teaching teamwork and problem solving concurrently - CiteSeerX

TEACHING TEAMWORK AND PROBLEM SOLVING CONCURRENTLY

Sonia M. Goltz Michigan Technological University Amy B. Hietapelto Roger W. Reinsch Northeastern Illinois University Sharon K. Tyrell Alfred State College Teamwork and problem-solving skills have frequently been identified by business leaders as being key competencies; thus, teaching methods such as problem-based learning and team-based learning have been developed. However, the focus of these methods has been on teaching one skill or the other. A key argument for teaching the skills concurrently is that the ability to solve an unstructured real-world problem within teams is what is needed outside the classroom and that this requires the use of both sets of skills simultaneously. Thus, the authors describe the design and implementation of a group problem-solving skills course for undergraduates, in which they engage in real creative problem-solving work together over a semester while learning and developing skills appropriate to their current stages in the team development and problem-solving processes. This method offers the potential to address criticisms by business leaders that new graduates often are technically proficient yet ill prepared to solve everyday organizational problems. Keywords: decision making; experiential learning; group process; interpersonal skills; problem solving; teams; team development

Authors’ Note: The authors are grateful to Janet Gillespie, Courtney Hunt, and Jane SchmidtWilk, and to two anonymous reviewers, for their insightful comments and encouragement on this article. A workshop version of this article was presented at OBTC 2005 in Scranton, Pennsylvania; feedback from session participants is also acknowledged. Correspondence should be directed to Sonia M. Goltz, Michigan Technological University, School of Business and Economics, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931; e-mail: [email protected]. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX xx-xx DOI: 10.1177/1052562907310739 © 2007 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society

1

Copyright 2007 by The Organizational Behavior Teaching Society.

2

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / Month XXXX

In the information age, there is constant change, and an employee must be able to engage in problem-solving activities (Zorn, 2002). In addition, work teams dominate industry largely because business decision making is more effective when teamwork is used (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). This is especially the case when team players have good interpersonal and problem-solving skills (Bamber, Watson, & Hill, 1996; LaFasto & Larson, 2001). Thus, many businesses, professional associations, and other groups consider interpersonal and problem-solving skills to be core competencies and often assess these as part of the interview or accreditation process (e.g., American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1999; Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002). Similarly, the Greater Expectations National Panel Report (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002) calls for the development of intentional learners in university education who have mastered critical skills such as communication, creative problem solving, and working in diverse teams, and who can integrate and adapt these skills from one setting to another. In addition, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2006) identifies five key indicators of effective educational practices, one of which is “active and collaborative learning.” However, even as problem solving and teamwork have become widespread in management education, the teaching of these skills in business schools has not been sufficient according to business leaders, who have complained that new recruits are technically proficient but socially ill equipped and unable to solve everyday organizational problems (Bailey, Saparito, Kressel, Christensen, & Hooijberg, 1997; Holt & Willard-Holt, 2000). There are numerous explanations for these problems, such as college instructors emphasizing individual over group achievement (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1997), assigning students to team projects without teaching interpersonal skills (Cox & Bobrowski, 2000), and using very structured problems rather than messy problems that are more characteristic of organizations (Bigelow, 2004). For instance, a survey at one university revealed that 72% of faculty in the College of Business assigned students to project teams in at least one class, but 81% of these provided modest, limited, or no teamwork guidance (Bolton, 1999).

Team-Based and Problem-Based Learning Methods Two techniques that have been developed to address some of these issues are team-based and problem-based learning methods. Problem-based learning originated in medical schools, but has also been applied to marketing and management curricula, such as at the University of Maastricht (http://www.fdewb.unimaas.nl/feba%5Fhome/mission/), which converted its entire marketing and management curriculum to a problem-based approach to provide students a learning community with skills “to evaluate business problems in their broader societal context.” Problem-based learning refers

