Cooperative Learning and Team Projects in the Postsecondary Classroom: Faculty Demographics and Motivation

Deborah C. Calhoun, Ph.D., Angela L. Snyder, Ph.D., Mark J. Fenster, Ph.D. Posted on
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

DOI: https://doi.org/10.64010/FVYF7384

Abstract

Since the 1980s, many organizations have embraced the use of work place teams as an integral part of operations as an effective way to improve productivity, creativity, and quality of products and services (Burbach, Matkin, Gambrell, & Harding, 2010; Ettington & Camp, 2002; LaBeouf, Griffith, & Roberts, 2016; Ruiz-Ulloa & Adams, 2004b). According to Riebe, Girardi, and Whitsed (2016), “In the 21st-century employment market, being able to work effectively and productively with others in teams is no longer considered desirable, but rather essential” (p. 620). It has been argued that teaching students effective teamwork skills should be a key component of a business school education. Equally important is the empirical research which has demonstrated that cooperative learning in teams has the ability to significantly enhance student learning by increasing interest in the topic in addition to encouraging higher level reasoning and depth of thought (Betta, 2016; Collard, 2009; Cross, 2005; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2002; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008). Consequently, there is a persistent need for postsecondary institutions to effectively employ cooperative and team-based learning. This descriptive survey study reports the faculty demographics related to and motivation behind the assigning of cooperative work and team projects at 10 Maryland Colleges.

Introduction

The ability to work cooperatively with others in groups is fundamental to a productive life; teamwork skills are needed for employment, successful interpersonal relationships and effective academic learning. Employers are increasingly seeking college graduates with strong interpersonal skills and the ability to work effectively with others on a team (Burbach, Matkin, Gambrell, & Harding, 2010; Chapman, Meuter, Toy, & Wright, 2009; G. Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski, 2004; Hart, 2008, 2010, 2013; Ruiz-Ulloa & Adams, 2004b). Riebe, Girardi, and Whitsed (2016) argue that “teamwork and related interpersonal skills are equally or more important than graduates’ technical skills” per their review of research reports from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Eastern Europe, and China (p. 620). Eighty percent of U.S. employers report using multiple types of workplace teams (Hansen, 2006). In fact, the notion of doing a good job has become much more dependent on the concept of being an effective group member (Jackson, Colquitt, Zapata-Phelan, & Wesson, 2006; Riebe, Girardi, & Whitsed, 2016). Furthermore, the study of teamwork is central to the study of leadership and followership, “groups are essential if leaders are to affect anything beyond their own behavior” (Hughes, Curphy, & Ginnett, 2012, p. 390). Consequently, it is not surprising that studies focused on employer priorities for college learning sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that employers expect postsecondary institutions to do more to prepare graduates to work effectively in a team-based work environment (Hart, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2018). Given that many business school faculty are concerned with generating job ready graduates. Betta (2016) argues that the ability to work effectively in diverse teams should be “central to business education and job readiness as it is within the real world of business” (p. 69).

Theoretical Framework

What is the difference between teamwork and cooperative learning? Katzenbach and Smith (2005) define a team as “a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable” (p.165). Similarly, teamwork is viewed as a critical component of the team process and is defined as follows:

Teamwork is a set of values that encourages behaviors such as listening and constructively responding to points of view expressed by others, giving others the benefit of the doubt, providing support to those who need it, and recognizing the interests and achievements of others. (Katzen-bach & Smith, 2005, p. 166)

Cooperative learning, on the other hand, refers to small student groups engaged in an interactive, participatory approach to learning course content which does not require interdependence between participants (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Johnson et al., 2007).

Teaching and using teamwork and/or cooperative learning in the college business classroom is not just about preparing students for work-teams; it is also about enhancing student learning. Payne, Monk-Turner, Smith, & Sumter (2006) contend cooperative group work encourages students to be more resourceful, develop project management skills, as well as enhance problem identification and analysis skills (as cited in Betta, 2016).

