An Exploration of Team Formation

An Exploration of Team Formation To what extent are instructor-formed group experiences more or less satisfying than self-formed group experiences?

Shelly Nebel and Janet Yowell University of Colorado Denver INTE 6720 – Final Action Research Study Report Fall 2012

An Exploration of Team Formation | 1

Introduction and Problem Statement This was a team project, comprised of Shelly Nebel and Janet Yowell―both master’s degree students in an information and learning technology program at a major university in the western U.S. and employees of the same university’s partner colleges. Shelly graduates in May 2013, and Janet graduates in August 2014.

Both of us have experienced great team interactions, as well as less-than-satisfactory team interactions, in our professional and academic careers. Through this study, we aimed to delve into the minds of fellow students, faculty and other university affiliates to assess their team experiences and answer the question as to whether or not the type of team, either self-formed or instructor-formed, lends to participants’ overall satisfaction of the experience.

As a result of our own past experiences, we were intrigued to discover the impact to participants’ experiences as a result of team formation. We hope that this research helps influence future team creation within the University, educational community and the extended communities. Our goal, therefore, is to create opportunity for online learners to experience satisfactory team formation through their coursework.

This research is poised to inform the educational community, specifically those of online programs, of the types of teams that best suit online users.

Purpose and Intended Audience The purpose of this research was to determine to what extent the outcome of team formation results in personal satisfaction, particularly for online learners. Or to what extent instructor-formed group experiences are more or less satisfying than self-formed group experiences. The intended audience was the instructors and students of the information and learning technology (ILT) program at the University. There is little doubt, however, that this research can be of value to other communities, such as instructors and learners in additional educational settings and/or companies, in terms of providing knowledge on the benefit(s) of team formation. Additionally, current and former students enrolled in the ILT program, including current class peers, were invited to participate in this study.

The findings of this action research study were made available to class peers, ILT instructors, and all current and former ILT program community members. As part of our survey distribution e-mail, we advised our online community that they could contact us for any data collection, findings and related outcomes that resulted from our research. Upon request, we will disseminate the findings of this research to other department instructors at the University, particularly of online programs.

Research Questions This study was designed as an action research study to determine what type of team formation, self-formed or instructor-formed, students and instructor find more satisfying. Therefore, the

“The problem is not shall groups exist, but shall groups be planned or not? If not, the individualized organizational garden will sprout groupy weeds all over the place.”

— Harold Leavitt


study had one broad, overarching question: To what extent are instructor-formed group experiences more or less satisfying than self-formed group experiences? This study consists of three sub questions, as follows:

1. How does team formation affect participant behavior? We intended to determine if the grouping of individuals, either instructor-formed or self-formed, affect participant behavior in that team setting.

2. How do participants perceive that the outcomes of their team experiences are impacted as a result of team formation, either instructor-formed or self-formed? This research investigated the perceived outcomes of specific groupings on individual team members.

3. If individuals have a choice in the formation of their team, do they perceive greater overall satisfaction of their team experience? We aimed to discover whether or not the fact that an individual possesses a level of control over team formation aids in their overall team experience.

In the process of developing our survey tool, our third research question, “If individuals have a choice in the formation of their team, do they perceive greater overall satisfaction of their team experience?” was modified. We found that, as our survey was being designed, we were asking several questions too similar to each other to actually flesh out the appropriate answers without confusing our participants. We decided to ask individual effectiveness and satisfaction questions for the two types of team formation being studied: self-formed and instructor-formed (for example, “Overall, rate the effectiveness of your team experience(s) on self-/instructor-formed teams”). And, we also added a direct question on their preference on the type of team formation: self-formed or instructor-formed teams (“If you could choose your own type of team formation, do you prefer working on a team that is: self-formed, instructor-formed, or other”).

Definitions Related to this Research For the purposes of data analysis for the ILT community, teams were defined as any group formed for the purpose of project completion (in a business, educational or other setting).

Self-formed was defined as groupings formed entirely at individual request and/or self-selection. Instructor-formed was defined as any grouping of people (students or employees) formed by the instructor with the intent of completing a project and/or task, and excludes self-formed groups.

Context of the Study This research took place at a major University in the western U.S. The university shares a campus with two other educational entities: a community college and another university. Specifically, the University is a premier research university offering more than 100 degrees and programs in 13 schools and colleges and serving more than 28,000 students in the metropolitan city and online.

The information and learning technology program is a graduate level of study and offers solely online courses, and contains a mix of working professionals and traditional, full-time students. Its home department is in the School of Health & Human Development and includes a current online enrollment of 66 students and 14 instructors. It is the largest graduate school of education in the state.


The specific University was chosen because we are both (the study authors) currently students at the school and believe that our efforts can positively impact our educational community.

Research Bias In preparing this study, students in a graduate level program at a major University were surveyed. Although we have both been part of previous team formations in our graduate program courses, our participation in the survey may have been considered biased; so we did not take part in the survey and subsequent analysis.

Since we both have had team experiences, it was important that our opinions and perceptions did not distort the study outcomes (Herr and Anderson, 2005). To alleviate this risk, data control measures were put in place to ensure study subjectivity and analysis consistency for survey questions via a rubric that we both followed in reporting the facts.

Literature Review A review of the existing literature was necessary to “find out what other people have accomplished in researching this topic” (Thomas, 2009, p. 30) and determine whether or not our Action Research Study was reinventing the wheel or bringing new information into the eyes of the online community. Through a literature review, we drew comparisons and found the differences on team formation methods through nearly a dozen journal articles, which ultimately helped us refine our own research.

Literature Review Questions In order to conduct our literature review, we asked several pertinent questions that directly related to our research questions. Therefore, the following questions were used to frame our literature search: Is there value in allowing teams to self-form based on past experiences? Or, is their greater benefit in having instructor-formed teams? Do participants encounter different levels of satisfaction with the two team types: self-formed and instructor formed? Overall, how important is the method of group formation on individual experience?

Literature Search Procedures For this literature review, we employed a variety of search tools and keywords. Our early Google® searches on “teams” returned articles that were related to teams of any variety: athletic teams, union teams, professional teams, etc. We quickly realized that the word “teams” was too general of a term to return pertinent articles. After identifying the aforementioned literature review questions that were connected to and would answer our study research questions, we narrowed our keywords to more focused terms.

We then conducted a focused search via a university library (http://library.auraria.edu/) for research literature that would help us determine if there was variation in the quality of experiences between instructor-formed teams and self-formed teams in an educational setting. The library search yielded only a few articles, mostly from EdiTLib, which were loosely related to the research study. The findings of which effectively resulted in a narrowing of the scope, and a tighter search via less broad keyword terms.

In hopes of expanding the literature available to us, we conducted additional keyword searches in other databases, (ebrary ebooks and Education Full Text) for supporting documentation as we honed in on our topics. Lastly, we performed a Google® Scholar search to find additional

http://library.auraria.edu/


resources outside of the educational search engines. This avenue yielded many articles from referred journals that allowed us to scan for relevancy. Upon scanning, we found these articles led to yet other possibilities, as the article references themselves led to myriad rich resources. We proceeded with our literature review using the eleven articles most closely related to our action research study.

The keyword terms that were used for our search were: teams (much too broad), formation of teams (too vague), academic team formation, team formation, self-formed teams and instructor-formed teams, team formation and distance learning.