Goltz et al. / TEACHING TEAMWORK AND PROBLEM SOLVING

3

to a range of methods from a very well-documented and rigid approach to any approaches that give problems, such as engineering, business, or social problems, a central place in learning (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2000; Davis & Harden, 1999). Although problem-based learning approaches vary significantly, two key aspects are found in all approaches: (a) the problem is the center of attention and (b) the attempt to solve the problem is used as a basis for learning about a particular content area, such as medicine, law, or marketing (Sherwood, 2004). Problems are usually ill structured and multifaceted (Bigelow, 2004), offering the opportunity for real-life experience and creating a meaningful learning context (Sherwood, 2004). Based on a constructivist approach to teaching, problem-based learning generally requires students to be responsible for determining what they need to know about the problem in order to be able to define and solve it, which often includes defining learning issues and finding the appropriate learning material. Faculty are present primarily to facilitate this process (Major, 1988). Bolton (1999) has termed this coaching a “just-in-time” approach to learning. Thus, problem-based learning methods are used to teach substantive knowledge and to teach skills needed to apply that knowledge. For instance, substantive knowledge about how to play racquetball by reading or hearing a lecture may be of little use unless combined with an opportunity to practice and receive feedback by being coached in a real game, with its many unexpected twists and turns that have to be dealt with as they arise. Similarly, knowledge about medical diagnosis is not as useful as when an actual case with symptoms is presented for analysis, and knowledge about managing diversity is not as useful as when the learner has the opportunity to lead different personalities. In problem-based learning, students may work individually or in groups; however, teams are often recommended to bring together various skills and foster collaboration (Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001). Because collaboration requires that team members be able to both appreciate individual differences and communicate with each other (Duch et al., 2001), team dynamics should also be a part of the learning process of students in problem-based learning. However, even though the problem-based learning literature often assumes that there will be a use of teams, the team process—what the faculty member must teach to have effective teams and what is learned through that process— is usually not directly addressed. The team-based learning approach, in contrast, is a specific instructional strategy designed to support the development of high-performing teams and provide opportunities for them to engage in learning tasks (Fink, 2002). Team-based learning is similar to problem-based learning in that it has the two learning goals of imparting a significant body of knowledge while at the same time providing students with a structure that facilitates learning how to apply the content (Fink, 2002). In addition, both instructional methods rely on timely feedback and coaching from the instructor as issues

4


emerge. The primary difference between the two methods is that one provides the structure for learning to apply knowledge by emphasizing and developing problem-solving skills and the other provides this structure by emphasizing developing team interaction. In team-based learning, group-focused activities largely determine the structure of the course. Students are members of an ongoing team and become actively engaged, committing higher levels of effort to the group, enabling the team to solve challenging and complex problems (Knight, 2002). In addition, team-based learning relies on students to monitor and improve their interactions and performance over an extended period of time, which helps increase their interpersonal skills (Fink, 2002). Whereas the term “problem-based learning” is used to refer to a diverse range of methods, the literature on team-based learning is narrower in scope and thus is often associated with a very specific set of sequential steps used by Michaelsen and his associates (e.g., Michaelsen, 2002). The principles of design outlined by Michaelsen (2002) as being essential to team-based learning are the following: (a) careful attention is given to how permanent groups were formed and managed, (b) students are made accountable for individual contributions and high-quality team performance, (c) team assignments are designed to both promote learning and team development, and (d) students receive frequent and immediate feedback.

The Resultant Integrated Approach Several years ago, our business school went through a curriculum revision process that had among other goals the better preparation of students to solve business problems and work in groups both in their various business courses and in their careers. Not surprisingly, our curriculum structure that resulted from this revision process was reflective of the state of the literature on teaching problem-solving and teamwork skills. These skills were taught separately. One course borrowed from problem-based learning methods, in which defining and solving ill-structured problems are the focus of attention. Our students were taught about the content area of individual creative problem solving in a class in which they also developed these problem-solving skills using problem-based learning techniques. No assignments in the class concerned interpersonal processes. For interpersonal skill development, our students took a team skills course, in which the content area of focus was interpersonal skills in groups and which drew on team-based learning methods so students could develop skills as they learned about them. Our team skills course was individually developed to suit our curricular needs at the time and therefore was not designed to follow the specific sequence used by Michaelsen (2002). For instance, we did not use individual readiness assurance tests followed by team readiness assurance tests.


