LESSONS FROM THE BEST AND WORST STUDENT TEAM EXPERIENCES: HOW A TEACHER CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCERebecca VandiverModeling Seminar18 September 2006GOAL*“To provide teachers with actionable, empirically supported recommendations for effectively creating and administering student teams” [1]METHOD OF ASSIGNMENT TO TEAMSThree approaches to assigning students to teams havebeen 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 implementHypothesis 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 identifiableHypothesis 4: A larger percentage of best teams will report using traditional (confidential, end-of-the-term-only) peer evaluations than will worst teams.TEAM SIZEClear 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 doingHypothesis 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•1stsection: questions used to obtain descriptive statistics•2ndsection: 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 testsRESULTSHypothesis 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 experiencesRESULTSHypothesis 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 experiencesRESULTSHypothesis 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 teamsDISCUSSION AND RECOMENDATIONS1) 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 (5thed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.[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.