Using Course Collaboration to Enhance Team...
30
Using Course Collaboration to Enhance Team Performance 2012 S&T Mini Educational Research Grant Bonnie Bachman, PhD, Economics Ying Chou Lin, PhD, Business and IT
Transcript of Using Course Collaboration to Enhance Team...
Using Course Collaboration to Enhance Team Performance
2012 S&T Mini Educational Research Grant
Bonnie Bachman, PhD, Economics Ying Chou Lin, PhD, Business and IT
High Level View • Purpose: Better understand team effectiveness by using
inductive teaching methods • Implementation:
– BUS 421: teambuilding (TB) and TB skills through active learning, team-based learning, and TB skills assessments
– BUS 427: inductive learning, team-based learning, and team effectiveness assessments
• Assumptions: – (1) the development activity (BUS 421) and performance (BUS
427) will be linked, and – (2) enhanced performance will occur as a result of the
development activity. • Hypothesis: If barriers which prevent effective team
performance are removed, then improvement occurs. • Expectations: Enhancing student engagement and
professional development
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This project was designed to better understand team effectiveness by using inductive teaching methods within a collaborative framework. Implementation occurred across two core MBA courses: one focused on teambuilding and leadership as well as skills through active learning , while the other provided team-based learning. Different assessments were used to look at team skills and effectiveness. Inherent in this proposal are two assumptions: (1) that the development activity (BUS 421) and performance (BUS 427) will be linked and (2) enhanced performance will occur as a result of the development activity. We began with the hypothesis that if barriers, which prevent effective team performance, are removed, then improvement will occur. It is hypothesized that if barriers, which prevent effective team performance are removed, then improvement occurs. Enhancing student engagement and professional development are two of the key expectations.
Background • Teams (or groups) in organizations
became a hot topic in the 1940s (Mayo, 1993)
• 80% of companies with a headcount over 100 say half of their employees are on at least one team (Beyerlein & Harris, 1998)
• Inductive teaching and learning are also increasing in popularity as classroom approaches (Prince & Felder, 2007; Olin, n.d.)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Teams or groups within an organizations became a topic of discussion in the 1940s following the Hawthorne Studies (Mayo, 1993) on informal groups. After that and particularly In the 1990s, the use of formal teams or groups has significantly increased. One study showed that 80% of companies with a headcount over 100 report that half of their employees are on at least one team (Beyerlein & Harris, 1998). inductive teaching and learning such as inquiry-based, discovery, problem-based, project-based, hybrid problem-project based, case-based are also increasing in popularity as pedagogical approaches and in some cases foundational to university curriculum (Prince & Felder, 2007; Olin, n.d.).
Inductive vs Deductive Teaching • Deductive (direct teaching)
o More structured, instructor presents ideas and concepts ,and students undertake tasks to practice the concepts
o Instructor centered o Generalization Specific Example
• Inductive (discovery or inquiry teaching) o Students observe, questions encouraged, instructor
finds opportunities to explore before learning concepts
o Student centered o Specific Examples Generalization
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Both inductive and deductive teaching strategies offer advantages, but the largest difference between the two is the instructor’s role. Deductive teaching (direct instruction) is based on the idea that a highly structured presentation of content creates optimal learning for students. The instructors role is to present s or conduct lessons by introducing and explaining concepts. Students are typically given an opportunity to practice with instructor guidance and feedback. The inductive approach starts with exposing students to a concrete examples or concepts. Then learners are encouraged to observe patterns, raise questions, or make generalizations from their observations. Instructor’s role is to create opportunities and the context in which students can successfully make the appropriate generalizations and to be a guide along the process. Asking probing questions and encouraging the sharing of observations and interpretations fit into this mode of teaching.
