Setting the Stage for Good Group Dynamics in Semester-Long Projects in the Sciences
By Mary Crowe and Chris Hill
Many studies show students benefit from working cooperatively. Rarely published in STEM literature are guidelines to help educators effectively incorporate research teams in the classroom. We explain how to create a positive learning experience by explaining group dynamics, and by using group contracts and team-building activities. We also share templates for evaluating group projects.
Mary Crowe (
[email protected]) is Director of the Center for Undergraduate Research at Xavier University of Louisiana in New Orleans. Chris Hill (
[email protected]) is an Associate Professor of Biology at Coastal Carolina University.
32
JOURNAL of COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHING
A
s educators at a primarily undergraduate institution (Coastal Carolina University), our job is to prepare students for employment, graduate study, or professional studies. These varied career paths require that graduates have training in communication and interpersonal skills, group planning, group decision-making processes, and leadership skills. Many colleges and universities have courses built into their curriculum to help students develop communication skills. Student training in understanding group planning, decision making, and group dynamics, however, is rudimentary compared to the explicit instructions they receive to improve communication skills. How do you use the diverse skills brought to a project by different members? What level of planning is necessary at the outset, and how much communication among group members is needed
to keep a project running smoothly? Students need to know how to work effectively in groups, but the skills and processes required for effective group work, which are typical in business and communication courses, are usually not part of the science curriculum (Buxeda and Moore 2001; Jensen, More, and Hatch 2002). We use group work in our classes because the benefits of cooperative learning are numerous and varied, including an increased understanding of content, improved ability to explain things to others, and better reading and writing skills (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith 1998; see review by Lord 2001; Tenny and Houck 2004; Barrah 2004). Before attending a variety of professional development activities through Project Kaleidoscope, and reading books on leadership and cooperative learning, we did not provide students with explicit guidelines for group projects. We put students in groups and then left them on
their own without instructions as to what they could expect from each other, what normal group behavior might resemble, or how to work through challenging group dynamics. Our approach was reactive rather than proactive. When students would come to us about problems with group members, sometimes our response would be little more than “work it out amongst yourselves.” Our subsequent professional development activities, however, showed us that this response is not effective in building student skills. This article focuses on logistics instructors face when group members work together on a semester-long independent research project, such as in our team-taught animal behavior, conservation ecology, molecular techniques, and ornithology courses. All of these courses are upper-division electives taken by junior and senior science majors, and all have weekly laboratories. We use laboratory periods for teaching students techniques and for independent student research projects. We devote from one quarter to three quarters of the laboratory periods, depending on the course, to student projects. Students are expected to work on their projects outside of regularly scheduled class time. Final projects result in poster presentations.
Group formation
There are three common ways of determining group composition: random, student-directed, and faculty-directed. We have used random and student-directed group determination, but have not tried the faculty-directed method. We sometimes randomly assign students to groups because it reflects real-life situations; you do not often get to pick whom you work with on committees or assignments. Ways we have ensured randomness include having students draw playing cards or numbers out of a hat. Random group formation also avoids the perception that faculty members treat students unequally. Although students often express apprehension about this form of group determination, these groups often work out very well; we have had students who first met working on a lab project in our class become
inseparable friends for the rest of their college career. Occasionally we allow students to self-select group members. Most students seem to prefer this method, saying that they know whom they can or cannot work with, that they may have similar course schedules, and that they know how seriously they are taking the assignment. One drawback we have witnessed is that these groups are more likely to support a “free rider,” a friend let off the hook without contributing to the group (Michaelsen, Knight, and Fink 2002). Another drawback we have seen is that students who do not know anyone in the classroom can feel left out. It is useful for group formation to occur within the first two laboratory periods of the semester. This allows the
group to begin functioning as a team during our team-building activities and to work together on all aspects of the independent project: creating a group contract, forming hypotheses, reviewing relevant literature, collecting data, and analyzing and presenting the results.
