EXPERIENCES IN THE USE OF TEAM LEARNING IN UNIVERSITY LEVEL
QUANTITATIVE COURSES
J.L. MADRIGAL, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
J.S. LAWSON, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
G.R. BRYCE, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
The issue of teamwork has become increasingly important in the last few
years. More industries are using this approach in their processes.
However, industry is ahead of academia in exploring more efficient ways to
enhance and promote teamwork. Of the many teaching methods available, the
most popular in higher education is the traditional lecture. However,
there are several disadvantages to this technique. One of these is that it
does not promote teamwork nor active learning. The needs of industry
require professionals knowledgeable and experienced in teamwork. In fact,
a report issued by the U.S. Labor Department (Workforce in the year 2000)
indicated that by the beginning of the next century more than 95% of all
the jobs that will be created will require some type of teamwork.
Furthermore, it is important for universities to prepare students that are
capable of synthesizing and evaluating quantitative information. In this
paper we discussed a modified team learning approach that emphasizes
teamwork and learning by doing. Analysis of students opinions and
perceptions from classes in quality improvement, operations research, and
time series and forecasting about this approach suggest that the students
enjoy the experience. Furthermore, the in-class activities help them to
develop higher cognitive skills. Student exposure to this approach will
prepare them to become more effective professionals.
Key words: team learning, education, teamwork, quality, active learning
INTRODUCTION
One of the serious and valid criticisms of current educational
procedures is that all learning comes through individual competition with
all other class members. One plausible alternative to this currently used
methodology is to teach the students in teams with the idea of reaching a
solution to a problem. The teams do not actually compete with each other.
One advantage of working in this way is the promotion of teamwork. In
addition, this environment is conducive to learning by doing.
Michaelsen (1992) reported that when the students are taught using
the team learning (TL) approach they develop a higher level of cognitive
skills. This outcome is a result of the synergy derived from working in
small groups. In contrast, the learning generated by utilizing the
traditional lecture format is less than what is achieved via TL.
The purpose of this paper is to share some experiences in the use of
TL. This approach has been used to teach engineering, statistics,
mathematics, and business students in courses such as, quality improvement
for industry, operations research (rational decision making) , and time
series and forecasting. Data collected over the last three years from the
students that have been taught with the TL approach will be discussed.
Based on these results, a modification to the original TL approach is
proposed. A comparison between these approaches is also reported. The next
two sections are, primarily based on a review of Michaelsen (1992) and our
own observations.
What is Team Learning?
The team learning (TL) approach was originally developed to promote
active learning. Traditionally, when groups are used in a class they are
formed to work on a class project or to present a topic for class
discussion. These techniques are subject to serious limitations; however,
in the TL approach the majority of class time (80%) is invested working in
groups on application-oriented class activities. Thus, group activities
become the primary instructional medium. Under this circumstance, the
role of the instructor changes from "dispenser of information to manager
of a learning process" (Michaelsen, 1992). This role change has mixed
reactions from the instructors. Some instructors feel uncomfortable
because they do not lecture the whole class period. These instructors
feel they are not in control of the class. This is further compounded by
the traditional student perception of an instructor, i.e., the person
making all the decisions about the class, grades, etc. The shift in the
role of the instructor will also require a similar change in the role of
the student. Under the TL approach the student becomes an active
participant in all the learning activities. Students' participation in
teamwork should result in improved learning. In TL the groups are
permanent, but special care is taken to assure that the groups are
heterogeneous (based on the strengths and weaknesses of the individual
members). Formation of groups is critical.
In order for the groups to become a team, they go through four stages
of development: forming, storming, norming, and performing (Scholtes,
1988) The only way to achieve the highest level is by working Together;
avoid any feelings of superiority over the other members of the group by
recognizing their talents, ideas, etc. , i.e., assume that everyone is
Equally capable of contributing to their success as a group; having the
right Attitude; Meshing; being willing to help all team members and work
as one, in other words, using the "We" approach instead of "I" in all
their activities.
One of the fundamental elements in the success of TL is the design of
group activities. In fact, effective group assignments must: facilitate
learning course concepts, promote individual accountability, and build
group cohesiveness. However, these objectives do not need to be included
in all the assignments to achieve success.