Benefits to Using Teams in Organizations
• Increase in performance & efficiency (Ray & Bronstein, 1995; Klein et, 2009; Ancona, 1990; Orsburn, et al. 1990; )
• Better quality decisions (Manz & Sims, 1993)
• Wider range of skills and experience (Kernaghan & Cooke, 1990; Mennecke & Bradley, 1998)
• Sense of commitment (Hick, 1998)
• Correlation with team goal commitment and team effectiveness (Aubè & Rousseau, 2005)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
What are the reasons that organizations want to use teams? Multiple studies have identified specific benefits that support the use of teams, I have highlighted a few of those benefits: Teams can achieve more than individuals working on their own -Increase in performance & efficieny (Ray & Bronstein, 1995; Klein et, 2009; Ancona, 1990; Orsburn, et al. 1990) They can produce better quality decisions than individuals working alone -Better quality decisions (Manz & Sims, 1993) Teams generally bring a larger range of skills and experience to solve a problem-Wider range of skills and experience (Kernaghan & Cooke, 1990; Mennecke & Bradley, 1998) When a team has been working on a problem, they have a sense of commitment to the common solution-Sense of commitment (Hick, 1998) Taking this further, Aube and Rousseau found that team goal commitment influenced 3 areas of team effectiveness: team performance, quality of the group experience , and team viability. -Correlation with team goal commitment and team effectiveness (Aubè & Rousseau, 2005) Is there a downside to using teams? Is there a downside to using teams? Of course. We’ll get into some of them here at S&T.
Benefits to Using Teams for Student Projects
• Provide opportunities for students to explore typical workplace activities
• Increase student performance on team projects (Sullivan, 2011)
• Enable students to differentiate themselves based on experiential teamwork (e.g., job hunting)
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=student+project+image&qpvt=student+project+image&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=E95C74D7880C3119BB9B8FD5F6850B50251E69C1&selectedIndex=14
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The majority of the benefits I just reviewed were based on organizational (industry) studies. However, team projects at the university level serve a useful and critical role by providing a paralleling experience with the realism of a workplace environment. In addition, Sullivan found that improvement in teamwork skills increased student performance on team projects and subsequently, helped students differentiate themselves based on experiential teamwork when pursuing internship and employment opportunities (Sullivan, 2011).
Identified Team Problem Areas* • Free riding or social loafing • Deteriorating communication • Decreased motivation • Goal setting issues • Role clarification • Inexperienced team leaders • Conflict resolution • Interpersonal relations • Problem solving including
creative problem solving techniques
Business & Information Technology Department
*(Forman and Katsky, 1986; McCorkle et al, 1999).
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In the Department of Business and IT (BIT) here at Missouri S&T, instructors are increasingly including team projects that range in duration from a few weeks to a full semester. As a result, the areas highlighted on the this slide represent some of the problem identified in the last two years which also track closely to research findings (Forman and Katsky, 1986; McCorkle et al, 1999). �Free riding or social loafing Deteriorating communication as the project continues Decreased motivation Goal setting Role clarification Inexperienced team leaders Conflict resolution Interpersonal relations Problem solving including creative problem solving techniques These problems are often painfully revealed in an unsatisfactory quality of product output and students’ dissatisfaction with the calls and their grade. By working with students, the instructor can increase the likelihood of a successful project and enhance the students’ abilities to work in a team. By assisting students to become aware of at he student has an improved chance of overcoming the problems.
Methodology
BUS 421 (Bachman)
• Teambuilding (TB) module development
• TB activity (1st 3 wks) • Semester long SL project • 8 TB skills assessments • Instructor analysis
BUS 427 (Lin)
• Team Project (Case Studies) Development
• 3-3 wk team projects following TB activity
• 3 cycles of assessments • Instructor analysis
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This diagram shows the approach we took. The first three weeks of BUS 421 (Teambuilding and Leadership) students were provided with a focused approach to teambuilding and skill development that included a simulation and experiential learning. Additionally, this course had a semester long service learning component. Students selected the project topic on which they participated. 8 separate assessments were administered after the project. The last assessment was completed by the students abut a week ago. The nature of each assessment is shown later. After the 3 week teambuilding module in BUS 421, students in BUS 427 (Managerial Finance) then started the first of 3 successive three-week projects). Case studies were selected to have an increasing difficulty (complexity of issues). Questions relating to teamwork, and team effectiveness (level of cohesion), were combined into one survey and were administered after each cycle (case analysis). Assessments used were documented standardized instruments and written items. Both classes in the past had about 30 students, but the enrollment in the program dropped off dramatically and we only about half that number when we undertook the study. Each of the teams for BUS 427 had a mix of gender, full and part time, distance and on campus.