Sample Data Table 1 provides a breakdown of sample data found in the literature reviewed. Please note that several articles reviewed have no sample size or characteristics listed in the following table, as it was found after review that they did not specifically identify their sample or provided no data on participant characteristics. These articles, however, were still relevant for this research study in that the information gleaned from them corroborated our own hypotheses and allowed for the identification of the gaps in research. Full summaries of the articles are included in the following section.

Table 1. Sample Data from Literature Review of 11 Articles Author Sample

Size (n) Participant Characteristics

Influence of Group Selection

Mushtaq et al. 152 Business management students at a university level Chapman et al. 583 Marketing students at a CA business school

Aller et al. no data Unknown (assume the study was conducted at the authors’ institution: Western Michigan University, Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering)

Team Assembly Mechanisms

Guimera et al. 2258 Productions from Broadway musical industry from 1877-

1990

14 Seven social psychology journals, nine economics journals, ten ecology journal and six astronomy journals.

Brickell et al. 442 Students in 24 sections of Civil Engineering 310 at the U.S. Air Force Academy

Bacon et al. 116 MBA students at the University of Denver Virtual Teams

Berg Unknown No data The Function of Teams Giarratano & Gannon Cook Unknown Computer Information Systems graduate students at

University of Houston-Clear Lake Corgnat Unknown No data


Literature Review Findings While reviewing articles, we found that identification of self-formed, random assignment and instructor assignment classification for forming teams was very common language among the articles. We also discovered copious research specifically on engineering team formation (within academic courses) that appeared to predominately focus on team management (i.e., team training) strategies as a method of successful team formation (not particularly relevant for this action research study). Additionally, coursework grades and course progress were heavily studied as a means for providing information on the viability of teams―again, not entirely relevant since we were not interested in studying performance. Although the results of grade evaluation were contradictory among the research to the specific type of teams, they have unanimity in the fact that grades improved with student teams that perform well together. This idea was prevalent in research in that teams formed with individuals who had some prior knowledge of each other may perform better than others; thusly placing little belief in the type of team formed, but in the amount of team building that occurred before team formation. This idea―team building strategies prior to team formation—would be an excellent topic for future research.

The Influence of Group Selection A question that regularly surfaced for us was “how important is group selection on individual experience?” In search of this answer, we found an article by Mushtaq, Ghulam, Rashid and Khalid (2012) who conducted a study looking at group formation methods on grades, performance and group outcomes using business management students at the university level. Based on their data, they felt that “the self-selected student groups communicate better, easily get together, and share their ideas without any hesitation as their minds are prepared for working together” (Mushtaq et al., 2012, p. 7007). Furthermore, their research advised instructors to allow students in their classes the flexibility to form their own groups and for instructors to avoid becoming involved in student group formation. The authors further determined that these types of groups (i.e., self-selected groups) were efficient and perform across the board in any conditions. This article supports self-selected groups.

This finding prompted us to probe further into the idea of self-selection as a method of group formation. An article by Chapman, Meuter, Toy and Wright (2006, August) aimed to determine whether the method of group member selection influences the students’ group project dynamics, attitudes toward group experience and group outcomes. While they did not specifically focus on grades in their research, the authors stated that with the high volume of projects that rely on team work in both business and educational settings, it was important for instructors to understand the factors that influence group dynamics and ability to perform. One such factor that was directly under the control of the instructor was the manner in which students were assigned to their groups. While many other methods of group formation may, and do, exist, Chapman et al. (2006, August) suggest that most instructors use one of two methods for team formation: 1) Students choose their own groups, or 2) Instructors place students into groups using random assignment (p. 559). Based on their research, and contrary to decade-earlier research on the same topic, they found that the students in self-selected groups consistently rated their groups higher on several dimensions of teamwork. However, students in the self-selected groups reported lower assessments of their groups’ efficiency and slightly higher degrees of conflict. This led the authors to suggest that to alleviate group inefficiency; instructors may need to provide strategies to mitigate situations that decrease group progress (i.e., conflict, issues of trust, social loafing,


etc.). Upon further research, it was the authors’ belief that self-selected groups may simulate “real-world” work groups more closely than randomly assigned groups, in that it was unlikely in a business setting that people would be paired with people whom they do not know to some degree prior to group formation (Chapman et al., 2006, August, p. 559). The authors also favor self-selection as an effective method of group formation.

In continuing our literature search, we discovered innovative research by Aller, Lyth and Mallak (2008, July) that also reported several methods of group formation, with random assignment and self-selection among them, but proposed an entirely new method of formation not found in any of our other searches. The authors concentrated not on group formation, but the similarities in characteristics being the best predictor for success. To get “like” people together, Aller et al. (2008, July) purport mingling as an effective way for groups to discuss and identify early on students with similar motivations, worth ethic and interests (p. 503). The authors believe that having groups mingle before group selection works well as a team-selection process. Mingling pays off, the authors allege, due to an increase in the speed with which teams are formed coupled with interested and motivated teams comprised of students with appropriate skills.

Assignment to Teams “Teams are assembled because of the need to incorporate individuals with different ideas, skills, and resources,” according to Guimera, Uzzi, Spiro and Amaral, who also stated that “creativity is spurred when proven innovations in one domain are introduced into a new domain, solving old problems and inspiring fresh thinking” (2005, p. 697). However, Guimera et al. (2005) refered to additional research that suggests that the right balance of diversity on a team is hard to determine, yet worth investigating. They further pointed out that “although diversity may potentially spur creativity, it typically promotes conflict and miscommunications” (Guimera et al., 2005, p. 697). The authors also investigated the size of team on the overall performance of a team. Interestingly, Guimera et al. (2005) studied things, not people—both artistic and scientific venues that used collaboration as the means for progression. Specifically, they researched team impact in more than two thousand Broadway musicals, as well as the presence of teams in fourteen specific social sciences journals.

In an attempt to further research the value (or not) of specific methods for team formation, we found an interesting article that also discussed individual ability and interests and the criteria for group formation. Brickell, Proter, Reynolds and Cosgrove (1994, July) sought to test “whether grouping students according to ability or curricular interests affects student performance, attitudes, or efficiencies when compared with allowing students to select their own groups” (p. 259). In this research, the authors looked into five different methods for group assignments. The authors, as the study conductors, assigned each student in a Civil Engineering course to a specific group. The courses instructors knew that an experiment was ongoing, but did not know who was grouped according to which method; the students also were not privy to the information. Brickell et al. (1994, July) hypothesized that the method of group assignments had a direct impact on individual student and overall team performance in the group (p. 260). Brickell et al. determined that appointed groups with a mixture of homogeneity (with respect to interests) and heterogeneity (with respect to grades) perform better (in terms of grades) when compared to self-selected groups (1994, July, p. 262). Surprisingly, Brickell et al. (1994, July) found that allowing students to select their own groups resulted in the poorest attitudes about the course, their instructors and projects, their classmates and other criteria. The authors offered the caveat


that their research may point to the fact that group assignments were contingent on the task being completed; the study results should not be generalized for all group work.