Another characteristic of TL is that the students have the
opportunity to decide the weights they will assign to each measure of
performance to determine their final grade in the class. The overall
grade is a combination of individual performance, group performance, and
peer evaluation. The decision about weights must be reached by consensus
of the students themselves. There is a recommended procedure to achieve
it (Michaelsen, 1992). This grading procedure give students some control
over how greatly non-traditional components of the grade count. Finally,
the majority of class time is invested in group activities that follow a
six-step instructional activity sequence. By doing so, the students have
the opportunity to develop higher level cognitive skills. According to
Bloom (1957) there are six levels of learning: I-knowledge, II-
understanding, III- application, IV- analysis, V- synthesis, and VI
-evaluation. Based on this classification, TL will help them achieve at
least Bloom's level IV. This is equivalent to dimension three of learning,
i.e., learning when and where (Angelo, 1991), instead of the most common
what (dimension one) and how (dimension two). Because of this TL has an
advantage over other instructional techniques, but it is a challenge for
the instructor because s(he) needs to design appropriate activities that
would allow the students to achieve that level. In fact, the successful
application of this approach heavily depends on this factor.
How Team Learning Works
As it was mentioned before the key to the TL strategy is based on the
six-step instructional sequence. The steps are as follows:
(1) Students are responsible for reading all the material of a new
unit of instruction prior
to any presentation by the instructor. At this step they should try
to understand the main
concepts;
(2) An individual minitest over the assigned reading material is
taken by the students
before any presentation by the instructor. This test consists of
multiple-choice questions'
and/or homework-type problems;
(3) The same test is solved in groups, after this phase is completed.
The instructor
presents the solution key. Hence, immediate feedback is given;
(4) This step is the appeals process, purposes of which being: (a)
clarify uncertainty
about understanding of the concepts by the students, and (b) give
additional recognition
and credit when "missing" a question was caused by; ambiguity in the
reading material,
disagreement between the reading material and our choice of the
"correct" answer, and
ambivalence in the wording of the question. Appeals must be written.
Only groups'
appeals are accepted. However, when an appeal is granted both the
group and each
individual in that group receive credit;
(5) The next stage is instructor input when there are still some
questions that need further
clarification this is the opportunity for the instructor to do so.
It is generally
recommended to give concise explanations unless misconceptions about
the material still
exist. It is important to note that the purpose of steps 2-5, which
in average will take
about 20% of in-class time of a given unit, is to prepare the
students for the more crucial
part of the sequence;
(6) This step consists of application oriented activities and
projects. It was mentioned
before that 80% of total in-class time is invested on this phase.
Careful planning on the
part of the instructor is required to assure that the tasks assigned
to groups (a) produce a
tangible output, (b) cannot be solved unless students understand
course concepts, (c) are
difficult to solve working individually, (d) allow them to spend the
majority of their time
in identifying problems, formulating strategies, processing
information, and making
decisions, (e) could be applied to real problems, and (f) are
interesting.
In summary, the TL approach introduces a different paradigm in the
teaching-learning process. Essentially, TL empowers the students, promotes
teamwork and learning by doing. All of these outcomes give TL an edge
over other instructional techniques (to be effectively used for teaching.)
Problems in its application
In this section some of the problems that we have faced in the
application of TL will be presented. There are several areas that need to
be discussed.
Role shifting (student, instructor)
One of the first issues that arise with TL is the shift that is
required in the part of the student and the instructor. Typically, this
"new" role is explained to the students in the first day of class. TL
requires more active participation of the students. On the other hand,
the instructor becomes a coach of the learning process. Our observations
(which are based on using TL with more than 800 students grouped in about
220 teams) with reference to the willingness of the students to take this
"new" role, indicate that although most of the students like the idea of
teamwork, there is some resistance on the part of the senior students.
The data was collected (from Winter 1994 to Winter 1996) at the end of
each semester as part of the student evaluation. Seven additional
questions regarding team learning (these questions will be presented later
on) were included.
