View source for Introducing pair work in an information system course



== Introduction ==
Students copying work from each other has always been a matter of concern for many instructors. Until recently, I tried punishing students by giving them 0 or letting them share the score if they copied the work. But that was not the effective solution as I would see the same behavior every semester.  So I decided to encourage them rather than having a punishment. 

== Action Research ==
Any systematic inquiry conducted by teachers, administrators, counselors, or others to know about particular teaching practice or learning process.

[[File:Arcycle.jpg|link=http://cei.ust.hk/teaching-resources/action-research|Action Research]]

Figure 1: Action Research Cycles ([http://celt.ust.hk/teaching-resources/action-research])

== Objective ==
To minimize students copying work from their friends
To facilitate communication, collaboration amongst students
To improve understanding of the topic through brainstorming

== Methodology ==
I decided to assign 5 assignments in pair and remaining 9 assignments still done individually. My initial concern was what if one student does not cooperate in the assignment discussion. To avoid students from getting free marks, different students were assigned to work together on each assignment. The students did not have the choice to select their pair. In 1/2014, due to time limitation, all the 5 paired assignments were home assignments.  
Data collection: (a) anecdotal records and (b) end of the semester survey

== Plan (1/2014) ==
Some students copied work from their friends because the assignment was difficult to do on their own within the time limit. Positive reinforcement was used to encourage them to work in pairs. The pairs were assigned to them and the assignments were take-home.

== Act ==

The day before each assignment, the case for the assignment and the list of pairs was announced on LMS. The purpose of rotating the members was to allow students to get to know each other including non-Thai students.

== Observe (findings) ==

Since the assignments were administered in pairs, I had more time to write detailed feedback on their work. This improved learning experience for the students. Assignments of all the students were checked in one sitting and it was found that the students did not copy work from their friends. In spite of assigning the pairs, some students were found not following the plan. The detailed analysis showed 4 patterns:
1)	Type 1: Students worked in the pairs assigned by the instructor
2)	Type 2: Students submitted the assignments individually
3)	Type 3: One of the students in the pair did not submit the assignment
4)	Type 4: Both students did not submit the assignment
Pairs following each of the aforementioned patterns in percent are shown in Table 1. 

{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 1: Percentage of four resulting patterns for each assignment
|-
|Assignment || Type 1 || Type 2 || Type 3 || Type 4 
|-
|1	    || 88.24% || 5.88%	|| 0%     || 5.88%  
|-
|2	    || 76.48% || 5.88%  || 5.88%  || 11.76% 
|-
|3	    || 70.59% || 17.65% || 11.76% || 0%     
|-
|4          || 82.35% || 17.65% || 0%     || 0%     
|-
|5          || 58.82% || 17.65% || 23.53% || 0%     
|-
|}

== Reflect ==
Even though the original problem of students copying work from their friend was solved by letting them do it in pairs, it was not that this method had some fault. As evident from the table, several groups did not follow the plan of submitting in groups. Based on anecdotal records (i.e., the discussion with students during the semester) and end of the semester survey, following reasons were found:
1)	Students did not have enough time to meet each other as their schedules clashed
2)	Some students did not know each other at all  
3)	Some students contacted the other student (in the pair) just the day before due date, too late to work together

Based on the students’ response it was decided to modify the plan in the following semester.

== Revised Plan (2/2014) ==
Students were allowed to select their pair, different members each time. More time was allocated for take-home, paired assignments. Two of the five paired assignments were done in class.

== Act ==
Students were allowed to select their pair in class for each assignment. Lecturer kept note of the pairs to avoid students working with the same friend again. More time was allocated to take-home paired assignments (1 week), allowing students enough time to know each other and discuss their issues with the acharn before the due date, if any. 

== References: ==
Action research. (n.d.). Retrieved April 7, 2015, from [http://celt.ust.hk/teaching-resources/action-research]