Teamwork Toolkit - La Trobe University€¦ · The Teamwork Toolkit is divided into five sections:...
Transcript of Teamwork Toolkit - La Trobe University€¦ · The Teamwork Toolkit is divided into five sections:...
Teamwork Toolkit
Teaching Toolkit developed by staff of La Trobe University
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
Teamwork or Group work? ............................................................................................. 4
Advantages of teamwork for your students .................................................................... 5
Advantages for lecturers ................................................................................................ 5
Limitations of teamwork for your students ...................................................................... 6
1. Designing Team Tasks ................................................................................................ 7
1.1. Meaningful assignments.......................................................................................... 7
1.2. Easily subdivided tasks ........................................................................................... 8
1.3. Student Learning ..................................................................................................... 9
1.4. Achieve the task .................................................................................................... 10
2. Forming Effective Teams .......................................................................................... 12
2.1. Prepare Students for teamwork ............................................................................. 12
2.2. Forming Teams ..................................................................................................... 14
2.3. What kinds of roles can your students usefully adopt in a team? ........................... 16
3. Teamwork Skills ........................................................................................................ 18
3.1. Rules of Teamwork ............................................................................................... 18
3.2. Learning Contracts or Agreements ........................................................................ 20
3.3. Team Communication ........................................................................................... 22
3.4. Team Building ....................................................................................................... 22
3.5. Conflict Resolution ................................................................................................ 24
4. Assessing Teamwork ................................................................................................ 26
Teamwork Assessment Principles................................................................................ 26
4.1. Types of Assessment ............................................................................................ 27
4.2. Self and Peer Assessment .................................................................................... 30
3 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
5. Evaluation and Reflection of Teamwork .................................................................. 32
5.1. How will you ask students to evaluate their team work? ........................................ 32
5.2. Reflections on teamwork ....................................................................................... 35
Selected Bibliography ................................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................. 42
Case Study 1 ............................................................................................................... 43
Case Study 2 ............................................................................................................... 44
Case Study 3 ............................................................................................................... 45
Case Study 4 ............................................................................................................... 46
Case Study 5 ............................................................................................................... 47
Case Study 6 ............................................................................................................... 48
Case Study 7 ............................................................................................................... 49
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................. 50
Situating Collaborative Learning and Teamwork .......................................................... 50
References .................................................................................................................. 55
4 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Introduction
This Teamwork Toolkit provides a non-prescriptive set of reflective/design questions and tips
and suggestions for lecturers to use when developing and designing teamwork activities that
will enhance the use of teamwork within your discipline context.
La Trobe University has endorsed the graduate capability of teamwork as a major
component of students’ successful completion of their degrees. All Faculties have agreed to
include teamwork as a graduate capability.
The Teamwork Toolkit is divided into five sections:
1. Designing Teamwork tasks
2. Selecting Teams
3. Teamwork Skills
4. Assessing Teamwork
5. Evaluating Teams
Each section invites you to consider available options, and to make informed decisions
about the best way to progress teamwork activities dependent on your student cohort,
teaching and learning environment, discipline context, and available resources.
The templates in each section may be adapted to suit your individual requirements, or used
as platforms for the creation of new resources.
Also included is a selected Bibliography, some current La Trobe University teamwork
examples and background reading.
Teamwork or Group work?
The terms “teams” and “groups” are often used in both the teaching and learning literature
and in the classroom, in an interchangeable fashion.
This Toolkit deals specifically with the establishment of “formal teams” of students to work on
a collaborative team based project/activity usually for at least one significant assessment
task, or a major project that may take a considerable length of time to complete at the
undergraduate level.
The informal combining of students into “groups” in classrooms for example, to discuss
tutorial questions or to work on a short term or non-assessable activity, is not addressed in
this toolkit.
Disclaimer: At La Trobe University there is no overarching definition of teamwork at the University level.
Faculties have defined teamwork in their individual discipline descriptor documents and as part of the setting of
standards in the Design for Learning (DfL) Curriculum Redesign project.
5 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Advantages of teamwork for your students
Working in teams provides our students with opportunities to learn and demonstrate the
graduate capability of teamwork. These opportunities can be subdivided into context,
communication, empathy, productivity and cooperation.
Context:
working with a wide range of people of different ages, gender, race, religion or
political persuasions or with a team of known peers;
learning from a variety of problem based contexts and in a variety of roles to apply
their disciplinary knowledge and skills effectively and appropriately to a task;
assisting students to become more active and independent in their learning, which
can lead to deeper, more intellectually stimulating learning;
applying teamwork principles to a range of future unknown situations , e.g. urgent
problem solving, conflict negotiation or futures planning.
Communication:
taking on coaching and mentoring roles and giving peer feedback;
improving communication skills with their peers, their teachers, and potential
employers.
Empathy:
identifying and drawing on team member strengths and support which assist a team
to produce a stronger, higher quality project or assignment outcome than an
individual may achieve;
sharing knowledge and ideas with other students and stimulating listening to, and
learning from other’s viewpoints, which may challenge their assumptions.
Productivity and cooperation:
encouraging efficiency of effort which can boost student productivity and encourage
an awareness of effective work practice in organisations;
providing practise in useful and multi-disciplinary contexts, necessary graduate skills
that equip students for employability.
Advantages for lecturers
increasing self-directed initiatives and motivation for learning.
improving students’ learning outcomes.
developing students’ skills commensurate with named graduate attributes which are
an agreed feature of most undergraduate awards in Australian universities.
providing students, in a mass education environment, with the opportunity to work in
a small discrete task oriented team that may enhance an individual’s sense of
identity, sociability, and self-evaluation capacity.
6 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Limitations of teamwork for your students
Students working in teams may learn that:
not all students will grasp the complexity of a team task especially if the task
components are divided amongst the team;
they prefer to work independently and to be assessed individually;
there is a high degree of uncertainty and risk in a team activity;
some team members do not contribute equally, the “social loafers”;
dissatisfaction is a problem when individual grades are affected by an overall team
mark;
some team members dominate their peers and can hijack the team agenda;
an unsatisfactory ‘groupthink’ approach can take over which can result in a less than
optimal outcome;
internal team dynamics can be difficult or become untenable.
Where can I find out more?
Federman Stein, R.,& Hurd, S.(2000) Using Student Teams in the Classroom: A Faculty
Guide. Anker: Boston,MA Chapter 1: Teamwork theory and Discussion.
Gibb,G.(1995) Learning in Teams: A Tutors Guide. The Oxford Centre for Staff
Development: Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. Chapter 1:Introduction: why use
teams?
Jaques , D. (1984) Learning in Groups. Houston TX: Gulf Publishing. Chapter 5: Aims and
Objectives of Learning Groups.
7 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
1. Designing Team Tasks
This section of the Toolkit includes how to:
design teamwork assignments and includes a checklist template for you to adapt and
use as required.
To develop a motivating team assignment you need to understand what students look for in
a collaborative task. Understanding their expectations is important as it allows you to see
where your task can be aligned with their expectations.
It also allows you to identify where there may be team member misalignment, and provides
an opportunity to discuss the task and the assessment, so that students can better grasp the
intended learning outcomes and the process of working in a team.
Consider these design questions
Have I designed a meaningful assignment?
Can it be easily subdivided into useful tasks that can be amalgamated back into a
unified whole?
What do I want students learn from the process and the outcomes?
Can the student teams achieve the end result?
1.1. Meaningful assignments
Positive student expectations of team assignments are encouraged by the kinds of work they
are asked to produce. Not all students are motivated by marks. Team assignments that
engage the students with external ‘experts’ or contemporary issues are of value as they
know that there will be an expert reviewing the team’s output or they may develop an
innovative approach to working with a seemingly intractable issue.
Many disciplines already engage students in teamwork – law students who prepare and
conduct role plays in mediation, marketing students who create a marketing plan, health
science students who prepare posters and presentations on concepts of disability and
illness, engineering students who provide research and advice on the installation of a solar
electricity generator, education students who produce a movie about their community,
history students who investigate a myth-figure, and media students who produce a news
program.
(See Appendix A: La Trobe teamwork examples).
8 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
1.2. Easily subdivided tasks
Your rationale for designing the team assignment can be that you want the students to learn
the value of working closely together on all aspects of an assignment. You may not want
students to divide up a team task, but students probably will.
Time management and levels of interest or prior knowledge can be strong factors for
students engaging and dividing the work into manageable sections. This approach presents
certain problems as students often find the isolation of ‘doing their bit’ difficult, and the re-
amalgamation of the entire task into say, a final report, can mean that the final collaborative
effort does not satisfy all the team members.
To overcome this issue you can design a team assignment with allocated tasks that each
member of the team must complete. These individual tasks are then combined together to
form a team output and the introduction and conclusion, in a written piece, is written by the
team together. Likewise in a team presentation, you can stipulate that all students contribute
a small section of the presentation.
Advantages of this approach are:
students are less dependent on each other
there are fewer disagreements
joint decisions do not have to be made on every issue
students can ‘shine’ as well as contribute to the team.
As lecturer, you may find:
fewer complaints of ‘free riding”
students have a greater enthusiasm for the assignment
less group conflict
greater peer support.
Critics of this approach say that the students are not working in ‘fully fledged’ teams. A
counter argument is that it is better to learn some skills at a deep level than at a shallower
level. Expecting students to learn multiple skills in a semester is unrealistic, whereas
learning for example, coordination, peer support and accountability, alongside discipline
knowledge and critical thinking skills, is a creditable focus for teamwork.
9 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
1.3. Student Learning
Designing teamwork assignments that closely align to the learning outcomes of the subject,
and focussing on what knowledge, skills and abilities you want to engender in your students
will assist them to garner tangible benefits from teamwork.
Generic skills such as communication and cooperation, sit with a more specific set of
discipline abilities that may need particular attention.
Consider these options
What kind of interpersonal communication skills do you want your students to learn?
Will they need to communicate face-to-face or online?
Are on-line debates or discussions part of the assignment? What will this require
technically?
What kinds of presentation skills do they need to learn?
Do you want your students to learn a particular format for producing reports?
Explicitly communicating to your students the learning objectives and a well-structured
outline of an assignment, and where it sits in the overall subject design, are important
elements in successful teamwork.
