INTRODUCTION
It is not uncommon for instructors of undergraduate management and
MBA courses to assign complex class-related projects to student teams,
and hold them collectively responsible for producing multiple
learning-related outcomes. Scholars agree that student teams can
represent active learning environments (Chowdhury, Endres & Lanis,
2002; Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy & Ramsey, 2002; Holtham, Melville
& Sodhi, 2006; Michaelson, Knight & Fink, 2002), and that
teamwork can help students learn critical skills valued by potential
employers (e.g., O'Conner & Yballe, 2007). A review of
literature highlights the following: (a) even though team projects are
common in management classes, too many students do not receive necessary
coaching and instruction for teamwork (O'Conner & Yballe, 2007;
Vik, 2001), and (b) poorly prepared and inadequately instructed students
often disengage and view teamwork with cynicism (Buckenmyer, 2000;
Connerley & Mael, 2001; Holmer, 2001). Scholars strongly argue in
favor of teaching and instruction to help students cope with the demands
of teamwork (see Bolton, 1999; Chen, Donahue & Klimoski, 2004;
Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy & Ramsey, 2002; Ettington & Camp, 2002;
Holmer, 2001; McKendall, 2000; Page & Donelan, 2003; Vik, 2001).
Despite the advocacy, the literature is mostly silent when it comes
to describing business school instructors' motivations and
attitudes about, and actions directed toward teaching teamwork skills to
students--particularly when they assign students to teams and require
them to collectively complete comprehensive class-related projects. Our
purpose here is to discuss preliminary evidence of instructors'
motivations, attitudes, and actions, and identify areas for future
research that might help explain why the literature's advocacy has
not sufficiently translated into practice (i.e., why fewer instructors
teach teamwork skills in their classrooms than those that assign
students to teams). We aim to stimulate new thinking, and spur new
research that can produce findings that speak to the practical,
day-to-day realities of instructors--versus the intent to produce widely
generalizable findings. Consistent with this intent, our findings emerge
from: (a) a small-scale exploratory study (n=19) we conducted to produce
a guiding hypothesis and develop scales, and (b) a survey that used a
small (n=56), purposeful sample of instructors who share an interest in
innovative teaching methods and assign students to classroom teams. We
find evidence to suggest that instructor motivations and attitudes are
misaligned, and that key motivators for assigning teamwork in classrooms
ought to be acknowledged and legitimized before the literature's
advocacy produces meaningful results in the classroom.
METHOD
Stage 1. Qualitative-data, hypotheses and scales
We began by depth-interviewing nineteen instructors who taught
Organizational Behavior courses in twelve business schools located in
the Northeastern US, of whom sixteen taught only undergraduate courses
and three taught only graduate courses. Participants: (a) allocated 25%
or more of the students' grades based on team-based assignments.
Aligned with our interest in teamwork-instruction-related motivations,
attitudes and actions, the depth interviews were guided by the following
questions (asked in the following order):
* What is the purpose of assigning team projects in your classes?
In other words, why do you assign students to teams and hold them
responsible for completing class-related projects?
* What are your views about teambuilding? Do you believe it is your
responsibility to conduct team building in your classes? Why or why not?
* What actions do you require students to take to improve team
performance?
Our sample included nine male and ten female instructors, who had
taught full-time in business programs for an average of 14 years
(minimum 2 years, maximum 30 years). They reported an average enrollment
of 29 students in their Organizational Behavior classes (minimum 12,
maximum 40). All interviews were tape recorded, transcribed, and content
analyzed using the guidelines in Glaser & Strauss (1967) and Strauss
& Corbin (1998). While each question began a discussion, the bulk of
the findings emerged from the probing questions that sought
clarifications and additional information. The process of content
analysis was as follows. Two co-authors worked independently and
identified the key themes in the responses of each instructor. First,
based on transcripts, the co-authors created a data matrix; each row
represented an interview, and each column represented a question. In
each cell, the co-authors briefly summarized what the instructor had
said in response to the relevant question. Then, based on data contained
in the cells of each column, the co-authors identified themes and
developed scales for assessing instructor motivations, attitudes, and
actions. Second, the independently developed hypothesis and scales were
compared and contrasted. Based on a consensus (i.e., 100% inter-coder
reliability), a guiding hypotheses and relevant scales were developed to
guide the second stage of the study.
