- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Share, rotate, split: The effects of group work role distributions on student outcomes

Jacob Feinleib, Matthew Dew, and N. G. Holmes*

  • Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

  • *Contact author: ngholmes@cornell.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010132 – Published 26 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/1n3c-v2fj

Abstract

Education literature recommends many different strategies for structuring student group work in labs. Many of these strategies, however, have not been sufficiently evaluated for their effects on student outcomes. One prior study suggested that sharing roles, rather than splitting roles, in lab groups can boost students’ physics interest and self-efficacy. Here, we expand upon this literature by evaluating the effects of a broader range of role distributions across several student outcomes in a large sample at two different institutions. We developed a survey item to probe the ways in which students distribute their roles in lab groups. The item asks for the percent of time in lab that students spent working together on lab roles (sharing), working alone on roles but rotating each session (rotating), and working alone in the same role throughout the semester (splitting). We employed hierarchical linear modeling to measure the effects of these role distributions on student critical thinking, self-efficacy, perceived agency, sense of belonging, and recognition based on survey items specific to physics lab contexts. We found that role distributions did not differentially impact student critical thinking. We also found that sharing roles tended to have a positive impact on student attitudes; splitting had a negative effect on attitudes; and rotating fell in between. Statistical significance varied across these attitudinal outcomes. Our findings invite further research and controlled studies to better understand the apparent benefits of sharing, rotating, and splitting roles in introductory physics labs.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (57)