From the following table it can be seem that:
Scale/Class
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
In fact, our data showed that an average of 75% of the students is
at least somewhat satisfied (we used a seven-point scale: 1- highly
dissatisfied, 2- dissatisfied, 3- somewhat dissatisfied, 4- somewhat
satisfied, 5- satisfied, 6- highly satisfied, 7- extremely satisfied)
with this new role. The seniors are the students with the higher
proportion in the group of somewhat satisfied. For Sophomore's and
Junior's more than 80% of them are at least satisfied. These results are
not surprising because the senior students are the ones who have been
exposed longer to the traditional lecture system. Furthermore, a
proportion of them demonstrated less enthusiasm for changing their
learning paradigm at this point in their studies.
We also noticed that about 25% of students somehow disagree with the
new role of the instructor. These students would prefer an instructor
that is "in control" (i.e., an instructor which is in front of the class,
make all decisions about grades, etc.).
Selection of Readings and Minitests
Another critical aspect for the successful utilization of TL is the
selection of the readings. The first assignment, after the instructor has
explained what TL is and how it works, is reading the material for the
next class period. Thus, the foundations of the learning process in TL
are initiated with the readings. Their purpose is to help the students
reach level II of learning (Bloom, op. cit.). To facilitate the
accomplishment of this objective the reading materials must be clear.
Something that we have discovered is that even when the material is clear
it might be frustrating to the student not to know what is expected, i.e.,
which are the main concepts, definitions, and/or issues in the reading.
This frustration should not happen. In a way, it is an indication that the
students still have not made the transition to the TL philosophy because
they are expecting that the instructor tells them what to focus their
attention on. The team learning approach has been designed to help the
students reach cognitive dimensions V and VI. Therefore, it requires that
the students identify (on their own) the more important concepts.
The understanding of the reading material is extremely important
because the students will be given a minitest prior to any presentation by
the instructor. The concept of taking a test over material that has not
been covered in class, are foreign and troubling to most students. This is
especially true, when you tell them up front that you are using the team
learning approach and that "minitests" will be given. Minitests are
supposed to motivate students to recognize what is important in the
reading material. However, we found that they just caused a lot of
anxiety and frustration in some students. The estimated proportion of
students that continued to fight against the concept all term long is less
than 5 percent. A discussion about how we had addressed this problem is
presented in the section related to the modified team learning approach.
The Appeals Process
The TL philosophy provides the students the opportunity to submit an
appeal to a given question of the minitest with the purposes previously
indicated in the section that described how TL works. However, this
process sometimes may turn into an argument over semantics. In
quantitative courses this can be aproblem because many students get into
an argumentative mode before they fully understand the technical terms and
definitions This should not happen because the appeals are submitted in
writing to give time to the instructor to review them and make a decision
about them by next class. One way to minimize the possibility of this
type of arguments is by asking comments from the teaching assistants of
the class prior to the date in which the minitest will be given.
Typically, these situations do not recur because as part of the appeals
process, the team that is appealing a question is asked to spell out why
they thought the questions were ambiguous and, offer an alternative
wording that would have helped them to avoid the problem. Hence, as part
of the continuous improvement in the use of this technique the instructor
will consider their suggestion and modify the question as necessary. In
addition, it is very helpful to ask feedback from a focus group of
students or a quality council (to be explained later on) about class
activities, minitests, etc. This practice allows the instructor to become
more involved with his students. In large classes this has the extra
advantage that the instructor will get to know some students. This can be
optimized by rotating the assignment every week. In this way, each member
of the class will participate at least twice during the course.
In-class Assignments
Probably the more important and challenging factor in TL is the
selection of in-class activities that satisfy the requirements specified
on the step (6) on the section that described how TL works. When we
started using TL most of the in-class assignments were homework problems
from the textbook and answer to a set of questions (regarding applications
or concepts) based on video segments that were shown to them. However, we
soon found out that in some cases those problems did not encourage
interaction either because there were not challenging enough or because
one of the team members solved the in-class assignment before class. In
order to incorporate meaningful and interesting application activities in
quantitative courses use of a computer is often required. At the present
time, some of the more effective alternatives that we have found for
in-class assignments are: (1) analysis of real life problems that require
writing recommendations and (2) modified problems in which the teams are
asked to explain (a) why do they use a specific technique to solve the
problem, (b) to interpret their findings, and (c ) explore ways in which
their results can be applied (or use for improvement) to other situations.