Findings, scales & hypothesis
We identified several key motivations for assigning students to
classroom teams. First, the conviction that teamwork could produce
deeper and wider learning of course content emerged as a primary driver.
Second, some assigned teamwork because it promoted creativity among
students. Third, instructors wanted students to learn important
teamwork-related skills so that they could function better in
work-teams. Fourth, instructors were driven by the desire to make more
efficient use of their time and energy; i.e., teamwork reduced their
workload at the end of the semester--when they could grade fewer team
projects versus more individual assignments. Fifth, instructors were
motivated by the desire to align their activities with the customs and
traditions of the departments or business schools. In particular, they
noted that they assigned teamwork in their classes because the business
school required such assignments, and/or the previous instructor had
assigned similar work, and they intended to continue in that tradition.
The scales for assessing motivations for assigning teamwork that emerged
from this data were (5-point Likert scale):
I assign students to teams in my classes because ...
* I believe teamwork enhances student learning of material.
* I believe teamwork enhances creativity.
* I want students to learn teamwork skills.
* I want students to gain experience relevant to business.
* It reduces my grading load.
* The business department/program requires it.
* The previous instructor used them.
This scale suggested the presence of two underlying dimensions: (a)
the motivation to improve student learning, and (b) the motivation to
increase faculty members' convenience (i.e., reduce my grading
load, do what the department suggests, and continue the tradition of the
previous instructor). This led to the following hypothesis (please note,
all hypotheses relate to business school instructors):
H1 Business school instructors assign students to teams and expect
them to collectively complete assignments motivated by: (a) the desire
to improve student learning, and (b) the desire to increase their
convenience.
Instructors take a variety of actions to improve teamwork; six
required students to participate in teambuilding exercises they led.
Among the specific activities they required of students were: (a)
participating in ice-breakers, (b) setting of ground rules for
participation in the team, and (c) providing mid-semester feedback to
other team members. It is important to note no instructor required
students to participate in all activities included on the list, and the
requirements were not evenly distributed, i.e., only some instructors
required their students to engage in some of these teamwork-enhancing
activities. We compiled the following list of actions that the sampled
instructors required of their students, whether they led formal
teambuilding sessions or not:
I always REQUIRE students working in teams to (tick all those that
apply) ...
* Participate in team building exercise that I lead.
* Conduct peer evaluations at the end of the semester.
* Read relevant literature on effective teamwork.
* Participate in an ice-breaker activity at the beginning of the
semester.
* Set formal goals for their team at the beginning of the team
project.
* Set ground rules for participation in the team.
* Set milestones and deadlines for team-related activities.
* Provide formal mid-term written feedback to each other.
This finding led to the development of the following hypothesis
about instructors' motivations and actions directed at improving
teamwork:
H2 Proportionately fewer instructors require students to engage in
teambuilding activities.
H3 Instructors motivated by the desire to improve student learning
are more likely to require students to participate in teambuilding
activities than those motivated by the desire to increase their
convenience.
We identified multiple themes in instructors' attitude toward
teamwork-related instruction. In general, instructors said they did not
conduct teambuilding in their classroom to the extent they liked, and
identified four major reasons for this deficiency. First, lack of time
was cited a principal reason for choosing to focus on course content
related material, rather than on teambuilding (n=18). Second, most said
they preferred to empower their students, and let them manage teamwork
on their own (n=13). Third, some (n=5) noted that they were content area
experts, and not sufficiently qualified to conduct teambuilding in their
classes. Finally, some (n=4) noted that they did not conduct
teambuilding in classrooms because the benefits of such activities were
not clear to them. The scale for assessing attitudes toward teaching
teamwork that emerged from this data was (5 point Likert scales):
I strongly believe that ...
* Students should manage teambuilding on their own.
* The benefits of teambuilding are unclear to me.