Bacon, Stewart and Silver (1999, October) also researched the method of administering teams, specifically the teacher control that may affect team formation. In corroboration with our own assessment of team formation, Bacon et al. (1999, October) found that self-selected groups were often comprised of people who were more likely to want to work with others whom they have worked with previously—due, in part, to the fact that social norms have already been established and the degree to which trust and comfort with teammates has surfaced. While self-selected groups foster productivity, they also have some drawbacks—lack of diversity and absence of critical skills required to carry out tasks, among others. Given these obstacles, the tradeoff is still viable for teams that have a brief life, especially if the need for uniqueness in skills is minimal. Through their research, Bacon et al. (1999, October) discussed the five stages of development (forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning) for teams that have longevity and their impact on team experiences. Among other constructs, the authors looked at the value that grades, peer evaluation, team size, team instructions and team training have on teams (Bacon et al., 1999, October, p. 467). The authors offered six recommendations for team formation in an educational setting. Their overall conclusion was that people learn more when they have good team experiences. This conclusion was at the crux of our action research study.

Virtual Teams After exhausting the method of team formation, we attempted to focus on research in online environments. In our search, we found very few literary works that we deemed useful for this study. Berg (1999) found that with the advent of international business being conducted across the globe, the presence of virtual teams has become a necessity to maximize employee efficiency and reduce operational costs. In Berg’s (1999) research, virtual teams are defined as “groups of people working across space and time who interact by webs of communication technologies through interdependent tasks guided by common purpose” (as cited in Lipnack and Stamps, 2007, p. 34). This research focused mostly on the difficulty of forming teams among people dispersed geographically, not unlike the challenges with distance learning. As with virtual teams in a business setting, virtual teams in an educational setting stress the importance of integrating learning with the workplace (in terms of time and space), and reaching for a common goal, according to Berg (1999). The most important conclusion of this article was to realize that through group formation centered on common purpose and projects, along with interdependent tasks, community in virtual learning can find success. Much to our disappointment, this article presented more information on the benefits of community in virtual learning rather than shedding any light on the impact of team formation.

The Function of Teams While team formation was a highly researched topic, we still sought answers to the idea of how individuals feel when in the different types of teams; that is, how they rate their satisfaction working in teams. In our quest for answers, we came upon an article by Giarratano and Gannon Cook (2002) who researched the idea of establishing rapport within teams. Their study was to analyze computer information systems graduate students over an 18 month period, with a different cohort studied in each of three semesters. During the authors’ data collection period, one group studied disintegrated due to the inability of its members to effectively coordinate their schedules and find time to make sufficient project progress. In just a short period, the members became frustrated and their project suffered. What the researchers discovered was that each


group dynamic was unique and that the more flexible the students were to work with others determined how much was accomplished and how fast it was done. In other words, the willingness to collaborate affected the teams’ rapport and subsequently, the outcome of their project. This research brought us somewhat closer to discovering whether or not individuals are affected by team formation; yet, we were still not satisfied.

As we progressed with our literature search and further modified our keywords, we stumbled upon an article by Corgnet (2010). According to Corgnet (2010), the presence of learning biases has a tremendous impact on positive or negative team experiences. The author provided an in-depth overview of the types of teams in both academic and professional settings that are noteworthy: from academicians co-authoring a scientific paper to lawyers deciding to form a partnership to graduate students who decide to form a start-up technological company (Corgnet, 2010, p. 117). The authors theorize that hidden information and hidden actions are the antithesis of effective team formation. They further theorized that when complete information is revealed, including self-serving biases, that teams are able to fully function. Corgnet (2010) stated that there is occasion when information should be hidden—specifically when provided information hinders a teammates ability to perform (i.e., they feel undervalued due to a teammate’s belief that they are better at what is being asked of them). He further states that “self-serving biases tend to diminish a worker’s informational rent and, as a result, tend to foster the formation of efficient teams” (Corgnet, 2010, p. 130).

Quality of Literature The formation of teams is a common approach for completing large projects. Clearly, if all persons on a team are identical in their beliefs, characteristics, behavior patterns, etc., that team would likely not function well due to a lack of diversity (Doré, 2002). As supported by Bacon et al.’s (1999, October) research, people generally feel most comfortable being around and communicating with those most like themselves—a natural reaction to new faces is to feel some discomfort initially because they assume they are different than themselves. This idea is analogous to that of social networking and its association with group formation: it exists because it’s a natural form of communication and social grouping.

We found an overabundance of literature on teams—some of it worthy, in our opinions, yet much of it statistically complex and unrelated to our research. This is not to say, however, that the research was not valid, but that it was laden with information too complicated to understand (Guimera et al., 2005, for example) in the short time frame associated with this project.

We were pleased to find nearly a dozen articles that provided us with a picture of the research and a sense of which articles were more reliable than others in providing us with adequate background for our own study. “Literature is not all the same quality: there are different kinds of sources, each with strengths and weaknesses” (Thomas, 2009, P.30). The majority of our articles was from professional and peer reviewed journals, therefore we concluded we could trust them, as generally only research that is deemed scholarly and contributes to the literature is selected for publication in education journals.

Gap in Literature There exists a plethora of research on the type of team formation and its subsequent effect on grades, but little found research that specifically addresses the perspective of overall satisfaction


among individual team members on the type of group they are put in (for a project/task) specifically for online learners.

We discovered through our research that we can contribute to the body of knowledge on team formation and online learning. Since the topic of team formation among online learning does not return a surplus of existing literature, we are confident that our research will be of interest to the online community, as well as those not invested in online learning.

We discovered that there is a lack of information focusing on the community voice of online learners when it comes to team formation—specifically within online learning environments. Unfortunately, much of the literature reviewed presented conflicting results, which led us to use caution in relying on any one source for background information for our study. As with our own research, we tried to find themes to evaluate and compare. Much like the literature we researched, our survey results were varied and not as one sided as we predicted them to be.

Literature Review Summary Much of the literature reviewed presented conflicting results, reminding us of Thomas’ (2009) assertion that literature reviews will not all yield the same quality of information and that there are different kinds of sources, each with strengths and weakness.

As Thomas suggests, we searched and found a theme present in the literature: that self-selected teams offer an efficient and effective method of group formation. Bacon et al. (1999, October) provided a very thorough, relevant study on the effectiveness of team assignments through a variety of methods. Their research, while similar to ours, did not hone in on the effectiveness of team formation for online learners. Their research did, however, reiterate that self-formed teams are conducive to learning and offer satisfactory experiences for participants. In fact, Bacon et al. (1999, October) used the terms “best team-” and “worst team-experiences” in their research—terms that have been used in the development of our study. We speculated that our study results would closely align with those of Bacon et al.

Data Methods Study Design This study was designed as an action research study. Data collection for this project employed a mixed-method approach, with quantitative and qualitative assessment collected to assess ILT Program participants’ experience with team formation. Quantitative methods included a survey with five-point Likert-type style questions; qualitative methods included open-ended survey questions.

Participants We surveyed 43 current and former students and faculty of the 275 total University ILT program distribution list. Individuals were invited to participate in the study via an email from the lead ILT Program liaison/instructor as well as directly by the instructor whom we currently have for our ILT course for which this study was conducted. The email contained an explanation of the intent to conduct an ILT-wide Action Research Study and provided study details. Also, the e-mail contained a link to a Survey Monkey® survey that we created.

Prior to beginning the survey, an included statement indicated that consent to use the survey results were implied if the survey was completed by an individual. The statement also included a


disclaimer that participation was voluntary, that participants were free to stop the survey at any time, and that grades were not determined based on participation in the study. We felt this statement was necessary to avoid conflict of current students feeling obligated to take our survey or expecting something in return.

As shown in Figure 1, 43 responses were received from four different groups: 20 current ILT Students, 20 former ILT Students, 2 ILT Instructors, and 1 who identified themselve as “other.”