5

However, the course was more similar to a team-based learning approach than to other approaches to team skills in a number of ways. Specifically, the course included all four design elements outlined by Michaelsen as being important for team-based learning: Permanent groups were carefully formed and managed, students were held accountable for individual and group performance, team assignments were designed for learning and team development, and frequent and immediate feedback was provided. When our quarter system was changed to a semester system a few years later, the two separate courses had to be integrated into one course, forcing us to rethink the traditional problem-based and team-based methods. One argument for teaching the skills concurrently was that, although generally, the focus has been on teaching one skill or the other, the design of both problembased and team-based learning courses often requires both skills. We discovered some of these overlaps between the two approaches when we taught the two separate courses under the quarter system. For example, as discussed, in problem-based learning, students usually are asked to solve problems in groups. Thus, although team skills are not the focus, team formation has been identified as a factor critical to the success of problem-based learning (Peterson, 2004), and problem-based learning benefits from the development of team skills (Sasse, Davis, & McConnell, 2000). Similarly, group-based learning methods offer various problem-solving opportunities. For instance, one advantage of group-based learning is that teams are more able to solve challenging and complex problems (Knight, 2002). Furthermore, it has been noted that many interpersonal skills such as conflict resolution, collaborative problem solving, and communication also require problem-solving skills (Stevens & Campion, 1994). Thus, it appeared to us that the concurrent teaching of the two skills together might strengthen each learning approach and reinforce the original strengths of each approach. In both approaches, learning does not take place isolated and insulated from real-world and social contexts; in addition, comprehension, critical thinking, and retention of learning is increased (Kearny, 2000; Knight, 2002). Furthermore, the concurrent teaching of the two would utilize various active and collaborative learning components NSSE (2006) advocates to enhance student engagement. Therefore, we chose to integrate not only our course content but also our teaching methods by presenting the two skill sets concurrently. This new integrative course, which continues to be offered, has student groups engage in real creative problem-solving work together over a semester, while they are introduced to both problem-solving and team skills. Two key principles form the basis for the structure for this course. First, as indicated by Table 1, problem-solving and group development concepts are introduced at the point when students are at that specific stage of development. Second, concepts are introduced and then reinforced with increasingly complex exercises and assignments. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the application of

6


TABLE 1

Integrative Individual and Group Problem-Solving Process Model Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Problem-Solving Stages

Group Process Stages and Interpersonal Skill Development

Intro to decision model Forming stage Recognizing, conceptualizing the problem Identifying conceptual blocks Communicating supportively Norming stage Generating alternatives Individual differences, feedback Evaluating alternatives Conflict and storming Implementation planning Advocating the chosen alternative Performing stage Performing stage

this second principle. Table 2 indicates the standard problem-solving steps students progress through in this integrative team-based and problem-based course design. As Table 2 indicates, concepts, tools, exercises, games, cases, movies, and assignments were used for each of these key decision steps in the problem-solving process. Similarly, Table 3 indicates the standard stages of group development and interpersonal skill development students progressed through in this course design and the concepts, tools, exercises, games, cases, movies, and assignments used for the group development process. (Nonoriginal material is referenced following Tables 2 and 3 in the notes, where possible, or in the article references. Syllabi, class notes, and assignment descriptions can be obtained from Sonia Goltz. See the authors’ note for contact information.) Thus, in the early portion of the course, teams are in the forming stage. First, they engage in an exercise using a hypothetical group that is designed to allow them to practice composing a diverse group in terms of backgrounds and skill sets. After this exercise, they select their own group members for their project groups. They then embark on a series of activities to jumpstart the forming stage, learning more about themselves and their team members. One of these activities is a challenge course session, in which team members engage in a series of physical and mental tasks together. While in the forming stage, teams are also at the beginning stages of problem solving; so during this time, they learn about information gathering and problem definition through a series of activities and assignments and select a significant, real problem, usually found at a local business, to solve for the semester. To aid this process, the instructor has a brainstorming session


7

TABLE 2

Problem-Solving Topics Level of Application Decision Steps Recognizing, conceptualizing problem

Identifying conceptual blocks

Generating alternatives

Evaluating alternatives

Advocating the chosen alternative Implementing and evaluating the solution

Concepts or Tools

Exercises or Games

Cases or Movies

Problem Project

Information collection and sorting, gap analysis, cause–effect diagram Various assumptions, conceptual blocks (e.g., idea killing)