Numerous research studies have demonstrated that cooperative learning significantly enhances student learning by making it difficult for students to be passive participants in the learning process (Collard, 2009; Cross, 2005; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2002). According to Johnson, Johnson and Smith (2007), more than 305 studies found that cooperative learning advantages include higher academic achievement, better long-term retention of what is learned, greater use of advanced reasoning, enhanced accuracy and creativity when solving problems, less reluctance and greater persistence in dealing with difficult tasks as well as enhanced ability to transfer learning from one situation to another. Cooperative learning has consistently been reported to affect positively a student’s self-esteem, intergroup relations, and attitudes toward school (Slavin, 1991). These documented educational advantages provide yet another important reason for postsecondary business faculty to embrace the use of cooperative group and team-based pedagogy in their courses.

A 2008 UCLA reported that 59% of postsecondary faculty were employing cooperative learning and 36% were using team projects (Smith, 2011). According to Burbach, Matkin, Gambrell, & Harding (2010) instructors have a “direct impact on student teamwork skills” (p. 753). In response, university faculty have carried out hundreds of empirical studies to determine how best to engage postsecondary students in cooperative team projects that ensure course content mastery as well as to work on the development of effective, transferable teamwork skills. “Despite many evidence-based approaches for fostering teamwork skills in undergraduate studies, implementation of teamwork pedagogy remains challenging” (Wilson, Ho, & Brookes, 2018, p. 787). It can be argued that the pedagogy is challenging because of the product / artifacts produced receive more attention by educators than the “processes, skills, and dispositional attributes required to work collaboratively and productively within a team” (Riebe, Girardi, & Whitsed, 2016, p.621).

The literature maintains that instructors cannot simply put students together, assign a task and expect true teamwork to occur (Chen, Lattuca, & Hamilton, 2004; Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy, & Ramsey, 2002; Ettington & Cam 2002; Holmer, 2001; McKendall, 2000; Prichard, Stratford, & Bizo, 2006; Ruiz-Ulloa & Adams, 2004a). Colbeck, Campbell, and Bjorklund (2000) report that postsecondary faculty often assign students team assignments in courses with little forethought and absent preparation or guidance on how to work effectively in groups. As a result, student dissatisfaction, resentment and frustration with team assignments often occurs because of their feeling of helpless in the management of the group process (Brooks & Ammons, 2003; Colbeck et al., 2000; Hansen, 2006; Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003). Several studies report students’ frustration with their instructor’s unwillingness to get involved in helping the student teams develop or function effectively (Colbeck et al., 2000; Markulis, Jassawalla, & Sashittal, 2006; Nordberg, 2008; Oakley, Felder, Brent, & Elhajj, 2004). The lack of faculty involvement has resulted in the vast majority of college students harboring negative attitudes and feelings toward group learning experiences and to dread graded course team assignments (Colbeck et al., 2000; Markulis et al., 2006; Nordberg, 2008; (Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003; Oakley et al., 2004). Students expect faculty to engage with and coach their course teams as they work through a team assignment therefore faculty involvement often leades to greater student outcomes (Burbach, Matkin, Gambrell, & Harding, 2010). Cooperative and team-based learning done right, can significantly improve student course content mastery as well as provide students with the successful team experience needed to produce team-ready graduates with transferable skills (Johnson & Johnson, 2012; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2007; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008, 2011). On the other hand, ineffectively implemented cooperative work groups or poorly designed and administered team assignments lead to unproductive student groups and teams which in turn leads to reduced learning, and negative student attitudes toward group learning experiences and team assignments (Colbeck, Campbell, & Bjorklund, 2000; Hansen, 2006; Oakley et al., 2004; Felder, Brent, & El-hajj, 2004; Pfaff & Huddlestone, 2003).

Previous research has suggested that faculty who assign cooperative work or team projects are motivated by one or more of the following: (a) a desire to improve student learning of content, (b) a desire to assist students in learning teamwork skills, and (c) a desire to reduce grading load (Sashittal, Jassawalla, & Markulis, 2011). Similarly, a case study of postsecondary institution’s faculty examined the use of group work in the undergraduate classroom. The case study found that faculty, in general, were motivated to assign group work because they believed that it enhanced student learning but concluded that most faculty employed casual-use groups rather than cooperative-learning or team-based learning because of limited knowledge, experience and training in using teamwork in the classroom (Anstrom, 2010).

Purpose

Given the large number of empirical studies examining team and cooperative learning pedagogy as well as the growing number of postsecondary faculty requiring students to work cooperatively in teams to fulfill course requirements, as reported in the literature, why are only 42% of American college/university graduates viewed as able to effectively work in teams (Hart, 2018)?