10 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
1.4. Achieve the task
Tasks that are meaningful and challenging are time-consuming and can be overwhelming for
students. Students may have a number of assessment tasks to complete simultaneously and
may resent the workload of certain team assignments.
To design a realistically achievable team assignment, take the students’ viewpoint.
Tips and suggestions
Invite in external ‘experts’ to provide a brief, attend presentations, validate the
students work and provide constructive feedback.
Restrict student access to external experts so that they do not become overwhelmed
with questions
Provide samples of previous team assignments as guides
Discuss how successful previous student teams have completed their assignments
Design hypothetical briefs, or issues that students can present to an ‘expert’ if you
cannot find a “real” expert.
Canvass student comments for issues that they find stimulating within the discipline
context as a guide for what you may design as a teamwork assignment.
11 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Checklist for Establishing Team Projects (Example)
Y/N
Do you have a clear rationale for including team activities and assessment of
these in your subject?
Have you aligned the intended learning outcomes, the team task/s and the
assessment?
Do you want assessable and/or non-assessable task/s?
Are these tasks achievable?
How will teams be established?
(circle one)
random selection
self selection
lecturer/tutor selection
task driven selection
Have you thought about a set of team ground rules?
task allocation
regular meetings
reporting and monitoring
conflict negotiation
fair and valid peer evaluation (if part of assessment)
contingencies (absence, illness, change of task focus)
Consider a Learning Contract
team member functions
duties
deliverables
resources
reporting
evaluation process
What kind of assessment mark will be most appropriate?
(Circle appropriate type/s)
Shared group mark
Group average mark
Individual mark – allocated task
Individual mark – individual report
Individual mark – examination
Weighted mark- individual and group average marks
Will there be a peer or self-assessment component?
Peer assessment?
Self-assessment
is grading involved?
is confidentiality assured?
12 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
2. Forming Effective Teams
This section of the Toolkit includes how to:
prepare students for teamwork
form the teams
determine student roles in teams
team rules
engender effective communication in teams and includes templates for lecturers to
use and adapt as required.
Students want to work in the ‘best” team. Most students hope that the team they are in will
have compatible viewpoints and that the process of a team assignment will progress as
smoothly as possible. Students may also want to only work with their friends, and need to
appreciate that the relationships in a team must become more broad and professional in the
short term.
When teams are formed, students can be fearful of the unknown; many have only a little or
no experience of teamwork, and the highly competitive and individualistic environment of a
university program can mitigate against teamwork.
Sometimes students do not know anyone in their class or they have had a poor prior team
experience so that they fear being involved in a team again.
Therefore the team formation process needs to be well planned and executed.
2.1. Prepare Students for teamwork It is vitally important that you prepare students for working effectively in a team. This does
not come naturally to all students. It is important to be mindful of the diversity of educational
backgrounds, previous experience and cultural sensitivities in our student cohort, as these
elements are central to the success of a team.
Students need to know:
What kind of teamwork will be in your subject?
Why they have to work in teams?
Who will be in their team and why?
What skills they will develop by participating in teamwork?
How they will be assessed?
Whether there are team and individual marks, or team marks only?
What peer assessment is if it will be used, and how this will be conducted?
13 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Tips and suggestions
How large will you make the teams?
Who will be responsible for what?
When will the teams meet and meet with you?
What guidance will you give the teams?
How will you ensure that team members contribute equally?
How much teamwork do you want to introduce and at which year levels?
How will you assess the teamwork outcomes?
2.1.1. Task Outline
Giving your students a task outline of what is expected of them will assist the students in
their team mode.
This outline can contain:
a rationale for team work in your subject
what team work assignments will involve - deliverables knowledge and skills students
will be expected to learn through team work
how team members will be selected and why
how team work will be assessed and why
how teams will be monitored to ensure equal participation
how often teams should meet to work on the assignment
what risks may be involved in a team including ‘loafing’ dominating members, conflict
and how to address these issues
how problems can be addressed and resolved.
It is important to verbally reinforce that you have a commitment to team work as well as your
expectation that students will have also.
The first lecture or tutorial is the optimal time to establish the ground rules for team
assignments.
The development of high performing teams is not the sole responsibility of the lecturer.
Students need to take responsibility for team preparation and development.
14 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Resources need to be available for students to achieve the most optimal advantage of
teamwork.
These resources can include:
Involving past students in a discussion on the benefits of teamwork;
Motivating students through exposure to relevant job advertisements that stress
teamwork skills;
Inviting guest industry personnel to class to emphasise the use of teamwork in your
discipline area;
Ensuring students have access to support within the university for graduate capability
development - presentation, writing reports, information literacy, project
management;
Ensuring students have a contingency plan if any team member becomes unable to
complete the work;
Ethical considerations associated with team work eg: how plagiarism would affect the
whole team’s approach and marks.
2.2. Forming Teams
Teamwork and teams across disciplines will vary greatly. Teams are often described as a
group of people who come together, achieve the work required and then disband. This is
only one model, dependent on the task at hand. There may also be teams that work over a
number of semesters, or teams that are multidisciplinary and involve many people with
differing experience and expectations, or teams that form a cohort that continues to work
together after the set task is completed.
Adair (1989) suggests that groups (teams) pass through four sequential stages
1. Forming
2. Storming
3. Norming
4. Performing
15 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Table 1: Adair’s team stages
Stages Group Structure Task activity
FORMING
“Getting to know” stage.
Considerable anxiety, testing to
discover the nature of the situation,
what help can be expected from
the leader or convener, and what
behaviour will or will not be
appropriate
What is the task? Members
seek the answers to that basic
question, together with
knowledge of the rules and the
methods to be employed.
STORMING
“Arguing” stage. Conflict emerges
between sub-groups: the authority
and/or competence of the leader is
challenged. Opinions polarise,
Individuals react against efforts of
the leader or group to control them.
The value and feasibility of the
task is questioned. People
react emotionally against its
demands.
NORMING
“Agreeing the Job” stage. The
group begins to harmonise; it
experiences group cohesion or
unity for the first time. Norms
emerge as those in conflict are
reconciled and resistance is
overcome. Mutual support
develops.
Cooperation on the task
begins; plans are made and
work standards laid down.
Communication of views and
feelings develops.
PERFORMING
“Getting the Job done” stage.
The group structures itself or
accepts a structure which fits most
appropriately its common task.
Roles are seen in terms functional
to the task and flexibility between
them develops.
Constructive work on the task
surges ahead: progress is
experienced as more of the
group’s energy is applied to
being effective in the area of
their common task.
Source: Adair,J.(1989) EffectiveTeam Building, London: Gower.
16 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
2.3. What kinds of roles can your students usefully adopt in a
team?
2.3.1. Group Dynamics
Belbin (1981) suggests that teams with high scorers do not perform well in team tasks. They
tend to be argumentative, difficult to manage and find it difficult to make team decisions. A
mix of skills in a team can often produce a more cohesive team effort. Teams will go through
stages of development before they perform together successfully.
Belbin’s research into management teams indicated that there are eight key roles which
successful teams need to fill:
company worker
chairman
shaper
plant
resource investigator
monitor-evaluator
team worker
completer-finisher.
Most teams need the following roles as a minimum:
a leader to coordinate the group;
a timekeeper who holds the team to deadlines and keeps team meetings to
specified time limits;
a note taker to keep track of meetings and provide a record for the team;
a monitor to keep track of progress and keep the team moving forward;
a finisher to complete the details in a final draft or presentation.
Asking students to do a SWOT analysis of their team members can often illustrate the
strengths and weaknesses within a team and give students an opportunity to turn the
weaknesses into positive actions such as improving their skills in report writing, time
management, communication, and information literacy.
When forming a team, a strong foundation can be established through three important
elements:
Size of teams
Selection of teams
Ground rules for teams
17 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
2.3.2. Size of Teams
Four or five member teams work well because:
students can allocate the work load equitably and each member gets a larger section of work to complete and a more meaningful contribution to the task
students are more accountable to each other
there is less chance of sub groups forming around critical decision making
there is greater team cohesion for a shorter time
If a member of the four person team leaves, three team members can find it more difficult to
complete the task, as decision making can be compromised by two students not agreeing
with a third student.
However, teams can be constituted with up to 8 persons maximum, dependent on the task.
Tips and suggestions
Random selection
(lecturer/tutor chooses teams at random)
Self-selection
(students choose their own team members)
Selective selection
(lecturer/tutor deliberately allocates team members to distribute resources and a
range of resources)
Task driven selection
(a suite of topics may mean students form teams based on topic preference)
The first three methods are useful when the teams all have the same assignment.
The last selection works when the teams are able to choose from a suite of pre-set topics.
18 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
3. Teamwork Skills
3.1. Rules of Teamwork
Ground rules are a list of short sentences that team members agree on to define how they
want to operate as a team and how they will treat each other.
You will find it useful after negotiating the rules of how a team will work to ask students to
sign a team contract so that they have a record of each other’s contribution to the team and
how the work will be divided amongst them.
Team Ground Rules (example)
How will our team….. Work together?
Make an assessment task schedule and allocate work?
Conduct our meetings?
Make decisions?
Monitor our progress on assessment tasks?
Keep each other informed about what we are doing?
Give constructive feedback to each other?
Deal with equal participation & resolve differences during the assessment task?
Make sure we reach our best standard of written/presentation work?
19 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
3.1.1. Team Meeting Minutes
Team meeting minutes are a useful tool for ensuring that there is a record of work achieved
and individual contributions to the task outcomes. The task of taking the minutes needs to be
a shared activity amongst team members to avoid inequities of effort.
Team Meeting Minutes (example)
Name of Team: ____________________________________________________
Date of Meeting: ____________________________________________________
Members present: ____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Members absent: ____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Summary of Meeting:
Actions for Team members
What?:
Who will do this work?:
By When?:
Next Meeting date:
20 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
3.2. Learning Contracts or Agreements
These written agreements are developed between a team and a lecturer and identify what
the learning tasks are, what outcomes will be achieved, and how the outcomes will be
assessed. All team members are involved and the contract is signed off by all team
members and the lecturer, as the agreement to abide by this team process.
By negotiating learning contracts with student teams we are promoting self-directed work
and the freedom for students to learn through carefully framed criteria, timelines, task
allocation responsibilities and achievement of desired outcomes in a collaborative manner.