One of the authors has overcome the problem of lack of computers in
large section classrooms by writing programs for HP48 calculators. The
process that the instructor follows is: (1) he exemplifies the analysis of
one of the examples in the book using the calculator programs on an
overhead display, (2) he asks the students to work together as a team to
enter (or receive through their infrared port from him) a similar data
set, and perform a similar analysis. When they are finished and turned in
their team paper, he again illustrates the steps on the overhead display
so that they get immediate feedback on whether they have performed the
analysis correctly, (3) a class discussion on the interpretation of the
results and actions or recommendations that should follow such an analysis
are conducted. Finally, to complete a given section, a more general and
challenging problem is given. This problem is described to the class as a
whole, and then a written description is passed out . The student teams
discuss the problem and decide what information or data they want. The
instructor (with the help of 3-6 teaching assistants depending on class
size) visits each individual team in the class room and gives them a
printed (or electronic copy of the data they request). Next, the teams
decide what data analysis tools to use, and they analyze and interpret the
data. The teams summarize their findings and recommendations and turn them
in. Sometimes problems like this take more than one class period. After
the teams turn in their work and the instructors read them, he presents a
summary of what all the teams found and recommended to the class and
comment on their suggestions.
Grading Procedure
It was previously indicated that in TL student performance is
measured with three components (individual, team, and peer evaluation).
The TL approach allows the students to decide weights for each of those
measures. This empowerment given to students is unusual. For most of them
(more than 98%) this is the first time in their studies that there are
offered the opportunity to have a say in their final grade distribution
(relative importance of each measure of performance).
Typically, individual performance is measured with individual
minitest scores, individual homework, and a final. On the other hand,
group performance usually includes: in-class activities, group minitests,
term project, and lab activities (see Appendix A) The peer evaluation
component assesses team member performance. A form is used for this
purpose (see Appendix B). This form has information about participation in
group activities, effort in assignments, perceived expertise, willingness
of team members to help other team members, amounts of work accomplished,
and an overall evaluation.
Usually the selection of weights is done during the first week of
instruction. As part of the instructions about the process to be followed
in the selection of grade weights students are informed that the minimum
weight for any of the items is 10%, each team discusses how they want to
weight different areas then having team representatives meet repeatedly to
try and form a consensus. If a consensus is difficult to reach an average
of the proposed weights is taken. The most common selections of weights
are: individual 20-35%, group 50 - 65%, and peer evaluation 10-20%.
Weight selection might become a problem because the students are not
fully aware about what they are agreeing to. In fact, we found that in
about 25% of the time the students want to change the grade weights, later
on in the course, because they felt that their initial proposal was
incorrect.
Regarding peer evaluation we would like to mention that there is a
tendency on the part of the students of over rating their teammates'
performance. This evaluation is given twice during the course. The
purpose of the first evaluation is to give feedback to the groups that
might be having problems in becoming a team, i.e., reaching the highest
level of performance. If a problem within a group is detected, the
instructor talks to the members of the group individually and/or
collectively (depending on the situation) to identify ways to help them
overcome whatever obstacle is affecting their performance. This approach
works extremely well.
The scores that are reported on the final peer evaluation are the
ones considered on the calculation of the students final grade. To
guarantee the use of the same scale for all teams, the scores within teams
are standardized.
Physical facilities
An acceptable classroom should allow room for teams to separate from
each other during their activities. This requires either a classroom with
enough tables for each of the teams to sit around or a room where the
chairs could quickly be moved into small circles for each of the teams to
function independently. In small classes (less than 20 students) this is
not usually a problem because most of the classrooms can accommodate about
40 students. However, as the number of students starts to approach the
capacity of the classroom it becomes difficult to separate the groups.
On the other hand, large classes (more than 100 students) are
typically taught in auditoriums. These places are designed with fixed
chairs, even so it is still possible to separate the teams in groups.
The ideal type of setting for teamwork is a classroom with tables or a
room large enough to move the chairs around. However, even without this
equipment it is still possible to work in teams in the classroom.