Empirical as well as antidotal research suggests that many postsecondary faculty lack the formal education and training in cooperative learning and/or in teambuilding to implement consistently successful group \ team projects in their courses. In order to begin to address this issue, we chose to begin by identifying which post-secondary faculty are currently using cooperative groups and/or team projects in their courses and why? The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of faculty demographics and motivation on the use of cooperative learning and team assignments in the higher education classroom.

Research Questions

  1. In what academic disciplines do postsecondary faculty currently utilize cooperative work groups and/or team projects?
  2. What is the faculty motivation for including cooperative work groups and/or team projects in course curriculum? 49
  3. Does a faculty member’s actions regarding the use of cooperative groups and team projects in the classroom differ by faculty demographics and motivation?

Methods

A quantitative non-experimental descriptive design was used for this survey-based research study. All data was gathered using a web-based questionnaire housed on SurveyMonkey. The survey questions were closely based on the questionnaire developed by Sashit-tal, Jassawalla and Markulis (2011) for their Business Faculty Teamwork Motivation and Action Study. The draft questionnaire was reviewed by two different expert panels of faculty who offered many valuable suggestions for improvement. The seven four-point Likert Scale questions used to measure faculty motivation for using cooperative groups and/or team projects were as follows.

  1. I want students to learn teamwork skill.
  2. I believe teamwork enhances student learning of academic course content.
  3. I want students to gain experience relevant to the work/business world.
  4. I believe teamwork enhances student creativity.
  5. It reduces my grading load.
  6. The department and/or accreditation agency requires me to assign team projects.
  7. The previous instructor of my course used them.

The seven variables that comprised the motivation construct were indexed by z-scoring the seven variables and adding them up. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability score for the Sashittal, Jassawalla, and Markulis motivation scale more than met the minimum criterion for score reliability at .85. The Cron-bach’s alpha reliability score for the motivation scale in this study was .67, slightly below the suggested.70 by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) as an acceptable minimum criterion for a score reliability coefficient pertaining to affective measures and below the score reported in the Sashitall, Jassawalla, & Markulis study.

Descriptive and inferential statistics as well as linear regression were used to analyze the data collected. Relationships involving nominal level data were examined using the chi-square test of independence and Cramer’s V. The ordinal level survey scales were treated as interval level data and association was examined using Pearson Product Moment Correlation (Labovitz, 1970) and/or Spearman’s rho.

Data Sources

This study’s ten participating postsecondary institutions were selected using a non-probability purposive sampling of postsecondary institutions in Maryland. The vast majority of the published research on teamwork in higher education has been conducted at large research universities where it has been reported that faculty research and publications are more valued than teaching expertise. Therefore, the population of interest for this study was fulltime faculty employed at smaller institutions where teaching expertise is typically more highly valued. Therefore, the faculty participants in this study were drawn from colleges and universities whose total student enrollment was 5,000 or fewer students and the faculty to student ratio was 17:01 or less. According to the Carnegie Foundation (2010), institutional size does matter when it comes to institutional structure, culture / values and other factors. Consequently, fulltime aculty employed at institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as “small four-year” or on the lower end of “medium four-year” were invited to participate in this study. Two of the participating post-secondary institutions were Roman Catholic, two were historically black colleges (HBC), and one was historically a women’s college. The profiles of the ten colleges and universities in Maryland which met these criteria are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Most all of the empirical research on teaming and cooperative learning reviewed was conducted within schools of education, engineering, business and healthcare. The number of studies that looked at student teamwork development from the perspective of the faculty and across all academic disciplines and course levels was negligible. Given that research suggests that learning teamwork is cumulative and that students benefit from multiple team projects throughout their undergraduate course work, our population of interest included include liberal arts faculty who also teach business and economics majors (Colbeck et al., 2000). A preselected census survey sample drawn from the ten Maryland institutions yielded the names of 1,251 post-secondary full-time teaching faculty of which 421 faculty agreed to participate in the study, an initial response rate of 33.6%. However, only 377 of the completed questionnaires were useable resulting in a 30% response rate. Table 2 reports the academic disciplines and rank and Table 3 provides the demographic profile of the participating faculty.