Figure 1. Distribution of participant affiliation.

Our assessment was developed during the course, and content validity was established by iterating the survey with the course instructors, program liaison and peer reviewers.

Ethical Procedures We ensured that all data was kept confidential; no names or identifying information were used. Participants were provided with a consent form acknowledging the data that was being collected via their participation in the survey. We administered the survey through a faculty-invited email.

All participants had appropriate information on the action research study, verified by the ILT faculty member, prior to proceeding with the consent form and survey and before the data collection phase began.

All study participants were researched on a voluntary basis; participation was not mandatory, and grades were not determined based on study participation. Additionally, as suggested by Stringer (2004), the following was in place throughout this action research study:

• People had the right to refuse to participate. • They could withdraw from the study at any time. • Data related to their participation was returned to them if requested. • Any information (data) was stored safely so that it could not be viewed by others. • None of the information that identified them was made public or revealed to others

without explicit written consent.

Data-Collection Instrument Our original intention for data collection was to observe groups of college and elementary students during team formation exercises and survey them during their course, before and after

20

20

2 1

ILT Affiliation

Current ILT Students

Former ILT Students

ILT Instructors

Other


their team experiences. However, as we designed our project scope with assistance from our course instructor, it was suggested that our scope was too large and unfocused. We decided at that point to hone in on one smaller specific group only: our university’s ILT Program participants.

We had also planned on interviewing ILT instructors, but that too seemed too broad. At the reminder from our instructor that we had a short turn-around time for data collection in the ILT course, we decided against that method of data collection as well.

Therefore, a survey was administered during week seven through week ten of our fall 2012 course, to all current and former ILT program participants and class peers via Survey Monkey®, a free, online survey tool. The survey consisted of 14 questions, of which 12 were Likert-style questions, with radio button choices. We strived to create a survey that was user friendly, reasonable in length and would generate answers to our research questions.

The research questions investigated in this study tests the extent to which instructor-formed group experiences are more or less satisfying than self-formed group experiences.

Participants were given the survey near the middle of our academic semester. The survey used appropriate terms, and questions were easily understandable. Twelve Likert-type scale questions were asked of survey participants. Three of these questions gave the opportunity for participants to further reflect on the question or explain their answer. We additionally asked two open-ended questions.

We felt that by using a mixed-method approach of both qualitative and quantitative data, we would be able to obtain a more well-rounded view of our community. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix I.

Data Analysis Methods Quantitative Analysis — All close-ended survey questions followed a five-point Likert-type scale; i.e., strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree, and answers to open-ended questions were categorized and coded (Stringer, 2004). Data was entered into a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet; the mean for each question was calculated.

The survey tested two constructs: “self-formed” and “instructor-formed” team formation. The “self-formed” subscale consisted of four items, and the “instructor-formed” subscale consisted of four items. All participants of the study rated their team formation perceptions on a five-point Likert-type scale, with 1 equal to “strongly agree” and 5 equal to “strongly disagree.” Or, similarly, 1 equal to “nearly always” and 5 equal to “hardly ever.” Several Likert-style items in the survey were reverse coded; therefore the opposite code was recorded for these items during analysis.

To very simply get to the gist of our research on team formation, we asked participants at the end of the survey to choose their preferred style of team formation: self-formed, instructor formed, or other. This data allowed us to capture an immediate, direct response to their team formation preference.

Qualitative Analysis — A total of five open-ended questions were asked in the survey to obtain enough qualitative data to discover trends and themes in the participants’ experiences with team formation. Anecdotal information collected from the open-ended questions was entered into an Excel® spreadsheet and categorized according to similar topic. All qualitative data was analyzed


by only one of us (i.e., researcher/author) to maintain consistency and identify common themes across answers. No answers were excluded from the analysis, although not all study participants chose to provide answers to the open-ended questions.

All questions and their results are shown in Appendices I and II. A summary of the results are included in the Findings section below.

Schedule This research was expected to take approximately 11 weeks, including the development of this final report. No adjustments were made to the schedule proposed in our original research plan.

Checks for Rigor Stringer (2007) states, “the primary purpose of action research is to provide the means for people to engage in systematic inquiry and investigation to ‘design’ an appropriate way of accomplishing a desired goal and to evaluate its effectiveness.” This statement was the driving force of our research.

We solicited feedback from the greater ILT community to determine how team formation impacted the community. To have a comparison for our findings, a literature review was conducted. We analyzed perspectives of all of the survey participants. This provided a diverse case analysis that we hoped would greatly enhance our findings. As members of the ILT community, we felt that we could adequately frame the survey and other communications to ensure referential adequacy. We had peer feedback, as well as instructor critiques, throughout our data collection and evaluation process to help guide and hone in on our intended audience and overarching questions. Additionally, we reviewed many assigned course readings that helped guide us through data collection and evaluation. All survey responses were kept and used as supporting documentation for conformability.

Team formation strategies are universal methods of project completion. Therefore, we hoped to make this research transferable to universal settings. An inquiry audit was also done to verify the dependability of the data. Due to the short time we had to collect data, it was decided, in collaboration with our instructor, that we should eliminate instructor interviews; yet we are disappointed that we could not gather this additional data to add to the credibility of our research.

Findings Throughout our findings, we linked participant data to our research questions:

1. How does team formation affect participant behavior?

2. How do participants perceive that the outcomes of their team experiences are impacted as a result of team formation, either instructor-formed or self-formed?

3. If you could choose your own type of team formation, do you prefer working on a team that is self-formed, instructor-formed, or other?

Complete quantitative data is provided in Appendix II. The answers to our open-ended survey questions were analyzed and categorized by emergent theme. All answers were thoroughly read, entered into Excel® and categorized for analysis.


Team-Based Tasks To adequately set the stage for our analysis, we needed to ascertain whether or not our participants had actually experienced one or both types of the studied team formation. Therefore, respondents were asked early on in the survey what experience they had in team-based tasks, in general—i.e., not specific to self-formed or instructor formed (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Summary of participant experience with team-based tasks.

More than one-half (56%) of the study respondents had been involved in some type of team-based interaction in the past three years. Furthermore, 8 (19%) of the respondents indicated that “nearly all” of their work was individual, thusly indicating that they may have had one or more team-based task experiences.

Team Experiences In addition to investigating the respondents’ experience with participation in team-based tasks over the past three-year period, it was important to then break it down into what type of team formation was employed during these tasks. Figure 3 indicates that 27 (63%) of the respondents were involved in instructor-formed groups, compared to 15 (35%) in self-formed groups.

Figure 3. Summary of participant experience with self-formed or

instructor-formed team formation.

4

20 8

9

2

Proportion of Team-Based Tasks, past three-year period

Nearly all is team based

Most is team based

Nearly all is individual

Most is individual

No answer

6

9

12

15

1

Experience with Teams

Nearly all were self-formed

Most were self-formed

Nearly all were instructor formed

Most were instructor formed

No answer


This was not a surprise finding to us since the ILT program is designed for online instruction, and a logical outcome of that type of instruction might be that self-formed team formation is generally most effective during face-to-face course instruction.

Interestingly, of the 35 responses received for the following question: “You feel that your (self-formed) team experience was a worthwhile learning experience,” the mean score was 4.1, or “agree” that their experience was worthwhile. With regard to the same question for instructor-formed groups, the mean was slightly lower at 3.97—largely, a very minor difference.