A Modified TL Approach
Based on our experience and the problems that we have faced in
implementing TL as suggested by Michaelsen (1992) we have introduced some
modifications in the TL approach. The purpose of these modifications is
to smooth the transition for the student from the traditional lecture
system to this new paradigm of learning. Some of these changes were
suggested in Madrigal et al. (1994). The primary objectives remain
intact. However, the process utilized to achieve it, is what is being
modified.
The main changes involve the following areas: reading assignments,
the minitests, the appeals process, the selection of weights, and peer.
In addition, the proportion of time dedicated to in-class activities has
been reduced from 80% to 70%.
Regarding reading assignments, students are given at the beginning
of a unit a list of the main concepts, issues, and/or definitions that
they need to be able to understand by the end of that unit. In addition, a
handout which includes an explanation of the different levels of learning
is also provided to them. This information has proven to be helpful.
Anytime that a minitest is given, which we renamed them as "reading
quizzes," the student is expected to understand the topics included on the
reading assignment list. A more critical change in the process is a
pre-quiz discussion. First, each team can discuss among themselves any
confusion about the reading assignment for five minutes, if necessary;
second any questions still unresolved among the teams can then be asked in
an open class discussion. It does not matter if the questions that are
being asked by the students are on the quiz. Notice that by going through
this process, learning is taking place. Hence, the objectives of this
phase of TL are still being accomplished. In fact, at times the level of
motivation of the students is so high that we think that this modification
actually enhances learning more than it was envisioned in the original TL
approach.
The reading quiz is graded immediately after the teams have
completed them. Hence, the students receive immediate feedback. The
students like that because they are able to evaluate what they did. After
the grading is done, the instructor asks the class if there is any
question in the quiz that need further clarification, the instructor takes
care of it. This process sometimes takes all the class period, but this
usually does not present a problem because is time well invested. The
student will be prepared to move to the next level, i.e., in-class
activities which mean applications of the concepts learned in the unit,
without any problem at all.
Another modification that we have been using is to give a
comprehensive assignment that requires the application of all the topics
discussed in the unit of study (chapter). This practice is very helpful to
the student. Some of these assignments are case-type problems. They
usually generate excellent participation and lively discussions on the
part of the students. The more important part of this activity is that it
provides the final kick to reach the level of synthesis and evaluation on
the learning scale (Bloom 1957) as planned in the TL approach.
The appeals process has been improved by giving the reading quiz to
the teaching assistants prior to the date in which it will be given. Their
comments usually lead to rewording of questions, clarification of answers,
etc.
There are three ways to deal with the issue of students wanting to
change grade weights: (1) allow the students to reassess the weights not
later that week four to avoid the influence of "vested interest" in the
process of reaching a consensus, (2) let the instructor assigns the
weights, based on historical averages, for each activity within areas of
performance (see Appendix A) and let the students select the weights among
the three areas, and (3) let the instructor assign all the weights (going
back to the traditional approach that is used in other teaching
techniques). Our experience has shown that if we explain clearly from the
beginning how we selected the weights, the students do not have a problem
in accepting the use of alternative (3). This attitude is not surprising
because it is part of the old teaching paradigm, i.e., the instructor
decides how to distribute the grades. However, if what you really want is
to give students some control over the grading procedure, use of
alternative one is recommended.
On large classes reaching a consensus can take a long time, i.e., the
whole class period. Therefore, to facilitate the process and minimize the
time required to achieve an agreement we recommend utilizing a combination
of alternatives (1) and (2).
Regarding peer evaluation we have designed a form (see Apendix B)
that is more effective in helping students (evaluator) to "accurately"
measure the contribution of their teammates to the performance of their
team.
Finally, the last year we decided to formally organize quality
councils in the classes in which TL is used. The purpose of this council
is to look for alternatives to improve the learning process by reducing
variation of the factors involved in it. This quality council meets once
a week for about 10-15 minutes, usually after the last class of the week.
There is not a set agenda for the meeting. Examples of areas consider in
the meeting are "muddiest" concepts of the week, usefulness of homework
(as a training tool for skill's enhancement), coordination between labs
and class, rewording of reading quizzes, knowledge reviews, enhancement
for in-class assignments, comments about the term project. The council has
authority (given by the instructor) to make decisions. The council
recommendations have been very beneficial in the improvement of the TL
approach.