Table 2

Most of the sample faculty taught at private institutions (n = 261, 71%). The average faculty member taught a little more than 13 years (M = 13.55 years, SD = 10.73). Three hundred and forty (90.5%) of the faculty in the sample taught traditional-aged students, 51.5% exclusively, while 183 faculty (48.5%) also provided instruction to adult learners, 9.5% exclusively. The majority of the faculty, 81% of the sample, taught only in-person while 19% of the faculty also taught online and/or hybrid courses. Only 2% of the faculty taught exclusively online or hybrid courses. Roughly, 68% of the participating faculty taught undergraduate courses while half as many faculty, 33%, taught graduate or doctorate level courses. The largest number of participants held the rank of assistant professor (36%) or associate professor (33%) but no rank or discipline dominated the sample. Forty percent of the respondents identified as male and 59% female.

Table 3

Results

The majority of the faculty surveyed, 328 (87%) ask students to work cooperatively in the classroom and 263 participants (70%) assign team projects. Table 4 provides additional information regarding the frequency of use of both cooperative work groups and course team projects of the faculty studied. The relationship between the use of cooperative work groups and the assigning of team projects was determined to be statistically significant and relatively strong, X2 (4, 377) = 140.98, p < .001, Cramer’s V =.43 suggesting that faculty who use cooperative work groups in their courses “most of the time or always” are more likely to assign team projects “most of the time or always” then those faculty who “never or rarely” use cooperative work groups, (52% and 2% respectively).

Table 4

A series of chi-square tests of independence, Pearson’s r, and Spearman’s rho were performed to examine relationships that might exist between faculty demographics and the use of cooperative work groups and team projects. Table 5 summarizes the faculty demographics examined for association with the use of cooperative work groups. We found faculty with tenure, and greater years of experience were less likely to use cooperative work groups in their classes compared to faculty without tenue and fewer years of teaching experience. While several demographic variables were tested, the variables found to have a statically significant relationship but weak association with the use of cooperative work groups were the faculty members’ discipline X2 (8, 364) = 16.59, p < .05, Cramer’s V = .15, tenure status X2 (2, 364) = 11.19, p < .01, years of experience teaching full-time X2 (8, 377) = 21.41, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .168 and yearly teaching load X2 (6, 370) = 15.18, p < .05, Cramer’s V = .143. For example, faculty who teach six or fewer courses a year are 20% more likely to employ cooperative work groups in their courses “sometimes, most of the time or all of the time” than faculty who teach more than six courses a year.

Table 5

Table 6 illustrations that cooperative work group use varies by the discipline a faculty member teaches. For example, 54% of faculty teaching in the health care disciplines reported using cooperative work groups “always or most of the time” whereas only 16% of the business and economics faculty used cooperative groups “always or most of the time” in their courses.

Table 6

Only three demographic variables were found to have a statistically significant relationship with the assigning of team projects; the faculty member’s discipline and whether the faculty member taught adult learners and their yearly teaching load. Both Pearson’s r and Spear-man’s rho confirmed the lack of relationship between the other demographic variables and the assigning of team projects. Accordingly, the academic discipline in which a faculty member teaches had a moderate association with the frequency of assigning team projects X2 (8, 363) = 34.11, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .22. The results of cross-tabulating yearly course load with the use of team projects was X2 (6, 370) = 19.77, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .163. The Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient detected a strong relationship with the assigning of team projects, r = .23, p < .001 and a faculty member’s yearly teaching load which suggests that faculty who teach fewer courses are more likely to assign team projects. For example, faculty who teach one to three courses a year assign team projects “sometimes, most of the time or always” 89% of the time as compared to faculty who teach seven or more courses a year assigning team project 59% of the time. Table 6 summarizes the faculty demographics found to have an association with the assigning of team projects.

Table 7

Table 7 (above) We found the higher the teaching load, the less likely the faculty uses team projects. With respect to teaching adult learners, we found a non-linear relationship. Faculty teaching adulty learners were more likely to “rarely or never use” teams and more likely to “mostly or always” use teams. Faculty not teaching adult learners were more likely to respond they sometimes use teams.

Table 8 illustrates that the assignment of team projects by faculty also varies by discipline. While 44% of the healthcare faculty reported assigning team projects “always or most of the time”, only 20% of the business and economics faculty indicated that they assign team projects “always or most of the time.”