Conflict anticipation— explaining group dynamics
Groups need to know from the beginning that there are phases of group performance. We sometimes refer to them as forming, norming, storming, and performing. On the day we determine group composition, we talk with students about what happens in each stage. In the forming stage, group members get to know each other and a group contract is agreed upon. Students begin
APPENDIX A. PROJECT GRADING CRITERIA Content and analysis (55%) What question does your research aim to answer? Have you done a good job in explaining what is interesting about your question? Have you adequately described how your study fits into the broader framework of the discipline? Does your study have a novel approach, idea, or integration of ideas? Do you cite information from other peer-reviewed studies? Were the data gathered in a consistent manner with adequate replication? Did you have standardized variables/controls? Were the data analyzed appropriately? Does the statistical analysis help clarify your results? Can the reader tell what statistical test(s) was (were) used, what the sample sizes were, and what probability (p-value) was associated with your results? Are the data illustrated with the appropriate figure(s)? Do the graphs show some measure of variation (i.e., error bars)? Are the relevant data presented? Presentation (35%) Does the poster have a clear, informative title? Is the poster organized with a(n): introduction, methods, results, conclusions, and acknowledgment sections? Did you avoid merely decorative pictures? Does the presentation of the research flow clearly? Do the figures in the poster present the major results with informative stand-alone titles? Are figure titles directly above the figures? Are the axes of all figures clearly labeled? Is the color scheme clear and helpful? Is the text on the poster readable from 2 meters away? Is the poster visually attractive, neat, and free of typographical and grammatical errors? Are the conclusions clear? Are citations for articles correctly formatted in the literature-cited and in-text citations? Questions during your presentation (10%) Was I able to correctly answer questions? Was I able to talk about how my study fits in with other research in related fields? Am I familiar with other related studies on my species or topic? Am I able to talk about what went well, what did not, and what I would change next time around? Was I able to control annoying verbal mannerisms while talking about my poster? Am I able to maintain eye contact while speaking with others about my poster? Can I think of other interesting studies I would like to do as a result of my study?
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006
33
to share information about themselves and what they expect from the project. The norming phase occurs when group members strive to meet each other’s expectations. Even if group members work independently of each other during this stage, trust begins to build as each group member completes tasks on time and at the standard the group expects. The storming phase occurs when one or more of the members do not live up to the contract. Nearly every group experiences this phase and it is critical that students understand that this is normal. The intensity and duration varies from group to group and project to project. Events that trigger a storming phase usually involves the failure of a group member to meet a given deadline or when a group member hands in something that is at a lower standard than other group members’ work (Michaelsen, Knight, and Fink 2002). Other times, one group member can alienate others by taking on too much responsibility or by redefining the project. We have seen the storming phase occur immediately prior to important deadlines, or as a result of outside pressures. The last group phase, performing, occurs when the group works past the conflict and the group’s performance becomes much stronger as a result of overcoming their difficulties.
Conflict anticipation— group contracts
We conduct a team-building activity before we talk about the group’s contract. In creating a contract, we ask students to list all the tasks they think will be associated with carrying out an independent research project. Each group creates a contract that addresses the tasks, how important (on a scale of 1–10) each task is, and what deadline should be set for each task. As the group lists the tasks, group members choose which tasks they will handle. For example, if two of the three group members have a paper due the week of the poster presentation, the third member is responsible for making sure the poster is proofread and printed. Another issue included in the contract is how group members hold each other accountable. What happens if the person who said they would write the introduction fails to meet the deadline? By establishing ground rules before anyone drops the ball, students become aware of the consequences and realize that all group members will be treated consistently. The group contract also decides how conflicts are managed. Would all group members be part of the conversation? Would the conversation be face to face? Having team members think through how they will handle conflict before it occurs is a powerful way for groups to learn about conflict resolution.
Conflict anticipation— team-building activities
In each laboratory period, we pit teams against each other using some simple activities that take less than 15 minutes to complete. We do these activities to build team spirit; we use a variety of activities to capitalize on multiple intelligences and to help groups work through problems (Manner 2001). If we know groups are experiencing conflict in their project, we choose an activity that will help diffuse conflict among team members (usually something silly). If we notice that a specific group member has taken on a more aggressive role in their group, we choose an activity that evens out individual contributions to the team score. If we see that one student is being excluded from group conversations, we choose an activity that gives individual members different information. The communication and coordination of all that information is critical to the successful completion of the task. Teams play Pictionary and complete mind puzzles. We give math problems and have students compete physically, throwing tennis balls into targets at varying points in the landscape. We play a version of the newlywed game, asking questions like, “How many pets will your partner say she has?” We also have a funniest joke contest.
