« Three Interesting Links | Ray Kurzweil »
January 30, 2006
One Set of Answers to Last Week's Questions
Roy Dejoie responded with a set of answers to last week's questions in a comment. Roy has considerable experience with teams and I thought his ideas should be more visible. So, here is a copy of the comment that you'll also find below.
"I have been using teams in the classroom since 1993 or so. In responding to the questions put forth, I will weigh in with my own experiences.
"Size: If possible, student teams work best (for IS courses) with four to five students in them. Teams of three can function, but it typically takes three solid individuals. I have stretched as high as seven students and it was a disaster. The scheduling for seven students for anything that happens to be done outside of class just did not work for the teams.
"Duration: Whenever possible (and especially when the assignments will be graded), shoot for what is called "permanent work teams." My teams are assigned for the whole semester. That helps to build up the degree of accountability and responsibility. Students who know that after the current project they will have little, if anything, to do with their current team members are much more likely to freeload or shirk responsibility than students who recognize that they will be completing at least another four to eight activities with the same team members over the next three to four months. It also takes a while (actually measured in activity rather than just time) for teams to become cohesive. Assigning them for the semester fosters the growth of team cohesion.
"Grading: Grades are assigned to the whole team, but there is a peer evaluation component that is substantial. In my classes where I use the full team learning approach (see Larry Michaelsen’s take on the team learning approach), the peer evaluation component is often weighted, by the students themselves, at roughly 10-25% of the total course scoring. As such, teams wield huge carrots and sticks in these types of classes. Given that the students are graded relatively against each other for the whole course and that the range from the top student to the bottom student in the course, excluding the peer evaluation, is typically 20%, the peer evaluation is quite effective in giving teams the authority that is often lacking in most academic environments when teams are used. I’ve seen situations where a student who has not contributed to their team has been dropped substantially in their standing in the class to warrant a D or an F in the course. That type of team authority often means that instances of free riding and social loafing often are minimized.
"In my classes where I don’t use the team learning approach, but still use teams to some degree, the peer evaluation component weighs somewhere between a half and a whole course letter grade.
"Team Assignment – I assign the teams in my classes for a couple of reasons. Whenever possible, I like to break the potential for pre-existing dynamics to be introduced into a team. My method is not perfect, but the alternative usually assures that most teams will have some type of pre-existing dynamic in it from the very beginning. Additionally, I have never liked the “playground football team picking” dynamic in the academic environment. The idea that folks are “picked last” or that teams are created from whoever happens to be left has never appealed to me. When I have seen that dynamic at work, I have often see minority and international students as the “leftovers,” despite how strong a student they may be.
"I select teams on the first day of class using a process that allows the formation to be done right in front of the students to reduce an anxiety that students may have that the “teams are rigged.” The process requires that I must know what are the most important factors for team success in the class (in terms of skill sets). In my intro course, the two things that are most important are 1) familiarity and comfort with MSAccess and 2) work/business experience. Typically the first item is in shorter supply, so I start with the MSAccess comfort. Those are the base for the teams. Next comes the work experience, then things like major (hard vs. soft, analytical vs. behavioral, etc.). If needed beyond that, I also take into account in state vs. out-of-state, etc. To make the point that it’s all on the up-and-up I roll up my sleeves and invite the students to see that there’s nothing up my sleeve. They get a kick out of that, but it drives home the point: out in the open and fairly done.
"Project Assignments – Whenever possible, assignments that require more talking and less writing tend to be the best for teams. In my senior-level courses, where I use the full team learning approach, it’s not unusual for a one-hour, in-class assignment to yield a single page or a half-page of writing; however, those team members spend the majority of the time discussing, building, critiquing, etc. the document that will be turned in. The emphasis is much more focused on the decision-making activity and the process of getting the answer that will be written on that paper. Michaelsen would urge people to use problem environments that do not easily allow the project at hand to be carved up into individual pieces that do not need the whole team’s attention. Anytime you provide students something that is “carvable,” that they do individually on their own, away from the team, and then bring it back in at the last minute for the staple through the pages, is inviting them to do just that."
Roy said he'd be happy to share further details about any aspect of these points. You can contact Roy at rdejoie@purdue.edu.