Table 8

Faculty Motivation for Using Cooperative Groups and Teams

The literature suggests that the primary reason faculty assign team projects in courses is to enhance the student’s understanding of course content while at the same time providing students with an opportunity to develop their teamwork skills naturally (Colbeck et al., 2000; Hansen, 2006; Jones, 1996; Prichard & Ashleigh, 2007; Sashittal et al., 2011;Smart & Csapo, 2003; Sweet & Michaelsen, 2007). This research mirrors these earlier findings with 94.5% of the faculty indicating that their primary motivation for employing cooperative groups and/or team assignments in their courses were 1) the desire for students to learn teamwork skills (M = 3.49, SD = .66 on a 4-point scale) and 2) the belief that teamwork enhances student learning of academic course content (M = 3.47, SD =.65 on a 4-point scale) with a value of “one” meaning strongly disagree and a value of “four” meaning strongly agree. Another key reason for assigning students to cooperative groups or team projects according to the literature is the desire to reduce the grading load but only 16.6% of the faculty in this study indicated that this was the case. These results suggest that faculty at smaller, teaching oriented institutions are more likely to ask students to work in groups or teams for the benefit of the student rather than for the benefit of the teacher.

Tables 9 and 10 explore the relationship between the top four faculty motivations for employing cooperative work groups and team assignments in their courses. Note that the more a faculty member agreed with a particular motivation, the more likely he/she was to use cooperative groups. For instance, 50.5% of those faculty who “strongly agree” that they assign cooperative groups or teams in their courses to help their students learn teamwork skills also use cooperative work groups “most of the time or always.” Conversely, only 2.7% of the faculty who “strongly agree” with this motivation “never or rarely” use groups.

Table 9

Table 10

This study provides evidence that many faculty employed at small teaching-focused postsecondary institutions assign team projects for student learning reasons rather than faculty convenience; mastery of course content and preparation for a team-based workplace is the reported driver.

Relationship between Faculty Demographics and Motivation and the Use of Cooperative Learning and Team Assignments

A linear regression was conducted to evaluate the proportion of the variance in the assignment of team projects predicted by faculty demographics and motivations. The results of the linear regression analysis shown in Table 11 indicates that the predictors (faculty demographics and motivation) explained 21.3% of the variance in the assignment of team projects (R2=.213, p<.001).

The predicted score on the use of team projects for the healthcare disciplines is 0.136 standard deviation units higher than the humanities disciplines, the referent group for disciplines when controlling for all other variables in the model. The study results indicate that the business, economics and education faculty were more likely to assign team project in courses than the humanities faculty but the strength of the standardized coefficients fell short of statistical significance using the conventional standards of alpha equals .05 two-tailed test. The outcome of the linear regression suggests that more highly motivated faculty were significantly more likely to assign team projects in their courses. Also found statistically significant was that the greater the teaching load the less likely the faculty are to employ team projects.

Table 11

A linear regression was also conducted to evaluate the proportion of the variance in the use of cooperative work groups predicted by faculty demographics and motivations. The results of the linear regression analysis shown in Table 12 indicated that the predictors (faculty demographics and motivation) explained 17.5% of the variance in the use of cooperative learning groups (R2=.175, P<.001).

The results indicate that business, economics and education faculty were slightly more likely to assign cooperative work groups in class than the humanities faculty but the strength of the standardized coefficients falls well short of statistical significance. The outcome of the linear regression suggests that more highly motivated faculty were significantly more likely to use cooperative work groups in their courses. Also found statistically significant was that the greater the number of years teaching the less likely the faculty are to use cooperative learning.

Table 12

Limitations

By choosing to study faculty at small to medium size postsecondary institutions, the results of the study are limited in its generalizability to faculty at larger colleges and universities. Furthermore, by relying on publicly available email addresses for faculty, some qualified faculty may have been inadvertently left out of the study’s sample frame if their institutions website was out of date. Lastly, faculty who were interested in the pedagogy of cooperative learning or teamwork may have been more likely to complete the survey questionnaire, thereby introducing a bias.

Although the sample was large enough for much of the desired statistical analysis, a larger sample, particularly of business and economics faculty, would allow the reader to be more confident in the findings as well as reduce the number cells in cross-tabulation tables with five or fewer respondents making associations uncovered more dependable. Due to the self-report design of the survey via a Web-based questionnaire, the data gathered and subsequent results may be less objective and/or honest than if the participants had been observed. There is also a chance that the answers given by the faculty may not be representative of actual faculty teamwork practice and motivations but rather what faculty think or desire to do. In other words, a social desirability bias may have influenced the answers given by some faculty to certain questions.