* There is never enough time to conduct teambuilding in my classes.
* I am not sufficiently qualified to conduct teambuilding in
classes.
These findings led to the following hypotheses about
instructors' attitudes and their links with actions:
H4 Instructors who hold that students should manage teambuilding on
their own, also hold that that: (a) the benefits of conducting teamwork
are unclear to them, (b) there is never enough time to conduct
teambuilding, and (c) they are not sufficiently qualified to conduct
teambuilding.
H5 Instructors who hold that students should manage teambuilding on
their own are less likely to require students to engage in teambuilding
activities.
Stage 2. Survey
In the second stage, the questionnaire was distributed to the
eighty-seven attendees at the ABSEL (Association for Business Simulation
and Experiential learning, Charleston, S.C. (March 5-7, 2008).)
conference during one of the plenary sessions. Attendees were asked to
participate in the study if they assigned team projects in at least one
of their classes. We selected this venue for data collection because:
(a) the purposeful sample would include conference attendees who were
acting on their interest in pedagogy, and (b) it allowed a one-shot data
collection with relatively high response rate. We tested our hypotheses
based on the data we collected from fifty-six completed questionnaires
(response rate: 64.3%).
All participants assigned team projects in at least one of the
classes they regularly offered each semester, and 43% assigned them in
all classes they taught. Of the fifty-six participants, 37 (66%) were
males, and 13 (23%) were females. Thirty seven (66%) had taught full
time for fourteen years or more at the college level. Instructors of
Organizational Behavior (n=16, 29%), strategy (n=11, 20%), and marketing
(n=10, 18%) made up two thirds of the sample. Most were full professors
(n=29, 52%), most held Ph.D. degrees (n=51, 91%), and most taught at
public institutions (n=35, 63%). Thirty five (63%) taught mostly junior
and senior level classes, and thirteen (23%) taught mostly graduate
courses. Most classes included an average of 6.2 teams with 4.3 members
per team.
SURVEY FINDINGS
Exhibit 1 highlights the descriptive statistics of the study. All
hypotheses we tested are either fully or partially validated.
As Table 1 shows, a principal component analysis (Varimax with
Kaiser Normalization) identifies two underlying dimensions in the
multiple motivations that lead instructors to assign teamwork in their
classes; i.e., the motivation to improve student learning (four-item
scale, Cronbach's alpha=0.853), and the motivation to improve
instructors' convenience (three-item scale, Cronbach's
alpha=0.673). Hypothesis 1 is therefore validated.
Table 2 shows the Z tests we conducted to test H2, and establish
that over half of the instructors do not require students to take
teamwork related actions. As the table shows, the hypothesis is
partially supported. Over half of the instructors do require students to
conduct peer evaluations. However, less than half of the instructors
require students to provide formal midterm feedback to each other, or
require them to read literature on effective teamwork, or require them
to participate in teambuilding exercises that they lead.
In terms of requiring students to participate in ice-breakers, or
setting formal goals, milestones, and ground rules for participation,
the faculty members seem evenly split. Table 3 shows the results of the
McNemar's Chi-square procedure to test whether instructors
motivated by the desire to produce student learning are more likely to
require students to engage in teambuilding activities, than those
motivated by the desire to increase their convenience. This hypothesis
is largely validated; instructors motivated by the desire to improve
student learning require students to engage in teambuilding activities
except when it comes to requiring them to provide mid-term evaluations
to their team members. In other words, by and large, instructors
motivated by the desire to increase their convenience do not require
students to engage in teambuilding activities.
Table 4 shows the results of correlation analysis for testing H4.
As the table shows, the hypothesis is partially supported; i.e.,
instructors who hold that students should manage teamwork on their own
also hold that: (a) the benefits of conducting teamwork are unclear to
them, and (b) they are not sufficiently qualified to teach teamwork to
their students. However, there is no significant link between the view
that students should be left to manage on their own and their
perceptions of not having enough time to teach teamwork.
