Group Work Vs Pair Work: A Comparison of Critical Thinking Skills

Cultivating critical thinking and problem-solving abilities is crucial in higher education, particularly as language learning evolves from a focus on grammatical accuracy to communicative competence. Collaborative learning, which is fundamentally grounded in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, faces persistent challenges such as imbalanced participation and the presence of dominant personalities, both of which continue to shape the dynamics within the classroom environment. Current research supports the pedagogical advantages of collaborative work; however, there is a lack of understanding of how these interactions specifically impact critical thinking in naturalistic settings. This study sought to investigate the relationship between critical thinking skills and interaction types by comparing perceptions of pair work and group work. A quantitative survey was administered using an instrument divided into four main sections: demographic profile, perceived critical thinking/problem-solving skills, and perceptions of pair and group work interaction. The participants comprised 199 students from a Malaysian public university. The findings reveal a significant positive relationship between both interaction types and the development of critical thinking, although the level of engagement varied across academic clusters. The implications of this study suggest that educators should strategically balance pair and group work to reduce learner anxiety and ensure equitable participation, thereby enhancing cognitive development.

Group work, Pair work, Critical thinking skills, Problem-solving, Collaborative learning

1. Ahmad, N., Alias, F.A., Hamat, M., & Mohamed, S.A. (2024) Reliability Analysis: Application of Cronbach’s Alpha in Research Instruments. SIG: e-Learning@CS, 114-119. https://appspenang.uitm.edu.my/sigcs/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aprillia, O., Zur, S., & Atikah, D. (2025). Challenges of pair work activity in EFL writing classroom: A narrative review. Al Lughawiyaat: Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(3), 218-242. DOI: https://doi,org/10.31332/alg.v6i3.10857 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baleghizadeh,S., & Farhesh,S., (2014) The Impact of Pair Work on EFL Learners’ Motivation. NEXTESOL Journal, 38(3),1-11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bateman,B., Colin Wilson, F., Bingham,D. (2002) Team effectiveness-development of an audit questionnaire. Journal of Management Development, 21(3), 215-226. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Belbin, R. M. (2013). Method, Reliability & Validity, Statistics & Research: A Comprehensive Review of Belbin Team Roles. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chen, X. W., & Lee, I. (2022). Conflicts in peer interaction of collaborative writing–a case study in an EFL context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58, 100910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cheng, L. (2021). A review of cooperative language learning approaches. Curriculum and Teaching Methodology, 4(6), 30-37. https://doi.org/ 10.23977/curtm.2021.040605 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. He, L. (2024) The Application of SPSS Correlation Analysis in the Study if Precision Teaching of English in Universities. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Science, 9(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/amns-2024-1371 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. De Hei, M., Strijbos, J. W., Sjoer, E., & Admiraal, W. (2016). Thematic review of approaches to design group learning activities in higher education: The development of a comprehensive framework. Educational Research Review, 18, 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Ma'suda, X. (2025). THE ROLE OF PAIR AND GROUP WORK IN ENHANCING SPEAKING SKILLS OF ACADEMIC LYCEUM LEARNERS. Modern education and development, 40(5), 10-20. https://journalss.org/index.php/mod/article/view/12336 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Rahmat, N.H. (2020) Conflict Resolution Strategies in Class Discussions. International Journal of Education, 12(3), 49-66. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v12i3.16914 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02326-000 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Vetter, T.R. (2017) Descriptive Statistics: Reporting the Answers to the 5 Basic Questions of Who, What, Why, When , Where, and a Sixth, so What? Anesth Analg, 12595), 1797-1802. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000002471 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Casey A. E., Jennifer M. D., Meghan M. J., Thomas E. K, and Marna, C.. (202) Impact of Demographic Survey Questions on Response Rate and Measurement: A Randomized Experiment. Survey Practice 14 (1), https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2021-0010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kilmann, R. H. (n.a). An Overview Of The Tki Assessment Tool. Kilmann Diagnostics. https://kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomas-kilmann-conflict-mode-instrument-tki/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument Profile and Interpretive Report. CPP Inc. https://kilmanndiagnostics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/TKI_Sample_Report.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Shonk, K. (2025, October 22). Conflict-Management Styles: Pitfalls and Best Practices. Program on Negotiation Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/conflict-resolution/conflict-management-styles-pitfalls-and-best-practices/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Nabavi, R.T. (2012) Bandura’s Social Learning Theory & Social Cognitive Learning Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Sherman, T., & Tůma, F. (2023). Claiming insufficient knowledge in pairwork and groupwork classroom activities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 43, 100758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100758 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Sim, M. S., Sukimin, I. S., Abidin, N. S. Z., Rahmat, N. H., Anyau, E., & Varma, S. B. (2021). Conflicts in Group Work: Are they all Bad? International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(11), 331 - 341. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i11/11246 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. www.hup.harvard.edu. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Zakaria, S. F., Komarudin, N. E., Kamarulzaman, M. H., Belaman, J. A. X., Fakhruddin, S. S., & Rahmat, N. H. (2023). Exploring group work in ESL classroom using Tuckman’s model. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society, 5(3), 254-267. https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2023.5.3.25 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study