Sign up

Teaching students to work in classroom teams: a preliminary investigation of instructors' motivations, attitudes and actions.
Abstract:
Teaching teamwork skills is strongly advocated in the management education literature. What remains relatively under-investigated is what instructors do in terms of teaching teamwork after they assign team projects to their students, and why they do what they do. This paper reports findings of a two-stage study, and aims to discuss preliminary findings about instructors' motivations, attitudes and actions relevant to the teaching of teamwork skills in management classes. Findings suggest that instructors' motivations, attitudes, and actions related to teaching teamwork skills in classrooms are related in important ways, and hold several implications for new thinking and research.

Article Type:
Report
Subject:
Work groups (Study and teaching)
Teaching teams (Research)
Business teachers (Practice)
Authors:
Sashittal, Hemant C.
Jassawalla, Avan R.
Markulis, Peter
Pub Date:
12/01/2011
Publication:
Name: Academy of Educational Leadership Journal Publisher: The DreamCatchers Group, LLC Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Education Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 The DreamCatchers Group, LLC ISSN: 1095-6328
Issue:
Date: Dec, 2011 Source Volume: 15 Source Issue: 4
Topic:
Event Code: 310 Science & research; 200 Management dynamics
Geographic:
Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Accession Number:
263157469
Full Text:
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)
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.