Finally, Table 5 shows the results of the chi-squares we conducted
to test H5. As the table shows, this hypothesis is fully validated;
i.e., instructors who hold that students should be left to manage
teamwork on their own also do not require students to participate in
teambuilding activities.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The general theme in the findings from our second-stage survey is
as follows. Instructors assign students to teams motivated both by the
desire to increase their own convenience and the desire to promote
student learning, but largely do not require students to engage in
teambuilding activities and prefer to let students manage on their own
even when the benefits of teambuilding are clear to them. They are also
likely to attribute their disinterest in providing teambuildingrelated
instruction to the lack of time and skills. These findings raise two
inter-related issues that deserve additional research.
Motivations-Attitude Gap
The link between what instructors say about their motivations and
their attitudes (or behavioral intents) raises several questions, and
suggests that a motivations-attitude gap likely exists in practice. For
instance, all instructors in the sample assign teams in their
classrooms, and most (73.2%) say they are strongly motivated by the
desire to increase student learning, whereas only 25% say they are
motivated by their desire to increase their convenience. However, the
attitudes strongly favor student empowerment. Eighty three percent of
instructors agree or strongly agree with the statement that students
should manage teambuilding on their own, yet 66% suggest that the
benefits of conducting teambuilding are clear to them. Moreover, 73%
agree or strongly agree that they do not have sufficient time to conduct
teambuilding, and over half say they are not qualified to conduct
teambuilding. The motivations suggest that they seek to improve student
learning as a result of teamwork, and their attitudes suggest they
prefer not to teach teamwork skills; i.e., their attitudes belie their
stated motivations. The questions that arise are: If instructors mostly
say they assign students to teams in order to improve their learning:
(a) why are their attitudes predominantly in favor of empowerment, and
letting students manage on their own, and (b) why does this attitude
suggest a lowered desire to improve learning and an increased desire to
increase their convenience? There is, however, considerable consonance
between attitudes and actions; i.e., consistent with their attitudes in
favor of empowerment, few require teambuilding-related actions from
students.
This motivation-attitude gap may exist for a potentially large
number of reasons including: (a) misalignment between business-school
(or departmental) objectives, and assessment and reward systems, or (b)
greater concern for teaching the content of the course within the time
available at the expense of concern for learning processes (i.e.,
learning as a team), or (c) the implicit assumption that teaching
teamwork is soft-stuff, and less worthy than the course content, or (d)
the instructors' implicit belief that teaching teamwork is not what
they do, or (e) a significant segment of instructors do not possess the
skills necessary for teaching teamwork in classes--which half of the
instructors in our study indicate is the case. The gap may also relate
to causal factors rooted in the organization of business-schools (i.e.,
rooted in its processes, systems, rewards, structure, leadership and
culture), and in instructors' sociocognitive make-up (i.e., in
their knowledge, attitudes, experiences, skills, motivations and
aptitudes). Knowing the root causes of motivation-attitude gap, from
larger random samples, represents one of the initiating step in the
process of defining implementable solutions to the problem; i.e., more
classroom teams are assigned, and few instructors teach teamwork skills.
Legitimizing traditions and economy related motivations
While most instructors espouse that they are motivated by the
desire to increase student learning, their attitudes and actions suggest
that they are driven by the desire to increase their own convenience,
i.e., they largely act to: (a) align their activities with those
prevalent in the department, reduce the effort necessary to negotiate
new teaching approaches and strategies, and pre-empt questions about why
their classroom practices differ from the norms set by previous
instructors, (b) empower students and delegate a part of the learning
responsibility to teams, i.e., they have to do less in class in terms of
subject matter content, and (c) directly reduce their grading burden,
i.e., instead of grading individual final papers, they are now required
to read fewer team papers.