Students' Opinions about TL
In what follows we will present some measurement of the students'
response and attitudes about TL. The experiences that we gained in
implementing TL lead us to develop a set of questions to try to evaluate
students' perceptions about TL. In addition, we were interested in
"measuring" the effects of teamwork on students' performance.
Although we have taught more than 800 students using TL, the results
that we will report are based on a sample of size 290. This is so, because
we started to collect "hard" data the third semester after starting. The
classes in which we have used TL have been at the Junior to advanced
undergraduate level. Sometimes (about 10%) of the time we have graduate
students. Class size has varied from 15 to 150 students. Most of the
students that we have taught are majoring in engineering. However, there
are some classes in which 90% of the students are majoring in statistics.
In our sample there were some business majors, economists, and
mathematicians.
On this sample 8.9% are graduate students, 11.88 Sophomore, and the
rest Junior's and Senior's. Furthermore, 80.11% of the students have a GPA
of 3.1 or above. (See Figure 1).
{{{{ Insert Figure 1 }}}}}
Seven questions related to TL were asked to the students. These are:
Q1. The group learning technique used in this class motivated me to learn
and study on my own more than I normally do in a traditional lecture
format class. Q2. This class helped me to learn more about working
in a team to solve problems than I would have learned in a traditional
lecture format class. Q3. Using Reading Quiz (RQ) made class discussions
more meaningful. Q4. The group RQ discussions helped me improve my
understanding of important concepts. Q5. The in-class applin-class
assignmenttions group activities were helpful to me in making
the content of the class relevant and interesting.
Q6. Overall I would say that I feel I have learned more in this class
that I would have, had the
class been taught using the traditional lecture format.
Q7. If one section of this class was taught by the TL method and the
other by the traditional
lecture method, I would recommend the section taught by the TL method
to my friends.
Using the response given to each question, an analysis of variance
using GPA, gender, and class standing as explanatory variables was
performed. In addition, boxplots, to identify the distribution of
responses, were generated. Finally, boxplots of each individual question
by each of the explanatory variables were determined. Each question is
measured using a seven-factor scale (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3:
somewhat disagree, 4:somewhat agree, 5: agree, 6: strongly agree, and 7:
very strongly agree).
The results of these analyses showed that GPA play a statistically
significant (p=.038) role in explaining the responses given for question
2. For question 5 gender has a significant influence (p=.04). For all the
other questions any of the variables help to explain the behavior on the
student's responses. What this means is that there are not differences by
GPA, class standing, or gender for questions 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7. It is
important to indicate that a nonparametric analysis of variance produced
similar findings except that GPA becomes a significant factor in question
7.
The descriptive measures for each question are:
Questions Mean Median StDev
Q1 4.96 5.00 1.38
Q2 6.12 6.00 1.07
Q3 4.56 5.00 1.50
Q4 5.79 6.00 1.26
Q5 5.30 5.00 1.30
Q6 5.55 6.00 1.40
Q7 5.86 6.00 1.37
This data explains that the lowest average for any question is 4.56
corresponding to a median of 5. Figure 2 shows a comparison among all the
questions without distinction by GPA, gender, or class standing.
{{{ Insert Figure 2 }}}}}
Based on this figure it is easy to observe that at least 75% of the
responses to any of the seven questions indicate that the students
somewhat agree with the statement asked in a given question, this behavior
is observed for questions 1 and 3. These results suggest that there is
still room for improvement in the design of the reading quizzes. A result
that is expected is that at least 75% of the responses to question 2
indicate strong agreement with the statement.
The results of question 4, 6, and 7 (usefulness of group RQ, overall
satisfaction with TL, and whether or not the student will recommend TL to
a friend) showed that the students' have positive opinions about the
issues asked in them.
It is interesting to notice that the bulk of the responses to
question 5 is between 5 and 6 (i.e., agree and strongly agree). However,
more work is needed to assign in-class activities that are more
interesting, challenging, and motivating to the students. Our expectations
are that improvements of in-class activities will result in an overall
increase of students' satisfaction with TL. Hence, this issue has become
one of our main areas of development.