Boyberika Research scavenger huntb

Challenger disasterc

Problem project assignment

Scattergories Ring in toilet bowld Ball in pipe


Various creativity techniques (e.g., brainstorming, diametrics) Decision biases, decision criteria and tools, political constraints Influence, persuasion, presentation methods Resistance to change, project planning, evaluation methods

Scattergories Ring in toilet bowld Ball in pipe The Deep Divef Flying to Riog

Pearl Harbore Sony Walkmane October Sky Apollo 13 Tucker Sony Walkmane October Sky Apollo 13 Tucker

12 Angry Men Tucker The Mustangh


45-s punchg Listening exerciseg

Whitewater simulationi

Problem project presentation

Create Gantt chart for Quality Circles case

Resistance to change and Quality Circles incidentsj


a. From Marcic (1995). b. From Engleberg and Wynn (2000). c. From Maier (1996). d. Based on Scholz, Tinsmon, Rodney, and Polansky (1995). e. From Whetton and Cameron (2005). f. From Smith (1999). g. From Iacocca & Novak (1984). h. From Wohlberg and Weighart (1992). i. From Fisher, Krieger, and Fisher (1994). j. From Champion and James (1989).


8


TABLE 3

Group Topics Level of Application Decision Steps

Concepts or Tools

Exercises or Games

Cases or Movies

Group Process Papers

Forming stage

Team creation, forming stage

Composing a teama Circle of Handse Challenge course 1b

Ozark River Bankc Little Giants

Communicating supportively

Supportive communication, high performing team talk Norming stage, functional, dysfunctional norms, and roles Managing diversity, MBTI dimensions

Blind and seeke Role playsi

The Apprentice clips

Team selfanalyses on roles and norms

White Squall

Group development and individual learning assignment

Build Your Dream Housef

White Squall 12 Angry Men

Feedback

Giving feedback, receiving feedback

Conflict and storming

Functional, dysfunctional conflict, conflict response types

Fishbowl feedbackd Stop-StartContinued Team Development Scalesd Role Playsi Whitewater simulationj

MBTI assignment, group development, and individual learning assignment Communication assignment Midterm, end of semester peer evaluations Final meeting with instructor

12 Angry Men The Apprentice clips

Group development and individual learning assignment

Norming stage

Individual differences

Team document and grading contracts,d Group development and individual learning assignment Communication assignment

(continued)


Performing stage

Performing stage, supporting teams, evaluating teams

Challenge course 2b Hilarity greeting cardg

Beer Sales and Delivery caseh

9

Group development and individual learning assignment Group performance assessments Videotape analysis

NOTE: MBTI = Meyer-Briggs Type Indicator. a. From Goltz (1998). b. From Hietapelto, Tyrell, Tyrell, and Walck (2000). c. From Wohlberg and Weighart (1992). d. From Dyer (1995). e. From Webster (1994). f. From Moody and McLaughlin (2002). g. From Mainiero and Tromley (1994). h. From Saavedra (1990). i. From Whetton and Cameron (2005). j. From Fisher, Krieger, and Fisher (1994).

during class concerning local organizations students might want to work with. These organizations are then grouped by type of business: for example, governmental institutions, schools, service organizations, restaurants, retail clothing stores, and so forth. Each group of students then adopts one set of these possible organizations from which to identify the organization and problem they will be working on. Examples of organizations and problems that have been studied include getting more students to vote in the student government elections, attracting more customers to a downtown clothing store, and reducing the inventory problems at a discount store. During the norming stage, teams learn conceptually about stages of team development, communication, and group process, while engaging in role plays and experiential activities to develop and hone skills in these areas. They also practice analyzing group process through in-class movie analysis. This is followed by reflection of their own group process, which occurs through videotaping their team meetings and completing team process written assignments. While in the norming stage, teams also learn about alternative generation and creativity topics and techniques, with class activities and assignments designed to provide skill practice. We cover norming before storming because we have found that storming in teams tends to occur later during the semester. As the teams increasingly face class assignment and performance pressures, conflict typically emerges, with frustration with team members becoming evident. In addition, in the problem-solving phases typically occurring simultaneously with the storming stage, groups are focusing on generating criteria for evaluating alternative