The misalignment suggests that the motivation to increase
convenience deserves examination in broad daylight; i.e., discussions
about how and why classroom team projects serve to reduce a faculty
member's teaching-burden ought to occur in open forums, and ought
to enter legitimate conversations about business school related
pedagogy. At present, "I use team projects also because it fits
with what people already do, and reduces my grading burden" remains
part of informal conversations--if it enters conversations at all. The
current advocacy in the literature fails to speak to the practical
reality of management instructors because it plainly spells do more,
when at least motivations and attitudes that guide instructors'
behavior vigorously spell align yourself with the practices of the
department/program and reduce your workload. Little change can occur
unless these currently undiscussible motivators of instructor behaviors
remain undiscussible. To the advocates of teaching teamwork in
classrooms, our study suggests that this undiscussed motivation gets in
the way of translating the literature's advocacy in favor of
teaching teamwork skills into practice. Instructors may be more
receptive to advice: (a) if the motivations related to traditions and
economy are acknowledged and their discussion is legitimized, and (b) if
such advice speaks to their practical, day-to-day reality and spells
work smarter rather than work more and longer (as it currently tends to
do).
CONCLUSION
Despite strong and well meaning advocacy, more instructors assign
team projects in management classes than those that provide
teamwork-related instruction. Despite proliferating knowledge about what
instructors can and ought to do, there is little evidence to suggest
that it is producing changes in classroom instruction. New thinking and
research is essential before the well meaning advice is implemented in
practice. In this regard, our study suggests that the motivations to
increase instructors' convenience and the attitudes that favor
"empowerment" may help explain the gap between theory and
practice. Before implementable insights emerge, new research is needed
to understand how these motivations can be managed, and why the gap
between knowledge and practice exists.
APPENDIX 1
SCALES
How OFTEN do you assign team projects in your classes?
[] In one class a semester [] In more than one classes per semester
[] in all classes
1. MOTIVATIONS. I assign students to teams in my classes because
... (5 point Likert scales)
... that reduces my grading load.
... the previous instructor used them.
... I want students to gain experience relevant to the business
world.
... I want students to learn teamwork skills.
... I believe teamwork enhances student learning of course
material.
... I believe teamwork enhances student creativity.
... The business department/program requires it.
2. ATTITUDES. I strongly believe that ... (5 point Likert Scale)
... students should manage their teambuilding on their own.
... the benefits of conducting teambuilding are unclear to me.
... there is never enough time to conduct teambuilding in my
class(es).
... I am NOT sufficiently qualified to conduct teambuilding in my
classes.
3: ACTIONS. I always REQUIRE students working in teams to (tick all
those that apply)...
[] Participate in team building exercises that I lead.
[] Conduct peer evaluations at the end of the semester.
[] Read the literature on effective teamwork.
[] Participate in an ice-breaker activity at the beginning of the
semester.
[] Set formal goals for their team at the beginning of the team
project.
[] Set ground rules for participation in the team.
[] Set milestones and deadlines for team-related activities.
[] Provide formal mid-term written feedback to each other.
Please tell us about yourself (please tick):
Gender: [] Male [] Female
Rank: [] Assistant [] Associate [] Full [] Adjunct/part time
Highest degree earned: [] Master's [] Ph.D. [] Ed.D. [] Other
I teach mostly: [] Freshman [] Sophomores [] Juniors [] Seniors []
Graduate/MBA
I have taught FULL TIME for: [] < 3 years [] 4-7 years [] 7-10
years [] 11-13 years [] 14 years +
I mostly teach courses in: [] OB [] Strategy [] Accounting []
Economics [] Finance [] POM [] Marketing [] MIS [] Other: --
Average number of teams in my classes: [] 2 [] 3 [] 4 [] 5 [] 6 []
7 [] 8 [] 9 [] 10+
Average number of students per team: [] 2 [] 3 [] 4 [] 5 [] 6 [] 7
[] 8 [] 9 [] 10+
I teach at a: [] Private College [] Public University
With approximately--students in the B. School, and--students in the
College/University
REFERENCES
Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A
"just-in-time" approach to learning. Journal of Management
Education, 23 (3), 233-250.
Buckenmyer, J. A. (2000). Using teams for class activities: Making
course/classroom teams work. Journal of Education for Business, 76(2),
98-107.
Chen, G., Donahue, L.M., & Klimoski, R.J. (2004). Training
undergraduate students to work in organizational teams. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 3(1): 27-40.
Chowdhury, S., Endres, M., & Lanis, T. W. (2002). Preparing
students for success in team work environments: The importance of
building confidence. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(3), 346-359.
