance. The teacher needs to ensure that individualized evaluative criteria are not jettisoned.
12) Where group activities require access to resources, measures to ensure that all members are equally capable of performing the assigned tasks are needed. For instance, assigning group work that requires digital connectivity when some members do not have access or only have limited access is awkward and unfair.