The format for a Learning Contract will be determined by the project brief and the
assessment items or ‘deliverables’ and can include agreement about how:
a project will be supervised and assessed ( important for projects that involve external agencies also);
an external work experience will be conducted, supervised and assessed if there are issues of confidentiality, and/or risk management;
practical experiments or field work are conducted and assessed;
intended learning outcomes will be evidenced and achieved;
contributions to the assessment task/s will be divided amongst team members;
the lecturer will supervise, provide resources, and feedback to support the teams.
teams will report and evaluate their progress and achievements.
21 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
A hypothetical Team Learning Contract (example)
Task Name “Bushfires in Victoria
Status and Analysis Report”
Background
In January and February during the Australian summer bushfires create extensive forest, property damage and loss of human and animal life in Victoria. The Country Fire Authority (CFA) and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade(MMB) are concerned that their emergency plans are not adequate to deal with all aspects of bushfire recovery.
Deliverables
A 20,000 word proposed Bushfire Recovery Plan that includes evacuation, aid, accommodation, forestry maintenance and animal safety recommendations, procedures and practices. Deadlines: November 10 - Presentation to Class November 12 – Submission of document
Team Name Burning Bush Team
Team Members Jason X, Julie Y, Carol B, Rickie L, ZuYin W
Team members roles
Jason - Evacuation procedures and practice Julie - Aid and volunteer Aid workers roles and responsibilities Carol - emergency accommodation procedures and practice Rickie - forestry maintenance procedures and practice ZuYin - animal safety guidelines and procedures
Team Members functions
Support the Team: Help set the ground rules, follow the team plan, understand team roles, contribute to team report, take team meeting minutes, collect evidence, get to know team members, cooperate fully, help resolve team problems, meet deadlines, be on time to meetings.
Represent the Team: At interviews, with the lecturer and tutor, CFA, MMB, and Forestry Department. In-class evaluation.
Team Duties
Weekly: 1-2 hour team meetings. Weekly: 2-5 hour research, interviews, trouble shooting, Meeting CFA, MMB, and Forestry personnel. Monthly: Informal progress meetings. As required: Findings reports, analysis meetings, documentation
Resources
Time commitment: this needs a team decision. Technical support: library, computer labs, tape recorder. Supplies: notebooks, pens, computer paper, tapes.
Reporting Weekly meeting minutes Monthly informal progress notes Milestone completion presentation to class
Team Evaluation
In-class debrief after presentation and submission of document All team members to complete individual self-assessments and to then collate these into an overall evaluation of the work and the team.
Signatures
22 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
3.3. Team Communication
Working successfully in a team requires good interpersonal communication. Students must
communicate with each other about the aims of the task, how they will maintain
cohesiveness and how they will listen and give each other constructive feedback.
Discussing the task/s together and ensuring that students understand the need for active
listening and feedback are essential elements of establishing a ‘well built’ team.
Listening is an active role and students can be encouraged to understand that they can:
concentrate on what is being said
identify key points
compare what is being said with how they are thinking themselves,
rather than just waiting to intervene or dominate the discussions.
Constructive feedback requires students to:
check they have understood the team ideas/discussions/decisions
reflect on the ideas and answer with their own thoughts
promote more discussion if needed
give encouragement to their team members when the task is being actively achieved
ask for feedback rather than wait for it to be offered
be specific about the work rather than making vague general comments.
3.4. Team Building
To facilitate better connections between team members you can use organised activities
such as:
Ice breakers to assist students to get to know each other better;
Discussing communication strategies with students
Establishing rules for teamwork that can be negotiated with a class cohort and in
student teams.
23 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
3.4.1. Ice Breakers
There are numerous internet sites that give examples of ice breaker role plays and games
for students to engage in.
Simple Ice Breaker
Provide a list of activities or interesting things people do.
Ask students to go around in a 15 minute session and get as many individual people to sign their autograph beside one of these items only, if they do this activity or have this interest.
Award a small prize to the student who collects the most signatures in the 15 minutes.
Benefit: Students engage with each other, talk about their interests and achieve an outcome
in a structured time frame.
3.4.2. Team Communication Issues
Poor communication in a team can adversely affect a team’s overall performance. When a
team fails to communicate clearly, the task can become difficult to complete.
Reasons for communication failures include:
One team member tries to dominate the conversations or meetings
Members of the team do not have a collective understanding of the ideas, topic, or
approaches to the task
Certain team members do not contribute at all to the conversations due to disinterest
or shyness
Team members are too embarrassed to contribute a suggestion
Team members may not be clear about their role in the team or may not be given
their preferred role and are therefore reticent to contribute
There may be cultural differences, prior team experiences, inexperience or
expectation reasons that make it more urgent to establish an agreed process for
team members to be able to communicate successfully.
Tips and suggestions
Talk with students about ‘real world’ teams and how they actually operate.
Explain that most people work in teams and that they do not choose their
composition.
Establish team agreement around mutual goals and processes such as meetings and
task allocation.
Establish what roles students will take and what the workload will entail.
Ask teams to think about how the deadlines will be met.
Explain that all team members are accountable for the task and the process.
Ask teams to ensure that there are tangible outcomes that fulfil the task.
24 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
3.5. Conflict Resolution
Disagreements can arise in any team when there is a team task to complete which has an
assessment mark attached to it. Differences of opinion can easily hinder a team’s process
and progress. Conflict can have detrimental effects on students’ wellbeing and students can
become wary of, or refuse to participate in team work, because of previous experiences in
conflicted teams.
It is a most effective and valuable learning experience for students if you can:
ensure that team members have the skills to resolve any conflicts before they
escalate to the point that a lecturer or tutor has to adjudicate the process;
encourage assertive behaviour without it resulting in a no-win outcome;
ensure students feel secure enough to express their point of view by questioning,
listening and discussing issues in a positive structured manner.
4 Conflict Resolution Steps (example)
PRESENT: One student at a time gives their point of view whilst others listen, acknowledge and interrupt
only to clarify understanding.
AGREE: Together, all students discuss, and list areas of agreement, interest, values, views, or
common goals.
DISAGREE: As the team talks, identify key areas of disagreement that keep on coming into the
conversation, or prevent agreement. Discuss these in depth to understand team members
viewpoints and define the exact problem/s.
NEGOTIATE: Discuss potential ways to resolve the issue/s, and consider and evaluate the options until
there is a mutually acceptable solution for each issue. Agree to the next steps.
25 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Where can I find out more?
Adair, J. (1989) Effective Team Building. London: Gower.
Baume, D. and S. Brown, (eds), ( 1992) Learning Contracts, Vol 2. Some practical examples
, Paper 72, Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.
Belbin,R.M.,(1981) Management teams - why they succeed or fail. London: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Belbin Team Roles. Accessible at: http://www.belbin.com/belbin-team-roles.htm.
Brookfield, D,(ed) ( 1985) Self -directed learning: from theory to practice, New Directions in
Continuing Education,No25, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tomkins, C. and M.J .McGraw,(1988) The negotiated learning contract, in D. Boud,
(ed),Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, London: Kogan Page.
26 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
4. Assessing Teamwork
This section of the Toolkit includes how to:
decide what type of assessment is appropriate for the teamwork
determine if peer or self-assessment are necessary elements of the team process
Teamwork Assessment Principles
Teamwork is sometimes implemented in the hope of streamlining assessment and marking
tasks as the number of assessment items can be vastly reduced.
The following principles are worth considering when designing and implementing team
assessment tasks to ensure validity, fairness and reliability:
Designing assessment for teams should be consistent with the subject intended
learning outcomes.
Ensure that students clearly understand the purpose and procedures of teamwork
within the subject.
Encourage and reinforce effective teamwork and comply with principles of good
assessment by:
o monitoring the team’s work and providing feedback;
o timetabling some of the student’s teamwork meetings into the subject meeting
schedule
If there is peer assessment and/or self-assessment of the relative contribution of
students to a team project, then:
o provide adequate preparation and support;
o design a process for collecting the ratings that is confidential, clear and
simple to use.
Assessed teamwork should be moderated by:
o having an individual component as well as a team component; or
o a rating of contribution of individuals to the team.
The weighting of assessed teamwork to the final subject grade should be
commensurate with the subject learning objectives
Adapted from: Bowie, C. (2000) Assessment Policy: Principles for Assessment of Group
Work. Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University.
27 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
4.1. Types of Assessment
Assessing teamwork can be a complicated process as team members’ perceptions of
fairness (or disadvantage for their efforts) can cause student complaints.
To address this issue you can consider three different assessment approaches to allocate a
mark for team work:
Individual assessment
Same mark allocation
Weighted mark allocation.
Consider: Assessing a team as a whole is only appropriate when the learning objective
applies to either team productivity or a team process.
4.1.1. Individual assessment
The main benefits of individually marking each team member are:
the students perceive that their contribution to the team outcomes is seen as fair
there is less editing by a number of people required
there are less disputes in a team
there may be less complaints
there is less dependency between team members
However criticisms of this approach are:
it discourages real cooperation between team members
there is less commitment to the team
students may see less reason to meet regularly
individual reports can be very similar to each other which raises the issue of copying
team members can become more competitive and not share ideas and resources
there is more marking volume.
Adapted from: Morgan, A. (2002) Enhancing Experiences of Group Work. University of
Technology, Institute for interactive Media and Learning, Sydney.
28 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
4.1.2. Same mark allocation
In this approach, a team is required to submit one assignment for assessment, if the team
has worked together on all aspects of the task and one assessment mark is appropriate.
Benefits of this are:
You will have fewer assignments to mark
The development of skills in cooperation and communication may be enhanced
There is more interdependency in a team.
Students can view this differently as:
Unfair if any member of the team has not contributed equally
Allocating tasks within the assignment can be a fraught process
Having to rely on each other to complete the tasks can lead to disagreements over task outcomes.
4.1.3. Weighted mark allocation
This approach is more complicated to establish but can provide an excellent opportunity for
students to peer and self-assess alongside your marking criteria.
Benefits of this are:
students can develop reflective and constructive critiquing skills
students can develop an improved awareness of how assessment in higher education operates
individual contributions to a team outcome can be more clearly acknowledged and rewarded
students perceive that there is an element of fairness in overall marks.