With regard to their overall satisfaction on teams, the self-formed group mean was 3.91, with 3 equal to average and 4 equal to above average. One respondent provided the following detail on his/her experience with self-formed teams: “Everyone on these teams had a stake in the projects; all of us wanted to have a successful project and get a good grade.” The instructor-formed group mean was slightly lower at 3.5 for their overall satisfaction, with 3 equal to average and 4 equal to above average. The following feedback was provided with regard to satisfaction with instructor-formed teams: “In the real world, we won't be choosing our teams. It's been quite valuable to be thrown into a variety of teams. Some worked better than others. With each teaming experience, I learned how to be a better team member and how to help the team to function well.”

Team Formation Preference As shown in Figure 4, this study found that 44% of participants preferred self-formed groups over instructor-formed (34%) or other (21%) types of groups.

Figure 4. Summary of participant team formation preference

It was somewhat surprising to us that the preference between self-formed and instructor-formed groups was as closely aligned as it was; the qualitative analysis (described below) indicates some anecdotal reasoning as to the participants’ preferences.

Effectiveness of Self-Formed Team Experiences We discovered after analyzing our research that 36% of 22 respondents on the optional explanation felt that self-formed teams worked well together, and that they had formed teams of “hard workers.” Specifically, one respondent commented: “Our program had incredible hard-working people.” Also, as suggested by Aller, Lyth and Mallak (2008, July), 14% of our survey

19

15

9

Preferred Team Formation Type

Self Formed

Instructor Formed

No Answer


respondents indicated that they sought individuals with similar characteristics to aid in their team success. And, as with Chapman et al. (2006, August) who found that the students in the self-selected groups reported slightly higher degrees of conflict, 14% of our respondents experienced the same.

Effectiveness of Instructor-Formed Team Experiences As determined by Brickell et al., appointed groups with a mixture of homogeneity and heterogeneity perform better when compared to self-selected groups (1994, July, p. 262). As discussed previously, Brickell et al. (1994, July) found that students who select their own groups were more likely to result in poorer attitudes about the course, their instructors and projects, their classmates and other criteria. With regard to our survey results, we found one instance that validated Brickell’s theory: 19% of 16 respondents on the optional explanation stated that, with every instructor-formed team, there was always a “slacker on board.” Specifically, a respondent stated, “In my experience, most instructor-formed teams have at least one ‘slacker’ that the rest of the team has to make up for in order to ensure quality in the final product and a good grade for all. Oftentimes instructor-formed teams increase the work-load and stress-level of the high-achiever, as it is unacceptable for the high-achiever to accept a less than stellar grade.” Another theme that emerged in terms of instructor-formed team experiences was the fact that 19% of respondents felt that, no matter what, their experience was one of personal growth as a member of a team. Similarly, 9% of self-formed groups found their experience to be worthwhile also. While this identification with team formation was unfounded documentation in our literature search, we consider it worthy of mentioning in this case, as it points to the value of team work as a whole (type of team formation notwithstanding).

Preferred Type of Team Formation As stated previously, this study found that 44% of the 43 participants preferred self-formed groups over instructor-formed (34%) or other (21%) types of groups. This directly aligns with the literature searching findings in that the articles perused provided thorough, relevant research on the effectiveness of team assignments through a variety of methods and specifically that self-formed teams are conducive to learning and offer satisfactory experiences for participants.

However, when asked through an open-ended option to “Please Explain” their answer on the question on team formation preference, assigned teams (i.e., instructor-formed teams) emerged as the favored option by 25% (of the 16 respondents) and only 13% of the respondents who chose to explain their preference indicated a preference for self-formed teams. Oddly, it appears that there is incongruence between the Likert-style question of the same type and the open-ended question. It should be pointed out, however, that 25% of the respondents did not care about their type of team formation. As point of fact, one respondent offered the following comment: “You need a “don't care” choice. I could go either way. In real life you are usually appointed to a team to accomplish a task. I don't see an advantage of one over the other.” Interestingly, 19% (of the 16 respondents for the explanation option) believed that the situation defines the team type. This aligns with our original belief stated during our literature search that we suspected group assignments are contingent on the task being completed. Please see Table 3 for additional respondent feedback.


Supplemental Feedback on Team Formation Respondents took the liberty of using questions 13 and 14 as true “open ended” forms of expression. By this, we mean that they parlayed their answers into more of a “what is wrong with…” or “what is great about…” question.

For example, 41% (of 17 respondents) provided feedback that was indicative that their self-formed teams were often expertise related and led to a positive experience. The following comment gives insight to this theme: “People tend to naturally gravitate to those with similar dispositions, work ethics, level of engagement, leadership, etc. Most groups that I have been a part of that were self-formed worked well.” Conversely, 24% (of 17 respondents) indicated that self-formed teams prohibited personal growth and/or were fraught with challenges. “Self-formed teams are great, but unless we specifically have the desire to work with new people, we'll always work with the same people. This has benefits and problems. If we don't choose new people, we may not develop growth in terms of expanding our working styles. However, when we choose the same people over and over again, we can often find ourselves creating amazing work because of having developed stronger relationships with others,” offered one respondent to this question.

With regard to instructor-formed teams, 25% of study participants indicated that teams should be formed with intent, which might be construed that those respondents believe instructor-formed teams were formed with other motives in mind in their experiences. And, 20% (of 20 respondents) indicated that instructor-formed teams were risky business, as evidenced by the following comment: “I think this is often the best route to go because we are forced to be adaptive to others. However, the quality of work is often compromised in my opinion.”

Limitations of Research Our original intention for data collection was to observe groups of college and elementary students during team formation exercises and survey them during their course before and after their team experiences. We also wanted to conduct instructor interviews. Based on the time limitations of our course and instructor feedback, we had to narrow our scope and survey significantly. We had to eliminate conducting instructor surveys. We additionally had to focus on conducting a survey on one college thus eliminating elementary students and all observation. Had we been able to collect the full spectrum of data that we originally set out for, we feel that our results may have been much more varied. We were worried about narrowing our focus so much initially. However, we were grateful for our instructors’ guidance, and as our data collection continued, we realized that we would have been in over our heads due to the course time limitations.

While 43 responses provided a valid number for analysis (D. Knight, personal communication, November 5, 2012), we were slightly disappointed in the total number of survey participants. Although our survey generated responses from 16% of the total 275 people on the ILT Program list serve, we were hoping to receive a 20% response rate. We attribute the lack of response to the survey to the fact that many ILT students hold full-time employment on top of rigorous course schedules, along with the fact that the market is saturated with surveys—our society has become over-surveyed with the readily available, easy-to-use online survey tools. Plain and simple, many of us experience “death by survey” on a regular basis. This overabundance of surveying, we believe, led to some apathy towards our survey. According to Knight (personal communication, November 5, 2012), “n = 30 is a good thumbnail estimate for the number of


cases needed to make statistical conclusions”; we were, therefore, in possession of a quality sample size for this survey.

Implications for Practice Overall Research Impacts Much to our disappointment, our findings were quite neutral in terms of our perceived expectations. We recommend, should a similar effort be undertaken in the future, that a larger study occur with delving deeper into team formation. Overall, our findings were not varied enough to recommend any changes to the existing practice being used in the online program at the University where we study. Additional research may yield different results, but this research finds a satisfaction among students in either type of team formation with their online courses. Neither type is perceived so negatively that their survey answers or open-ended comments proved otherwise. We certainly wished that we had been able to do this research on a much larger scale. Originally, we proposed to conduct interviews and student observations, with an expansion to various age groups. Research of this magnitude would be valuable, and we believe that it would have significantly changed our findings.

