Mayday! Lessons from cellular dysfunction and group work dynamics

What happens when a well-designed group project meets the reality of student dynamics? In my second year of teaching, I learned that understanding cellular dysfunction was easier than managing group dysfunction.

Courtesy of Aimee Hollander

Educator Aimee Hollander teaches an undergraduate molecular biology laboratory course at Nicholls State University in Louisiana in 2019.

I was teaching an upper-level cellular and molecular biology lecture and lab and wanted a creative way to assess cumulative knowledge without a traditional exam. The course covered the biochemistry and molecular biology underlying cellular function, so I designed an assignment in which students applied their knowledge to real diseases.

Students worked in groups of three or four to explain a disease at the cellular level. They introduced peers to the condition, described symptoms and affected populations and explained the cellular process disrupted by the disease. If a therapy existed, they discussed how it corrected or compensated for the dysfunction. Examples included Huntington’s disease and proteasome dysfunction; Blackfan anemia and ribosome function; and cystic fibrosis and ion channel defects.

The scientific content was strong, but the group dynamics were weak. Students had never completed peer or group evaluations before, and many groups struggled with collaboration. Some divided tasks without true teamwork, while others fell apart entirely. This experience taught me that successful group work requires more than assigning roles it demands intentional structure and support.

Since then, I’ve transformed how I approach group projects. Here’s what I learned:

• Build community early. If group work is planned, create opportunities for students to connect. In my lab sections, rotating partners and using icebreakers helped foster trust.
• Set clear expectations. Students need guidance on collaboration, communication, and planning. Explicit instructions prevent confusion and promote shared responsibility.
• Form groups thoughtfully. Group size and composition matter. Consider whether instructor-assigned groups based on strengths work better than random selection.
• Start small. Low-stakes activities, like building pipe cleaner models together, help groups establish rapport before tackling major projects.
• Provide tools for accountability. I now use group contracts and share rubrics upfront. These documents outline roles, meeting plans, and expectations, reducing conflict later.
• Monitor progress. Regular check-ins and confidential evaluations allow me to support struggling teams and maintain trust.

The results have been remarkable. Students appreciate having time in class to plan and collaborate. Most groups stick to their contracts, resolve conflicts early, and produce higher-quality work. Students said this assignment helped them in group projects in other courses.

What started as an experiment in assessment became a lesson in adaptability: When we teach science, we’re also teaching the art of working together.