10


solutions, examining biases and constraints, and trying to come to a solution consensus, all of which are potential areas for conflict. Assignments are designed to teach teams to learn how to manage conflict by developing skills in the areas of communication, individual differences, and conflict management, consistent with recommendations from team-based learning research. Teams continue to engage in role plays, exercises, and experiential course activities, focusing on skill development in these additional areas. They continue to both analyze teams external to themselves, and to turn the lens on themselves analytically, completing team assignments on conflict management and Meyer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) styles, and engaging in team feedback sessions with the instructor. Individual differences, such as MBTI styles, are introduced this point in the semester because we have found that students will then have more of an appreciation for individual differences given the conflicts they just experienced, which are often fueled by differing perceptions and expectations. In terms of feedback sessions, groups may meet privately with the instructor or the class can split up into teams in a large classroom to give and receive feedback, with the instructor floating from team to team. Students prepare feedback prior to the session for every member of their team, excluding themselves. It is important for the instructor not to dominate the session, but to encourage the group to raise issues critical to the group’s performance and accept responsibility for changing those. By the time the student teams have entered the performing stages, teams are planning implementation of the selected alternative for the problem their group chose to address. They are also writing their final written report and preparing their team presentations on their problem projects. Teams also write a team process paper analyzing their own movement through the stages of team development, including an assessment of whether they reached the performing stage. So that teams can analyze changes in dynamics and performance not only on their course assignments but also on other types of tasks, a second challenge course session, with new physical and mental challenges, takes place during this time. Then, in a final meeting with the instructor, students analyze their team development over time and their current strengths and weaknesses as a group.

Assessment Throughout this article, we describe our observations of the benefits of the course based to a large extent on our knowledge of student assignments, videotapes of group meetings, and interactions with students that occurred throughout the years we have taught the course. However, more formal assessment results also indicate the effectiveness of this method. These assessment methods have varied over the years, reflecting changes in the


11

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) assessment expectations. In earlier years, Educational Benchmarking Incorporation surveys of graduating students and alumni were conducted. Graduating seniors and alumni who experienced the integrated course reported enhanced interpersonal and team skill development, and enhanced problem-solving and analytical skills. As a result, AACSB specifically cited the focus on team skill development as a program strength (Michigan Technological University, School of Business and Economics, 2000). Later, more course-embedded methods focusing on specific objectives were introduced. Recent 2006-2007 student peer assessment data from the integrative course substantiate earlier, more program-oriented findings. Each of these assessment results and some additional findings will be discussed further. The integrative course we have described had been assessed intermittently and predominantly through self-report data until recently. For instance, following about 10 years of the implementation of this course, alumni cohorts were asked to answer, on a 5-point scale: “Relative to your peers from other schools, how well did your education here prepare you for your present job?” This rating varied by cohort, improving from 3.4 (1987 to 1990 cohort, where the course was absent in the curriculum) to 3.9 (1992 to 1995 cohort, where the course was present, but still two separate courses) to 4.5 (years 1997 to 2000 cohort, where the integrated course was created and implemented). The 4.5 for the 1997 to 2000 integrated course cohort group was the highest rating given of 12 questions asked. The second highest rating, for the “development of analytical/problem-solving skills,” was 4.4. Both numbers were well above the rating for the “development of concepts in your major,” which was 3.9. The 1997 to 2000 alumni (integrated course cohort group) rated the importance of “team skills” in their jobs at 4.4, just behind the highest rating, which was 4.6 for “self-confidence”, and equal to the rating of importance for “basic computer skills”, rated 4.4. The importance of “analytical problem-solving skills” was next at 4.2. All other ratings were below these, including “the application of concepts in your major” at 4.1 (12 questions were asked here, also). In the 2000 senior exit survey, the ratings for the satisfaction of the quality of teaching of team skills (5.8 on a 7-point scale) was the second highest rating out of 70 questions about satisfaction with their education at the university. In 2003, the Workplace Skills Survey was given to the strategy capstone class to assess how seniors compared on workplace skills to individuals in the external workforce. Thus, unlike the other assessment results, these data indicate how students who have taken the course compare to an external set of respondents on a standardized, validated scale that is used for personnel selection purposes. For the entire scale, students were at approximately the 80th percentile, with subscale scores in the 70th percentile for

