Transcript Slide 1

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
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 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
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*
Business & Information
Technology Department
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
*(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 Work
Item
1
Works toward the understood goal of the team
2
*
Contributes to an informal, comfortable, and tension-free work
environment
3
*
*
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
*
Key:
* ≥ 20% disagreement
* ≥ 27% disagreement
* ≥ 30% disagreement
Exhibits open lines of communication with other students
*
*
*
*
*
*
Level of Cohesion
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%
Item: To what extent…
• Survey 2 has decreased level of cohesion in 4 of 5 areas
• Next step: Explore correlations for each team
Goal Achievement
Item: To what degree do you disagree/agree with
the following statement
Did your team achieve its set goals?
Did your team achieve the goals you had
hoped to achieve?
1
2
3
13%
3.80 x̄
28%
3.64
14%
3.93
14%
3.47
35%
3.43
14%
3.86
• Similar results as shown for Cohesion (previous slide)
• Survey 2: Bimodal distribution for Q1 and increased
disagreement for both questions
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)
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): 2335.
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/coursecat201112_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-canproduce-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
Materials and Supply
Description
Teambuilding Books, Teambuilding
Construction Kit, Communication Kit,
Teamwork and Team Roles Assessment,
Team Roles Activity Kit
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
Help Instructors Collect and Analyze Data
$8/hr*10hrs/week*15 weeks
1,200
*Student Assistant
(BIT Dept)
Total Budget
Total Funding Request
Cost
$2000
1,200
$5,400
$4,200
Deliverables
Area
Event
Deliverable
BUS
421
Teambuilding Modules (Mars
Rover Activity) (8/30 to 9/13)
BUS
427
Team Project Cycle 1 (9/17 to
10/1)
Team Project Cycle 2 (10/15 to
10/29)
Team Project Cycle 3 (11/5 to
11/26)
Progress Report to CERTI
Self-inventory
8/29/2012
(Before)
Self-inventory (After) 9/19/2012
Written Items
Survey/ Written Items 10/8/2012
Grant
Date
Survey/ Written Items 11/5/2012
Survey/ Written Items 12/3/2012
Midterm Results
Education Research Symposium
Presentation
1/7/2013
(2/22/2013)
3/15/2013
Report to VPAA
Final Results
8/31/2013
Gender
7%
46%
Male
Female
47%
Do not wish to identify
Age
7%
Below 20
6%
20-25
40%
26-30
31-35
36-40
27%
41-45
46-50
Over 50
20%
Do not wish to identify
Degree Program
7%
Dual enrolled
undergraduate plus MBA
33%
MBA
60%
MBA plus Other S&T
Graduate Program
(Degree or Certificate)
Student Status
30%
35%
Full Time
Part Time
Distance
35%
Employment Status
20%
33%
Part Time
Full Time
Not Employed
47%