teamwork toolkit - la trobe university€¦ · the teamwork toolkit is divided into five sections:...

Teamwork Toolkit

Teaching Toolkit developed by staff of La Trobe University

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4

Teamwork or Group work? ............................................................................................. 4

Advantages of teamwork for your students .................................................................... 5

Advantages for lecturers ................................................................................................ 5

Limitations of teamwork for your students ...................................................................... 6

1. Designing Team Tasks ................................................................................................ 7

1.1. Meaningful assignments.......................................................................................... 7

1.2. Easily subdivided tasks ........................................................................................... 8

1.3. Student Learning ..................................................................................................... 9

1.4. Achieve the task .................................................................................................... 10

2. Forming Effective Teams .......................................................................................... 12

2.1. Prepare Students for teamwork ............................................................................. 12

2.2. Forming Teams ..................................................................................................... 14

2.3. What kinds of roles can your students usefully adopt in a team? ........................... 16

3. Teamwork Skills ........................................................................................................ 18

3.1. Rules of Teamwork ............................................................................................... 18

3.2. Learning Contracts or Agreements ........................................................................ 20

3.3. Team Communication ........................................................................................... 22

3.4. Team Building ....................................................................................................... 22

3.5. Conflict Resolution ................................................................................................ 24

4. Assessing Teamwork ................................................................................................ 26

Teamwork Assessment Principles................................................................................ 26

4.1. Types of Assessment ............................................................................................ 27

4.2. Self and Peer Assessment .................................................................................... 30

3 Teamwork Toolkit La Trobe University

Holdsworth,A.,Rosse,M.,Jamieson,G.,Ambrose,K.(2010)

5. Evaluation and Reflection of Teamwork .................................................................. 32

5.1. How will you ask students to evaluate their team work? ........................................ 32

5.2. Reflections on teamwork ....................................................................................... 35

Selected Bibliography ................................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................. 42

Case Study 1 ............................................................................................................... 43

Case Study 2 ............................................................................................................... 44

Case Study 3 ............................................................................................................... 45

Case Study 4 ............................................................................................................... 46

Case Study 5 ............................................................................................................... 47

Case Study 6 ............................................................................................................... 48

Case Study 7 ............................................................................................................... 49

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................. 50

Situating Collaborative Learning and Teamwork .......................................................... 50

References .................................................................................................................. 55



Introduction

This Teamwork Toolkit provides a non-prescriptive set of reflective/design questions and tips

and suggestions for lecturers to use when developing and designing teamwork activities that

will enhance the use of teamwork within your discipline context.

La Trobe University has endorsed the graduate capability of teamwork as a major

component of students’ successful completion of their degrees. All Faculties have agreed to

include teamwork as a graduate capability.

The Teamwork Toolkit is divided into five sections:

1. Designing Teamwork tasks

2. Selecting Teams

3. Teamwork Skills

4. Assessing Teamwork

5. Evaluating Teams

Each section invites you to consider available options, and to make informed decisions

about the best way to progress teamwork activities dependent on your student cohort,

teaching and learning environment, discipline context, and available resources.

The templates in each section may be adapted to suit your individual requirements, or used

as platforms for the creation of new resources.

Also included is a selected Bibliography, some current La Trobe University teamwork

examples and background reading.

Teamwork or Group work?

The terms “teams” and “groups” are often used in both the teaching and learning literature

and in the classroom, in an interchangeable fashion.

This Toolkit deals specifically with the establishment of “formal teams” of students to work on

a collaborative team based project/activity usually for at least one significant assessment

task, or a major project that may take a considerable length of time to complete at the

undergraduate level.

The informal combining of students into “groups” in classrooms for example, to discuss

tutorial questions or to work on a short term or non-assessable activity, is not addressed in

this toolkit.

Disclaimer: At La Trobe University there is no overarching definition of teamwork at the University level.

Faculties have defined teamwork in their individual discipline descriptor documents and as part of the setting of

standards in the Design for Learning (DfL) Curriculum Redesign project.



Advantages of teamwork for your students

Working in teams provides our students with opportunities to learn and demonstrate the

graduate capability of teamwork. These opportunities can be subdivided into context,

communication, empathy, productivity and cooperation.

Context:

working with a wide range of people of different ages, gender, race, religion or

political persuasions or with a team of known peers;

learning from a variety of problem based contexts and in a variety of roles to apply

their disciplinary knowledge and skills effectively and appropriately to a task;

assisting students to become more active and independent in their learning, which

can lead to deeper, more intellectually stimulating learning;

applying teamwork principles to a range of future unknown situations , e.g. urgent

problem solving, conflict negotiation or futures planning.

Communication:

taking on coaching and mentoring roles and giving peer feedback;

improving communication skills with their peers, their teachers, and potential

employers.

Empathy:

identifying and drawing on team member strengths and support which assist a team

to produce a stronger, higher quality project or assignment outcome than an

individual may achieve;

sharing knowledge and ideas with other students and stimulating listening to, and

learning from other’s viewpoints, which may challenge their assumptions.

Productivity and cooperation:

encouraging efficiency of effort which can boost student productivity and encourage

an awareness of effective work practice in organisations;

providing practise in useful and multi-disciplinary contexts, necessary graduate skills

that equip students for employability.

Advantages for lecturers

increasing self-directed initiatives and motivation for learning.

improving students’ learning outcomes.

developing students’ skills commensurate with named graduate attributes which are

an agreed feature of most undergraduate awards in Australian universities.

providing students, in a mass education environment, with the opportunity to work in

a small discrete task oriented team that may enhance an individual’s sense of

identity, sociability, and self-evaluation capacity.



Limitations of teamwork for your students

Students working in teams may learn that:

not all students will grasp the complexity of a team task especially if the task

components are divided amongst the team;

they prefer to work independently and to be assessed individually;

there is a high degree of uncertainty and risk in a team activity;

some team members do not contribute equally, the “social loafers”;

dissatisfaction is a problem when individual grades are affected by an overall team

mark;

some team members dominate their peers and can hijack the team agenda;

an unsatisfactory ‘groupthink’ approach can take over which can result in a less than

optimal outcome;

internal team dynamics can be difficult or become untenable.

Where can I find out more?

Federman Stein, R.,& Hurd, S.(2000) Using Student Teams in the Classroom: A Faculty

Guide. Anker: Boston,MA Chapter 1: Teamwork theory and Discussion.

Gibb,G.(1995) Learning in Teams: A Tutors Guide. The Oxford Centre for Staff

Development: Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. Chapter 1:Introduction: why use

teams?

Jaques , D. (1984) Learning in Groups. Houston TX: Gulf Publishing. Chapter 5: Aims and

Objectives of Learning Groups.



1. Designing Team Tasks

This section of the Toolkit includes how to:

design teamwork assignments and includes a checklist template for you to adapt and

use as required.

To develop a motivating team assignment you need to understand what students look for in

a collaborative task. Understanding their expectations is important as it allows you to see

where your task can be aligned with their expectations.

It also allows you to identify where there may be team member misalignment, and provides

an opportunity to discuss the task and the assessment, so that students can better grasp the

intended learning outcomes and the process of working in a team.

Consider these design questions

Have I designed a meaningful assignment?

Can it be easily subdivided into useful tasks that can be amalgamated back into a

unified whole?

What do I want students learn from the process and the outcomes?

Can the student teams achieve the end result?

1.1. Meaningful assignments

Positive student expectations of team assignments are encouraged by the kinds of work they

are asked to produce. Not all students are motivated by marks. Team assignments that

engage the students with external ‘experts’ or contemporary issues are of value as they

know that there will be an expert reviewing the team’s output or they may develop an

innovative approach to working with a seemingly intractable issue.

Many disciplines already engage students in teamwork – law students who prepare and

conduct role plays in mediation, marketing students who create a marketing plan, health

science students who prepare posters and presentations on concepts of disability and

illness, engineering students who provide research and advice on the installation of a solar

electricity generator, education students who produce a movie about their community,

history students who investigate a myth-figure, and media students who produce a news

program.

(See Appendix A: La Trobe teamwork examples).



1.2. Easily subdivided tasks

Your rationale for designing the team assignment can be that you want the students to learn

the value of working closely together on all aspects of an assignment. You may not want

students to divide up a team task, but students probably will.

Time management and levels of interest or prior knowledge can be strong factors for

students engaging and dividing the work into manageable sections. This approach presents

certain problems as students often find the isolation of ‘doing their bit’ difficult, and the re-

amalgamation of the entire task into say, a final report, can mean that the final collaborative

effort does not satisfy all the team members.

To overcome this issue you can design a team assignment with allocated tasks that each

member of the team must complete. These individual tasks are then combined together to

form a team output and the introduction and conclusion, in a written piece, is written by the

team together. Likewise in a team presentation, you can stipulate that all students contribute

a small section of the presentation.

Advantages of this approach are:

students are less dependent on each other

there are fewer disagreements

joint decisions do not have to be made on every issue

students can ‘shine’ as well as contribute to the team.

As lecturer, you may find:

fewer complaints of ‘free riding”

students have a greater enthusiasm for the assignment

less group conflict

greater peer support.

Critics of this approach say that the students are not working in ‘fully fledged’ teams. A

counter argument is that it is better to learn some skills at a deep level than at a shallower

level. Expecting students to learn multiple skills in a semester is unrealistic, whereas

learning for example, coordination, peer support and accountability, alongside discipline

knowledge and critical thinking skills, is a creditable focus for teamwork.



1.3. Student Learning

Designing teamwork assignments that closely align to the learning outcomes of the subject,

and focussing on what knowledge, skills and abilities you want to engender in your students

will assist them to garner tangible benefits from teamwork.

Generic skills such as communication and cooperation, sit with a more specific set of

discipline abilities that may need particular attention.

Consider these options

What kind of interpersonal communication skills do you want your students to learn?

Will they need to communicate face-to-face or online?

Are on-line debates or discussions part of the assignment? What will this require

technically?

What kinds of presentation skills do they need to learn?

Do you want your students to learn a particular format for producing reports?

Explicitly communicating to your students the learning objectives and a well-structured

outline of an assignment, and where it sits in the overall subject design, are important

elements in successful teamwork.