Positive and Negative Impacts of the Research For this action research study, surveys were administered and confidentiality was maintained to prevent students/instructors feeling as if they were “ratting” out a classmate, student or colleague. Oftentimes, people feel that they must endure a negative situation rather than openly question or speak of any concerns—primarily for fear of “rocking the boat.” We suspect that participants felt relieved to discuss any issues they have had with current or former team formations—thusly having a positive impact on participants. The negative impacts could be that people, upon consenting to being studied, might have formed different feedback responses on the survey as a result of knowing that their responses were going to be analyzed.

We had initially thought that another positive impact would be a list of recommendations for instructors to implement in future classes/team situations as well as a reporting of outcomes to inform students on possible team formation behaviors to expect in their own experiences. However, upon completion of the research, and our neutral findings, no instructor suggestions would be of value. While students are welcome to read this research, there is no conclusive evidence that a particular type of team formation lends itself more positively towards online learning than another.

Negative impacts might have included members of the program feeling as if they were being critiqued, thus causing unintended (hence, negative) consequences during the course.

Conclusion This research study benefits our ILT community through informing on the value of either self-formed or instructor-formed team formation. In the ILT online-learning program, teams are a regular technique used by instructors for completing the rigorous coursework presented outside of a traditional in-class, face-to-face setting.

This research provides information to the online learning community on team formation during team-based course work. The literature search performed during this study protocol revealed


little valuable information on literature available for the online learning community. Are instructors missing an opportunity to teach more effectively? Are learners missing an opportunity to learn more effectively? In both cases, it seems as if learners are mostly satisfied with their experiences in team formation during the ILT program course work.

While at first it appears that our study respondents favored self-formed teams (according to the Likert-type questions), the open-ended questions presented a different scenario. The two types of questions presented conflicting information in the preferred types of teams. One possible explanation for the difference in results might be the fact that an average of 8 (18%) participants chose not to respond to three of the Likert-type questions, and only an average of 18 (42%) responded to the open-ended questions. This disparity, we believe, led to somewhat inconclusive results. In hindsight, we should have made answering all questions mandatory for all study participants once they chose to begin our study, (a function in Survey Monkey® that mandates you answer a question before proceeding to the next one).

However, it was clear through the Likert-style questions that both types of team formations resulted in positive experiences (see Questions 4-11 in Appendix II) for participants in terms of the quality of project completed, effort put forth by team members and whether or not they had to modify a task during the assigned course timeline (they rarely did). This result indicated that the members of the online learning community are satisfied with the status quo in terms of team formation during their courses.

Therefore, despite the indication that self-formed is the preferred method for team formation, online learners’ learning abilities seem to not be hindered by the presence of instructor-formed team formation.


References Aller, B. M., Lyth, D. M. & Mallak, L. A. (2008, July). Capstone project team formation:

Mingling increases performance and motivation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(2), 503-507.

Auraria Higher Education Center. (n.d.). The Auraria campus. Retrieved from http://www.ahec.edu/campus/campus.htm

Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A. & Silver, W. S. (1999, October). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 467-488.

Berg, G.A. (1999). Community in distance learning through virtual teams. WebNet Journal: Internet Technologies, Applications & Issues, 1(2), 33-39. Charlottesville, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/8993.

Brickell, Lt. J. L., Proter, Lt. D. B., Reynolds, Lt. M. F., & Cosgrove, Capt. R. D. (1994, July). Assigning students to groups for engineering design projects: A comparison of five methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 259-262. Retrieved from http://www.jee.org/1994/july/36.pdf

Chapman, K.J., Meuter, M., Toy, D. & Wright, L. (2006, August). Can't we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 557-569. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/ballantine2study/articles/Chapter%205/Chapman.pdf

Corgnet, B. (2010, Spring). Team formation and self-serving biases. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 19(1), 117-135.

Doré, S. (2002). Use of personality type as a means of team building. In ASEE Conference Proceedings, Montreal, Canada.

Giarratano, J. & GannonCook, R. (2002). What you do (in teams) speaks louder than what you say: Establishing rapport in software development projects. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002, 570-572. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/10327.

Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Nunes Amaral, L. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308, 697–702. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5722/697.abstract

Herr, Kathryn and Anderson, Gary L. (2005). The action research dissertation: a guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Koshy, V. (2010). Action research for improving educational practice (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Leavitt, H.J. (1977). Suppose we took groups seriously… In Staw, B. (Ed.), Psychological Foundations of Organizational Behavior. Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA.

Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

http://www.ahec.edu/campus/campus.htm

http://www.editlib.org/p/8993

http://www.jee.org/1994/july/36.pdf

http://www.sagepub.com/ballantine2study/articles/Chapter%205/Chapman.pdf

http://www.editlib.org/p/10327

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5722/697.abstract


Mushtaq, R., Ghulam, M., Rashid, S. & Khalid, A. (2012). The influence of group selection method on grades, performance and group outcomes. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(7), 7003-7008. Retrieved from http://www.textroad.com/pdf/JBASR/J.%20Basic.%20Appl.%20Sci.%20Res.,%202(7)7003-7008,%202012.pdf

Riel, M. (2010). Understanding Action Research, Center for Collaborative Action Research. Pepperdine University. Accessed online on September 16, 2012 from http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html

Stringer, E. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Thomas, G. (2009). How to do your research project: A guide for students in education and applied social sciences. London: Sage Publications.

http://www.textroad.com/pdf/JBASR/J.%20Basic.%20Appl.%20Sci.%20Res.,%202(7)7003-7008,%202012.pdf

http://www.textroad.com/pdf/JBASR/J.%20Basic.%20Appl.%20Sci.%20Res.,%202(7)7003-7008,%202012.pdf

http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html


APPENDIX I – Survey

An Exploration of Team Formation – Survey This survey is part of an Action Research Study on the effectiveness of team formation. Your participation is voluntary and does not have any effect on your class grade. The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. If you are not a student (i.e., instructor or other), please reference your work teams or reflect on other team situations.

For the purposes of this study, teams are defined as any group formed for the purpose of project completion.

Self-formed is defined as groupings formed entirely at individual request and/or self-selection. Instructor-formed is defined as any other type of grouping formed with the intent of completing a project and/or task, and excludes self-formed groups.

Consent Form I agree to participate in this Information and Learning Technology (ILT) Action Research Study, undertaken to fulfill the requirements for INTE 6720, on the understanding that I can withdraw from the study at any time, and that any information provided thereto will not be used in the analysis. I agree that the research data generated from this study may be used in classroom reporting, publications and/or in future studies.

No personal identification information will be collected as a result of your participation in this survey.

By entering this survey, I hereby give consent.

Survey Questions 1. What is your current affiliation with the Information & Learning Technology (ILT) program?

Current ILT Student ILT Instructor Former ILT Student Other (please specify)

2. Over the last three years, rate the proportion of team-based tasks in your ILT courses.

Nearly all the work is team based Most of the work is team based Nearly all the work is individual Most of the work is individual

3. Which of the following best describes your experience with teams?

http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_EditPage.aspx?sm=fWK1TO2RWanpAQlsWYY4Yku7LHfOxCctEoKZFzjYpsF8KPAL7fd2SvZXvvOeKm%2f0&TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=650



Nearly all teams were self-formed Most teams were self-formed Most teams were instructor formed Nearly all teams were instructor formed

Self-Formed Team Experience

Describe your experience with self-formed teams:

4. You felt that you needed to make major changes to the design or instructions provided by someone else (i.e., acted independently).