Connerley, M. L., & Mael, F. A. (2001). The importance and
invasiveness of student team selection criteria. Journal of Management
Education, 25(5), 471-494.
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.
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.
Glaser, B.G., Strauss A.K. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded
Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine,
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.
Holtham, C. W., Melville, R. R., & Sodhi, M. S. (2006).
Designing student groupwork in management education. Journal of
Management Education, 30(6), 809-817.
McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to become teams. Journal of
Education for Business, 75(5), 277-282.
Michaelson, L., Knight, A., & Fink, L. (2002). Team based
learning: A transformative use of small groups. Westport, CT: Praeger.
O'Connor, D., & Yballe, L. (2007). Team leadership:
Critical steps to great projects. Journal of Management Education,
31(2), 292-312.
Page, D., & Donelan, J. G. (2003). Team-building tools for
students. Journal of Education for Business, 78(3), 125-129.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of Qualitative
Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Vik, G.N. (2001). Doing more to teach teamwork than telling
students to sink or swim. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4),
112-119.
Hemant C. Sashittal, St. John Fisher College
Avan R. Jassawalla, State University of New York at Geneseo
Peter Markulis, State University of New York at Geneseo
Table 1: Multiple Motivations that drive assignment of team projects
(Results of the rotated component matrix)
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
Components of MOTIVATIONS
I assign team Factor 1: Student Factor 2: Instructors'
projects in my learning related convenience Cronbach's
classes because ..." motivations Alpha for highlighted
(Cronbach's Alpha for 4 items = 0.673) (see
highlighted 4 items = highlighted,
0.853) (see italicized factor
highlighted, loadings)
italicized factor
loadings)
it reduces my -.105 .705
grading load
the previous .092 .829
instructor used them
I want students to .829 .074
gain experience
relevant to business
I want students to .880 -.051
learn teamwork
skills
I believe teamwork .800 .044
enhances student
learning of material
I believe teamwork .766 .247
enhances creativity .103 .790
the business
department/program
requires it
Table 2 PROPORTION OF INSTRUCTORS WHO ASSIGN TEAMWORK RELATED
ACTIVITIES
Number of instructors
I require students to ... who ticked YES Proportion
(of 56 participants)
Provide formal mid term written 9 0.16
feedback to each other
Read the literature on effective 13 0.23
teamwork
Participate in team building 16 0.29
exercises I lead
Participate in an ice breaker 24 0.43
activity at the beginning of the
semester
Set formal goals for their teams 26 0.46
at the beginning of the team
project
Set milestones and deadlines for 28 0.5
team-related activities
Set ground rules for 32 0.57
participating in the team
Conduct peer evaluations at the 44 0.79
end of the semester
Calculated Z statistic
I require students to ... for proportions *
(null proportion = .5)