In looking at the boxplots of each of the explanatory variables
versus questions, some interesting trends were observed. For instance, in
question seven (would you recommend TL over traditional lecture) 75%
students with GPA between 2.6 - 3.0 selected a score of 6 or above, 75% of
the students with GPA between 3.1-3.5 chose a score of 5 or above, and 75%
of the students with GPA between 3.6 - 4.0 selected a score of 4 or
above. As it was previously indicated, a nonparametric analysis of
variance showed that GPA has a significant influence on explaining the
behavior in the response to question seven. This result is not surprising
because, generally, students with a higher GPA tend to be
more-individualist. There is a tendency on the part of these students to
feel that they do not need to work in teams because they are capable of
accomplishing any task on their own.
A comparison of Individual Scores versus Team Scores
After all the discussion about TL, it is of interest to investigate
how teamwork is reflected in students learning (performance). To answer
this question we analyzed individual student performance on the reading
quizzes. These scores were compared to the team performance. This analysis
was done for each reading quiz. There are several ways to measure the
difference between the scores (individual vs team). For instance, team
score versus average individual scores, team score versus highest
individual score, or average team scores versus average individual scores.
We chose the second option because it will (in our opinion) measure more
accurately the effect of teamwork on learning. Consequently, our research
hypothesis was that team performance should, in most cases, surpass the
highest individual score. This statement must hold unless the group never
become a team. For instance, if there are misunderstandings among group
members, lack of effort, use of "I" attitude instead of the "We" attitude,
etc. In this analysis 80 (290 students) teams formed the sample.
The results that we found are
RQ # Individual Group
1 85% 93.75%
2 68% 87.00%
3 73% 81.45%
4 73% 87.00%
5 92% 100.00%
6 73% 88.00%
7 70% 82.00%
8 71% 82.00%
In all the above cases the team averages were higher than the average
individual scores. The average difference is about 17.5%. However, a
closer analysis reveals that only in reading quiz 2 and 8 the difference
is statistically significant (see Figure 3)
{{{{{ Insert Figure 3 here }}}}}
It is interesting to mention that a comparison between average
individual raw scores and average team scores showed that team scores were
usually higher than average individual scores, in a 5:1 ratio. These
results were similar to the ones found when we compared team scores to the
highest individual score.
From a theoretical point of view, what we would expect is that the
group averages will increase over time or at least remain within a certain
band. This will be true under the assumption that the group will reach the
performing level (i.e., to really become a team). We also observed that
the attitudes of the students toward the idea of working in teams change
in a positive way through time. More research is needed to study the
dynamics of team integration. Over the years we have noticed that
regardless of the type of in-class assignment, some teams complete their
assignments faster than the rest of the teams. These teams (less than 10%
on average) need additional work to keep them interested. An alternative
that we are exploring is to ask these teams to go help other teams that
are having problems working on the assignment.
Conclusion
The modified team learning approach is more effective in helping the
students enjoy working in teams, learning by doing, increases their
motivation to try to understand the main concepts of a unit of study, and
be able to develop higher cognitive levels.
The results of our analysis with the data that we have collected seem
to suggest that due to the synergy involved in teamwork; team performance
is usually higher than the highest individual performance. Significant
differences in scores will be expected as the group become a team.
More work is required to improve the quality of in-class assignments.
The formation of a quality council in each class is highly recommended.
Further research to develop case-type application's problem is needed. In
addition, the study of alternatives to improve team dynamics and
integration (development of activities to form cohesive groups) needs to
be investigated. Exploration of effective ways of forming teams is also a
topic for further study.
In conclusion, our experience is that the modified TL approach is an
exciting alternative for teaching. It is beneficial to the students and
the students love it. This approach has the potential to be useful for
nearly any class. However, each instructor must evaluate the convenience
of its use, our recommendation is to "adapt" this approach to the course
in which you intend to use it. We believe that wide use of the team
learning approach in higher education will better prepare students for
their future careers where teamwork will be required. This technique is
conducive to enhancement of problem solving skills.