1.4. Achieve the task

Tasks that are meaningful and challenging are time-consuming and can be overwhelming for

students. Students may have a number of assessment tasks to complete simultaneously and

may resent the workload of certain team assignments.

To design a realistically achievable team assignment, take the students’ viewpoint.

Tips and suggestions

Invite in external ‘experts’ to provide a brief, attend presentations, validate the

students work and provide constructive feedback.

Restrict student access to external experts so that they do not become overwhelmed

with questions

Provide samples of previous team assignments as guides

Discuss how successful previous student teams have completed their assignments

Design hypothetical briefs, or issues that students can present to an ‘expert’ if you

cannot find a “real” expert.

Canvass student comments for issues that they find stimulating within the discipline

context as a guide for what you may design as a teamwork assignment.



Checklist for Establishing Team Projects (Example)

Y/N

Do you have a clear rationale for including team activities and assessment of

these in your subject?

Have you aligned the intended learning outcomes, the team task/s and the

assessment?

Do you want assessable and/or non-assessable task/s?

Are these tasks achievable?

How will teams be established?

(circle one)

random selection

self selection

lecturer/tutor selection

task driven selection

Have you thought about a set of team ground rules?

task allocation

regular meetings

reporting and monitoring

conflict negotiation

fair and valid peer evaluation (if part of assessment)

contingencies (absence, illness, change of task focus)

Consider a Learning Contract

team member functions

duties

deliverables

resources

reporting

evaluation process

What kind of assessment mark will be most appropriate?

(Circle appropriate type/s)

Shared group mark

Group average mark

Individual mark – allocated task

Individual mark – individual report

Individual mark – examination

Weighted mark- individual and group average marks

Will there be a peer or self-assessment component?

Peer assessment?

Self-assessment

is grading involved?

is confidentiality assured?



2. Forming Effective Teams


prepare students for teamwork

form the teams

determine student roles in teams

team rules

engender effective communication in teams and includes templates for lecturers to

use and adapt as required.

Students want to work in the ‘best” team. Most students hope that the team they are in will

have compatible viewpoints and that the process of a team assignment will progress as

smoothly as possible. Students may also want to only work with their friends, and need to

appreciate that the relationships in a team must become more broad and professional in the

short term.

When teams are formed, students can be fearful of the unknown; many have only a little or

no experience of teamwork, and the highly competitive and individualistic environment of a

university program can mitigate against teamwork.

Sometimes students do not know anyone in their class or they have had a poor prior team

experience so that they fear being involved in a team again.

Therefore the team formation process needs to be well planned and executed.

2.1. Prepare Students for teamwork It is vitally important that you prepare students for working effectively in a team. This does

not come naturally to all students. It is important to be mindful of the diversity of educational

backgrounds, previous experience and cultural sensitivities in our student cohort, as these

elements are central to the success of a team.

Students need to know:

What kind of teamwork will be in your subject?

Why they have to work in teams?

Who will be in their team and why?

What skills they will develop by participating in teamwork?

How they will be assessed?

Whether there are team and individual marks, or team marks only?

What peer assessment is if it will be used, and how this will be conducted?




How large will you make the teams?

Who will be responsible for what?

When will the teams meet and meet with you?

What guidance will you give the teams?

How will you ensure that team members contribute equally?

How much teamwork do you want to introduce and at which year levels?

How will you assess the teamwork outcomes?

2.1.1. Task Outline

Giving your students a task outline of what is expected of them will assist the students in

their team mode.

This outline can contain:

a rationale for team work in your subject

what team work assignments will involve - deliverables knowledge and skills students

will be expected to learn through team work

how team members will be selected and why

how team work will be assessed and why

how teams will be monitored to ensure equal participation

how often teams should meet to work on the assignment

what risks may be involved in a team including ‘loafing’ dominating members, conflict

and how to address these issues

how problems can be addressed and resolved.

It is important to verbally reinforce that you have a commitment to team work as well as your

expectation that students will have also.

The first lecture or tutorial is the optimal time to establish the ground rules for team

assignments.

The development of high performing teams is not the sole responsibility of the lecturer.

Students need to take responsibility for team preparation and development.



Resources need to be available for students to achieve the most optimal advantage of

teamwork.

These resources can include:

Involving past students in a discussion on the benefits of teamwork;

Motivating students through exposure to relevant job advertisements that stress

teamwork skills;

Inviting guest industry personnel to class to emphasise the use of teamwork in your

discipline area;

Ensuring students have access to support within the university for graduate capability

development - presentation, writing reports, information literacy, project

management;

Ensuring students have a contingency plan if any team member becomes unable to

complete the work;

Ethical considerations associated with team work eg: how plagiarism would affect the

whole team’s approach and marks.

2.2. Forming Teams

Teamwork and teams across disciplines will vary greatly. Teams are often described as a

group of people who come together, achieve the work required and then disband. This is

only one model, dependent on the task at hand. There may also be teams that work over a

number of semesters, or teams that are multidisciplinary and involve many people with

differing experience and expectations, or teams that form a cohort that continues to work

together after the set task is completed.

Adair (1989) suggests that groups (teams) pass through four sequential stages

1. Forming

2. Storming

3. Norming

4. Performing



Table 1: Adair’s team stages

Stages Group Structure Task activity

FORMING

“Getting to know” stage.

Considerable anxiety, testing to

discover the nature of the situation,

what help can be expected from

the leader or convener, and what

behaviour will or will not be

appropriate

What is the task? Members

seek the answers to that basic

question, together with

knowledge of the rules and the

methods to be employed.

STORMING

“Arguing” stage. Conflict emerges

between sub-groups: the authority

and/or competence of the leader is

challenged. Opinions polarise,

Individuals react against efforts of

the leader or group to control them.

The value and feasibility of the

task is questioned. People

react emotionally against its

demands.

NORMING

“Agreeing the Job” stage. The

group begins to harmonise; it

experiences group cohesion or

unity for the first time. Norms

emerge as those in conflict are

reconciled and resistance is

overcome. Mutual support

develops.

Cooperation on the task

begins; plans are made and

work standards laid down.

Communication of views and

feelings develops.

PERFORMING

“Getting the Job done” stage.

The group structures itself or

accepts a structure which fits most

appropriately its common task.

Roles are seen in terms functional

to the task and flexibility between

them develops.

Constructive work on the task

surges ahead: progress is

experienced as more of the

group’s energy is applied to

being effective in the area of

their common task.

Source: Adair,J.(1989) EffectiveTeam Building, London: Gower.



2.3. What kinds of roles can your students usefully adopt in a

team?

2.3.1. Group Dynamics

Belbin (1981) suggests that teams with high scorers do not perform well in team tasks. They

tend to be argumentative, difficult to manage and find it difficult to make team decisions. A

mix of skills in a team can often produce a more cohesive team effort. Teams will go through

stages of development before they perform together successfully.

Belbin’s research into management teams indicated that there are eight key roles which

successful teams need to fill:

company worker

chairman

shaper

plant

resource investigator

monitor-evaluator

team worker

completer-finisher.

Most teams need the following roles as a minimum:

a leader to coordinate the group;

a timekeeper who holds the team to deadlines and keeps team meetings to

specified time limits;

a note taker to keep track of meetings and provide a record for the team;

a monitor to keep track of progress and keep the team moving forward;

a finisher to complete the details in a final draft or presentation.

Asking students to do a SWOT analysis of their team members can often illustrate the

strengths and weaknesses within a team and give students an opportunity to turn the

weaknesses into positive actions such as improving their skills in report writing, time

management, communication, and information literacy.

When forming a team, a strong foundation can be established through three important

elements:

Size of teams

Selection of teams

Ground rules for teams



2.3.2. Size of Teams

Four or five member teams work well because:

students can allocate the work load equitably and each member gets a larger section of work to complete and a more meaningful contribution to the task

students are more accountable to each other

there is less chance of sub groups forming around critical decision making

there is greater team cohesion for a shorter time

If a member of the four person team leaves, three team members can find it more difficult to

complete the task, as decision making can be compromised by two students not agreeing

with a third student.

However, teams can be constituted with up to 8 persons maximum, dependent on the task.


Random selection

(lecturer/tutor chooses teams at random)

Self-selection

(students choose their own team members)

Selective selection

(lecturer/tutor deliberately allocates team members to distribute resources and a

range of resources)

Task driven selection

(a suite of topics may mean students form teams based on topic preference)

The first three methods are useful when the teams all have the same assignment.

The last selection works when the teams are able to choose from a suite of pre-set topics.



3. Teamwork Skills

3.1. Rules of Teamwork

Ground rules are a list of short sentences that team members agree on to define how they

want to operate as a team and how they will treat each other.

You will find it useful after negotiating the rules of how a team will work to ask students to

sign a team contract so that they have a record of each other’s contribution to the team and

how the work will be divided amongst them.

Team Ground Rules (example)

How will our team….. Work together?

Make an assessment task schedule and allocate work?

Conduct our meetings?

Make decisions?

Monitor our progress on assessment tasks?

Keep each other informed about what we are doing?

Give constructive feedback to each other?

Deal with equal participation & resolve differences during the assessment task?

Make sure we reach our best standard of written/presentation work?



3.1.1. Team Meeting Minutes

Team meeting minutes are a useful tool for ensuring that there is a record of work achieved

and individual contributions to the task outcomes. The task of taking the minutes needs to be

a shared activity amongst team members to avoid inequities of effort.

Team Meeting Minutes (example)

Name of Team: ____________________________________________________

Date of Meeting: ____________________________________________________

Members present: ____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Members absent: ____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Summary of Meeting:

Actions for Team members

What?:

Who will do this work?:

By When?:

Next Meeting date:



3.2. Learning Contracts or Agreements

These written agreements are developed between a team and a lecturer and identify what

the learning tasks are, what outcomes will be achieved, and how the outcomes will be

assessed. All team members are involved and the contract is signed off by all team

members and the lecturer, as the agreement to abide by this team process.

By negotiating learning contracts with student teams we are promoting self-directed work

and the freedom for students to learn through carefully framed criteria, timelines, task

allocation responsibilities and achievement of desired outcomes in a collaborative manner.