Provide formal mid term written -6.68 **
feedback to each other
Read the literature on effective -4.76 **
teamwork
Participate in team building -3.43 **
exercises I lead
Participate in an ice breaker -1.06
activity at the beginning of the
semester
Set formal goals for their teams -0.59
at the beginning of the team
project
Set milestones and deadlines for 0
team-related activities
Set ground rules for 1.04
participating in the team
Conduct peer evaluations at the 5.28 **
end of the semester
* Z = (Observed proportion--0.5)-[S.sub.p] Where 0.5 represents P,
i.e., proportion under null hypothesis, and
[S.sub.p] = [square root of P(1 -P)]-n -1
** Z values significant at 99% confidence.
Table 3: MOTIVATIONS AND ACTIONS LINKAGES
Motivated to
increase instructor's
convenience
High Low Total
Require students to Motivation to High 4 8 12
participate in team produce student Low 0 4 4
building learning Total 4 12 16
Require students to Motivation to High 4 6 10
read literature on produce student Low 0 3 3
effective teamwork learning Total 4 9 13
Require students to Motivation to High 4 15 19
set formal goals at produce student Low 3 4 7
the beginning learning Total 7 19 26
Require students to Motivation to High 8 17 25
set ground rules produce student Low 2 5 7
for participation learning Total 10 22 32
Require students to Motivation to High 5 13 18
set milestones and produce student Low 1 9 10
deadlines learning Total 6 22 28
Require students to Motivation to High 2 6 8
provide formal produce student Low 1 0 1
mid-term feedback learning Total 3 6 9
Require students to Motivation to High 10 22 32
conduct peer produce student Low 3 9 12
evaluations end of learning Total 13 31 44
semester
Require students to Motivation to High 4 16 20
participate in ice- produce student Low 0 4 4
breakers learning Total 4 20 24
Proportion Proportion
1 (a+b)/n 2 (a+c)/n
Require students to Motivation to High
participate in team produce student Low 0.75 0.25
building learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
read literature on produce student Low 0.7692 0.3077
effective teamwork learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
set formal goals at produce student Low 0.7307 0.2692
the beginning learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
set ground rules produce student Low 0.7812 0.3125
for participation learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
set milestones and produce student Low 0.6428 0.2727
deadlines learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
provide formal produce student Low 0.8888 0.3333
mid-term feedback learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
conduct peer produce student Low 0.7272 0.2954
evaluations end of learning Total
semester
Require students to Motivation to High
participate in ice- produce student Low 0.8333 0.1667
breakers learning Total
(b-c)/n
Proportion
difference
Require students to Motivation to High
participate in team produce student Low 0.5
building learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
read literature on produce student Low 0.4615
effective teamwork learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
set formal goals at produce student Low 0.4615
the beginning learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
set ground rules produce student Low 0.4687
for participation learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
set milestones and produce student Low 0.4285
deadlines learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
provide formal produce student Low 0.55
mid-term feedback learning Total
Require students to Motivation to High
conduct peer produce student Low 0.4318
evaluations end of learning Total
semester
Require students to Motivation to High
participate in ice- produce student Low 0.6666
breakers learning Total
McNemar's
Chi-square =
(b-c)2/b+c
Require students to Motivation to
participate in team produce student 8
building learning
Require students to Motivation to
read literature on produce student 6.0 *
effective teamwork learning
Require students to Motivation to
set formal goals at produce student 8.0 **
the beginning learning
Require students to Motivation to
set ground rules produce student 11.84 **
for participation learning
Require students to Motivation to
set milestones and produce student 10.28 **
deadlines learning
Require students to Motivation to
provide formal produce student 3.57
mid-term feedback learning
Require students to Motivation to
conduct peer produce student 14.44 **
evaluations end of learning
semester
Require students to Motivation to
participate in ice- produce student 16.0 **
breakers learning
McNemar's Test Chi-square statistic: [(B-C).sup.2]/B+C; degree of
freedom = 1
Motivation 2: High Motivation 2: Low
Motivation 1: High a b
Motivation 1: Low c d
Proportion 1 = (a+b)/n, Proportion 2 = (a+c)/n, Proportional
difference = (b-c)/n
Table 4: CORRELATIONS AMONG ATTITUDINAL ITEMS
Students Benefits of
should manage conducting
on their own teamwork are
unclear to me
Students should Pearson 1 .315 *
manage on their own Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.018
Benefits of Pearson .315 * 1
conducting teamwork Correlation
are unclear to me
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.018
There is never Pearson 0.232 0.256
enough time Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.086 0.057
I am not Pearson .288 * .310 *
sufficiently Correlation
qualified
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.031 0.02
There is never I am not
enough time sufficiently
qualified
Students should Pearson 0.232 .288 *
manage on their own Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.086 0.031
Benefits of Pearson 0.256 .310 *
conducting teamwork Correlation
are unclear to me
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.057 0.02
There is never Pearson 1 .526 **
enough time Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
I am not Pearson .526 ** 1
sufficiently Correlation
qualified
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 5
ACTIONS AND ATTITUDES
Require students to participate in team NO YES
building that I lead
Instructors who hold the view that students NO 14 12
should be left to manage teamwork on their Favor high
own empowerment 26 4
Chi-square = 7.32 (p = 0.007)
Require students to read literature on NO YES
effective teamwork
Instructors who hold the view that students NO 15 11
should be left to manage teamwork on their YES 28 2
own
Chi-square = 9.926 (p = 0.002)
Require students to participate in ice NO YES
breakers
Instructors who hold the view that students NO 8 18
should be left to manage teamwork on their YES 24 6
own
Chi-square = 13.785 (p = 0.000)
Require students to set formal goals for NO YES
their team at the beginning of the team
project
Instructors who hold the view that students NO 10 16
should be left to manage teamwork on their YES 20 10
own
Chi-square = 4.455 (p = 0.032)
Require students to set ground rules for NO YES
participation in the team
Instructors who hold the view that students NO 6 20
should be left to manage teamwork on their YES 18 12
own
Chi-square = 7.754 (p = 0.006)
Require students to set milestones and NO YES
deadlines for team related activities
Instructors who hold the view that students NO 9 17
should be left to manage teamwork on their YES 19 11
own
Chi-square = 4.595 (p = 0.03)
EXHIBIT 1
Descriptive Statistics
How OFTEN do you assign team projects Frequency Percent
in your classes?