APPENDIX A:
EXAMPLE OF ITEMS INCLUDED IN A TYPICAL CLASS
Grade Weights
Performance Area
Within Area
Between Area
Individual Scores ( 25)
--
Reading Quizzes
20
--
Homework
15
--
Midterms (2)
15
--
Final Exam
50
--
100
--
Team Scores
--
Reading Quizzes
30
--
In-Class Assignments
10
--
Term Project
45
--
Lab Projects
15
--
100
--
Peer Evaluation ( 15)
--
APPENDIX B: PEER EVALUATION FORMS
Please
take this responsibility seriously. Evaluating the work of your group
members should not be done in haste or carelessness. Please be honest in
your appraisal. This evaluation will be kept confidential.
Assign a score for yourself and each member of the group. Base your
scoring on the actual contribution, ignoring excuses or extenuating
circumstances. Please use the back of this paper to explain why any scores
from group members may be unusual.
In this first part, assign a percentage of work for each group member for
each of the assignments. Use DNA for "did not attend or participate" and
UEA for "University excused absence prevented participation" if
applicable.
Group Members
Assignment
Yourself
Total
Weekly Homework
100
Lab Assignments
100
Group Term Project
100
TP-1: Cause & Effect Diagrams
100
TP-2: Proposal
100
TP-3: Data Collection
100
TP-4--TP-6: Analysis
100
TP-7: Final Report
100
Oral Report
100
In this second part, provide a numerical evaluation for each category
using the scale 0 = poor to 4 = excellent.
Group Members
Yourself
Attitude toward Group Assignments
Group Administration
Willingness to Accept Group Assignments
Quality of Group Work
I certify that the peer evaluation given is correct to the best of my
knowledge and represents a fair evaluation of myself and colleagues.
Signature: __________________________________ Name/Section:
____________________
TEAM MEMBER EVALUATION
This evaluation is being done by:
Team
Member:
Please note your evaluation of each team member in the following
categories according to the following scale:
10 = Outstanding - Couldn't have done better. 5 = So So - Should have
really done more. 9 = Very Well Done - Much better than average. 4 =
Fair to Poor 8 = Well done - Solid Effort 3 =
He\She really didn't do much at all. 7 = Good Job - Average
2-0 = Who is this person? He\She didn't do
a thing. 6 = Not bad - Could have done better.
Team Member
Name
Partici-
pation
Time w/
group
TEAM
player,
peace-
maker,
Consensus
builder
EFFORT in
his\her
assignment.
Perceived
EXPERTISE
(Competence)
Whether used
it or not.
WILLING
NESS to
help others
on the team
with their
needs
AMOUNT
of work
accom-
plished
OVERALL
EVALU-
ATION team
members
performance
for project
Comments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
General Questions:
1. What did you enjoy about working in teams on homework lab
assignments and term projects? Dislike? Why?
2.
What did you enjoy about the project? Dislike? Why?
3.
Who was your most outstanding team member? What did he/she do for the
project to be outstanding?
4.
What could you have done to help your team work better?
5.
Other Comments.
REFERENCES
Angelo, T. 1991. Ten Easy Pieces: Assessing Higher Learning in Four
Dimensions. pp. 17-31.
Bloom, Benjamin S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the
classification of educational goals. New York: D. McKay.
Madrigal, J.L., Richards, D.O., Free, J.C., Lee, T.N., Lawson, J.L., and
Hawks, V.D. 1994. Quality Quest: A TQM Course for Undergraduates.
1994 Proceedings of the Section on
Quality
and Productivity, American Statistical Association, 172-180.
Michaelsen, L.K. 1992. Team Learning. To Improve the Academy 11:107- 122.
Scholtes, Peter R. 1988. The Team Handbook: how to use teams to improve
quality. Madison, WI: Joiner and Associates.
Fig. 1.
Figure 2. Comparison Among Team learning Questions.
Figure 3. Individual versus Team Scores Comparison.
Back to INFORM-ED home page
This page last changed 26 September, 1999
This page is maintained by Armann Ingolfsson. INFORM-ED welcomes your suggestions and comments.
Email: Armann.Ingolfsson@UAlberta.Ca.