Methodology (Con’t) • BUS 421 Team Background
– Self-selection – 2 teams (7 to 8 members) – Mix of gender, age, working status, distance status, UG
degree • BUS 427 Team Background
– Assigned – 4 teams (3 to 4 members) – At least 1 member was a distance student – At least 1 member was a full time working student – Mix of gender, age, UG degree – 1 control group (all members were in BUS 421)
BUS 421: Teambuilding & Leadership BUS 427: Managerial Finance
BUS 421: Teambuilding and Leadership • Teambuilding Components (3 week module)
– Lecture, Discussion, Small and Large Group Activities, Simulation – Semester long service learning project (2 teams)
• Mission, Goals, Gantt chart • Bi-weekly Status Reports • Presentation and Paper
• 8 Post course assessments (currently being analyzed) – Team Effectiveness (2 types) – Team Values – Team Meeting Effectiveness – Team Motivation – Team Problem-solving – Team Decision-making – Team Roles
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let’s take a closer look at the teambuilding activites
Simulation • Two teams were assigned the task of building a prototype vehicle
for Mars exploration – Part 1-Individuals complete assigned tasks, with no assistance from
others – Part 2-Individuals are permitted to work together
• Learning Outcomes – Experience the difference between a team and a group of individuals – Articulate issues with responsibilities in different settings – Realize the importance of continual communication within the team
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Interactive simulation used was a two-part, hands-on team focused exercise. �Through a series of tasks, participants are challenged first as individuals in a group, then as team working together, to construct a vehicle model. -In Part One of the training session, individual participants complete assigned tasks, without help from others, that contribute to the construction of the Mars Surface Rover. The theme of Mars Surface Rover was selected because a new design was formed on the campus with that purpose. -In Part Two, the participants work together to design and construct the Mars Surface Rover. The primary goals of this activity are for participants to: -gain a clear understanding of the distinction between a team and group -understand how their responsibilities are interdependent with those of their teammates, -realize the importance of continual communication within the team. In Part One of the training session, individual participants complete assigned tasks, without help from others, that contribute to the construction of the Mars Surface Rover. In Part Two, the participants work together to design and construct the Mars Surface Rover. ��
BUS 427: Managerial Finance • Assessments (3 successive cycles)*
– Team Work (13 items) • Scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree)
– Level of Cohesion (5 items) • Scored on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)
– Goal Achievement (2 items) • Scored on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree)
• Respondents scored teams and themselves • Average scores (individual and individual team data is
being analyzed) *Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy, Ramsey (2002)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
in BUS 427, three successive three-week projects were assigned. Team characteristics, teamwork, and team effectiveness surveys were administered after each cycle (project). Team members rated both their teams and themselves individually. Only showing team average results. Currently working on individual member and individual team data.
Team Work Item 1 2 3
Works toward the understood goal of the team * *
Contributes to an informal, comfortable, and tension-free work environment
*
Is enthusiastic about working with the team and exhibits high morale * *
Follows through on commitment * * * Takes pride in the team’s work * *
Shows interest in other team members’ achievements * * *
Readily accepts feedback on performance
Encourages others to achieve at high levels *
Is able to stay focused on team tasks * * *
Is sensitive to the feelings of others
Is eager to try new approaches *
Is able to resolve conflict effectively * *
Exhibits open lines of communication with other students
Key: * ≥ 20% disagreement * ≥ 27% disagreement * ≥ 30% disagreement
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notable results: -The first cycle had 6 items that team members said they disagreed or strongly disagreed with: Follow through on commitment and takes pride in the teams work both had higher disagreement rankings. -The second cycle showed 5 areas of disagreement with no one item standing out. -The third cycle had the most disagreement (follows thru on commitment) 30% or greater disagreement. This activity resulted in 10 out of 13 items having some level of disagreement. If we look at consistency in disagreement, 3 items showed up for all 3 surveys (follows through on commitment, shows interest in other teams members' achievements and able to stay focused. Key: Large red dot: 30% Small red (27%) White- Normal 20%
Item: To what extent… 1 2 3
Are the students in your project team friendly? 13% 14% 7%
Are the students in your project team helpful to you in getting your job done?