The format for a Learning Contract will be determined by the project brief and the

assessment items or ‘deliverables’ and can include agreement about how:

a project will be supervised and assessed ( important for projects that involve external agencies also);

an external work experience will be conducted, supervised and assessed if there are issues of confidentiality, and/or risk management;

practical experiments or field work are conducted and assessed;

intended learning outcomes will be evidenced and achieved;

contributions to the assessment task/s will be divided amongst team members;

the lecturer will supervise, provide resources, and feedback to support the teams.

teams will report and evaluate their progress and achievements.



A hypothetical Team Learning Contract (example)

Task Name “Bushfires in Victoria

Status and Analysis Report”

Background

In January and February during the Australian summer bushfires create extensive forest, property damage and loss of human and animal life in Victoria. The Country Fire Authority (CFA) and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade(MMB) are concerned that their emergency plans are not adequate to deal with all aspects of bushfire recovery.

Deliverables

A 20,000 word proposed Bushfire Recovery Plan that includes evacuation, aid, accommodation, forestry maintenance and animal safety recommendations, procedures and practices. Deadlines: November 10 - Presentation to Class November 12 – Submission of document

Team Name Burning Bush Team

Team Members Jason X, Julie Y, Carol B, Rickie L, ZuYin W

Team members roles

Jason - Evacuation procedures and practice Julie - Aid and volunteer Aid workers roles and responsibilities Carol - emergency accommodation procedures and practice Rickie - forestry maintenance procedures and practice ZuYin - animal safety guidelines and procedures

Team Members functions

Support the Team: Help set the ground rules, follow the team plan, understand team roles, contribute to team report, take team meeting minutes, collect evidence, get to know team members, cooperate fully, help resolve team problems, meet deadlines, be on time to meetings.

Represent the Team: At interviews, with the lecturer and tutor, CFA, MMB, and Forestry Department. In-class evaluation.

Team Duties

Weekly: 1-2 hour team meetings. Weekly: 2-5 hour research, interviews, trouble shooting, Meeting CFA, MMB, and Forestry personnel. Monthly: Informal progress meetings. As required: Findings reports, analysis meetings, documentation

Resources

Time commitment: this needs a team decision. Technical support: library, computer labs, tape recorder. Supplies: notebooks, pens, computer paper, tapes.

Reporting Weekly meeting minutes Monthly informal progress notes Milestone completion presentation to class

Team Evaluation

In-class debrief after presentation and submission of document All team members to complete individual self-assessments and to then collate these into an overall evaluation of the work and the team.

Signatures



3.3. Team Communication

Working successfully in a team requires good interpersonal communication. Students must

communicate with each other about the aims of the task, how they will maintain

cohesiveness and how they will listen and give each other constructive feedback.

Discussing the task/s together and ensuring that students understand the need for active

listening and feedback are essential elements of establishing a ‘well built’ team.

Listening is an active role and students can be encouraged to understand that they can:

concentrate on what is being said

identify key points

compare what is being said with how they are thinking themselves,

rather than just waiting to intervene or dominate the discussions.

Constructive feedback requires students to:

check they have understood the team ideas/discussions/decisions

reflect on the ideas and answer with their own thoughts

promote more discussion if needed

give encouragement to their team members when the task is being actively achieved

ask for feedback rather than wait for it to be offered

be specific about the work rather than making vague general comments.

3.4. Team Building

To facilitate better connections between team members you can use organised activities

such as:

Ice breakers to assist students to get to know each other better;

Discussing communication strategies with students

Establishing rules for teamwork that can be negotiated with a class cohort and in

student teams.



3.4.1. Ice Breakers

There are numerous internet sites that give examples of ice breaker role plays and games

for students to engage in.

Simple Ice Breaker

Provide a list of activities or interesting things people do.

Ask students to go around in a 15 minute session and get as many individual people to sign their autograph beside one of these items only, if they do this activity or have this interest.

Award a small prize to the student who collects the most signatures in the 15 minutes.

Benefit: Students engage with each other, talk about their interests and achieve an outcome

in a structured time frame.

3.4.2. Team Communication Issues

Poor communication in a team can adversely affect a team’s overall performance. When a

team fails to communicate clearly, the task can become difficult to complete.

Reasons for communication failures include:

One team member tries to dominate the conversations or meetings

Members of the team do not have a collective understanding of the ideas, topic, or

approaches to the task

Certain team members do not contribute at all to the conversations due to disinterest

or shyness

Team members are too embarrassed to contribute a suggestion

Team members may not be clear about their role in the team or may not be given

their preferred role and are therefore reticent to contribute

There may be cultural differences, prior team experiences, inexperience or

expectation reasons that make it more urgent to establish an agreed process for

team members to be able to communicate successfully.


Talk with students about ‘real world’ teams and how they actually operate.

Explain that most people work in teams and that they do not choose their

composition.

Establish team agreement around mutual goals and processes such as meetings and

task allocation.

Establish what roles students will take and what the workload will entail.

Ask teams to think about how the deadlines will be met.

Explain that all team members are accountable for the task and the process.

Ask teams to ensure that there are tangible outcomes that fulfil the task.



3.5. Conflict Resolution

Disagreements can arise in any team when there is a team task to complete which has an

assessment mark attached to it. Differences of opinion can easily hinder a team’s process

and progress. Conflict can have detrimental effects on students’ wellbeing and students can

become wary of, or refuse to participate in team work, because of previous experiences in

conflicted teams.

It is a most effective and valuable learning experience for students if you can:

ensure that team members have the skills to resolve any conflicts before they

escalate to the point that a lecturer or tutor has to adjudicate the process;

encourage assertive behaviour without it resulting in a no-win outcome;

ensure students feel secure enough to express their point of view by questioning,

listening and discussing issues in a positive structured manner.

4 Conflict Resolution Steps (example)

PRESENT: One student at a time gives their point of view whilst others listen, acknowledge and interrupt

only to clarify understanding.

AGREE: Together, all students discuss, and list areas of agreement, interest, values, views, or

common goals.

DISAGREE: As the team talks, identify key areas of disagreement that keep on coming into the

conversation, or prevent agreement. Discuss these in depth to understand team members

viewpoints and define the exact problem/s.

NEGOTIATE: Discuss potential ways to resolve the issue/s, and consider and evaluate the options until

there is a mutually acceptable solution for each issue. Agree to the next steps.




Adair, J. (1989) Effective Team Building. London: Gower.

Baume, D. and S. Brown, (eds), ( 1992) Learning Contracts, Vol 2. Some practical examples

, Paper 72, Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.

Belbin,R.M.,(1981) Management teams - why they succeed or fail. London: Butterworth

Heinemann.

Belbin Team Roles. Accessible at: http://www.belbin.com/belbin-team-roles.htm.

Brookfield, D,(ed) ( 1985) Self -directed learning: from theory to practice, New Directions in

Continuing Education,No25, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tomkins, C. and M.J .McGraw,(1988) The negotiated learning contract, in D. Boud,

(ed),Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, London: Kogan Page.

http://www.belbin.com/belbin-team-roles.htm



4. Assessing Teamwork


decide what type of assessment is appropriate for the teamwork

determine if peer or self-assessment are necessary elements of the team process

Teamwork Assessment Principles

Teamwork is sometimes implemented in the hope of streamlining assessment and marking

tasks as the number of assessment items can be vastly reduced.

The following principles are worth considering when designing and implementing team

assessment tasks to ensure validity, fairness and reliability:

Designing assessment for teams should be consistent with the subject intended

learning outcomes.

Ensure that students clearly understand the purpose and procedures of teamwork

within the subject.

Encourage and reinforce effective teamwork and comply with principles of good

assessment by:

o monitoring the team’s work and providing feedback;

o timetabling some of the student’s teamwork meetings into the subject meeting

schedule

If there is peer assessment and/or self-assessment of the relative contribution of

students to a team project, then:

o provide adequate preparation and support;

o design a process for collecting the ratings that is confidential, clear and

simple to use.

Assessed teamwork should be moderated by:

o having an individual component as well as a team component; or

o a rating of contribution of individuals to the team.

The weighting of assessed teamwork to the final subject grade should be

commensurate with the subject learning objectives

Adapted from: Bowie, C. (2000) Assessment Policy: Principles for Assessment of Group

Work. Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University.



4.1. Types of Assessment

Assessing teamwork can be a complicated process as team members’ perceptions of

fairness (or disadvantage for their efforts) can cause student complaints.

To address this issue you can consider three different assessment approaches to allocate a

mark for team work:

Individual assessment

Same mark allocation

Weighted mark allocation.

Consider: Assessing a team as a whole is only appropriate when the learning objective

applies to either team productivity or a team process.

4.1.1. Individual assessment

The main benefits of individually marking each team member are:

the students perceive that their contribution to the team outcomes is seen as fair

there is less editing by a number of people required

there are less disputes in a team

there may be less complaints

there is less dependency between team members

However criticisms of this approach are:

it discourages real cooperation between team members

there is less commitment to the team

students may see less reason to meet regularly

individual reports can be very similar to each other which raises the issue of copying

team members can become more competitive and not share ideas and resources

there is more marking volume.

Adapted from: Morgan, A. (2002) Enhancing Experiences of Group Work. University of

Technology, Institute for interactive Media and Learning, Sydney.



4.1.2. Same mark allocation

In this approach, a team is required to submit one assignment for assessment, if the team

has worked together on all aspects of the task and one assessment mark is appropriate.

Benefits of this are:

You will have fewer assignments to mark

The development of skills in cooperation and communication may be enhanced

There is more interdependency in a team.

Students can view this differently as:

Unfair if any member of the team has not contributed equally

Allocating tasks within the assignment can be a fraught process

Having to rely on each other to complete the tasks can lead to disagreements over task outcomes.

4.1.3. Weighted mark allocation

This approach is more complicated to establish but can provide an excellent opportunity for

students to peer and self-assess alongside your marking criteria.

Benefits of this are:

students can develop reflective and constructive critiquing skills

students can develop an improved awareness of how assessment in higher education operates

individual contributions to a team outcome can be more clearly acknowledged and rewarded

students perceive that there is an element of fairness in overall marks.



Table 2: Summary of different types of teamwork assessment

Assessment option Some possible

advantages Some possible disadvantages

Shared Group Mark The group submits one product and all group members receive the same mark from the lecturer/tutor, regardless of individual contribution.

encourages group work – groups sink or swim together

decreases likelihood of plagiarism more likely with individual products from group work

relatively straightforward method

Individual contributions are not necessarily reflected in the marks

stronger students may be unfairly disadvantaged by weaker ones and vice versa

Group Average Mark Individual submissions (allocated task or individual reports as described below) are marked individually. The group members each then receive an average of these marks.

may provide motivation for students to focus on both individual and group work and thereby develop in both areas

may be perceived as unfair by students

stronger students may be unfairly disadvantaged by weaker ones and vice versa

Individual Mark – Allocated task Each student completes an allocated task that contributes to the final group product and gets the marks for that task.

a relatively objective way of ensuring individual participation

may provide additional motivation to students

potential to reward outstanding performance

difficult to find tasks that are exactly equal in size/complexity

does not encourage the group process/collaboration

dependencies between tasks may slow progress of some students

Individual Mark – Individual report Each student writes and submits an individual report based on the group’s work on the task/project.

ensures individual effort

perceived as fair by students

precise manner in which individual reports should differ often very unclear to students

likelihood of unintentional plagiarism increased

Individual Mark – Examination Exam questions specifically target the group projects, and can only be answered by students who have been thoroughly involved in the project.

may motivate students more to learn from the group project including learning from the other members of the group

may diminish importance of group work

additional work for staff in designing exam questions

may not be effective, students may be able to answer the questions by reading the group reports

Combination of Group Average and Individual Mark ( weighted) The group mark is awarded to each member with a mechanism for adjusting for individual contributions.

perceived by many students as fairer than shared group mark

additional work for staff in setting up procedure for and in negotiating adjustments

Source: James, R., McInnis, C. and Devlin, M. (2002) Assessing Learning in Australian

Universities and Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).



4.2. Self and Peer Assessment

Self and peer assessment are key strategies to involve students in taking more responsibility

for their own learning.

Race (2001) distinguishes between self-assessment, peer assessment and group

assessment in the following ways:

Self-assessment involves students making judgements about their own work including

essays, reports, projects, dissertations and performances.

Peer assessment involves students making assessment decisions on other students’ work

which most typically involves evidence about presentations, performances and practical

work.

Group assessment usually involves a tutor or lecturer making decisions on an assessment

item by including some elements of peer and self-assessment also.

Race continues with the following reasons for involving students in their own assessment as:

deepening the students’ learning experiences

allowing students to better understand the assessment process

helping students to become more autonomous learners

developing life-long learning skills

receiving a broader range of feedback from their peers

Self and peer assessment are assessment approaches where students assess their own

and their peers work with reference to criteria and standards. These two forms of

assessment are most commonly used as formative (development of learning) assessment

although they can be used for summative (grading) purposes.

Simple examples of when to use self and peer assessment can include:

commenting on draft and final essays or project reports

anonymously or publicly grading peers presentations

proposing grades with reasons after observing peer work

discussing and suggesting improvements in peers’ work

reflecting on improvements in others’ work

reflecting on improvements in their own work

collectively discussing grades and feedback and providing reasons for these.




Talk to students about the benefits of developing desirable graduate capabilities particularly those associated with independent life-long learning, communication and teamwork.

Engage students with the idea of in a community of practice through exposure to others’ work and in dialogue with peers and lecturers.

Induct students into the assessment criteria.

Explain the value for students’ of receiving and giving more targeted feedback than is usually possible in large classes.

Consider these design questions

What form would peer assessment take? (can include individual anonymous comments by each student about each student’s work; a team comment on each students’ work; a team reflection on what they have learnt together; a team oral presentation on the team’s processes).

What form would self-assessment take?

How will a team decide what grade to award their peers? (the need to keep records of team meetings/activities/work load becomes important when trying to determine how much contribution individuals have contributed to the team).

Will you adopt weighted assessment marks for both self and peer components?

Will you use confidential assessment proformas for peer and self-assessment?

How will you test intended learning outcomes from the team experience?

To ensure reliability in peer assessment, you will need to:

provide a rationale to precede the assessment task

provide explicit criteria that the students can use easily

make assessment feedback consequential ( i.e. students can demonstrate that the

peer assessment has been incorporated into the task/s)

make author and feedback anonymous where possible to counter a reluctance in

some students to assess their peers or friends

involve the students in negotiating what standards they should look for to decide their

peer marks, and what assessments will contribute to final marks

require students to keep a log of their individual workload and contributions in the

team assignment

design a reflective task for students to complete – this could be an analysis of how

the team worked., what worked best or not, what contributions were made, how well

did the team meet its expectations and aims, what could the team have done more

thoroughly or better?



5. Evaluation and Reflection of Teamwork

This section includes how to:

determine what evaluation and reflection may be used in teamwork and includes a

sample evaluation template.

One of the ways students can learn from their experience of team work is to request that

they complete an evaluation on their team process and outcomes. This will require the

lecturer to decide what format this evaluation will take.

Benefits of evaluation of team processes and practice

a wide range of issues may emerge which will inform future improved lecturer practice when establishing team work projects.

individual students can make their opinions public within a team setting where there may have been some dominant viewpoints prevailing.

deeper learning can occur when teams reflect and evaluate what they have learnt.

5.1. How will you ask students to evaluate their team work?

When seeking feedback and evaluation from students on their team activities and outcomes,

it is wise to prepare a set of questions that will give you a maximum amount of information in

a timely manner, and give you the opportunity to plan how you will respond to the answers

you receive.

5.1.1. Questionnaires

Questionnaires are commonly used, yet there are pitfalls in this approach including:

a ‘tick box syndrome’ can occur where students become conditioned to answering multiple questions and do not think very seriously about what they answer.

some students are keen to please the questioner which can distort their real views, even when questionnaires are anonymous.

questionnaires tend to be taken post the event, which means they do not always capture the events as they happen; and there is a lost opportunity for students to have a sense of ownership of the responses and actions taken to improve issues.

some important issues which may have impacted on the students’ capacity to work successfully in a team may not be captured adequately in a questionnaire.



students do not always feel like answering a questionnaire at a given moment and therefore provide superficial answers.

questionnaires are analysed as though they reflect a permanent considered set of answers, when the data may be more transient in nature.

students become bored with answering too many questionnaires that require no commitment to answering in depth, or the form looks too long, and their answers can be non-specific and generalised.

Advantages of questionnaires can include:

the ability to reach a large number of students with one instrument of evaluation

formative feedback can be gained whilst students are working on their team projects;

anonymity can be assured in contrast to student interviews or class feedback sessions;

if properly designed questions that prompt positive and less positive answers and a mix of types of response formats are used (tick boxes, graduated scales, list of optional answers, written answers), students may find it more interesting to complete;

advance planning of your response agenda to the answers you may receive can highlight further questions you may need to add to the questionnaire;

questions that explore more deeply, are non-ambiguous, short and simple

can be developed that avoid too many vague ‘undecided’ answers.

The questions you may want to ask can be categorised as either “structured” or “open

ended”.

Examples of structured questions

Write questions that require agreement measures from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (e.g.: This assignment was very easy to complete)

Write questions that include number grading from “5= most useful” to “1= least useful” as the answer (e.g.: This assignment helped me learn more about the topic).

Explore students feelings to “more of, “just right” and “less of” answers to questions (e.g. How do you feel about the opportunity to practice your teams’ presentation?).

prioritising answers to questions from 1 to 10.(e.g.: On scale of 1-10 with I being least useful, and 10 being most useful, decide where you think that the use of research reports as the assessment of this topic was appropriate?).



Examples of open ended questions

The three most useful features of working in a team are…

The three least useful features of working in a team are…

Describe how you dealt with…

Suggestions for improvements in teamwork are…

What did you learn from working with your team members?

What were the key issues that your team had to deal with?

What was the relevance of teamwork to the topic?

5.1.2. Other Evaluation Methods


Journals - students can be asked to complete journal entries either electronically or in hard copy as a component of an assessment task.

Daily diaries - students can track the progress of the team activities and cooperation, outcomes of meetings and discussions and issues that arise.

Online comments – using a wiki, team blog or answering an online questionnaire.

Team member interviews – preparing an agenda carefully and considering how many of the team you will interview is essential so that you gain maximum benefit from the effort required to establish this feedback/evaluation process.

Team feedback in class - this can be a useful way of avoiding embarrassment of individuals and can promote debate and reflection on a wider scale.



5.2. Reflections on teamwork Students can be asked to write reflective pieces on their experience of the team process and

practice. Writing about an experience is a useful way of demonstrating what has been learnt.

It also demands time and space to reflect, encourages independent thought, individual

ownership of an experience, enables expression of feelings and problem solving. These are

capabilities we have named and aspire to encourage in our future graduates.

Reflective writing is an opportunity to ask students to:

describe and analyse their role in a team;

consolidate what they have learnt from their experience;

keep a record of their experience;

anticipate what they may do differently in the future if asked to work in a team again;

share their experiences with other teams in safe and supportive environment to deepen overall student appreciation of many common issues and strengths and weaknesses in team work.

You need to consider if this reflective writing is assessable, part assessable or not (in

advance), as this will determine which sections of the writing are most easily assessed when

you are developing the reflective task.

Consider assessing

1. Actions taken by student to address issues.

2. Asking students to list what they felt were the strengths and weaknesses of the team

process.

Guidance on what you want the students to reflect on is important. Reflective writing

needs to be planned and to have some ground rules.


Talk with students about their team process and practices and what you want them to

learn about.

Ask students to analysis what their team was trying to achieve, motivations, differing

viewpoints, what was not resolved or not resolved well, decision making, team

members responses to issues, or anything unusual or unexpected that happened.

Ask students to describe how the individual student roles in a team worked.

Linking theory and practice.

Stress to students that critical incidents or issues are an important part of reflective

practice.



Assisting students to write about their experiences

Ground rules need to be established to assist students to write in a purposeful way. Some

students will be unsure as to how to write about their team members or the processes and

issues that may have arisen and may have no experience of reflective writing.


To avoid interpersonal difficulties or inappropriate comments you could ask students to:

Only write about what they observed or their perceptions and not to make assumptions of what they thought other students felt in the team.

Avoid writing anything about another student that would be insulting, or hurtful to read, thus encouraging a more professional constructive commentary.

Write about critical incidents and how they were resolved as a key learning and not as a way to criticise individuals.

Not be fearful of reflecting on mistakes and how they were addressed.

Explore what they have learnt from this experience as individuals.


Boud, D.(2001) Using journal-writing to enhance reflective practice in L.English and M.Gillen

(eds) Promoting Journal Writing in Adult Education: New Direction for Adult and

Continuing Education, Vol 90.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, G & Hirschfeld, G.(2008) Students conceptions of assessment; links to outcomes,

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, Vol 15(1), pp 3-17.

Gibbs, G & Simpson, C.(2002) Does your assessment support your students’ learning

available at: http://isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob.aspx?feltid=157744.

Moon, J.A.(1999) Learning Journals: A Handbook for Academics, Students, and

Professional Development, London: Kogan Page.

Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D.(2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a

model and seven principles of good feedback, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 31,(2)

pp199-218.

http://isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob.aspx?feltid=157744



O’Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. (2001) the student experience of criterion-referenced

assessment through the introduction of a common criteria assessment grid,

Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol 38,(1) pp74-85.

Race, P.(2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment, generic Assessment

Series, no.9. LTSN Generic Centre, York.

Rust, C.(2001) A briefing on assessment of large groups: LTSN Generic Centre Assessment

Series No 12, York, LTSN.

Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books.



Team Evaluation (example)

Rate your team individually, on a scale of 1 being the least successful, to 5 being the most

successful, and then share your answers with fellow team members.

Circle one of the following ratings for each point Working together 1 2 3 4 5 Commitment to the task 1 2 3 4 5 (agreed decisions, agreed aims) Team meeting effectiveness 1 2 3 4 5 (completing actions, attendance, contributing) Team communication 1 2 3 4 5 (listening, clarifying, recognising viewpoints) Meeting deadlines 1 2 3 4 5 Equal participation 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of work 1 2 3 4 5 Team member motivation 1 2 3 4 5 Equal share of workload 1 2 3 4 5

Are there additional comments you want to make?

What would you change or correct in your teams’ performance?

Overall how would you rate your teams’ performance? 1 2 3 4 5

Adapted from: Morgan, A. (2002) Enhancing Experiences of Group Work. University of

Technology, Institute for interactive Media and Learning, Sydney.



Selected Bibliography

Adnett, N.(2000) Introducing peer group assessment in an undergraduate economics

programme, in P.Davies, S.Hodkinson and P.Reynolds (eds), Innovative Approaches

to Learning and Teaching in Economics and Business Higher Education, UK, Stoke-

on-Trent, Trentham Books.

Ashraf, M. (2004). "A Critical Look at the Use of Group Projects as a Pedagogical Tool."

Journal of Education for Business 79(4): 213.

Assessing Group Work. Online at http://learn.lincoln.ac.nz.

Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San

Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Barkley, E. F., K. P. Cross, et al. (2004). Collaborative learning techniques: a handbook for

college faculty. San Francisco, Josey-Bass.

Bourner, J., Hughes, M.,& Bourner, T.(2001) First–year undergraduate experiences of group

project work. Assessment and Evaluation, vol 26(1) pp.19-39.

Brown, R.(1998) Group Processes: Dynamics within and between Groups, UK, Oxford,

Blackwell.

Cardiff University (2001) Guidance on group work. Online at http:// www.cardiff.ac.uk.

Clark, M. A., Blancero, D., Luce, C., and Marron, G.(2001) Teaching group-task congruence:

the fit for performance exercise, Journal for Management Education, vol 25,(5),pp.531-

52.

Clinebell, S. and M. Stecher (2003). "Teaching teams to be teams: An exercise using the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Five-Factor personality traits." Journal of

Management Education 27(3): 362.

Cragin, J. (2002). Team-Based Learning in International Situations. Team-Based Learning:

A transformative use of small groups. L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight and L. D. Fink.

Westport, Connecticut, Praeger: 177-88.

Evaluating Teams. Online at http://www.vta.spcomm.uiuc.edu.

Federman Stein, R.,& Hurd, S.(2000) Using Student Teams in the Classroom: A Faculty

Guide. Anker: Boston,MA Chapter 1: Teamwork theory and Discussion.

Feichtner, S. B. and E. A. Davis (1984). "Why Some Groups Fail: a Survey of Students'

Experiences with Learning Groups." Journal of Management Education 9(4): 58-73.

Gibbs, G. (1994) Learning in Teams: A Student Manual. Headington, Oxford: The Oxford

Centre for Staff Development.

Gibbs, G.(1995). Learning in Teams: A Tutor Guide. Headington Oxford. The Oxford Centre

for Staff Development.

http://learn.lincoln.ac.nz/

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/

http://www.vta.spcomm.uiuc.edu/



Gibbs, G., Rust, C., Jenkins, A., & Jaques, D.(1994). Developing Students’ Transferrable

Skills. Headington, Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Hansen, R. S. (2006). "Benefits and Problems With Student Teams: Suggestions for

Improving Team Projects." Journal of Education for Business 82(1): 11.

Jaques, D.(2000) Learning in Groups,3rd edn. London, Kogan Page.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P.(4th edn.) (1991) Joining Together: Group Theory and

Group Skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Katzenbach, J. R. and K. Smith (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high

performance organisation. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.

Kazlauskas, A., S. Gimel, et al. (2007). Embedding group work in the first year experience.

www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/papers07/final_papers/.../1d.pdf.

Methods for Assessing Group work. Online at http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca.

Michaelson, R.(2000) Assessing group work, LTSN-BEST Briefing Paper. Online at

http://www.business.heacademy.ac.uk.

Morgan, P.(2002) Supporting staff to support students: the application of a performance

management framework to reduce group working problems.

Online at http://www.business.heacademy.ac.uk.

Oakley, B., R. M. Felder, et al. (2004). "Turning student groups into effective teams." Journal

of Student Centred Learning 2: 9-34.

Options for Lecturer/Tutor Assessment of Group Work Products and Process.

Online at http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au.

O’Sullivan, T., Rice, J., Rogerson, S., and Saunders, C. (1996) Successful Group Work,

London, Kogan Page.

Page, D. and J. G. Donelan (2003). "Team-building tools for students." Journal of Education

for Business 78(3): 125.

Pfaff, E. and P. Huddleston (2003). "Does It Matter if I Hate Teamwork? What Impacts

Student Attitudes toward Teamwork." Journal of Marketing Education 25(1): 37-45.

Pineda, R. C. and L. D. Lerner (2006). "Goal attainment, satisfaction and learning from

teamwork." Team Performance Management 12(5/6): 182.

Race, Phil (2001) The Lecturer’s Toolkit. (2nd Ed) Routledge Falmer.

Springer, L., M. E. Stanne, et al. (1999). "Effects of Small-Group Learning on

Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-

Analysis." Review of Educational Research 69(1): 21-51.

Student Groups: Issues for Teaching and Learning. Online at http://www.clt.uts.edu.au.

Teamworks Site Map: Online at http:// www.adm.vta.spcomm.uiuc.edu.

http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/papers07/final_papers/.../1d.pdf

http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/

http://www.business.heacademy.ac.uk/

http://www.business.heacademy.ac.uk/

http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/

http://www.clt.uts.edu.au/

http://www.adm.vta.spcomm.uiuc.edu/



Van den Bossche, P., W. H. Gijselaers, et al. (2006). "Social and Cognitive Factors Driving

Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments." Small Group Research 37(5):

490-521.

Winchester- Seeto, T. (2002) Assessment of collaborative work-collaboration versus

assessment. Invited Paper presented at the Annual Uniserve Science Symposium, The

University of Sydney.



APPENDIX A

Case study research: Rosse. M. (2010)

EXAMPLES OF TEAMWORK IN FIRST YEAR SUBJECTS

LA TROBE UNIVERSITY

The following examples of teamwork provide a demonstration of the variety of tasks which

can be employed for teamwork and a range of ways in which teamwork can be integrated

into the curriculum. All these examples have been taken from first year subjects.



Case Study 1

Course/Discipline History

Number of students 300-400 students across 3 campuses

1. Description of Teamwork

Each team chooses a topic (a mythical figure) from a wide range of options, and then

chooses one of 3 possible focus questions. The outcome is a team oral presentation

supported by a poster or PowerPoint. The team project spans 5 weeks (including the

semester break), from Week 7-10, and makes use of the 1 hour per week of tutorial time,

plus additional out-of-class time. Students are provided with detailed step-by-step advice

about the research process and with extensive reading lists on the various topics.

One of the reasons for including the teamwork element was that student engagement data

showed that the students in humanities/social science were least likely to have a friend at

university, least likely to stay on campus for longer than their actual class and, by their own

admission, least likely to prepare for that class.

2. Teaching Approaches

From Week 1, students are allocated into teams by the tutor, but then when the assessed

task begins, the students form their own groups of 3 students – but this process does vary

with different tutors (8 in total). Students have a practice task which requires the team to

meet out of class time and present something in class the following week.

Each team is required to keep minutes of their meetings (a proforma is provided) and to post

the minutes where they can be accessed by team members (e.g. on a Wiki), and also be

available for the tutor to see in tutorials. This provides evidence if someone is not

contributing. Teams meet in tutorial time, where they are monitored by the tutor. They are

also expected to meet outside tutorial time – but this is not monitored (other than the

minutes)

3. Assessment

The oral presentation, with its accompanying PowerPoint or poster, is worth 15% of the

semester mark. The assessment is marked according to six criteria: inquiry/research, critical

thinking, creative problem-solving, teamwork, speaking, PowerPoint or e-Poster. Each

criterion has notes about scope and evidence, and is graded as A, B, C, D, or N. All team

members receive the same mark. Peer and self-assessment have been used in the past, but

is not currently used.

4. Extension

Arising from the team task, the students develop a topic for their individual 1,500 word

essay. They are encouraged to form a writers’ workshop in their team to help each other with

references, read each other’s drafts and generally provide peer mentoring.



Case Study 2

Course/Discipline Law

Number of students 300 students


Students work in pairs to conduct a 20 minute role play of a mediation which is performed in

Weeks 10, 11 and 12. In Week 8 they are assigned their partner and start the preparation. In

the preceding weeks, they participate in group activities with different students each week,

within the weekly 2-hour skills seminars


For each mediation, the student ‘mediators’ are given a scenario, a set of facts in about six

pages of information, with differently defined roles for each student. The student ‘clients’ in

the mediation are given information that is not given to their mediators. Teams are selected

randomly by the lecturer/tutor. Students’ participation in tutorials throughout the semester is

monitored by tutors, but their work with their mediation partner is not judged until the role

play. If there are problems within the mediation pairs, students sometimes record these in

their reflective journals, with more serious problems being taken to the tutor/lecturer.

3. Assessment

Assessment is summative - performance of the role play is worth 20% of the marks for the

subject. Although the role play is jointly conducted, each student is marked separately. The

reflective journal activity, which is associated with the role play of the mediation, is worth 5%

and there is also a class participation mark of 10% awarded by the tutor.

4. Additional Resources

It is intended that readings on reflective practice and teamwork skills will be incorporated into

this subject in the future.



Case Study 3

Course/Discipline Marketing

Number of students 330 students


In this subject, there has always been an assessed teamwork task, but not explicit teaching

about teamwork, nor assessing of the teamwork contribution. The task is the beginning of a

marketing plan, called Situation Analysis. Students have to apply what they are learning in

the subject to a given area or industry – in this case, accessories for 4 wheel drivers,

campers, or caravans. The task lasts the whole semester, with assignment checkpoints

halfway and two thirds of the way through the semester.


Teams can be made up of 2, 3 or 4 students. Students self-select from within their tutorial

groups. It takes a while for teams to settle (in the case of students changing their subject

selections). Teams work outside scheduled class-time (occasionally there is some spare

time in tutorials). Teams are required to keep minutes of their meetings and these are

included with the final assignment.

Lecturer and tutors are available in consultation hours, and via email and the Learning

Management System, to sort out any problems. In the case of a non-contributing student,

students are advised to contact team members by email (copy the lecturer into it), to try and

solve the problem within the team. The lecturer occasionally has to follow up, with the worst-

case scenario being that the assignment is done with one less team member and a separate

arrangement is made with an individual student.

3. Assessment

Summative assessment is made of the teams’ final products, with 20% of the team’s mark

made up of 10% for the 20 minute oral presentation, and 10% for the written assignment

(4,000 words). Everyone shares the same mark. There is no assessment of how the team

works or how students contributed to their team.

4. Resources

Scheduling of appointments with each team is considered to be desirable but difficult to

implement. Training of tutors would also be desirable and would need to be provided each

year to allow for new tutors coming into the program. Online teamwork exercises that could

be done in the students’ own time would be a valuable addition.



Case Study 4

Course/Discipline Health Sciences

Number of students 1,000 – 1,100 students in Melbourne + 600 students on regional campuses


As a new subject in 2009 (as part of the Common First Year), teamwork was built in from the

start with a strong focus on communication and working in teams. Development of teamwork

skills is one of the four key learning areas. A five week series of Skills Workshops (teamwork

and communication) is followed by two 3 or 4 week enquiries (Weeks 6-8 and Weeks 10-13).

The enquiries focus on concepts of disability and illness from the consumer’s perspective.


This subject has weekly two-hour workshops. In each workshop there are 30 students

divided into five teams of 6. Computer software is employed allocate students to teams, to

mix the composition of teams in terms of the students’ courses. Students stay in the same

team for the whole semester. Team groupings are kept the same as for another Common

First Year subject.

Skills development in the first 5 weeks includes exploring team roles and the stages of team

development. Team Learning Agreements (TLAs) are used to set the ground rules for the

functioning of the team and also for the team to review its performance. These TLAs are

examined by the facilitator. TLAs include team goals, philosophy, processes (including

decision-making, responsibility for tasks, management of problems, and communicating).

Most students set up Facebook groups to facilitate team communication, or can have an

LMS discussion board set up for them on request. In the case of a problem within a team,

the facilitator joins the online communication, and that often helps to settle the problem.

Students are not expected to be able to manage internal conflict without the guidance and

support of their facilitator or lecturer.

3. Assessment

The final products of each enquiry are assessed. Enquiry 1 is a 1,000 word team poster

(15%) and Enquiry 2 is a 15 minute team presentation (20%). All team members receive the

same mark. According to online student survey results, some students are concerned about

the fairness of awarding everyone the same mark, but there have also been problems with

peer assessment. The issue of assessment of teamwork is being considered.

4. Additional Resources

Media resources showcasing well-functioning teams or dysfunctional teams, and online

learning materials for students to self-assess their naturally preferred team role, would be

welcome additions to existing resources.



Case Study 5

Course Discipline Engineering

Number of students 35 students at regional campus


The motivation for the project is to give students some insight into civil engineering and to

provide the opportunity for students to get to know other students. The teamwork project

lasts for the entire semester. The Task is to provide advice to government on the installation

of a solar electricity generator and to present this advice in an oral presentation and a written

report.


A lecture is given in Week 2 covering a wide range of aspects of “Working in Teams”,

including types of teams, team development, team roles, dealing with conflict, and factors

affecting performance etc. The class of 35 students is divided into 6 teams of 5 or 6

students. Teams are formed by the end of Week 2, using Victorian Certificate of Education

(VCE) scores to distribute students across the teams, with 3 teams forming Task Force A

and 3 teams forming Task Force B. Each Task Force has a management team and two

worker teams. Teams organise themselves in terms of internal structure, but for the

purposes of communicating with the management team they have to appoint a leader to

meet weekly with the management team. Formal minutes of meetings are not required, other

than for the management team, but attendance is monitored. Timeslots within the teaching

schedule are used for teams to meet, plus additional out-of-class time. Each team has a

supervisor who meets regularly with the team and monitors their progress. Roles and

responsibilities of students and supervisor are clearly defined in the documentation for the

project.

3. Assessment

The teamwork project is the centrepiece of assessable work for this subject. In Week 8 an

introduction to the team report is submitted (worth 5%), with the final team report being

submitted in Week 12 (worth 65%). The team’s Oral Presentation is in Week 13 (worth

15%). The team mark for each of these assessments is shared by all team members.



Case Study 6

Course/Discipline Education

Number of students Two classes of 270 students and 30 students, both on regional campuses


This teamwork task was introduced in 2010. The purpose of the task is to have an assessed

item that links the students more into their communities and which addresses some of the

outcomes related to students’ understanding of their role as leaders in the community. The

task involves using an internet platform, Pebble Pad (a web-based portfolio which is used

throughout the B.Ed. degree) and producing a multi-media digital story to be housed on

Pebble Pad. The aim is to complete the task by Week 6 of the semester.


The multimedia digital story is completed in 2 stages. The structure for the process is set up

in the Action Plan which is submitted in Week 3. Stage 1 involves making a movie about

their community, using I-Movie or Movie Maker, and Stage 2 is the interviewing of a

community member. The task is carefully scaffolded with step-by-step instructions for all the

technical procedures.

Teams have a maximum of four members and are formed by the students themselves in the

second week. Based on their first semester experience, students know each other well and

have often formed strong bonds. They already have the team building skills with the

confidence to allocate the different roles. If problems arise in the teams, the co-ordinator

deals with them on a case-by-case basis.

3. Assessment

Students are assessed as a team, with all team members receiving the same mark. The

Action Plan in Week 3 is worth 5%, and the final multimedia presentation is worth 20%.

There is a plan to redesign the assessment so that it includes an assessment of each

student’s contribution to the team.



Case Study 7

Course/Discipline Media Studies

Number of students 125 (up to 175)


The subject has been in existence for 12-15 years, with its current form having been

developed over the last 5 years. The teamwork project is integral to the subject. The project

for each team is to produce a 25 minute news program over the period from Week 4 to

Week 11. The final TV programs are shown in the two hour lecture so that everybody gets to

see the result of everybody else’s teamwork efforts.


Teams operate at multiple levels. The tutorial group (25 students) is the Production Team

which produces a single news program. Within that team there are multiple other teams:

teams which work on a particular story, studio teams (e.g. floor manager, camera operator,

vision mixer, etc.), and editorial teams. A tutorial grouping (and therefore a Production team)

is self-selected by students, usually for tutorial scheduling reasons. Roles within those teams

are negotiated from within the team: after the first three weeks of tutorials which cover the

specifics of the various roles, students nominate themselves for the particular roles, e.g.

producer, director etc. The first three weeks of tutorials cover the knowledge and practical

skills they need to get started; subsequent tutorials continue with this function.

Students use LMS or email for communication. Each of the Production teams has a strong

identity, usually developing their own logos. The lecturer and tutor keep a close eye on the

teams; they see them working in the studios where they can monitor and guide their

progress. If issues arise, the lecturer deals with them in face-to-face sessions. The aim for

such sessions is that everyone should come out with a better understanding of the issue and

feel that they have been heard.

3. Assessment

The final news program is worth 20%. The mark is shared by everyone. Students also write

an individual assignment (worth 20%) which includes a section in which they evaluate their

own contribution to a story and to the program, and other sections in which they critique their

team’s program, reflect on what they learnt from the experience and what they could present

in a CV.



APPENDIX B

Author: Greg Jamieson, Faculty of Business, Economics and Law (2010).

Situating Collaborative Learning and Teamwork

What is the pedagogical rational for collaborative learning?

There are a range of theoretical perspectives on learning - neurological, cognitive, social and

experiential (Cross 1999) - each to varying degrees providing a pedagogical rationale for

collaborative learning.

Collaborative learning promotes active learning which makes connections both within the

neurological network of the brain and amongst the schemata of the mind. The more active is

the engagement of the student, the more connections are made and the greater is the

learning. Moreover, the social and experiential context in which collaborative learning is

developed allows for the development of understanding through a dialectic of teaching and

learning or doing and reflecting. This further deepens the level of understanding achieved

and the ability of the student to apply that understanding in the world.

Neurological perspective

New research on the neurology of the brain provides a perspective on learning which

complements that derived from the cognitive sciences. This perspective holds that the

circuitry of the brain is comprised of millions of neurons, and when two neurons connect,

through the passage of information from one neuron to another, learning takes place

(Sprenger 2007: p. 29). The more the brain is stimulated the more neurons are connected

and the more learning is developed. Indeed as Diamond and Hopson state “…enrich your

experiences and enlarge your cerebral cortex, deprive yourself of stimulation and the brain

will shrink from disuse.” (Diamond and Hopson 1998) collaborative learning provides a

stimulating environment for learning where individual students are challenged by their peers

with whom they must collaborate.