Lastly, this study was designed to investigate what faculty do and why. It did not investigate why faculty, in particular business and economics faculty, do not use cooperative learning and team projects more frequently which would provide valuable insight into how best to shift the thinking and willingness of faculty to incorporate cooperative learning and team projects into their courses.

Educational Significance

Cooperative and team-based learning, when used frequently and effectively throughout a student’s educational journey can significantly improve student course content mastery as well as provide students with the successful team experience needed to produce team-ready graduates with transferable teamwork skills (Johnson & Johnson, 2012; Johnson et al., 2007; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008, 2011). Furthermore, published empirical research suggests that learning how to work in a team is a cumulative process and that students’ benefit from working in many different cooperative work groups and by completing several different team projects throughout their academic program. Consequently, it is important for all faculty who teach business and economics students, including general education faculty, be knowledgeable about the benefits of cooperative learning and team-based learning. Teamwork skills could be inculcated across the curriculum as writing has been at many institutions. Incorporating group projects throughout the curriculum would enable students to develop the interpersonal skills needed for effective teamwork after graduation. (Colbeck et al., 2000). Bacon, Stewart and Silver (1999) agree and state that team knowledge and training should be reinforced throughout the academic program because effective teamwork skills can take years to develop.

However, according to the data collected for this study, business and economics faculty are un-derutilizing cooperative work groups and assigning fewer team projects, than faculty in other disciplines where teamwork is a recognized skill recognized by employers such as in healthcare, education and the sciences.

If colleges and universities expect business and economics faculty to engage more frequently in cooperative learning and team projects with their students, then faculty need to convinced that simply putting students in groups and asking them to work together to accomplish a task often does not teach team work and often falls short of the goal of cooperative learning as well. While this survey did not ask faculty why they did not use cooperative learning or team projects, a frequent reason given by faculty on our campus is that there is not enough time in their courses to address course content and have students work cooperatively or intentionally teach teamwork skills. If we can provide faculty with information that helps them to begin to see cooperative learning and team assignments as pedagogies that help students learn course content rather than as an area of study that takes time away from the learning course content, we are confident interest in including cooperatively learning and team projects in the design of more courses on campus.

Faculty who have relied primarily on lecture or class discussion in the past should be encouraged to experiment with cooperative learning in his/her courses in small ways so that there is a gradation of success-creating experiences for faculty and students. This study found that in general faculty use more cooperative learning than team project in their course design. Once they are comfortable using cooperative learning and have achieved some success with it, he/ she will may be more open to including a team project in his/ her course.

We believe this study advances the field by investigating the actions and motivations of full-time faculty employed at smaller colleges and universities. By gaining a better understanding of which faculty regularly utilize cooperative learning and team based pedagogy and the faculty motivations behind their use, postsecondary institutions will be able to develop a meaningful implementation plan for promoting the use of cooperative learning and team projects while providing tailored discipline specific professional development opportunities for faculty in the “best practices” in the use of cooperative learning groups and team projects.