Nearly always Often Sometimes Rarely Hardly ever

5. You carried out projects on your own because you perceived that a team member was not following through on his/her assignment?


6. In thinking about your previous team experiences on self-formed teams, please indicate your agreement with the following statements:

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree Your team delegated tasks to each team member based on their strengths brought to the team.

You felt confident in each of your team members’ contributions.

Your team effectively managed conflict within the team.

Your team produced a quality project/task.

You feel that your team experience was a worthwhile learning experience.


7. Overall, rate the effectiveness of your team experience(s) on self-formed teams:

Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent

Please Explain:

Instructor-Formed Team Experience

Describe your experience with instructor-formed teams:

8. You felt that you needed to make major changes to the design or instructions provided by someone else (i.e., acted independently).


9. You carried out projects on your own because you perceived that a team member was not following through on his/her assignment.


10. In thinking about your previous team experiences on instructor-formed teams, please

indicate your agreement with the following statements:

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree Your team delegated tasks to each team member based on their strengths brought to the


team. You felt confident in each of your team members’ contributions.

Your team effectively managed conflict within the team.

Your team produced a quality project/task.

You feel that your team experience was a worthwhile learning experience.

11. Overall, rate the effectiveness of your team experience(s) on instructor-formed teams:

Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent

Please Explain:

Concluding Questions

12. If you could choose your own type of team formation, do you prefer working on a team that is:

Self-formed Instructor formed Other (please explain)

13. What additional information can you add to your experience(s) being on a self-formed team: 14. What additional information can you add to your experience(s) being on an instructor- formed team:


Thank you for your participation in this study.


APPENDIX II — Survey Results Question #1: What is your current affiliation with the Information & Learning Technology (ILT) program?

Question #2: Over the last three years, rate the proportion of team-based tasks in your ILT courses.



Question #3:


Self-Formed Team Experience

Describe your experience with self-formed teams:

Question #4:

Question #5:


Question #6:


Question #7:


Overall, rate the effectiveness of your team experience(s) on self-formed teams (n=22) Teams Worked Well Together/Hard Workers (8) I have been pleasantly surprised at how well all the teams I have been associated with, how well we have worked together. Our program had incredible hard-working people. My group members did what they were supposed to and did it well. There was buy in by all team members. When there is a common cause or focus and the team knows each other’s strengths and weaknesses, it is much easier to work together as a group. It helped that this team had been functioning together for years. everyone on these teams had a stake in the projects; all of us wanted to have a successful project and get a good grade We had a name. Team awesome. It was that both in experience and output. The teams I've been involved in are at work. We have a great team and work well together. Our effectiveness is that we allow each other to use our own strengths. We are graduate students with similar interests - wanting to finish the program. All team members contribute equally to ensure a successful, complete project. Instructor Formed Experiences Only (4) All teams were instructor-formed. I'm trying to recall a self-formed team in the ILT program. I can't think of one. No experience with self-formed teams. All were instructor-formed. All the teams in which I was part of were assigned by the instructors. Teamwork in Challenging/Stressful (3) Working with others is challenging in an online course. I signed up because of the flexibility which online learning afforded. When I was forced to meet synchronously with a group, I felt frustrated. The team experience was stressful. One person waited until the last minute to fulfill their obligations. When I contacted the instructor, the options were not helpful. The instructor wanted to avoid confrontation. Teams are for the comfort of the instructor, not to help pedagogical objectives. I don't know that I'd really call this experience "self-formed" because I really didn't choose my partners, I just accepted their invitation. Because I was new to the program, I didn't have relationships with anyone at that time. I think our final product was average. Two of us had to overcompensate for 1 person who "didn't care about grades" and always thought the instructor was wrong. It was miserable. Seek Similar/Hard Working Individuals (3) The teams I have been on that were self-formed were beneficial because we grouped according to similarities in our work (i.e., students that were elementary school teachers), and/or our field of study (i.e., in the school library UCD program). The similarities made for a conducive work environment and we were able to accomplish more. When selecting members for self-formed teams I look for those whom I have observed a high level of performance and commitment in other tasks or projects they may have undertaken When you work with people you already know are high-achievers, it is so much easier. You select who you want to work with and don't have to deal with someone who isn't willing to support the team. Wound Up Being a Good Experience (2) Even if a member didn't contribute or there were issues to resolve, these were good learning experiences that help me to this day in my work. The first group project, I didn't want to do it as a group. But it turned out to be a good learning experience I still meet with those people for happy hour regularly. The second group project I dreaded less, and the third even less. By the end of the course, it was just something we did and I expected it to work out. None of our groups ever had any major issues. Miscellaneous (2) Some teams worked very well and some, not so well. I believe most of my experiences with on-line education, which deal with groups, has been busy work and ultimately delivered no real learning experience.


Instructor-Formed Team Experience

Describe your experience with instructor-formed teams:

Question #8:

Question #9:


Question #10:


Question #11:

Overall, rate the effectiveness of your team experience(s) on instructor-formed teams (n=16)

Always a Slacker on Board (3) When the teams are instructor formed, you sometimes are put with colleagues that don't have the same philosophy or work ethic. This can cause a bit of disagreement and can impact the quality of the project or task. In my experience, most instructor-formed teams have at least one "slacker" that the rest of the team has to make up for in order to ensure quality in the final product and a good grade for all. Often times instructor-formed teams increase the work-load and stress-level of the high-achiever, as it is unacceptable for the high-achiever to accept a less than stellar grade. If instructors randomly choose teams, it can be a disaster. We've all been there. A low-achieving peer is placed on your team. You shake your head in disapproval, yet you still have the burden of carrying this person through the rest of the class.


Personal Growth as a Team Member (3) In the real world, we won't be choosing our teams. It's been quite valuable to be thrown into a variety of teams. Some worked better than others. With each teaming experience, I learned how to be a better team member and how to help the team to function well. I'm not fond of team projects unless there are individual pieces I can own, but they do provide a learning experience as everything does. In each team experience, our team was able to complete the project. In one case, I felt one of our members did not take the initiative to learn the main piece of our project. She chose a role which, in the end, was beneficial to the project. On another team, we managed to act as mature adults with minimal issues. We did have an alpha team member. If she had been challenged in this role, it might have had interesting consequences. I inadvertently screwed up one, but did apologize for it and we all seemed to make peace in the end. Again, even if team didn't work well, being a part of it or leading was a good experience for the future. Neutral—Could take either Self-Formed or Instructor Formed (3) I did not really know anyone is the ILT program so it was the same experience with myself choosing teams or if the instructor did. I didn't feel a difference between the effort of members in self-formed versus instructor formed teams - I always had good teams that all worked hard The instructor-formed teams were generally the same as the student-formed teames. Miscellaneous (3) Again, in an online learning community a majority of the work that falls in the category "group-work" in my opinion is busy work. I feel I gain little from these assignments which renders the grade "average". I'd say it's the same as my previous statements. Either I got lucky being assigned to good workers and good people or my classes didn't have many unmotivated students. As an instructor I don't do course assignments, so my ratings are based on my work responsibilities (with other colleagues). Unique Skills Brought to the Table (2) I found that I learned more on the instructor formed teams because I was working with students who had different backgrounds (ie: they were more IT savvy) and I was exposed to new tools. I was part of three teams in three different courses. The biggest team had five members (including me), and felt the least effective. It was hard to coordinate actions, have effective communication, and reach agreement. Everybody was trying to contribute and everyone was working hard, but many times each member alone. This hard work resulted in a good product after all. In contrast, in a smaller group of three (on another course), communication and coordination were great. We had frequent synchronous meetings and we could discuss ideas and decisions until we reached a consensus. It was a very good experience and we still keep in touch. However, we made a serious mistake along the way which resulted in our assignment, although completed, not fulfilling the requirements. This team was strong enough to be able to make a last minute complete overall and creating a good product. Feels More Like an Assignment (2) I have had the same problems with instructor-led teams as self-formed. I think instructor-led teams feel like more of an assignment though, and maybe people work harder as such. This isn't much different than the self-formed groups. The difference is when we are assigned by the boss to do something everyone stays on track better.