  1. G. Geschwind, M. Alemani, M. F. Fox, P. Logman, E. Tufino, and H. Lewandowski, Development of a global landscape of undergraduate physics laboratory courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020117 (2024).
  2. K. N. Quinn, M. M. Kelley, K. L. McGill, E. M. Smith, Z. Whipps, and N. G. Holmes, Group roles in unstructured labs show inequitable gender divide, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010129 (2020).
  3. N. G. Holmes, G. Heath, K. Hubenig, S. Jeon, Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, and E. C. Sayre, Evaluating the role of student preference in physics lab group equity, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010106 (2022).
  4. M. Dew, E. Hunt, V. Perera, J. Perry, G. Ponti, and A. Loveridge, Group dynamics in inquiry-based labs: Gender inequities and the efficacy of partner agreements, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010121 (2024).
  5. M. Dew, E. M. Stump, and N. Holmes, Structuring groups for gender equitable equipment usage in labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010162 (2025).
  6. D. Doucette and C. Singh, Share it, don’t split it: Can equitable group work improve student outcomes?, Phys. Teach. 60, 166 (2022).
  7. S. V. Rosser, Group work in science, engineering, and mathematics: Consequences of ignoring gender and race, Coll. Teach. 46, 82 (1998).
  8. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992).
  9. Y. Chang and P. Brickman, When group work doesn’t work: Insights from students, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17, ar42 (2018).
  10. D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning, Educ. Res. 38, 365 (2009).
  11. D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, Theory Pract. 38, 67 (1999).
  12. D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, and K. A. Smith, Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works?, Change 30, 26 (1998).
  13. K. Tanner, L. S. Chatman, and D. Allen, Approaches to cell biology teaching: Cooperative learning in the science classroom—beyond students working in groups, Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 1 (2003).
  14. K. D. Tanner, Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity, Cell Biol. Educ. 12, 322 (2013).
  15. M. T. H. Chi and R. Wylie, The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes, Educ. Psychol. 49, 219 (2014).
  16. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Direct measurement of the impact of teaching experimentation in physics labs, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011029 (2020).
  17. L. B. Buck, S. L. Bretz, and M. H. Towns, Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 38, 52 (2008).
  18. N. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab, Phys. Teach. 57, 296 (2019).
  19. C. Walsh, K. N. Quinn, C. Wieman, and N. G. Holmes, Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the physics lab inventory of critical thinking, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010135 (2019).
  20. A. B. Heim, C. Walsh, D. Esparza, M. K. Smith, and N. G. Holmes, What influences students’ abilities to critically evaluate scientific investigations?, PLoS One 17, e0273337 (2022).
  21. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Stump, K. Hubenig, and N. G. Holmes, Restructuring physics labs to cultivate sense of student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020128 (2021).
  22. Z. Y. Kalender, M. M. Stein, and N. Holmes, Sense of agency, gender, and students’ perception in open-ended physics labs, presented at PER Conf. 2020, Virtual Conference, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Kalender.
  23. L. E. Kost-Smith. Characterizing, modeling, and addressing gender disparities in introductory college physics, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 2011.
  24. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Gendered patterns in the construction of physics identity from motivational factors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020119 (2019).
  25. A. Tapal, E. Oren, R. Dar, and B. Eitam, The sense of agency scale: A measure of consciously perceived control over one’s mind, body, and the immediate environment, Front. Psychol. 8 (2017).
  26. M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology, in The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by R. K. Sawyer and C. Bereiter (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2014), pp. 397–417.
  27. C. Good, A. Rattan, and C. S. Dweck, Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 700 (2012).
  28. R. M. Lock, Z. Hazari, and G. Potvin, Impact of out-of-class science and engineering activities on physics identity and career intentions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020137 (2019).
  29. W. K. Adams and C. E. Wieman, Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 1289 (2011).
  30. E. Knekta, C. Runyon, and S. Eddy, One size doesn’t fit all: Using factor analysis to gather validity evidence when using surveys in your research, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, 1 (2019).
  31. T. Raykov and G. A. Marcoulides, An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis (Routledge, New York, NY, 2008).
  32. B. G. Tabachnick, L. S. Fidell, and J. B. Ullman, Using Multivariate Statistics (Pearson, Boston, MA, 2007), Vol. 5.
  33. J. Feinleib, M. Dew, and N. G. Holmes, Share, rotate, split: The effects of group work role distributions on student outcomes (2026), 10.17605/OSF.IO/8SKHU.
  34. R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Guilford Publications, New York, NY, 2023).
  35. J. Nissen, R. Donatello, and B. Van Dusen, Missing data and bias in physics education research: A case for using multiple imputation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020106 (2019).
  36. A. D. Woods, D. Gerasimova, B. Van Dusen, J. Nissen, S. Bainter, A. Uzdavines, P. E. Davis-Kean, M. Halvorson, K. M. King, J. A. R. Logan, M. Xu, M. R. Vasilev, J. M. Clay, D. Moreau, K. Joyal-Desmarais, R. A. Cruz, D. M. Y. Brown, K. Schmidt, and M. M. Elsherif, Best practices for addressing missing data through multiple imputation, Infant Child Dev. 33, e2407 (2024).
  37. A. D. Woods, P. Davis-Kean, M. A. Halvorson, K. M. King, J. A. R. Logan, M. Xu, S. Bainter, D. M. Y. Brown, J. M. Clay, R. A. Cruz et al., Missing data and multiple imputation decision tree, PsyArXiv (2021), 10.31234/OSF.IO/MDW5R.
  38. J. W. Graham and J. L. Schafer, On the performance of multiple imputation for multivariate data with small sample size, in Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999), Vol. 50, p. 1.
  39. S. van Buuren and K. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in r, J. Stat. Softw. 45, 1 (2011).
  40. J. R. van Ginkel, M. Linting, R. C. A. Rippe, and A. van der Voort, Rebutting existing misconceptions about multiple imputation as a method for handling missing data, J. Pers. Assess. 102, 297 (2020).
  41. P. Madley-Dowd, R. Hughes, K. Tilling, and J. Heron, The proportion of missing data should not be used to guide decisions on multiple imputation, J. Clin. Epidemiol. 110, 63 (2019).
  42. I. R. White, P. Royston, and A. M. Wood, Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice, Stat. Med. 30, 377 (2011).
  43. B. Van Dusen and J. Nissen, Modernizing use of regression models in physics education research: A review of hierarchical linear modeling, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020108 (2019).
  44. E. Theobald, Students are rarely independent: When, why, and how to use random effects in discipline-based education research, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17, rm2 (2018).
  45. M. Dew, A. M. Phillips, S. Karunwi, A. Baksh, E. M. Stump, and N. G. Holmes, So unfair it’s fair: Equipment handling in remote versus in-person introductory physics labs. presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Dew.
  46. A. L. Traxler, X. C. Cid, J. Blue, and R. Barthelemy, Enriching gender in physics education research: A binary past and a complex future, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020114 (2016).
  47. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, Am. Psychol. 37, 122 (1982).
  48. A. Bertucci, S. Conte, D. W. Johnson, and R. T. Johnson, Influence of group processing on achievement and perception of social and academic support in elementary inexperienced cooperative learning groups, J. Educ. Res. 105, 329 (2012).
  49. M. F. Strahm, Cooperative learning: Group processing and students needs for self-worth and belonging, Alberta J. Educ. Res. 53, 63 (2007).
  50. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Hermione and the secretary: How gendered task division in introductory physics labs can disrupt equitable learning, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 035702 (2020).
  51. H. Pettersson, Making masculinity in plasma physics: Machines, labour and experiments, Sci. Technol. Stud. 24, 47 (2011).
  52. A. T. Danielsson, Exploring woman university physics students “doing gender” and “doing physics”, Gender Educ. 24, 25 (2012).
  53. A. J. Gonsalves, A. T. Danielsson, and H. Pattersson, Masculinities and experimental practices in physics: The view from three case studies, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020120 (2016).
  54. J. M. Nissen, I. Her Many Horses, and B. Van Dusen, Investigating society’s educational debts due to racism and sexism in student attitudes about physics using quantitative critical race theory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010116 (2021).
  55. T. Lumley, P. Diehr, S. Emerson, and L. Chen, The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets, Annu. Rev. Public Health 23, 151 (2002).
  56. C. Walsh, H. J. Lewandowski, and N. G. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimentation views for all students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010128 (2022).
  57. D. Bates, M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker, Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4, J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010132– Published 26 March, 2026
  • Received 17 December 2025
  • Accepted 24 February 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation