LESSONS FROM THE BEST AND WORST STUDENT TEAM EXPERIENCES HOW A TEACHER CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE Rebecca Vandiver Modeling Seminar 18 September 2006 GOAL To provide teachers with actionable empirically supported recommendations for effectively creating and administering student teams 1 METHOD OF ASSIGNMENT TO TEAMS Three approaches to assigning students to teams have been explored in the literature 2 Self selection higher initial cohesion 3 more ownership of group problems 4 overly homogenous 5 inadequate skill set 4 Random assignment unbalanced in terms of skills diversity and general ability Teacher assignment diffuse difficult to implement Hypothesis 1 Best teams will include more self selected teams than will worst teams TEAM LONGEVITY Most agree that teams generally progress with time Research and development teams project performance peaked in the second to fourth year of a team and dropped thereafter 6 Hypothesis 2 Best teams will have worked together longer on average than will worst teams WEIGHT OF GRADE GIVEN TO TEAMWORK Performance is influenced by reward 7 rewards for students come primarily in the form of grades therefore expect students to perform better on elements of course that have greater impact on final course grade If percentage of course grade associated with teamwork is quite low students may neglect their teamwork altogether 8 Hypothesis 3 Best teams will have a higher percentage of the course grade associated with teamwork than will worst teams PEER EVALUATIONS Social loafing Individuals tend to reduce their effort when working in a team 9 Will peer evaluations reduce social loafing Individual performance may improve when subjects believe their own contribution will be identifiable Hypothesis 4 A larger percentage of best teams will report using traditional confidential end of the term only peer evaluations than will worst teams TEAM SIZE Clear consensus in the literature about team size keep teams as small as possible 10 Team performance may decline because of difficulty in coordinating efforts of larger number of people Individual effort may decline because individuals feel their contributions are not identifiable Dissension among team members increases with team size 11 Hypothesis 5 The average team size on best teams will be smaller than the average team size on worst teams TEAM INSTRUCTIONS Having a clear team vision or at least a clear understanding of team objectives is important to team success 12 13 When team objectives are unclear team members may argue over what the team should be doing Hypothesis 6a Best teams will be more likely to say the instructor gave them sufficient instructions on outcomes what the team was to submit or present than will worst teams Hypothesis 6b Best teams will be more likely to say the instructor gave them sufficient instructions on process how the team should perform its tasks will worst teams METHOD Survey given to first year and second year MBA students 1st section questions used to obtain descriptive statistics 2nd section questions concerning team context team composition team process and team outcomes Students asked to respond to each question in each of two contexts best team experience and worst team experience Examine how contextual variables differ across the best and worst teams Test hypotheses using paired t tests RESULTS Hypothesis 1 Best teams will include more self selected teams than will worst teams Hypothesis 2 Best teams will have worked together longer on average than will worst teams Hypothesis 6a Best teams will be more likely to say the instructor gave them sufficient instructions on outcomes what the team was to submit or present than will worst teams Hypothesis 6b Best teams will be more likely to say the instructor gave them sufficient instructions on process how the team should perform its tasks will worst teams Positively linked to best team experiences RESULTS Hypothesis 3 Best teams will have a higher percentage of the course grade associated with teamwork than will worst teams Hypothesis 5 The average team size on best teams will be smaller than the average team size on worst teams No relationship with best worst team experiences RESULTS Hypothesis 4 A larger percentage of best teams will report using traditional confidential end of the term only peer evaluations than will worst teams Negatively associated with best teams DISCUSSION AND RECOMENDATIONS 1 Provide teams with adequate descriptions of outcomes and processes 2 Maximize team longevity 3 Once students know each other let them have a say in team assignments 4 Be wary of the use of traditional peer evaluations 5 Set team size by pedagogical objectives REFERENCES 1 Bacon D R Stewart K A Silver W A 1999 Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences How a teacher can make the difference Journal of Management Education 23 5 467 488 2 Decker R 1995 Management team formation for large scale simulations In J D Overby A L Patz Eds 3 Strong J T Anderson R E 1990 Summer Free riding in group projects Control mechanisms and preliminary data Journal of Marketing Education 12 61 67 4 Mello J A 1993 Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings Journal of Management Education 17 2 253 259 5 Jalajas D S Sutton R I 1984 1985 Feuds in student groups coping with whiners martyrs saboteurs bullies and deadbeats Organizational Behavior Teaching Review 9 4 217 227 6 Katz R 1982 The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance Administrative Science Quarterly 27 1 81 104 7 Steers R M Porter L W 1991 Motivation and work behavior 5th ed New York McGrawHill 8 LeRosen R G 1976 April Group projects peer rating scales Management education tools Journal of Business Education 317 318 9 Ingham A G Levinger G Graves J Peckham V 1974 The Ringelmann effect Studies of group size and group performance Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10 371 384 10 Comer D R 1995 A model of social loafing in real work groups Human Relations 48 6 647 667 11 Gentry J W 1980 Group size and attitudes toward the simulation experience Simulation Games 11i 4 451 459 12 Burningham C West M A 1995 Individual climate and group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation Small Group Research 26 1 106 117 13 Fowler A 1995 How to build effective teams People Management 1 4 40 41