Question #12: If you could choose your own type of team formation, do you prefer working on a team that is:

If you could choose your own type of team formation, do you prefer working on a team that is: (n=16) Assigned Teams are Best (4) In courses where I really don't know anyone an instructor might has ideas about why people on a team might work well together (same background, same topic of interest, etc.) I like when teams are assigned as then each team member must contribute. I don't care to search for partners and "buddy up". It almost feels clique-ish to me. If we have to do group work, I prefer the instructor to create the groups. On online courses it’s hard to form groups without the instructor's help. Don't Care (4) You need a don't care choice. I could go either way. In real life you are usually appointed to a team to accomplish a task. I don't see an advantage of one over the other. It really dosent matter but sometimes its just easier for the teacher to do it.


I don't know the other students well enough to choose a team. I'd just as soon be thrown into a team and have to deal with it - and have a learning experience from it. It doesn't seem to matter who formed my groups, they all worked out, and I prefer to not take the time to make it happen. Situation Defines the Team Type (3) selected based on topic and experience As noted earlier, selecting members based on personal observations of their work ethic is a plus when forming a team. I doubt, however, that self-formed teams have any advantage if there is no previous knowledge of it's members. It depends on the situation. I like both types. The situation defines which I would choose. No Team at All (3) I would prefer to not work on a team in an online setting. Neither - I do not prefer team projects. I prefer the option of working solo. Self-Formed Teams (2) If I know the people in advance in order to make a good decision. I quickly learned who carried their weight within the cohort.

Question #13: What additional information can you add to your experience(s) being on a self-formed team:

What additional information can you add to your experience(s) being on a self-formed team (n=17)

Often Expertise Related/Positive (7) experience in subject matter expertise Self-formed teams come together organically; they are inherently self-directed problem solving teams. Self-formed teams are often based on research interests. Determine early on which strengths each member has and how those can be best utilized for the task/project at hand. Then distribute the workload with clearly defined milestones. Define what happens if you miss a milestone? Define what actions may be needed to make up for missing a milestone. It was great. I do think we were lucky to some extent, but personalities matched which I think was important. People tend to naturally gravitate to those with similar dispositions, work ethics, level of engagement, leadership, etc. Most groups that I have been a part of that were self-formed worked well. We worked well together and expeditiously. We knew that we could depend on each other to carry their own weight. It reduced my anxiety level about coming in on time. Self-Formed Prohibits Growth/Challenges (4) self-formed teams are great, but unless we specifically have the desire to work with new people, we'll always work with the same people. This has benefits and problems. If we don't choose new people, we may not develop growth in terms of expanding our working styles. However, when we choose the same people over and over again, we can often find ourselves creating amazing work because of having developed stronger relationships with others. Need ways to understand strengths and weakness of potential team members Need to understand availability of potential team members I usually took the lead, which is time consuming and then transfers to being the lead within the group which I didn't always want. Self-formed teams you need to ensure that the group makes and follows the rules. Otherwise occasional chaos can happen. You need to know how the group wants to make decisions, take notes, assign actions, and follow through. Prefer to Work on My Own (2) I know this isn't the question, but in the end, I prefer working on my own... If I were in a more comfortable environment, I'm sure self-forming teams would be more desirable. However, in an online environment, where I don't know anyone, I don't care for teamwork at all - and I feel awkward and uncomfortable forming a team on my own.


No Self-Formed Experience (2) I haven't been on a self-formed team except for outside of UCD when I was the boss and I was running the team. Not quite the same. I am graduating this semester, and I have never been involved in a self-formed team. Does UCD even allow this as an option? Miscellaneous (2) Self-formed teams seem to consist of either people who know each other or a smattering of left-overs - it is still a very high-school like environment to work in. I did not know anyone so it was the same as if it had been instructor formed.

Question #14: What additional information can you add to your experience(s) being on an instructor-formed team:

What additional information can you add to your experience(s) being on an instructor-formed team (n=20)

Should be Formed with Intent (5) I think the instructor's put some thought into how they form the teams. Just like we would if we were forming the teams. Sometimes the justification for forming the team was provided, most times it wasn't. I often wondered how teams were formed by my instructors. Need opportunities to give feedback to instructor and team members participation or lack of participation Instructors should from teams based on common topics instead of random assignment Instructor should be informed on how work was divided among the team and what each member contributed for the final project Students should not be penalized on project if one member does not complete their work I was an older student. On my first ILT team, I was placed on a team with two 20 somethings. I would have appreciated a better mix of age groups. One of our team members acted too immature for a graduate program. It's not something I have a lot of patience for in a work environment. On another team, I went out of my way to help others. I like the idea of pass it on. I may have not needed the help in return, but it was likely someone else did. Determine what tasks are needed at the beginning of a project and then query the team for who might best approach each task. Then, as with any team, distribute the workload with clearly defined milestones and the risks and consequences associated with missing a milestone. Levels the Playing Field (4) This is helpful because it allows for a more level playing ground - no favorites - more of a real life situation. People at work almost never get to pick whom they want to work with. It is easier when the instructor forms the teams because the one team we chose it was very complicated. Everyone entered on the same level, the same playing field.I liked that. Instructor formed teams are important in the early courses since no one knows anyone else. Even randomly generated groups work well. Later, instructor formed groups are important because instructors frequently have a more global view and more insight into different students strengths and weaknesses. I have experienced instructors do group realignment so that each group has a good balance of personalities and strengths. Risky (4) I think this is often the best route to go because we are forced to be adaptive to others. However, the quality of work is often compromised in my opinion. This can be very time consuming and frustrating as a learner. I've never been in a group where the participants have been in the same timezone, let alone city. It is a crap shoot. Or sometimes just crappy. The difference here is normally the rules are defined, but everything else around the rules still needs to be defined and worked out among the members. You need to know how the group wants to make decisions, take notes, assign actions, and follow through. Neutral (4) My experiences have been equal using either method. same. I'm not a fan of teams, especially in an online environment, but if they have to be formed, I'd appreciate the


instructor to designate them.

I haven't had much experience being on an instructor-formed team. Based on Interests (3) Instructor-formed teams are often based on professional interests. The instructor may not always know the subtleties of group dynamics. There was one person I truly did NOT want on my team due to past experience with his laziness, yet I was grouped with him. I did learn a few leadership skills by that experience, however, subject matter expertise in the topic selected for the team

An Exploration of Team Formation

Documents

Transcript of An Exploration of Team Formation