14% 28% 21%
Do the students in your project take a personal interest in you? 20% 28% 21%
Do you trust the members of your immediate team? 13% 28% 14%
Do you look forward to being with the members of your team? 7% 35% 28%
Level of Cohesion
• Survey 2 has decreased level of cohesion in 4 of 5 areas • Next step: Explore correlations for each team
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall, survey 2 shows significantly more disagreement for the questions defining cohesion than the other 2 surveys. The highest disagreement occurred in survey 2 and for looking forward to being with members of your teams.
Item: To what degree do you disagree/agree with the following statement
1 2 3
Did your team achieve its set goals? 13% 3.80 x̄
28% 3.64
14% 3.93
Did your team achieve the goals you had hoped to achieve?
14% 3.47
35% 3.43
14% 3.86
Goal Achievement
• Similar results as shown for Cohesion (previous slide) • Survey 2: Bimodal distribution for Q1 and increased
disagreement for both questions
Presenter
Presentation Notes
For survey 2: bimodal distribution for Q1 and increased disagreement on both questions. Survey 1 & 3: had similar levels of disagreement .
Summary of Preliminary Results BUS 427
• Teamwork (13 items) – 3 items show higher levels of disagreement
across all 3 surveys • Level of Cohesion (5 items)
– Survey 2 - significant increased disagreement in 4 of 5 items
• Goal Achievement (2 items) – Survey 2 - increased disagreement for both
items *Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy and Ramsey (2002)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Teamwork -Follows through on commitment -Shows interest in other team member’s achievements -Is able to stay focused on team tasks 2. Cohesion -Survey 2 showed highest levels of disagreements in 4 out of the 5 areas. Goal Achievement -similar results as for Cohesion, survey 2 has highest disagreement.
BUS 427 Intervention • Warning signs:
– 2 of 3 members wanted to be assigned to another team after 1st assignment
– Complaints – Asking for help – 2nd assignment (3 reports)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
One team has such difficulty working together, that for the second team case analysis, every member of the team turned in a paper instead of one team paper.
Intervention (Con’t) Identified Team Problem Areas • Free riding or social loafing • Deteriorating communication • Decreased motivation • Goal setting issues • Role clarification • Inexperienced team leaders • Conflict resolution • Interpersonal relations • Problem solving including creative problem solving
techniques
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Of the 9 areas identified earlier as problems for teams, this team was observed by instructor or thru self-reporting to have 6 of them. Free riding or social loafing Deteriorating communication Decreased motivation Goal setting issues Role clarification Inexperienced team leaders Conflict resolution Interpersonal relations Problem solving including creative problem solving techniques
Intervention (Con’t)
• Administered survey to determine level of dysfunction (trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, results)
• Across the board dysfunction • Group therapy • Individual therapy • 3rd cycle-highest assignment grade (most
difficult case)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
We then intervened and did another survey to examine the level of dysfunction in 5 areas (trust, conflict, commitment, accountability and results).
Next Steps for Study • Looking closer at Survey 2 • Doing correlations & further analyses using
demographic information • Analyze individuals and teams • Adding written item/grade components (BUS
427) • Analyzing 8 post course assessments (BUS
421) • Adding written item/grade components (BUS
421)
References • Ancona, D. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal 33: 334-365. • Aubè, C. & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors.