Cognitive perspective

Cognitive theorists describe the structure of the mind as comprising schemata, one for each

different topic. Each schema is an organised collection of related facts, ideas and opinions

which together define an individual’s understanding of a specific topic. An individual’s

perception of each new experience, observation or idea, is organised into the appropriate

schema to create new meaning (Cross 1999). In the same way as neuroscientists discount

the perception of the brain as prewired, and prefer to see it as developing as experience

stimulates new connections being formed between neurons, so cognitive scientists see the

mind developing as new schemata are identified and expanded, stimulated by knowledge

and experience, yet actively created by the individual mind. Both the neurological and the

cognitive perspective define learning as an activity performed by the individual student.

While such activities can be undertaken alone, the added stimulus offered by a collaborative

learning environment increases the probability that new connections can be made when

learning occurs.



Social perspective

As distinct from both the neurological and the cognitive perspectives, social constructionists

perceive learning as a social activity in which individuals construct an understanding of the

world around them mediated through language and culture. The social perspective sees

learning as being created through a communal process of dialogue and reflection.

“Collaborative learning promotes the communal construction of interpretation and

understanding through a process of critical engagement with and the incorporation of the

views of others” (Stage, Muller et al. 1998: p. 46). Moreover, social constructionists see

learning as being developed not only through observing, listening and reflecting, but equally

through explaining, expressing, convincing and defending one’s own understanding to

others. In short learning is developed and consolidated through teaching. The dialectic of

teaching and learning occurring between peers is at the heart of both collaborative leaning

and the social perspective of learning.

Experiential perspective

Whereas the social perspective focuses on the ability of collaborative learning to develop a

process of communal dialogue and reflection, the experiential perspective sees it as offering

the opportunity to learn through experience and has its genesis in the thinking of John

Dewey (Dewey 1967). Collaborative learning activities are often focused on solving

problems which students consider to be real problems drawn from the world in which they

live and as such is promoting learning by doing. More importantly, however, is the

opportunity collaborative learning provides to develop students’ teamwork, interpersonal and

communication skills. No matter how abstract the topic of analysis, collaborative learning

requires students not only to communicate but also to work together both as individuals and

in groups. In so doing, students are learning-by-doing skills critical to their future careers and

to living in communities.

Does collaborative learning improve student learning outcomes?

Collaborative or cooperative learning is “ one of the most thoroughly researched of all

instructional methods” (Slavin 1989b: p. 28). At primary and secondary school levels, the

favourable effects of collaborative learning on achievement and productivity, psychological

health and self-esteem, intergroup attitudes and attitudes towards learning are so

consistently positive that, in the words of Cohen, it is no longer necessary to establish

collaborative learning as a “legitimate method of instruction that can help students to learn”

(1994: p. 30). Further, in a meta-analysis of 60 studies which compared the achievement

outcomes of collaborative learning and traditional methods in primary and secondary

schools, Slavin (1989a) found widespread agreement among reviewers of the positive effect

of collaborative learning.

A number of meta analyses have included some studies of the use of collaborative learning

at a post-secondary level. For instance, Johnson et al (1981),in an analysis of 122 studies

on the topic, found cooperation to be superior to both individualistic and competitive learning

pedagogies in promoting achievement and productivity. This work was further extended and

supported by Johnson and Johnson (1989), and Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1991). It was

also confirmed by Springer, Stanne and Donovan who undertook a meta-analysis of

research conducted at a post-secondary level in science, mathematics, engineering and

technology courses and found “ ... the main effect of small-group learning on achievement,

persistence and attitudes ... was significant and positive” (1999: p. 29).



Collaborative learning has been successfully employed at a post-secondary level to teach

students in a range of disciplines including chemistry (Kogut 1997), economics (Maier and

Keenan 1994), dentistry (Scannapieco and Herreid 1994), health sciences (Goodson 2002),

computer skills (Keeler and Anson 1995), finance (Chan, Shum et al. 1996), and accounting

(Caldwell, Weishar et al. 1996). It has also been applied in large class situations (Michaelsen

2002b) and in different cultural settings (Cragin 2002).

Collaborative learning has also been shown to assist in the development a range of graduate

capabilities in post-secondary students, including academic skills (Johnson, Maruyama et al.

1981), problem solving (Johnson, Johnson et al. 1991), decision making skills (Watson,

Michaelsen et al. 1991: p. 808) and social skills (Terenzini, Cabrera et al. 2001).

Several studies have shown that students also benefit from the opportunities collaborative

learning offers to apply their knowledge to work-related problems and environments. For

instance, Alie, Beam et al in their study of students working in hierarchical teams found:

“Students actually get to apply what they have studied in other classes. They do not simply

study organisational behaviour; they are immersed in it in a team setting” (1998: p. 718).

Notwithstanding considerable support for the positive effects of collaborative learning on

student achievement of graduate capabilities, there remain a number of dissenting voices.

Asharaf, for instance in a theoretical discussion argues that “Because of the nature of the

classroom setting, not only does the problem of free riding intensify, but it may result in

making less motivated students proficient free riders. The models in this study indicate that

the use of groups and group projects as pedagogical tools should be reconsidered” (2004: p.

216). The free-rider or “collective action” problem was also highlighted in McCorkle’s study,

which found “... support for a conclusion that group projects can be strongly affected by

problems of specialization of labor and collective action” (1999: p. 114) However, McCorkle

also found that “... students are capable of recognising the benefits and the need for group

work in developing the necessary teamwork skills” (1999: p. 114)

This suggests that there a number of preconditions for collaborative learning to lead to

enhanced achievement of learning objectives and the development of graduate capabilities.

In the words of Barker and Franzak “... placing students into groups for class assignments is

not the same as developing teams, even when the term ‘team’ is applied” (1997: p. 304).

These thoughts are echoed throughout the literature as for instance in Clinebell and Stecher

(2003) and Hansen (2006).

Defining characteristics of effective learning groups

Smith (1996: pp. 74-6) defined five characteristics of effective learning groups, which are

often positively cited in the literature on team development (Tarricone and Luca 2002: ;

Barkley, Cross et al. 2004: ; Van den Bossche, Gijselaers et al. 2006: ; Barkley 2010).

The five characteristics are:

Positive Interdependence: This implies a belief system, commonly held amongst all

members of the team, in which the success of the team relies on the collective

contribution of each member of the team.

Promotive Interaction: This implies a behavioural system, commonly practised by

all members of the team, which ensures each member of the team is interacting to

help each other accomplish the team’s goals and promote each other’s success.



Individual and Group Accountability: This implies a reward system in which,

although the team is accountable for achieving its goals, individual team members

are accountable for contributing to achievement of the team’s goals and are

assessed according to the extent to which they contribute to the achievement of its

goals.

Development of Teamwork Skills: This implies an educational system in which

teamwork skills are learned “just as purposefully and precisely as academic skills”

(Smith 1996: p. 75).

Group Processing: This implies an evaluation system in which students are

responsible for evaluating team work and determining what is useful and not useful in

assisting the team’s progress towards the achievement of its goals.

These characteristics closely reflect those identified in the research undertaken by

Katzenbach and Smith into the characteristics of high-performance teams operating in the

business and industry context where “A team is a small number of people with

complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and

approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable” (emphasis in the

original)(1993: p. 45). However, Smith’s five characteristics imply a necessary precondition

highlighted in the Katzenbach and Smith characteristics of high-performance teams, that

high-performance teams are comprised of “... a small number of people with complementary

skills ...”. This might define a sixth preconditioning characteristic, Resource

Interdependence, which implies a resource allocation system via which the groups, from

which the teams will grow, are formed so as to provide an adequate range of resources

required to achieve the team’s goals.

Strategies for developing effective learning groups

“[There] is an acknowledgement that group work has long suffered as a result of inadequate

epistemology, and that principles of ‘good practice’ need to be identified and adhered if

effective group learning outcomes are to be realised” (Baskin, Barker et al. 2005: p. 23). The

six characteristics of effective learning groups, defined above, provides a framework through

which to consider some principles of best practice in the development of effective learning

groups.

Resource Interdependence

An essential prerequisite to developing effective learning teams is the criteria used in

defining the members of each group. The groups need to be formed in a such a way as to

provide an adequate resource for each group; to maximise the diversity of resources

available to each group; and to minimise the chance that disruptive cliques will form within

the groups (Michaelsen 2002a). The only way in which to meet these criteria is for the

students to be allocated into groups by the lecturer, so as to “ ... mix students up in a way

that forces the groups to build themselves into teams ‘from the ground up’” (Michaelsen

2002a: p. 29). Feichtner and Davis (1984), Michaelsen and Black (1994) and Koppenhaver

and Shrader (2003), all provide further support for instructor assigned teams.

Time is another important resource available to groups to develop as a team. Groups should

be allowed sufficient time both to develop as a team and to achieve the other goals for which

they were formed (Michaelsen 2002a). McKendall (2000), Pfaff and Huddlestone (2003), and

others also argue that teams should be allowed some regular class time in which to meet as



a team to plan, administer, carry out and reflect on the tasks required in order to achieve the

team’s goal.

Positive Interdependence

In the first instance, students need to be convinced as to the importance and relevance of

developing or employing team work skills to the learning objectives defined for the subject or

course (McKendall 2000: ; Clinebell and Stecher 2003: ; Page and Donelan 2003: ; Oakley,

Felder et al. 2004). Unless the rationale for developing or employing team work skills within

the subject or course is accepted by the students their ability to buy in to a belief system

predicated on team work skills is likely to be limited. As Slavin notes “It is not enough to

simply tell students to work together; they must have a reason to take one another’s

achievements seriously” (1996: p. 21). In Smith’s words “Students must believe that they are

linked with others in such a way that one cannot succeed unless the other members of the

group succeed” (1996). In part this belief system is motivated by the definition of a clearly

defined goal for the team which can only be achieved through the group working as a team

and by a reward system aligned both to the achievement of the team’s goal and to the

contribution made by each individual to the achievement of that goal (Page and Donelan

2003: ; Pfaff and Huddleston 2003).