29 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Table 2: Summary of different types of teamwork assessment
Assessment option Some possible
advantages Some possible disadvantages
Shared Group Mark The group submits one product and all group members receive the same mark from the lecturer/tutor, regardless of individual contribution.
encourages group work – groups sink or swim together
decreases likelihood of plagiarism more likely with individual products from group work
relatively straightforward method
Individual contributions are not necessarily reflected in the marks
stronger students may be unfairly disadvantaged by weaker ones and vice versa
Group Average Mark Individual submissions (allocated task or individual reports as described below) are marked individually. The group members each then receive an average of these marks.
may provide motivation for students to focus on both individual and group work and thereby develop in both areas
may be perceived as unfair by students
stronger students may be unfairly disadvantaged by weaker ones and vice versa
Individual Mark – Allocated task Each student completes an allocated task that contributes to the final group product and gets the marks for that task.
a relatively objective way of ensuring individual participation
may provide additional motivation to students
potential to reward outstanding performance
difficult to find tasks that are exactly equal in size/complexity
does not encourage the group process/collaboration
dependencies between tasks may slow progress of some students
Individual Mark – Individual report Each student writes and submits an individual report based on the group’s work on the task/project.
ensures individual effort
perceived as fair by students
precise manner in which individual reports should differ often very unclear to students
likelihood of unintentional plagiarism increased
Individual Mark – Examination Exam questions specifically target the group projects, and can only be answered by students who have been thoroughly involved in the project.
may motivate students more to learn from the group project including learning from the other members of the group
may diminish importance of group work
additional work for staff in designing exam questions
may not be effective, students may be able to answer the questions by reading the group reports
Combination of Group Average and Individual Mark ( weighted) The group mark is awarded to each member with a mechanism for adjusting for individual contributions.
perceived by many students as fairer than shared group mark
additional work for staff in setting up procedure for and in negotiating adjustments
Source: James, R., McInnis, C. and Devlin, M. (2002) Assessing Learning in Australian
Universities and Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).
30 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
4.2. Self and Peer Assessment
Self and peer assessment are key strategies to involve students in taking more responsibility
for their own learning.
Race (2001) distinguishes between self-assessment, peer assessment and group
assessment in the following ways:
Self-assessment involves students making judgements about their own work including
essays, reports, projects, dissertations and performances.
Peer assessment involves students making assessment decisions on other students’ work
which most typically involves evidence about presentations, performances and practical
work.
Group assessment usually involves a tutor or lecturer making decisions on an assessment
item by including some elements of peer and self-assessment also.
Race continues with the following reasons for involving students in their own assessment as:
deepening the students’ learning experiences
allowing students to better understand the assessment process
helping students to become more autonomous learners
developing life-long learning skills
receiving a broader range of feedback from their peers
Self and peer assessment are assessment approaches where students assess their own
and their peers work with reference to criteria and standards. These two forms of
assessment are most commonly used as formative (development of learning) assessment
although they can be used for summative (grading) purposes.
Simple examples of when to use self and peer assessment can include:
commenting on draft and final essays or project reports
anonymously or publicly grading peers presentations
proposing grades with reasons after observing peer work
discussing and suggesting improvements in peers’ work
reflecting on improvements in others’ work
reflecting on improvements in their own work
collectively discussing grades and feedback and providing reasons for these.
31 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Tips and suggestions
Talk to students about the benefits of developing desirable graduate capabilities particularly those associated with independent life-long learning, communication and teamwork.
Engage students with the idea of in a community of practice through exposure to others’ work and in dialogue with peers and lecturers.
Induct students into the assessment criteria.
Explain the value for students’ of receiving and giving more targeted feedback than is usually possible in large classes.
Consider these design questions
What form would peer assessment take? (can include individual anonymous comments by each student about each student’s work; a team comment on each students’ work; a team reflection on what they have learnt together; a team oral presentation on the team’s processes).
What form would self-assessment take?
How will a team decide what grade to award their peers? (the need to keep records of team meetings/activities/work load becomes important when trying to determine how much contribution individuals have contributed to the team).
Will you adopt weighted assessment marks for both self and peer components?
Will you use confidential assessment proformas for peer and self-assessment?
How will you test intended learning outcomes from the team experience?
To ensure reliability in peer assessment, you will need to:
provide a rationale to precede the assessment task
provide explicit criteria that the students can use easily
make assessment feedback consequential ( i.e. students can demonstrate that the
peer assessment has been incorporated into the task/s)
make author and feedback anonymous where possible to counter a reluctance in
some students to assess their peers or friends
involve the students in negotiating what standards they should look for to decide their
peer marks, and what assessments will contribute to final marks
require students to keep a log of their individual workload and contributions in the
team assignment
design a reflective task for students to complete – this could be an analysis of how
the team worked., what worked best or not, what contributions were made, how well
did the team meet its expectations and aims, what could the team have done more
thoroughly or better?
32 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
5. Evaluation and Reflection of Teamwork
This section includes how to:
determine what evaluation and reflection may be used in teamwork and includes a
sample evaluation template.
One of the ways students can learn from their experience of team work is to request that
they complete an evaluation on their team process and outcomes. This will require the
lecturer to decide what format this evaluation will take.
Benefits of evaluation of team processes and practice
a wide range of issues may emerge which will inform future improved lecturer practice when establishing team work projects.
individual students can make their opinions public within a team setting where there may have been some dominant viewpoints prevailing.
deeper learning can occur when teams reflect and evaluate what they have learnt.
5.1. How will you ask students to evaluate their team work?
When seeking feedback and evaluation from students on their team activities and outcomes,
it is wise to prepare a set of questions that will give you a maximum amount of information in
a timely manner, and give you the opportunity to plan how you will respond to the answers
you receive.
5.1.1. Questionnaires
Questionnaires are commonly used, yet there are pitfalls in this approach including:
a ‘tick box syndrome’ can occur where students become conditioned to answering multiple questions and do not think very seriously about what they answer.
some students are keen to please the questioner which can distort their real views, even when questionnaires are anonymous.
questionnaires tend to be taken post the event, which means they do not always capture the events as they happen; and there is a lost opportunity for students to have a sense of ownership of the responses and actions taken to improve issues.
some important issues which may have impacted on the students’ capacity to work successfully in a team may not be captured adequately in a questionnaire.
33 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
students do not always feel like answering a questionnaire at a given moment and therefore provide superficial answers.
questionnaires are analysed as though they reflect a permanent considered set of answers, when the data may be more transient in nature.
students become bored with answering too many questionnaires that require no commitment to answering in depth, or the form looks too long, and their answers can be non-specific and generalised.
Advantages of questionnaires can include:
the ability to reach a large number of students with one instrument of evaluation
formative feedback can be gained whilst students are working on their team projects;
anonymity can be assured in contrast to student interviews or class feedback sessions;
if properly designed questions that prompt positive and less positive answers and a mix of types of response formats are used (tick boxes, graduated scales, list of optional answers, written answers), students may find it more interesting to complete;
advance planning of your response agenda to the answers you may receive can highlight further questions you may need to add to the questionnaire;
questions that explore more deeply, are non-ambiguous, short and simple
can be developed that avoid too many vague ‘undecided’ answers.
The questions you may want to ask can be categorised as either “structured” or “open
ended”.
Examples of structured questions
Write questions that require agreement measures from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (e.g.: This assignment was very easy to complete)
Write questions that include number grading from “5= most useful” to “1= least useful” as the answer (e.g.: This assignment helped me learn more about the topic).
Explore students feelings to “more of, “just right” and “less of” answers to questions (e.g. How do you feel about the opportunity to practice your teams’ presentation?).
prioritising answers to questions from 1 to 10.(e.g.: On scale of 1-10 with I being least useful, and 10 being most useful, decide where you think that the use of research reports as the assessment of this topic was appropriate?).
34 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Examples of open ended questions
The three most useful features of working in a team are…
The three least useful features of working in a team are…
Describe how you dealt with…
Suggestions for improvements in teamwork are…
What did you learn from working with your team members?
What were the key issues that your team had to deal with?
What was the relevance of teamwork to the topic?
5.1.2. Other Evaluation Methods
Tips and suggestions
Journals - students can be asked to complete journal entries either electronically or in hard copy as a component of an assessment task.
Daily diaries - students can track the progress of the team activities and cooperation, outcomes of meetings and discussions and issues that arise.
Online comments – using a wiki, team blog or answering an online questionnaire.
Team member interviews – preparing an agenda carefully and considering how many of the team you will interview is essential so that you gain maximum benefit from the effort required to establish this feedback/evaluation process.
Team feedback in class - this can be a useful way of avoiding embarrassment of individuals and can promote debate and reflection on a wider scale.
35 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
5.2. Reflections on teamwork Students can be asked to write reflective pieces on their experience of the team process and
practice. Writing about an experience is a useful way of demonstrating what has been learnt.
It also demands time and space to reflect, encourages independent thought, individual
ownership of an experience, enables expression of feelings and problem solving. These are
capabilities we have named and aspire to encourage in our future graduates.
Reflective writing is an opportunity to ask students to:
describe and analyse their role in a team;
consolidate what they have learnt from their experience;
keep a record of their experience;
anticipate what they may do differently in the future if asked to work in a team again;
share their experiences with other teams in safe and supportive environment to deepen overall student appreciation of many common issues and strengths and weaknesses in team work.
You need to consider if this reflective writing is assessable, part assessable or not (in
advance), as this will determine which sections of the writing are most easily assessed when
you are developing the reflective task.
Consider assessing
1. Actions taken by student to address issues.
2. Asking students to list what they felt were the strengths and weaknesses of the team
process.
Guidance on what you want the students to reflect on is important. Reflective writing
needs to be planned and to have some ground rules.
Tips and suggestions
Talk with students about their team process and practices and what you want them to
learn about.
Ask students to analysis what their team was trying to achieve, motivations, differing
viewpoints, what was not resolved or not resolved well, decision making, team
members responses to issues, or anything unusual or unexpected that happened.
Ask students to describe how the individual student roles in a team worked.
Linking theory and practice.
Stress to students that critical incidents or issues are an important part of reflective
practice.
36 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Assisting students to write about their experiences
Ground rules need to be established to assist students to write in a purposeful way. Some
students will be unsure as to how to write about their team members or the processes and
issues that may have arisen and may have no experience of reflective writing.
Tips and suggestions
To avoid interpersonal difficulties or inappropriate comments you could ask students to:
Only write about what they observed or their perceptions and not to make assumptions of what they thought other students felt in the team.