Group Dynamic Theory, Research, and Practice 9(3): 189-204. • Beyerlein, M & Harris, C. (1998). Introduction to Work Teams, presentation at the 9th Annual International Conference on Work Teams. • Deeter-Schmelz, D. & Ramsey, R. (1998). Student team performance: A method for classroom assessment. Journal of Marketing Education
20(May): 85-93. • Deeter-Schmelz, D., Kennedy, K., & Ramsey, R. (2002) Enriching our understanding of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education
24(2): 114-124. • Forman, J. & Katsky, P. (1986). The group report: A problem in small group or writing processes. Journal of Business Communication 23(fall): 23-
35. • Kernaghan, J & Cooke, R. (1990). Teamwork in planning innovative-projects improving group performance by national and interpersonal
interventions in group process. Engineering Management 37(2): 109-116. • Klein, C, DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Huy, L., Burke, C., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. (2009). Does teambuilding work? Small Group Research 40:
181. • Manz, C. & Sims, H. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high-performing companies. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. • McGrath, J. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt. • Mennecke, B. & Bradley, J. (1998). Making project groups work: The impact of structuring group role on the performance and perception of
information systems project teams. Journal of Computer Information Systems 39(1): 30-36. • Olin College Course Catalog. (n.d.), Retrieved April 26, 2012, from http://issuu.com/olincollege/docs/coursecat2011-
12_final?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage • Orsburn, J., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., & Zenger, J. (1990). Self-directed work teams: The new American challenge. New York: Irwin. • Price, J. & Mueller, C. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Putnam. • Prince, M. and Felder, R. (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2012, from http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=53402&print=true • Ray, D. & Bronstein, H. (1995). Teaming up: Making the transition to a self-directed, team-based organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. • Sullivan, J. (2011). Retrieved April 25, 2012, from http://www.ere.net/2011/12/12/the-business-case-for-hiring-college-grads-reasons-they-can-
produce-a-high-roi/
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION QUESTIONS?
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=teambuilding+image&qpvt=teambuilding+image&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=20CE88D0039F2140F2C7FFDB7C7F5E2880224158&selectedIndex=13
ADDITIONAL SLIDES
Budget Item Description Cost Materials and Supply Teambuilding Books, Teambuilding
Construction Kit, Communication Kit, Teamwork and Team Roles Assessment, Team Roles Activity Kit
$2000
Summer Support Class Preparation & Project Development 1,000
Student Assistant (Mini Grant)
Help Instructors Prepare Class Exercise and Collect Data : $8/hr*10hrs/week*15 weeks
1,200
*Student Assistant (BIT Dept)
Help Instructors Collect and Analyze Data $8/hr*10hrs/week*15 weeks
1,200
Total Budget $5,400 Total Funding Request $4,200
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The estimated cost for the project is $5,400. We requested funds $4,200. Assessment instruments and team building activities were purchased. We had expect BIT department would support one student assistant for the project. However, this did not happen. Reason given was if the Department Chair provided funds for this grant, he would have to provide funds for anyone else who asked. So I am having to do the majority of data analysis on my own time and dime.
Deliverables Area Event Deliverable Date
BUS 421
Teambuilding Modules (Mars Rover Activity) (8/30 to 9/13)
Self-inventory (Before) Self-inventory (After) Written Items
8/29/2012 9/19/2012
BUS 427
Team Project Cycle 1 (9/17 to 10/1)
Survey/ Written Items 10/8/2012
Team Project Cycle 2 (10/15 to 10/29)
Survey/ Written Items 11/5/2012
Team Project Cycle 3 (11/5 to 11/26)
Survey/ Written Items 12/3/2012
Grant Progress Report to CERTI Midterm Results 1/7/2013 (2/22/2013)
Education Research Symposium Presentation 3/15/2013
Report to VPAA Final Results 8/31/2013
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Issues with schedule: -We decided not to do written items for assessment (graded assignments) for BUS 421, but opted to do more extensive assessment. -We are on the last of 2 of the 8 assessments. We expect the final 2 assessments to be concluded in 3 weeks.
Gender
46%
47%
7%
MaleFemaleDo not wish to identify
Age
40%
20%
27%
6% 7%
Below 2020-2526-3031-3536-4041-4546-50Over 50Do not wish to identify
Degree Program
7%
60%
33%
Dual enrolledundergraduate plus MBA
MBA
MBA plus Other S&TGraduate Program(Degree or Certificate)
Student Status
35%
35%
30%
Full TimePart TimeDistance
Employment Status
33%
47%
20%
Part TimeFull TimeNot Employed
