Using Course Collaboration to Enhance Team Performance

2012 S&T Mini Educational Research Grant

Bonnie Bachman, PhD, EconomicsYing 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

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.)

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 centeredo Generalization Specific Example

• Inductive (discovery or inquiry teaching)o Students observe, questions encouraged, instructor finds

opportunities to explore before learning conceptso Student centeredo Specific Examples Generalization

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)

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

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).

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

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

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

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)

Team WorkItem 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 othersIs 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

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

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

Summary of Preliminary ResultsBUS 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)

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)

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

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)

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 $5,400Total Funding Request $4,200

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

Gender

47%

47%

7%

MaleFemaleDo not wish to identify

Age

40%

20%

27%

7%7%

Below 2020-2526-3031-3536-4041-4546-50Over 50Do not wish to identify

Degree Program

7%

60%

33% Dual enrolled under-graduate plus MBAMBAMBA plus Other S&T Graduate Program (Degree or Certificate)

Student Status

35%

35%

29%

Full TimePart TimeDistance

Employment Status

33%

47%

20%

Part TimeFull TimeNot Employed