Avoid writing anything about another student that would be insulting, or hurtful to read, thus encouraging a more professional constructive commentary.
Write about critical incidents and how they were resolved as a key learning and not as a way to criticise individuals.
Not be fearful of reflecting on mistakes and how they were addressed.
Explore what they have learnt from this experience as individuals.
Where can I find out more?
Boud, D.(2001) Using journal-writing to enhance reflective practice in L.English and M.Gillen
(eds) Promoting Journal Writing in Adult Education: New Direction for Adult and
Continuing Education, Vol 90.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, G & Hirschfeld, G.(2008) Students conceptions of assessment; links to outcomes,
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, Vol 15(1), pp 3-17.
Gibbs, G & Simpson, C.(2002) Does your assessment support your students’ learning
available at: http://isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob.aspx?feltid=157744.
Moon, J.A.(1999) Learning Journals: A Handbook for Academics, Students, and
Professional Development, London: Kogan Page.
Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D.(2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a
model and seven principles of good feedback, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 31,(2)
pp199-218.
37 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
O’Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. (2001) the student experience of criterion-referenced
assessment through the introduction of a common criteria assessment grid,
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol 38,(1) pp74-85.
Race, P.(2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment, generic Assessment
Series, no.9. LTSN Generic Centre, York.
Rust, C.(2001) A briefing on assessment of large groups: LTSN Generic Centre Assessment
Series No 12, York, LTSN.
Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books.
38 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Team Evaluation (example)
Rate your team individually, on a scale of 1 being the least successful, to 5 being the most
successful, and then share your answers with fellow team members.
Circle one of the following ratings for each point Working together 1 2 3 4 5 Commitment to the task 1 2 3 4 5 (agreed decisions, agreed aims) Team meeting effectiveness 1 2 3 4 5 (completing actions, attendance, contributing) Team communication 1 2 3 4 5 (listening, clarifying, recognising viewpoints) Meeting deadlines 1 2 3 4 5 Equal participation 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of work 1 2 3 4 5 Team member motivation 1 2 3 4 5 Equal share of workload 1 2 3 4 5
Are there additional comments you want to make?
What would you change or correct in your teams’ performance?
Overall how would you rate your teams’ performance? 1 2 3 4 5
Adapted from: Morgan, A. (2002) Enhancing Experiences of Group Work. University of
Technology, Institute for interactive Media and Learning, Sydney.
39 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Selected Bibliography
Adnett, N.(2000) Introducing peer group assessment in an undergraduate economics
programme, in P.Davies, S.Hodkinson and P.Reynolds (eds), Innovative Approaches
to Learning and Teaching in Economics and Business Higher Education, UK, Stoke-
on-Trent, Trentham Books.
Ashraf, M. (2004). "A Critical Look at the Use of Group Projects as a Pedagogical Tool."
Journal of Education for Business 79(4): 213.
Assessing Group Work. Online at http://learn.lincoln.ac.nz.
Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Barkley, E. F., K. P. Cross, et al. (2004). Collaborative learning techniques: a handbook for
college faculty. San Francisco, Josey-Bass.
Bourner, J., Hughes, M.,& Bourner, T.(2001) First–year undergraduate experiences of group
project work. Assessment and Evaluation, vol 26(1) pp.19-39.
Brown, R.(1998) Group Processes: Dynamics within and between Groups, UK, Oxford,
Blackwell.
Cardiff University (2001) Guidance on group work. Online at http:// www.cardiff.ac.uk.
Clark, M. A., Blancero, D., Luce, C., and Marron, G.(2001) Teaching group-task congruence:
the fit for performance exercise, Journal for Management Education, vol 25,(5),pp.531-
52.
Clinebell, S. and M. Stecher (2003). "Teaching teams to be teams: An exercise using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Five-Factor personality traits." Journal of
Management Education 27(3): 362.
Cragin, J. (2002). Team-Based Learning in International Situations. Team-Based Learning:
A transformative use of small groups. L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight and L. D. Fink.
Westport, Connecticut, Praeger: 177-88.
Evaluating Teams. Online at http://www.vta.spcomm.uiuc.edu.
Federman Stein, R.,& Hurd, S.(2000) Using Student Teams in the Classroom: A Faculty
Guide. Anker: Boston,MA Chapter 1: Teamwork theory and Discussion.
Feichtner, S. B. and E. A. Davis (1984). "Why Some Groups Fail: a Survey of Students'
Experiences with Learning Groups." Journal of Management Education 9(4): 58-73.
Gibbs, G. (1994) Learning in Teams: A Student Manual. Headington, Oxford: The Oxford
Centre for Staff Development.
Gibbs, G.(1995). Learning in Teams: A Tutor Guide. Headington Oxford. The Oxford Centre
for Staff Development.
40 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Gibbs, G., Rust, C., Jenkins, A., & Jaques, D.(1994). Developing Students’ Transferrable
Skills. Headington, Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Hansen, R. S. (2006). "Benefits and Problems With Student Teams: Suggestions for
Improving Team Projects." Journal of Education for Business 82(1): 11.
Jaques, D.(2000) Learning in Groups,3rd edn. London, Kogan Page.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P.(4th edn.) (1991) Joining Together: Group Theory and
Group Skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Katzenbach, J. R. and K. Smith (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high
performance organisation. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
Kazlauskas, A., S. Gimel, et al. (2007). Embedding group work in the first year experience.
www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/papers07/final_papers/.../1d.pdf.
Methods for Assessing Group work. Online at http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca.
Michaelson, R.(2000) Assessing group work, LTSN-BEST Briefing Paper. Online at
http://www.business.heacademy.ac.uk.
Morgan, P.(2002) Supporting staff to support students: the application of a performance
management framework to reduce group working problems.
Online at http://www.business.heacademy.ac.uk.
Oakley, B., R. M. Felder, et al. (2004). "Turning student groups into effective teams." Journal
of Student Centred Learning 2: 9-34.
Options for Lecturer/Tutor Assessment of Group Work Products and Process.
Online at http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au.
O’Sullivan, T., Rice, J., Rogerson, S., and Saunders, C. (1996) Successful Group Work,
London, Kogan Page.
Page, D. and J. G. Donelan (2003). "Team-building tools for students." Journal of Education
for Business 78(3): 125.
Pfaff, E. and P. Huddleston (2003). "Does It Matter if I Hate Teamwork? What Impacts
Student Attitudes toward Teamwork." Journal of Marketing Education 25(1): 37-45.
Pineda, R. C. and L. D. Lerner (2006). "Goal attainment, satisfaction and learning from
teamwork." Team Performance Management 12(5/6): 182.
Race, Phil (2001) The Lecturer’s Toolkit. (2nd Ed) Routledge Falmer.
Springer, L., M. E. Stanne, et al. (1999). "Effects of Small-Group Learning on
Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-
Analysis." Review of Educational Research 69(1): 21-51.
Student Groups: Issues for Teaching and Learning. Online at http://www.clt.uts.edu.au.
Teamworks Site Map: Online at http:// www.adm.vta.spcomm.uiuc.edu.
41 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Van den Bossche, P., W. H. Gijselaers, et al. (2006). "Social and Cognitive Factors Driving
Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments." Small Group Research 37(5):
490-521.
Winchester- Seeto, T. (2002) Assessment of collaborative work-collaboration versus
assessment. Invited Paper presented at the Annual Uniserve Science Symposium, The
University of Sydney.
42 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
APPENDIX A
Case study research: Rosse. M. (2010)
EXAMPLES OF TEAMWORK IN FIRST YEAR SUBJECTS
LA TROBE UNIVERSITY
The following examples of teamwork provide a demonstration of the variety of tasks which
can be employed for teamwork and a range of ways in which teamwork can be integrated
into the curriculum. All these examples have been taken from first year subjects.
43 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Case Study 1
Course/Discipline History
Number of students 300-400 students across 3 campuses
1. Description of Teamwork
Each team chooses a topic (a mythical figure) from a wide range of options, and then
chooses one of 3 possible focus questions. The outcome is a team oral presentation
supported by a poster or PowerPoint. The team project spans 5 weeks (including the
semester break), from Week 7-10, and makes use of the 1 hour per week of tutorial time,
plus additional out-of-class time. Students are provided with detailed step-by-step advice
about the research process and with extensive reading lists on the various topics.
One of the reasons for including the teamwork element was that student engagement data
showed that the students in humanities/social science were least likely to have a friend at
university, least likely to stay on campus for longer than their actual class and, by their own
admission, least likely to prepare for that class.
2. Teaching Approaches
From Week 1, students are allocated into teams by the tutor, but then when the assessed
task begins, the students form their own groups of 3 students – but this process does vary
with different tutors (8 in total). Students have a practice task which requires the team to
meet out of class time and present something in class the following week.
Each team is required to keep minutes of their meetings (a proforma is provided) and to post
the minutes where they can be accessed by team members (e.g. on a Wiki), and also be
available for the tutor to see in tutorials. This provides evidence if someone is not
contributing. Teams meet in tutorial time, where they are monitored by the tutor. They are
also expected to meet outside tutorial time – but this is not monitored (other than the
minutes)
3. Assessment
The oral presentation, with its accompanying PowerPoint or poster, is worth 15% of the
semester mark. The assessment is marked according to six criteria: inquiry/research, critical
thinking, creative problem-solving, teamwork, speaking, PowerPoint or e-Poster. Each
criterion has notes about scope and evidence, and is graded as A, B, C, D, or N. All team
members receive the same mark. Peer and self-assessment have been used in the past, but
is not currently used.
4. Extension
Arising from the team task, the students develop a topic for their individual 1,500 word
essay. They are encouraged to form a writers’ workshop in their team to help each other with
references, read each other’s drafts and generally provide peer mentoring.
44 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Case Study 2
Course/Discipline Law
Number of students 300 students
1. Description of Teamwork
Students work in pairs to conduct a 20 minute role play of a mediation which is performed in
Weeks 10, 11 and 12. In Week 8 they are assigned their partner and start the preparation. In
the preceding weeks, they participate in group activities with different students each week,
within the weekly 2-hour skills seminars
2. Teaching Approaches
For each mediation, the student ‘mediators’ are given a scenario, a set of facts in about six
pages of information, with differently defined roles for each student. The student ‘clients’ in
the mediation are given information that is not given to their mediators. Teams are selected
randomly by the lecturer/tutor. Students’ participation in tutorials throughout the semester is
monitored by tutors, but their work with their mediation partner is not judged until the role
play. If there are problems within the mediation pairs, students sometimes record these in
their reflective journals, with more serious problems being taken to the tutor/lecturer.