12


problem solving, 75th percentile for teamwork skills and adaptation to change, and the 90th percentile for communication. More recently (fall 2006, spring 2007) four specific student learning objectives concerning effective teamwork skills were created for the undergraduate program and assessed in the integrated course. Although it is our observation that the benefits of the integrated course extend well beyond these four teamwork objectives created for the undergraduate program as a whole, assessment results for these objectives are still quite informative. In all sections of the course taught each semester, students anonymously assessed their team member peers on the following four dimensions: (a) commitment and dependability, (b) supportive communication, (c) contribution of ideas, and (d) focusing on the assigned task or tasks. Tables 4 to 7 display the results of this assessment. Results vary somewhat by semester; therefore, the following conclusions err on the side of caution. As demonstrated in Table 4, more than 84% of students in all courses evaluated their peers as displaying acceptable to good or excellent levels of commitment and dependability. As demonstrated in Table 5, more than 80% of students in all courses evaluated their peers as displaying acceptable to good or excellent levels of supportive communication. As demonstrated in Table 6, more than 84% of students in all courses evaluated their peers as displaying acceptable to good or excellent levels of contribution of ideas. As demonstrated in Table 7, more than 80% of students in all courses evaluated their peers as displaying acceptable to good or excellent levels of staying on track (e.g., task focus). Results of at least 80% acceptability on all dimensions support earlier assessment findings of effective team skill development. Efforts to broaden and sustain assessment are ongoing, such as assessing these dimensions in subsequent coursework.

Discussion We have described a teaching strategy that structures the class to simultaneously focus on group development and on problem solving to teach both the content knowledge and the skill sets for understanding and applying creative problem solving and successful group dynamics. This is unlike the traditional use of problem-based and team-based learning methods for three major reasons. First, these past methods have tended to use either team-based or problem-based learning as the primary structure for the course. Second, both team-based and problem-based learning have traditionally focused on other content knowledge areas, rarely teaching the substantive knowledge in the areas of creative problem solving and group dynamics. Third, the simultaneous attention to both group and problem-solving skills we described serves to integrate the learning of two different knowledge areas, which has rarely been done in either problem-based or team-based


13

TABLE 4

Peer Evaluation Results: Commitment and Dependability Unacceptable (%) Category description

Seems reluctant to engage fully in task assignments or provide quality work Fall 2006 (n = 85) 8.5 Spring 2007 (n = 83) 16.0

Acceptable (%)

Good to Excellent (%)

Accepts assignments Volunteers for willingly and assignments and completes them turns in high quality on time work on time 26.2 25.7

65.2 58.3

TABLE 5

Peer Evaluation Results: Supportive Communication Unacceptable (%)

Acceptable (%)


Category description

Uncommunicative or Communicates clearly Addresses difficult communicates without offending group issues in a unclearly or in a others clear, supportive way that puts way that fosters down other group group development members and progress Fall 2006 (n = 85) 5.8 34.3 60.0 Spring 2007 (n = 83) 19.4 29.4 51.1

TABLE 6

Peer Evaluation Results: Contribution of Ideas Unacceptable (%) Category description

Acceptable (%)

Rarely offers ideas or Frequently offers suggestions that helpful ideas or contribute to suggestions problem solving Fall 2006 (n = 85) 7.7 26.2 Spring 2007 (n = 83) 15.7 29.4

Good to Excellent (%) Contributes own ideas and also listens actively and builds on others’ ideas 66.0 54.9

learning. One exception that did focus on the teaching of multiple disciplinary concepts using team-based learning was the use of the “Integrated Business Core” at the University of Oklahoma (Lucas, 2002; Michaelsen, 1999). Much like the results of that program, our course design of simultaneous application of problem-based and team-based learning methods to teach creative problem solving and group dynamics allows students to better see how course concepts, previously presented as discrete units, actually significantly overlap. This mirrors most business environments, in

14


TABLE 7

Peer Evaluation Results: Stays on Track Unacceptable (%) Category description

Takes the group off track by initiating conversations or discussions unrelated to the task Fall 2006 (n = 85) 9.4 Spring 2007 (n = 83) 20.0