In one class a semester 8 13.3%
In more than one class a semester 24 42.9%
In all classes 24 42.9%
MOTIVATIONS (SD = strongly disagree, D = disagree, NA = neither agree
nor disagree, A = agree, SA = strongly agree; sd = standard deviation)
I assign students to teams in SD D NA A SA Mean sd
my classes because:
... that reduces my grading
load. 12 8 8 15 13 3.6 1.48
... the previous instructor
used them. 21 5 19 5 6 2.46 1.36
... I want students to gain
experience relevant to the
business world. 2 2 4 22 26 4.21 .986
... I want students to learn
teamwork skills. 2 0 2 24 28 4.36 .862
... I believe teamwork enhances
student learning of course
material. 2 3 9 23 19 3.96 1.03
... I believe teamwork enhances
student creativity. 3 2 19 20 12 3.64 1.03
... The business department/
program requires it. 17 8 11 8 12 2.82 1.54
ATTITUDES (SD = strongly disagree, D = disagree, NA = neither agree
nor disagree, A = agree, SA = strongly agree; sd = standard deviation)
I strongly believe that ... SD D NA A SA Mean sd
... students should manage
teambuilding on their own 1 9 12 25 11 3.64 1.03
... the benefits of conducting
teambuilding are unclear to
me 12 25 15 3 1 2.21 .01
... there is never enough time
to conduct teambuilding in my
class(es) 5 10 19 18 4 3.11 1.07
... I am not sufficiently
qualified to conduct
teambuilding in classes 15 11 19 9 2 2.5 1.16
ACTIONS
I have my students ... Require Percent
Participate in team building exercises that I
lead. 16 28.6
Conduct peer evaluations at the end of the
semester. 44 78.6
Read the literature on effective teamwork. 13 23.2
Participate in an ice-breaker activity at the
beginning of the semester. 24 42.9
Set formal goals for their team at the beginning
of the team project. 26 46.4
Set ground rules for participation in the team. 32 57.1
Set milestones and deadlines for team-related
activities. 28 50
Provide formal mid-term written feedback to each
other. 9 16.1
DEMOGRAPHICS
Gender : Male: 37 (66.1%) Female: 13 (23.2%) [No response: 6, 10.7%]
RANK Assistant Professor: 6 (10.7%), Associate Professor: 18
(32.1%), Professor: 29 (51.8%), No response; 3 (5.4%)
Highest Degree: Masters: 3 (5.4%), Ph.D.: 51 (91.1%), Other: 2 (3.6%)
Team mostly: Freshmen: 2 (3.6%), Sophomores: 5 (8.9%), Juniors: 19
(33.8%), Seniors: 16 (23.2%), Graduate: 13 (23.2%),
[no response: 1]
Average number of teams per class: 6.23 (sd: 2.37)
Average number of persons per team: 4.30 (sd: 1.20)
Average students in B. School: 1239 (sd: 1508)