3. Assessment
Assessment is summative - performance of the role play is worth 20% of the marks for the
subject. Although the role play is jointly conducted, each student is marked separately. The
reflective journal activity, which is associated with the role play of the mediation, is worth 5%
and there is also a class participation mark of 10% awarded by the tutor.
4. Additional Resources
It is intended that readings on reflective practice and teamwork skills will be incorporated into
this subject in the future.
45 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Case Study 3
Course/Discipline Marketing
Number of students 330 students
1. Description of Teamwork
In this subject, there has always been an assessed teamwork task, but not explicit teaching
about teamwork, nor assessing of the teamwork contribution. The task is the beginning of a
marketing plan, called Situation Analysis. Students have to apply what they are learning in
the subject to a given area or industry – in this case, accessories for 4 wheel drivers,
campers, or caravans. The task lasts the whole semester, with assignment checkpoints
halfway and two thirds of the way through the semester.
2. Teaching Approaches
Teams can be made up of 2, 3 or 4 students. Students self-select from within their tutorial
groups. It takes a while for teams to settle (in the case of students changing their subject
selections). Teams work outside scheduled class-time (occasionally there is some spare
time in tutorials). Teams are required to keep minutes of their meetings and these are
included with the final assignment.
Lecturer and tutors are available in consultation hours, and via email and the Learning
Management System, to sort out any problems. In the case of a non-contributing student,
students are advised to contact team members by email (copy the lecturer into it), to try and
solve the problem within the team. The lecturer occasionally has to follow up, with the worst-
case scenario being that the assignment is done with one less team member and a separate
arrangement is made with an individual student.
3. Assessment
Summative assessment is made of the teams’ final products, with 20% of the team’s mark
made up of 10% for the 20 minute oral presentation, and 10% for the written assignment
(4,000 words). Everyone shares the same mark. There is no assessment of how the team
works or how students contributed to their team.
4. Resources
Scheduling of appointments with each team is considered to be desirable but difficult to
implement. Training of tutors would also be desirable and would need to be provided each
year to allow for new tutors coming into the program. Online teamwork exercises that could
be done in the students’ own time would be a valuable addition.
46 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Case Study 4
Course/Discipline Health Sciences
Number of students 1,000 – 1,100 students in Melbourne + 600 students on regional campuses
1. Description of Teamwork
As a new subject in 2009 (as part of the Common First Year), teamwork was built in from the
start with a strong focus on communication and working in teams. Development of teamwork
skills is one of the four key learning areas. A five week series of Skills Workshops (teamwork
and communication) is followed by two 3 or 4 week enquiries (Weeks 6-8 and Weeks 10-13).
The enquiries focus on concepts of disability and illness from the consumer’s perspective.
2. Teaching Approaches
This subject has weekly two-hour workshops. In each workshop there are 30 students
divided into five teams of 6. Computer software is employed allocate students to teams, to
mix the composition of teams in terms of the students’ courses. Students stay in the same
team for the whole semester. Team groupings are kept the same as for another Common
First Year subject.
Skills development in the first 5 weeks includes exploring team roles and the stages of team
development. Team Learning Agreements (TLAs) are used to set the ground rules for the
functioning of the team and also for the team to review its performance. These TLAs are
examined by the facilitator. TLAs include team goals, philosophy, processes (including
decision-making, responsibility for tasks, management of problems, and communicating).
Most students set up Facebook groups to facilitate team communication, or can have an
LMS discussion board set up for them on request. In the case of a problem within a team,
the facilitator joins the online communication, and that often helps to settle the problem.
Students are not expected to be able to manage internal conflict without the guidance and
support of their facilitator or lecturer.
3. Assessment
The final products of each enquiry are assessed. Enquiry 1 is a 1,000 word team poster
(15%) and Enquiry 2 is a 15 minute team presentation (20%). All team members receive the
same mark. According to online student survey results, some students are concerned about
the fairness of awarding everyone the same mark, but there have also been problems with
peer assessment. The issue of assessment of teamwork is being considered.
4. Additional Resources
Media resources showcasing well-functioning teams or dysfunctional teams, and online
learning materials for students to self-assess their naturally preferred team role, would be
welcome additions to existing resources.
47 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Case Study 5
Course Discipline Engineering
Number of students 35 students at regional campus
1. Description of Teamwork
The motivation for the project is to give students some insight into civil engineering and to
provide the opportunity for students to get to know other students. The teamwork project
lasts for the entire semester. The Task is to provide advice to government on the installation
of a solar electricity generator and to present this advice in an oral presentation and a written
report.
2. Teaching Approaches
A lecture is given in Week 2 covering a wide range of aspects of “Working in Teams”,
including types of teams, team development, team roles, dealing with conflict, and factors
affecting performance etc. The class of 35 students is divided into 6 teams of 5 or 6
students. Teams are formed by the end of Week 2, using Victorian Certificate of Education
(VCE) scores to distribute students across the teams, with 3 teams forming Task Force A
and 3 teams forming Task Force B. Each Task Force has a management team and two
worker teams. Teams organise themselves in terms of internal structure, but for the
purposes of communicating with the management team they have to appoint a leader to
meet weekly with the management team. Formal minutes of meetings are not required, other
than for the management team, but attendance is monitored. Timeslots within the teaching
schedule are used for teams to meet, plus additional out-of-class time. Each team has a
supervisor who meets regularly with the team and monitors their progress. Roles and
responsibilities of students and supervisor are clearly defined in the documentation for the
project.
3. Assessment
The teamwork project is the centrepiece of assessable work for this subject. In Week 8 an
introduction to the team report is submitted (worth 5%), with the final team report being
submitted in Week 12 (worth 65%). The team’s Oral Presentation is in Week 13 (worth
15%). The team mark for each of these assessments is shared by all team members.
48 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Case Study 6
Course/Discipline Education
Number of students Two classes of 270 students and 30 students, both on regional campuses
1. Description of Teamwork
This teamwork task was introduced in 2010. The purpose of the task is to have an assessed
item that links the students more into their communities and which addresses some of the
outcomes related to students’ understanding of their role as leaders in the community. The
task involves using an internet platform, Pebble Pad (a web-based portfolio which is used
throughout the B.Ed. degree) and producing a multi-media digital story to be housed on
Pebble Pad. The aim is to complete the task by Week 6 of the semester.
2. Teaching Approaches
The multimedia digital story is completed in 2 stages. The structure for the process is set up
in the Action Plan which is submitted in Week 3. Stage 1 involves making a movie about
their community, using I-Movie or Movie Maker, and Stage 2 is the interviewing of a
community member. The task is carefully scaffolded with step-by-step instructions for all the
technical procedures.
Teams have a maximum of four members and are formed by the students themselves in the
second week. Based on their first semester experience, students know each other well and
have often formed strong bonds. They already have the team building skills with the
confidence to allocate the different roles. If problems arise in the teams, the co-ordinator
deals with them on a case-by-case basis.
3. Assessment
Students are assessed as a team, with all team members receiving the same mark. The
Action Plan in Week 3 is worth 5%, and the final multimedia presentation is worth 20%.
There is a plan to redesign the assessment so that it includes an assessment of each
student’s contribution to the team.
49 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Case Study 7
Course/Discipline Media Studies
Number of students 125 (up to 175)
1. Description of Teamwork
The subject has been in existence for 12-15 years, with its current form having been
developed over the last 5 years. The teamwork project is integral to the subject. The project
for each team is to produce a 25 minute news program over the period from Week 4 to
Week 11. The final TV programs are shown in the two hour lecture so that everybody gets to
see the result of everybody else’s teamwork efforts.
2. Teaching Approaches
Teams operate at multiple levels. The tutorial group (25 students) is the Production Team
which produces a single news program. Within that team there are multiple other teams:
teams which work on a particular story, studio teams (e.g. floor manager, camera operator,
vision mixer, etc.), and editorial teams. A tutorial grouping (and therefore a Production team)
is self-selected by students, usually for tutorial scheduling reasons. Roles within those teams
are negotiated from within the team: after the first three weeks of tutorials which cover the
specifics of the various roles, students nominate themselves for the particular roles, e.g.
producer, director etc. The first three weeks of tutorials cover the knowledge and practical
skills they need to get started; subsequent tutorials continue with this function.
Students use LMS or email for communication. Each of the Production teams has a strong
identity, usually developing their own logos. The lecturer and tutor keep a close eye on the
teams; they see them working in the studios where they can monitor and guide their
progress. If issues arise, the lecturer deals with them in face-to-face sessions. The aim for
such sessions is that everyone should come out with a better understanding of the issue and
feel that they have been heard.
3. Assessment
The final news program is worth 20%. The mark is shared by everyone. Students also write
an individual assignment (worth 20%) which includes a section in which they evaluate their
own contribution to a story and to the program, and other sections in which they critique their
team’s program, reflect on what they learnt from the experience and what they could present
in a CV.
50 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
APPENDIX B
Author: Greg Jamieson, Faculty of Business, Economics and Law (2010).
Situating Collaborative Learning and Teamwork
What is the pedagogical rational for collaborative learning?
There are a range of theoretical perspectives on learning - neurological, cognitive, social and
experiential (Cross 1999) - each to varying degrees providing a pedagogical rationale for
collaborative learning.
Collaborative learning promotes active learning which makes connections both within the
neurological network of the brain and amongst the schemata of the mind. The more active is
the engagement of the student, the more connections are made and the greater is the
learning. Moreover, the social and experiential context in which collaborative learning is
developed allows for the development of understanding through a dialectic of teaching and
learning or doing and reflecting. This further deepens the level of understanding achieved
and the ability of the student to apply that understanding in the world.
Neurological perspective
New research on the neurology of the brain provides a perspective on learning which
complements that derived from the cognitive sciences. This perspective holds that the
circuitry of the brain is comprised of millions of neurons, and when two neurons connect,
through the passage of information from one neuron to another, learning takes place
(Sprenger 2007: p. 29). The more the brain is stimulated the more neurons are connected
and the more learning is developed. Indeed as Diamond and Hopson state “…enrich your
experiences and enlarge your cerebral cortex, deprive yourself of stimulation and the brain
will shrink from disuse.” (Diamond and Hopson 1998) collaborative learning provides a
stimulating environment for learning where individual students are challenged by their peers
with whom they must collaborate.