Promotive interaction

A belief system alone does not constitute a team. The belief system must be reflected in the

actions of the team members. It is this characteristic that defines the difference between

cooperative learning and collaborative learning. Where a group of individuals may

cooperate, only through collaboration will the group of individuals become a team.

Cooperation defines a process in which individuals within a group organise their individual

actions to meet a group’s goal primarily through the allocation of tasks. Collaboration

requires the individuals to interact so as to jointly promote the achievement of the team’s

goals. In this way team members will help each other achieve the group’s goals and promote

one another’s success. In the words of Slavin, “If a group member wants her group to be

successful she must teach her group mates (and learn the material herself). If she simply

tells her group mates the answers, they will fail the quiz that they must take individually.”

(1996: p. 53).

Individual and group accountability

Motivating both the belief system and the behavioural system is the reward system, without

which the group is unlikely to develop into a team. The precondition of any reward system

motivating team-based belief and behavioural systems is its recognition that while the team

is accountable for the achievement of the team’s goals, individual team members are

individually accountable for their contribution to the team’s achievement of these goals and

an individual team member’s reward should reflect both the ability of the team to achieve its

goals AND the extent to which each contributed as an individual (Slavin 1996: ; Page and

Donelan 2003: ; Pfaff and Huddleston 2003).

Development of teamwork skills

The Australian Learning and Teaching Council noted, citing Clineball and Stecher (2003),

that “The assignment of students into teams without addressing team development or team-

building processes is recognized as a significant problem” (Rigby 2010: p.13). The literature

finds significant support for this point of view. Pineda and Lerner (2006) and Page and

Donelan (2003) both demonstrate a positive correlation between team-building processes, a



successful team performance and the achievement of learning outcomes. Pfaff and

Huddlestone (2003), McCorkle, Reardon et al (1999) and Oakley, Felder et al (2004) argue

that team building processes can also mitigate many of the problems associated with team

work such as the specialisation of labour, social loafing and inadequate rewards. Smith

sums it up when he says that “Students must have and use the needed leadership, decision-

making, trust-building, communication, and conflict-management skills. These skills have to

be taught just as purposefully and precisely as academic skills” (Smith 1996: p.75).

Group processing

Team members must adopt a process of continuous reflection and refinement of the manner

in which they are working as a team (McKendall 2000: ; Clinebell and Stecher 2003: ; Pfaff

and Huddleston 2003: ; Oakley, Felder et al. 2004: ; Kazlauskas, Gimel et al. 2007). Peer

assessment can be used both as a formative assessment technique as well as a summative

assessment technique to assist in this process of the self-evaluation of team members and

team practices (Feichtner and Davis 1984: ; McKendall 2000: ; Erez, Lepine et al. 2002: ;

Pfaff and Huddleston 2003: ; Hansen 2006).

References

Alie, R., E., H. Beam, H. , et al. (1998). "The use of teams in an undergraduate management

program." Journal of Management Education 22(6): 707.

Ashraf, M. (2004). "A Critical Look at the Use of Group Projects as a Pedagogical Tool."

Journal of Education for Business 79(4): 213.

Barker, R. T. and F. J. Franzak (1997). "Team building in the classroom: Preparing students

for their organisational future." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 27:

303-15.

Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San

Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Barkley, E. F., K. P. Cross, et al. (2004). Collaborative learning techniques: a handbook for

college faculty. San Francisco, Josey-Bass.

Baskin, C., M. Barker, et al. (2005). "When group work leaves the classroom does group

skills development also go out the window?" British Journal of Educational Technology

36(1): 19-31.

Caldwell, M. B., J. Weishar, et al. (1996). "The effect of cooperative learning on student

perceptions of accounting in the principles courses." Journal of Accounting Education

14(1): 17-36.

Chan, K. C., C. Shum, et al. (1996). "An Empirical Study of Cooperative Instruction

Environment on Student Achievement in Principles of Finance." Journal of Financial

Education 22(Fall): 21-8.

Clinebell, S. and M. Stecher (2003). "Teaching teams to be teams: An exercise using the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Five-Factor personality traits." Journal of

Management Education 27(3): 362.



Cohen, E. G. (1994). "Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small

Groups." Review of Educational Research 64(1): 1-35.

Cragin, J. (2002). Team-Based Learning in International Situations. Team-Based Learning:



Cross, K. P. (1999). "Learning Is about Making Connections. The Cross Papers Number 3,

League for Innovation in the Community College, 26522 La Alameda, Suite 370,

Mission Viejo, CA 92691; Tel: 949-367-2884; Fax: 949-367-2885; Web site:

http://www.league.org ($10).

Dewey, J. (1967). Democracy and Education. New York, Free Press.

Diamond, M. P. and J. Hopson (1998). Magic trees of the mind. New York, Dutton.

Erez, A., J. A. Lepine, et al. (2002). "Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the

functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi experiment." Personnel

Psychology 55: 929-48.

Feichtner, S. B. and E. A. Davis (1984). "Why Some Groups Fail: a Survey of Students'

Experiences with Learning Groups." Journal of Management Education 9(4): 58-73.

Goodson, P. (2002). Working with nontraditional and underprepared students in health

education. Team-Based Learning: A transformative use of small groups. L. K.

Michaelsen, A. B. Knight and L. D. Fink. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger: 119-28.

Hansen, R. S. (2006). "Benefits and Problems With Student Teams: Suggestions for

Improving Team Projects." Journal of Education for Business 82(1): 11.

Johnson, D., W., G. Maruyama, et al. (1981). "Effects of cooperative, competitive, and

individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis." Psychological Bulletin

89(1): 47-62.

Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson (1989). Cooperation and competition: theory and

research. Edina, MN, Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, et al. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the college

classroom. Edina, MN, Interaction Book Company.

Katzenbach, J. R. and K. Smith (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high

performance organisation. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.

Kazlauskas, A., S. Gimel, et al. (2007). Embedding group work in the first year experience.

www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/papers07/final_papers/.../1d.pdf.

Keeler, C. and R. Anson (1995). "An assessment of cooperative learning used for basic

computer skills instruction in the college classroom." Journal of Educational Computing

Research 12(4): 379-93.

Kogut, L. S. (1997). "Using Cooperative Learning to Enhance Performance in General."

Journal of Chemical Education 74(6): 720-null.

Koppenhaver, G. D. and C. B. Shrader (2003). "Structuring the Classroom for Performance:

Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams*." Decision Sciences Journal of

Innovative Education 1(1): 1-21.

http://www.league.org/

http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/papers07/final_papers/.../1d.pdf



Maier, M. and D. Keenan (1994). "Teaching Tools: Cooperative learning in economics."

Economic Inquiry 32(2): 358-61.

McCorkle, D. E., J. Reardon, et al. (1999). "Undergraduate Marketing Students, Group

Projects, and Teamwork: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?" Journal of Marketing

Education 21(2): 106-17.

McKendall, M. (2000). "Teaching groups to become teams." Journal of Education for

Business 75(5): 277.

Michaelsen, L. K. (2002a). Getting started with team-based learning. Team-based learning:



Michaelsen, L. K. (2002b). Team-Based Learning in Large Classes. Team-Based Learning:



Michaelsen, L. K. and R. H. Black (1994). Building learning teams: the key to harnessing the

power of small groups in higher education. Collaborative learning: A source book for

higher education. S. Kadel and J. Keehner. State College, PA, National Centre for

Teaching, Learning and Assessment. 2.

Oakley, B., R. M. Felder, et al. (2004). "Turning student groups into effective teams." Journal

of Student Centred Learning 2: 9-34.

Page, D. and J. G. Donelan (2003). "Team-building tools for students." Journal of Education

for Business 78(3): 125.

Pfaff, E. and P. Huddleston (2003). "Does It Matter if I Hate Teamwork? What Impacts

Student Attitudes toward Teamwork." Journal of Marketing Education 25(1): 37-45.

Pineda, R. C. and L. D. Lerner (2006). "Goal attainment, satisfaction and learning from

teamwork." Team Performance Management 12(5/6): 182.

Rigby, B. (2010). "Review of graduate skills: Critical thinking, teamwork, ethical practice and

sustainability." Graduate Skills. B. Rigby, Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Scannapieco, F. and C. Herreid (1994). "An application of team learning in dental

education." Journal of Dental Education 58(4): 843-8.

Slavin, R. E. (1989a). Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement. School and

Classroom Organisation. R. E. Slavin. Hillsdale, N.J., Erlbaum.

Slavin, R. E. (1989b). "Research on Cooperative Learning: Consensus and Controversy."

Educational Leadership 47(4): 52.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Education for all. Exton, PA, Swets & Zeitlinger.

Smith, K. A. (1996). "Cooperative learning: Making “groupwork” work." New Directions for

Teaching and Learning 1996(67): 71-82.

Sprenger, M. (2007). Becoming a 'Wiz' at Brain-Based Teaching. Thousand Oaks,

California, Corwin Press.



Springer, L., M. E. Stanne, et al. (1999). "Effects of Small-Group Learning on

Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-

Analysis." Review of Educational Research 69(1): 21-51.

Stage, F. K., P. A. Muller, et al. (1998). Creating Learning Centered Classrooms. What Does

Learning Theory Have To Say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 26, No.

4, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, One Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 630,

Washington, DC 20036-1183; toll-free phone: 800-773-3742; fax: 202-452-1844.

($24).

Tarricone, P. and J. Luca (2002). "Employees, teamwork and social interdependence - a

formula for successful business?" Team Performance Management 8(3/4): 54-9.

Terenzini, P. T., A. F. Cabrera, et al. (2001). "Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Classroom:

Does It Promote Student Learning?" The Journal of Higher Education 72(5): 509-31.

Van den Bossche, P., W. H. Gijselaers, et al. (2006). "Social and Cognitive Factors Driving

Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments." Small Group Research 37(5):

490-521.

Watson, W., L. K. Michaelsen, et al. (1991). "Member Competence, Group Interaction, and

Group Decision Making: A Longitudinal Study. [Article]." Journal of Applied Psychology

December 76(6): 803-9.

teamwork toolkit - la trobe university€¦ · the teamwork toolkit is divided into five sections:...

Documents