References

  • Anstrom, C. N. (2010). University faculty members’perception of group work: How knowledge and experiences guide practice. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest: Dissertations and Theses Full-Text. (3433379)
  • Betta, M. (2016). Self and others in team-based learning: Acquiring teamwork skills for business. Journal of Education for Business,91(2), 69-74. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1122562
  • Burbach, M.E., Matkin, G.S., Gambrell, K.M., & Harding, H.E. (2010). The impact of preparing faculty in the effective use of student teams. College Student Journal, 44(3), 752-761.
  • Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 27-40. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2004.12436817
  • Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 60-83.
  • Collard, T. Y. (2009). An investigation of the use and implementation of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education by university faculty members. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest: Dissertations and Theses Full-Text. (3376912)
  • Cross, K. P. (2005). What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know it? Paper presented at the AAHE National Conference on Higher Education Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N., & Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 114-124. doi: 10.1177/0273475302242004
  • Ettington, D. R., & Camp, R. R. (2002). Facilitating transfer of skills between group projects and work teams. Journal of Management Education, 26(4), 356-379. doi: 0.1177/105256290202600404
  • Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 11-19.
  • Hart, P. D. (2008). How should colleges assess and improve student learning? (pp. 1-8). Washington DC: The Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Hart, P. D. (2010). Employers’ views on college learning in the wake of the economic downturn. Washington, DC: The Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Hart, P. D. (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Washington, DC: The Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Hart, P.D. (2015). Falling short? College learning and career success. Washington, DC: The Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Hart, P.D. (2018). Fulfilling the American dream: Liberal education and the future of work. Washington, DC: The Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Holmer, L. L. (2001). Will we teach leadership or skilled incompetence? The challenge of student project teams. Journal of Management Education, 25(5), 590-605. doi: 10.1177/105256290102500509
  • Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences of trust in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 24-34. doi: 10.1177/0273475302241004
  • Hughes, R. L., Curphy, G. J., & Ginnett, R. C. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience (7th ed.). New York: Graw-Hill/ Irwin.
  • Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Zapata-Phelan, C. P., & Wesson, M. J. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 884-899. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.884
  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2012). An overview of cooperative learning. Retrieved 1/1/13, Retrieved from http://www.co-opera-tion.org/?page_id=65
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity (Ed.), ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4 (pp. 168). Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University.
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15-29. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8
  • Jones, D. W. (1996). Empowered teams in the classroom can work. Journal for Quality & Paricipation, 19(1).
  • LaBeouf, J.P., Griffith, J.C., & Roberts, D. L. (2016). Faculty ad student issues with group work: What is prolematic with college group assignments and why? Journal of Education and Human Development 5(1). Doi:10.15640/jehd.v5n1a2
  • Labovitz, S. (1970). The assignment of numbers to rank order categories. The American Sociological Review, 35, 515–524.
  • McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to become teams. Journal of Education for Business, 75(5), 277.
  • Lewis, P., Aldridge, D., & Swamidass, P. M. (1998). Assessing teaming skills acquisitioin on undergraduate project teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 149-155.
  • McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C., & Lyer, R. V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 106-117. doi:
  • Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Eds.). (2002). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. New Directions For Teaching and Learning, 116(Winter 2008), 29. doi: 10.1002/tl.330
  • Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2011). Team-based learning.New directions for teaching and learning.Wiley Online Library (Vol. 128, pp. 41-51): Wiley Periodicals, Inc. . doi: 10.1002.tl467
  • Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9-34. doi: 10.1109/TE.2007.901982
  • Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student sttitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 37-45. doi: 10.1177/0273475302250571
  • Prichard, J. S., & Ashleigh, M. J. (2007). The effects of team-skills training on transactive memory and performance. Small Group Research, 38(6), 696-726. doi: 10.1177/10464964073804923
  • Prichard, J. S., Stratford, R. J., & Bizo, L. A. (2006). Team-skills training enhances collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 256-265. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.005
  • Riebe, L., Girardi, A., & Whitsed, C. (2016). A systematic litearture review of teamwork pedagogy in higher education. Small Group Research, 47(6), 619-664. doi:10.1177/1046496416665221
  • Roseth, C., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223-246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
  • Ruiz-Ulloa, B. C., & Adams, S. G. (2004a). Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming. Team Performance Management, 10(7/8), 145-151. doi: 10.1108/13527590410569869
  • Ruiz-Ulloa, B. C., & Adams, S. G. (2004b). A conceptual framework for designing team training in engineering classrooms. Paper presented at the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Sashittal, H. C., Jassawalla, A. R., & Markulis, P. (2011). Teaching students to work in classroom teams: A preliminary investigation of instructors’ motivations, attitudes and actions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(4), 93-106.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 71-82.
  • Smart, K. L., & Csapo, N. (2003). Team-based learning: Promoting classroom collaboration. IACIS, 316-322.
  • Smith, K. A. (2011). Cooperative learning: Lessons and insight from thirty years of championing a research-based innovative practice.
  • Paper presented at the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.
  • Sweet, M., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2007). How group dynamics research can inform the theory and practice of postsecondary small group learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 31-47. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9035-y
  • Wilson, L., Ho, S., & Brookes, R.H. (2018). Student percpetions of teamwork within assessment tasks in undergraduate science degrees.
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 786-799. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1409334