Cognitive perspective
Cognitive theorists describe the structure of the mind as comprising schemata, one for each
different topic. Each schema is an organised collection of related facts, ideas and opinions
which together define an individual’s understanding of a specific topic. An individual’s
perception of each new experience, observation or idea, is organised into the appropriate
schema to create new meaning (Cross 1999). In the same way as neuroscientists discount
the perception of the brain as prewired, and prefer to see it as developing as experience
stimulates new connections being formed between neurons, so cognitive scientists see the
mind developing as new schemata are identified and expanded, stimulated by knowledge
and experience, yet actively created by the individual mind. Both the neurological and the
cognitive perspective define learning as an activity performed by the individual student.
While such activities can be undertaken alone, the added stimulus offered by a collaborative
learning environment increases the probability that new connections can be made when
learning occurs.
51 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Social perspective
As distinct from both the neurological and the cognitive perspectives, social constructionists
perceive learning as a social activity in which individuals construct an understanding of the
world around them mediated through language and culture. The social perspective sees
learning as being created through a communal process of dialogue and reflection.
“Collaborative learning promotes the communal construction of interpretation and
understanding through a process of critical engagement with and the incorporation of the
views of others” (Stage, Muller et al. 1998: p. 46). Moreover, social constructionists see
learning as being developed not only through observing, listening and reflecting, but equally
through explaining, expressing, convincing and defending one’s own understanding to
others. In short learning is developed and consolidated through teaching. The dialectic of
teaching and learning occurring between peers is at the heart of both collaborative leaning
and the social perspective of learning.
Experiential perspective
Whereas the social perspective focuses on the ability of collaborative learning to develop a
process of communal dialogue and reflection, the experiential perspective sees it as offering
the opportunity to learn through experience and has its genesis in the thinking of John
Dewey (Dewey 1967). Collaborative learning activities are often focused on solving
problems which students consider to be real problems drawn from the world in which they
live and as such is promoting learning by doing. More importantly, however, is the
opportunity collaborative learning provides to develop students’ teamwork, interpersonal and
communication skills. No matter how abstract the topic of analysis, collaborative learning
requires students not only to communicate but also to work together both as individuals and
in groups. In so doing, students are learning-by-doing skills critical to their future careers and
to living in communities.
Does collaborative learning improve student learning outcomes?
Collaborative or cooperative learning is “ one of the most thoroughly researched of all
instructional methods” (Slavin 1989b: p. 28). At primary and secondary school levels, the
favourable effects of collaborative learning on achievement and productivity, psychological
health and self-esteem, intergroup attitudes and attitudes towards learning are so
consistently positive that, in the words of Cohen, it is no longer necessary to establish
collaborative learning as a “legitimate method of instruction that can help students to learn”
(1994: p. 30). Further, in a meta-analysis of 60 studies which compared the achievement
outcomes of collaborative learning and traditional methods in primary and secondary
schools, Slavin (1989a) found widespread agreement among reviewers of the positive effect
of collaborative learning.
A number of meta analyses have included some studies of the use of collaborative learning
at a post-secondary level. For instance, Johnson et al (1981),in an analysis of 122 studies
on the topic, found cooperation to be superior to both individualistic and competitive learning
pedagogies in promoting achievement and productivity. This work was further extended and
supported by Johnson and Johnson (1989), and Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1991). It was
also confirmed by Springer, Stanne and Donovan who undertook a meta-analysis of
research conducted at a post-secondary level in science, mathematics, engineering and
technology courses and found “ ... the main effect of small-group learning on achievement,
persistence and attitudes ... was significant and positive” (1999: p. 29).
52 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Collaborative learning has been successfully employed at a post-secondary level to teach
students in a range of disciplines including chemistry (Kogut 1997), economics (Maier and
Keenan 1994), dentistry (Scannapieco and Herreid 1994), health sciences (Goodson 2002),
computer skills (Keeler and Anson 1995), finance (Chan, Shum et al. 1996), and accounting
(Caldwell, Weishar et al. 1996). It has also been applied in large class situations (Michaelsen
2002b) and in different cultural settings (Cragin 2002).
Collaborative learning has also been shown to assist in the development a range of graduate
capabilities in post-secondary students, including academic skills (Johnson, Maruyama et al.
1981), problem solving (Johnson, Johnson et al. 1991), decision making skills (Watson,
Michaelsen et al. 1991: p. 808) and social skills (Terenzini, Cabrera et al. 2001).
Several studies have shown that students also benefit from the opportunities collaborative
learning offers to apply their knowledge to work-related problems and environments. For
instance, Alie, Beam et al in their study of students working in hierarchical teams found:
“Students actually get to apply what they have studied in other classes. They do not simply
study organisational behaviour; they are immersed in it in a team setting” (1998: p. 718).
Notwithstanding considerable support for the positive effects of collaborative learning on
student achievement of graduate capabilities, there remain a number of dissenting voices.
Asharaf, for instance in a theoretical discussion argues that “Because of the nature of the
classroom setting, not only does the problem of free riding intensify, but it may result in
making less motivated students proficient free riders. The models in this study indicate that
the use of groups and group projects as pedagogical tools should be reconsidered” (2004: p.
216). The free-rider or “collective action” problem was also highlighted in McCorkle’s study,
which found “... support for a conclusion that group projects can be strongly affected by
problems of specialization of labor and collective action” (1999: p. 114) However, McCorkle
also found that “... students are capable of recognising the benefits and the need for group
work in developing the necessary teamwork skills” (1999: p. 114)
This suggests that there a number of preconditions for collaborative learning to lead to
enhanced achievement of learning objectives and the development of graduate capabilities.
In the words of Barker and Franzak “... placing students into groups for class assignments is
not the same as developing teams, even when the term ‘team’ is applied” (1997: p. 304).
These thoughts are echoed throughout the literature as for instance in Clinebell and Stecher
(2003) and Hansen (2006).
Defining characteristics of effective learning groups
Smith (1996: pp. 74-6) defined five characteristics of effective learning groups, which are
often positively cited in the literature on team development (Tarricone and Luca 2002: ;
Barkley, Cross et al. 2004: ; Van den Bossche, Gijselaers et al. 2006: ; Barkley 2010).
The five characteristics are:
Positive Interdependence: This implies a belief system, commonly held amongst all
members of the team, in which the success of the team relies on the collective
contribution of each member of the team.
Promotive Interaction: This implies a behavioural system, commonly practised by
all members of the team, which ensures each member of the team is interacting to
help each other accomplish the team’s goals and promote each other’s success.
53 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Individual and Group Accountability: This implies a reward system in which,
although the team is accountable for achieving its goals, individual team members
are accountable for contributing to achievement of the team’s goals and are
assessed according to the extent to which they contribute to the achievement of its
goals.
Development of Teamwork Skills: This implies an educational system in which
teamwork skills are learned “just as purposefully and precisely as academic skills”
(Smith 1996: p. 75).
Group Processing: This implies an evaluation system in which students are
responsible for evaluating team work and determining what is useful and not useful in
assisting the team’s progress towards the achievement of its goals.
These characteristics closely reflect those identified in the research undertaken by
Katzenbach and Smith into the characteristics of high-performance teams operating in the
business and industry context where “A team is a small number of people with
complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and
approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable” (emphasis in the
original)(1993: p. 45). However, Smith’s five characteristics imply a necessary precondition
highlighted in the Katzenbach and Smith characteristics of high-performance teams, that
high-performance teams are comprised of “... a small number of people with complementary
skills ...”. This might define a sixth preconditioning characteristic, Resource
Interdependence, which implies a resource allocation system via which the groups, from
which the teams will grow, are formed so as to provide an adequate range of resources
required to achieve the team’s goals.
Strategies for developing effective learning groups
“[There] is an acknowledgement that group work has long suffered as a result of inadequate
epistemology, and that principles of ‘good practice’ need to be identified and adhered if
effective group learning outcomes are to be realised” (Baskin, Barker et al. 2005: p. 23). The
six characteristics of effective learning groups, defined above, provides a framework through
which to consider some principles of best practice in the development of effective learning
groups.
Resource Interdependence
An essential prerequisite to developing effective learning teams is the criteria used in
defining the members of each group. The groups need to be formed in a such a way as to
provide an adequate resource for each group; to maximise the diversity of resources
available to each group; and to minimise the chance that disruptive cliques will form within
the groups (Michaelsen 2002a). The only way in which to meet these criteria is for the
students to be allocated into groups by the lecturer, so as to “ ... mix students up in a way
that forces the groups to build themselves into teams ‘from the ground up’” (Michaelsen
2002a: p. 29). Feichtner and Davis (1984), Michaelsen and Black (1994) and Koppenhaver
and Shrader (2003), all provide further support for instructor assigned teams.
Time is another important resource available to groups to develop as a team. Groups should
be allowed sufficient time both to develop as a team and to achieve the other goals for which
they were formed (Michaelsen 2002a). McKendall (2000), Pfaff and Huddlestone (2003), and
others also argue that teams should be allowed some regular class time in which to meet as
54 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
a team to plan, administer, carry out and reflect on the tasks required in order to achieve the
team’s goal.
Positive Interdependence
In the first instance, students need to be convinced as to the importance and relevance of
developing or employing team work skills to the learning objectives defined for the subject or
course (McKendall 2000: ; Clinebell and Stecher 2003: ; Page and Donelan 2003: ; Oakley,
Felder et al. 2004). Unless the rationale for developing or employing team work skills within
the subject or course is accepted by the students their ability to buy in to a belief system
predicated on team work skills is likely to be limited. As Slavin notes “It is not enough to
simply tell students to work together; they must have a reason to take one another’s
achievements seriously” (1996: p. 21). In Smith’s words “Students must believe that they are
linked with others in such a way that one cannot succeed unless the other members of the
group succeed” (1996). In part this belief system is motivated by the definition of a clearly
defined goal for the team which can only be achieved through the group working as a team
and by a reward system aligned both to the achievement of the team’s goal and to the
contribution made by each individual to the achievement of that goal (Page and Donelan
2003: ; Pfaff and Huddleston 2003).