APPENDIX B. STUDENT EVALUATION OF POSTERS We ask for your thoughtful consideration of your classmates’ work. Doing a careful job on this is part of your responsibility (and counts towards your grade). Please go back and rate all posters except your own as outlined below. Each poster should be ranked from 1 (the best of the bunch) to 5 (the weakest) in each category. There are no ties allowed—you must rank all the posters. Content - Did the project address an interesting question? - Were the data gathered in a way that answered the question convincingly? Name of reviewer: Poster title: Comments: (blank boxes supplied for each poster to be ranked)
34
JOURNAL of COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHING
Analysis/depth - Were the data analyzed in a way that made the results clear? - Did the presenters do appropriate statistical analyses and present the results clearly? - Were the introduction and discussion well thought out, logical, and supported by evidence from published sources? Style - Were the results presented clearly? - Were the conclusions clear? - Was the poster easy to read and understand? - Was the poster visually appealing? - Were you drawn into the story? Content
Analysis/depth
Style
Grading responsibility— incorporating student input in project grading
We determine the majority of the grade for student projects, but we incorporate peer evaluations, both as a check on our own perceptions and as an exercise in critical reading for students. The part of the grade determined by us is based on traditional criteria that address the quality of the research and the quality of the presentations (Appendix A). Because unexpected hurdles can derail a seemingly excellent research plan, and a semester-long project often does not allow time for redesign of failed experiments, we consider both the quality of data gathered and the good faith effort expended when we evaluate the project. We also incorporate peer input into the grade for each project. Each student is responsible for evaluating the other groups’ presentations. We require that students rank the posters on several criteria and that they include comments to justify their perceptions (Appendix B). As instructors, we use student input to focus our attention on features of the project we might have overlooked in our own evaluation.
Grading individual students— incorporating partner evaluations
Student are responsible for grading both their own performance and the performance of each of their group members. We explicitly tell students that this could affect their grades and that their evaluations of themselves and each other are confidential (Appendix
C). One of the most difficult things to decide is how much the group determines a member’s project grade. We wanted it to be enough so that students are concerned with doing well, but not so much that the focus is on the group dynamics, rather than on the project itself. The end result is that the group’s project is evaluated as the primary determinant of each member’s grade, but we reserve the right to adjust any group member’s grade up or down by up to 10% based on the input from peers. In practice we rarely apply adjustments that large, but having this spelled out in advance leaves students knowing that even if they encounter difficult group dynamics, each person’s contribution is evaluated fairly. We do not have any formal assessment of whether our inclusion of group contracts, team-building activities, and clarification of grade determination have improved learning in our classes. We do have student comments on annual evaluations and some anecdotal evidence that it has paid off. Before we began incorporating these activities, half to three-quarters of student comments about group work were negative; after our changes, three-quarters of student comments were positive. Students have remarked that our courses have been the best they have taken and that they really liked working in a group. One student said she no longer worried about fighting group members, as she realized it was normal and that they had a contract to help them through it. We no longer have students complain that they did not know how much their grade depended
APPENDIX C. EVALUATION OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING (We give students ample space to answer each question. Students complete an evaluation for each team member as well as one for themselves.) The questions below will help us determine what grade you receive for your research project. Please answer them completely and honestly.You should give us specific examples to back up your opinion. 1. Did this person initiate or just attend meetings? Was this person on time? Did this person concentrate on the matter at hand? 2. What contribution(s) did this person make to the project? Remember all the tasks your group contract addressed; be as specific as possible. 3. If you had to assign this person a grade,what would it be? Justify your answer in terms of amount and quality of work done by this person. Would you want to work with this person again? 4. Effective group work requires that team members are flexible, supportive, and maintain open lines of communication. How did this person perform with respect to these criteria? 5. Additional comments:
on other group members’ perceptions or that they did not get along with other members of their team so the course “really sucked.” Lastly, colleagues have commented that group projects seem to go much more smoothly for us than for them. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the students who have enriched our lives with their projects. Thanks to Elizabeth McCormack for prompting us to write the article and John Hutchens for valuable comments on a draft of the manuscript. References
Barrah, N.M. 2004. Field botanist: A group exercise for the introductory biology lab. American Biology Teacher 66 (5): 361–62. Brown, N.W. 2000. Creating high-performance classroom groups. New York: Falmer Press. Buxeda, R.J., and D.A. Moore. 2001. Expanding a learner-centered environment using group reports and constructivist portfolios. Microbiology Education 2 (1): 12–17. Jensen, M., R. More, and J. Hatch. 2002. Cooperative learning. Part I: Cooperative quizzes. American Biology Teacher 64 (1): 29–34. Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith. 1998. Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interactive Book Company. Lord, T.R. 2001. 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. American Biology Teacher 65 (1): 30–37. Manner, B.M. 2001. Learning styles: Multiple intelligences in students. Journal of College Science Teaching 30 (6): 390–393. Michaelsen, L.K., A. Knight, and L. Fink. 2002. Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups. West Port, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Tenny, A., and B. Houck. 2004. Learning about leadership and team learning effect on peer leaders. Journal of College Science Teaching 33 (6): 25–29. JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006
35