Promotive interaction
A belief system alone does not constitute a team. The belief system must be reflected in the
actions of the team members. It is this characteristic that defines the difference between
cooperative learning and collaborative learning. Where a group of individuals may
cooperate, only through collaboration will the group of individuals become a team.
Cooperation defines a process in which individuals within a group organise their individual
actions to meet a group’s goal primarily through the allocation of tasks. Collaboration
requires the individuals to interact so as to jointly promote the achievement of the team’s
goals. In this way team members will help each other achieve the group’s goals and promote
one another’s success. In the words of Slavin, “If a group member wants her group to be
successful she must teach her group mates (and learn the material herself). If she simply
tells her group mates the answers, they will fail the quiz that they must take individually.”
(1996: p. 53).
Individual and group accountability
Motivating both the belief system and the behavioural system is the reward system, without
which the group is unlikely to develop into a team. The precondition of any reward system
motivating team-based belief and behavioural systems is its recognition that while the team
is accountable for the achievement of the team’s goals, individual team members are
individually accountable for their contribution to the team’s achievement of these goals and
an individual team member’s reward should reflect both the ability of the team to achieve its
goals AND the extent to which each contributed as an individual (Slavin 1996: ; Page and
Donelan 2003: ; Pfaff and Huddleston 2003).
Development of teamwork skills
The Australian Learning and Teaching Council noted, citing Clineball and Stecher (2003),
that “The assignment of students into teams without addressing team development or team-
building processes is recognized as a significant problem” (Rigby 2010: p.13). The literature
finds significant support for this point of view. Pineda and Lerner (2006) and Page and
Donelan (2003) both demonstrate a positive correlation between team-building processes, a
55 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
successful team performance and the achievement of learning outcomes. Pfaff and
Huddlestone (2003), McCorkle, Reardon et al (1999) and Oakley, Felder et al (2004) argue
that team building processes can also mitigate many of the problems associated with team
work such as the specialisation of labour, social loafing and inadequate rewards. Smith
sums it up when he says that “Students must have and use the needed leadership, decision-
making, trust-building, communication, and conflict-management skills. These skills have to
be taught just as purposefully and precisely as academic skills” (Smith 1996: p.75).
Group processing
Team members must adopt a process of continuous reflection and refinement of the manner
in which they are working as a team (McKendall 2000: ; Clinebell and Stecher 2003: ; Pfaff
and Huddleston 2003: ; Oakley, Felder et al. 2004: ; Kazlauskas, Gimel et al. 2007). Peer
assessment can be used both as a formative assessment technique as well as a summative
assessment technique to assist in this process of the self-evaluation of team members and
team practices (Feichtner and Davis 1984: ; McKendall 2000: ; Erez, Lepine et al. 2002: ;
Pfaff and Huddleston 2003: ; Hansen 2006).
References
Alie, R., E., H. Beam, H. , et al. (1998). "The use of teams in an undergraduate management
program." Journal of Management Education 22(6): 707.
Ashraf, M. (2004). "A Critical Look at the Use of Group Projects as a Pedagogical Tool."
Journal of Education for Business 79(4): 213.
Barker, R. T. and F. J. Franzak (1997). "Team building in the classroom: Preparing students
for their organisational future." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 27:
303-15.
Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Barkley, E. F., K. P. Cross, et al. (2004). Collaborative learning techniques: a handbook for
college faculty. San Francisco, Josey-Bass.
Baskin, C., M. Barker, et al. (2005). "When group work leaves the classroom does group
skills development also go out the window?" British Journal of Educational Technology
36(1): 19-31.
Caldwell, M. B., J. Weishar, et al. (1996). "The effect of cooperative learning on student
perceptions of accounting in the principles courses." Journal of Accounting Education
14(1): 17-36.
Chan, K. C., C. Shum, et al. (1996). "An Empirical Study of Cooperative Instruction
Environment on Student Achievement in Principles of Finance." Journal of Financial
Education 22(Fall): 21-8.
Clinebell, S. and M. Stecher (2003). "Teaching teams to be teams: An exercise using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Five-Factor personality traits." Journal of
Management Education 27(3): 362.
56 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Cohen, E. G. (1994). "Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small
Groups." Review of Educational Research 64(1): 1-35.
Cragin, J. (2002). Team-Based Learning in International Situations. Team-Based Learning:
A transformative use of small groups. L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight and L. D. Fink.
Westport, Connecticut, Praeger: 177-88.
Cross, K. P. (1999). "Learning Is about Making Connections. The Cross Papers Number 3,
League for Innovation in the Community College, 26522 La Alameda, Suite 370,
Mission Viejo, CA 92691; Tel: 949-367-2884; Fax: 949-367-2885; Web site:
http://www.league.org ($10).
Dewey, J. (1967). Democracy and Education. New York, Free Press.
Diamond, M. P. and J. Hopson (1998). Magic trees of the mind. New York, Dutton.
Erez, A., J. A. Lepine, et al. (2002). "Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the
functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi experiment." Personnel
Psychology 55: 929-48.
Feichtner, S. B. and E. A. Davis (1984). "Why Some Groups Fail: a Survey of Students'
Experiences with Learning Groups." Journal of Management Education 9(4): 58-73.
Goodson, P. (2002). Working with nontraditional and underprepared students in health
education. Team-Based Learning: A transformative use of small groups. L. K.
Michaelsen, A. B. Knight and L. D. Fink. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger: 119-28.
Hansen, R. S. (2006). "Benefits and Problems With Student Teams: Suggestions for
Improving Team Projects." Journal of Education for Business 82(1): 11.
Johnson, D., W., G. Maruyama, et al. (1981). "Effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis." Psychological Bulletin
89(1): 47-62.
Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson (1989). Cooperation and competition: theory and
research. Edina, MN, Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, et al. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the college
classroom. Edina, MN, Interaction Book Company.
Katzenbach, J. R. and K. Smith (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high
performance organisation. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
Kazlauskas, A., S. Gimel, et al. (2007). Embedding group work in the first year experience.
www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/papers07/final_papers/.../1d.pdf.
Keeler, C. and R. Anson (1995). "An assessment of cooperative learning used for basic
computer skills instruction in the college classroom." Journal of Educational Computing
Research 12(4): 379-93.
Kogut, L. S. (1997). "Using Cooperative Learning to Enhance Performance in General."
Journal of Chemical Education 74(6): 720-null.
Koppenhaver, G. D. and C. B. Shrader (2003). "Structuring the Classroom for Performance:
Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams*." Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education 1(1): 1-21.
57 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Maier, M. and D. Keenan (1994). "Teaching Tools: Cooperative learning in economics."
Economic Inquiry 32(2): 358-61.
McCorkle, D. E., J. Reardon, et al. (1999). "Undergraduate Marketing Students, Group
Projects, and Teamwork: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?" Journal of Marketing
Education 21(2): 106-17.
McKendall, M. (2000). "Teaching groups to become teams." Journal of Education for
Business 75(5): 277.
Michaelsen, L. K. (2002a). Getting started with team-based learning. Team-based learning:
A transformative use of small groups. L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight and L. D. Fink.
Westport, Connecticut, Praeger: 27-52.
Michaelsen, L. K. (2002b). Team-Based Learning in Large Classes. Team-Based Learning:
A transformative use of small groups. L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight and L. D. Fink.
Westport, Connecticut, Praeger: 157-72.
Michaelsen, L. K. and R. H. Black (1994). Building learning teams: the key to harnessing the
power of small groups in higher education. Collaborative learning: A source book for
higher education. S. Kadel and J. Keehner. State College, PA, National Centre for
Teaching, Learning and Assessment. 2.
Oakley, B., R. M. Felder, et al. (2004). "Turning student groups into effective teams." Journal
of Student Centred Learning 2: 9-34.
Page, D. and J. G. Donelan (2003). "Team-building tools for students." Journal of Education
for Business 78(3): 125.
Pfaff, E. and P. Huddleston (2003). "Does It Matter if I Hate Teamwork? What Impacts
Student Attitudes toward Teamwork." Journal of Marketing Education 25(1): 37-45.
Pineda, R. C. and L. D. Lerner (2006). "Goal attainment, satisfaction and learning from
teamwork." Team Performance Management 12(5/6): 182.
Rigby, B. (2010). "Review of graduate skills: Critical thinking, teamwork, ethical practice and
sustainability." Graduate Skills. B. Rigby, Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Scannapieco, F. and C. Herreid (1994). "An application of team learning in dental
education." Journal of Dental Education 58(4): 843-8.
Slavin, R. E. (1989a). Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement. School and
Classroom Organisation. R. E. Slavin. Hillsdale, N.J., Erlbaum.
Slavin, R. E. (1989b). "Research on Cooperative Learning: Consensus and Controversy."
Educational Leadership 47(4): 52.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Education for all. Exton, PA, Swets & Zeitlinger.
Smith, K. A. (1996). "Cooperative learning: Making “groupwork” work." New Directions for
Teaching and Learning 1996(67): 71-82.
Sprenger, M. (2007). Becoming a 'Wiz' at Brain-Based Teaching. Thousand Oaks,
California, Corwin Press.
58 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University
Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)
Springer, L., M. E. Stanne, et al. (1999). "Effects of Small-Group Learning on
Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-
Analysis." Review of Educational Research 69(1): 21-51.
Stage, F. K., P. A. Muller, et al. (1998). Creating Learning Centered Classrooms. What Does
Learning Theory Have To Say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 26, No.
4, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, One Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 630,
Washington, DC 20036-1183; toll-free phone: 800-773-3742; fax: 202-452-1844.
($24).
Tarricone, P. and J. Luca (2002). "Employees, teamwork and social interdependence - a
formula for successful business?" Team Performance Management 8(3/4): 54-9.
Terenzini, P. T., A. F. Cabrera, et al. (2001). "Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Classroom:
Does It Promote Student Learning?" The Journal of Higher Education 72(5): 509-31.
Van den Bossche, P., W. H. Gijselaers, et al. (2006). "Social and Cognitive Factors Driving
Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments." Small Group Research 37(5):
490-521.
Watson, W., L. K. Michaelsen, et al. (1991). "Member Competence, Group Interaction, and
Group Decision Making: A Longitudinal Study. [Article]." Journal of Applied Psychology
December 76(6): 803-9.