Acceptable (%)


Introduces suggestions Uses tact and and ideas that are diplomacy to alert relevant to the task group that focus has at the appropriate strayed from the time task at hand 30.4 36.6

60.1 43.4

which various conceptual knowledge and skill sets need to be successfully integrated to achieve an objective. The benefits of the integrated approach are that students learn and practice both problem-solving and teamwork skills concurrently as they move through the stages of each process while working in teams on real problems. In addition, this learning happens in a rather messy way as issues emerge with both the problem and with interpersonal dynamics. This emergence of issues and learning more accurately reflects the nature of work settings that students are being prepared for and should therefore increase the relevance and retention of learning even beyond that which is found with either problem-based or team-based learning approaches. The success of the course rests on the simultaneous focus on a real problem project and on actual group development while students are also learning the content knowledge of creative problem-solving steps and group dynamics. These are of great benefit to students particularly when instructors have ensured appropriately engaging and challenging problem projects and have fostered and enhanced team self-analysis and development. Each of these aspects will be discussed, along with other constraints and opportunities that may arise in teaching the course. For the project in this course, students analyze actual problems that are currently being faced by business, educational, or nonprofit service organizations in the local area. We find that using a local actual problem that is identified by the students, rather than the instructor, is valuable for several reasons. First, students with little work experience are forced to interact with managers and workers in actual organizations, and students with work experience are exposed to problems in organizations different from the ones they have worked in. Over time we have observed that students, through their research and presentations, develop self-confidence in their ability to interact professionally with local businesses. We have also observed students form an appreciation for the experiences and efforts of local businesses that they previously may have had little awareness of, creating a meaningful learning


15

context, consistent with research findings in problem-based learning (Sherwood, 2004). On the other hand, businesses are provided the opportunity to mentor students in their local university and obtain fresh insights regarding their business problems for no cost. Further evidence of the value of this real-life application and interaction occurs when some of the businesses ask students to continue to work on the problem after the semester has ended. In these cases, students can be encouraged to engage in volunteer work for the organization, which can yield valuable business experience that can be listed in resumes or discussed in interviews. All of the above are consistent with the active, collaborative learning practices called for by NSSE (2006) to foster student engagement and enhance student learning. Second, students are even more likely to be engaged in a problem they have chosen than one that was assigned to them. Also, instructors emphasize that students should choose an organization and problem they are really interested in because they will be working on the problem over the course of the whole semester. Students are also told that they must choose an organization that is willing to send one member to the group’s class presentation on the proposed solution to the problem. This member and members from the other groups’ organizations ask questions during the student presentations and also rate the presentations. This process holds the students more accountable for their problem solving than they would have been if they were only graded by the instructor, who knows less about the problem situation. Finally, the analysis of actual local problems teaches students about the wide variety of the problems organizations face and how “messy” they usually are. One of the purposes of problem-based learning is to help students learn how to find the additional resources they need to solve the problem. In doing this for an actual business problem project, students often learn the difficulty in obtaining sufficient and accurate information, and this challenge can be used as a focus of class discussion. Students also learn about other obstacles to problem solving faced in organizations, such as constraints on the solutions that can be implemented, and so forth. Also, students are exposed during the semester to each of the other groups’ organizations and problems, which generally range widely in terms of content and complexity. Another key to a successful course is that teams make the initial transition from objective analysis of other teams to self-analysis of one’s own team. This is a sensitive area, and students may at first resist, offering very cursory analysis of their team, such as by saying, “everything’s fine.” Thus, students will need coaching to overcome their fear of open communication and constructive conflict with their peers and with the instructor. Also, activities that make it difficult to avoid this transition are staged at critical moments. For example, feedback processes are designed to aid in the management of conflict. They are scheduled to coincide with periods of typically heightened conflict, such as one session around the middle part of the semester and another later in the

16


semester. However, the course also accommodates conflict that does not occur linearly, but erupts early, or reoccurs repeatedly in a group, such as by scheduling additional feedback sessions as necessary. Although fostering critical self-analysis by the groups can be initially challenging for instructors, we have found that roughly half to two thirds of the way through the semester, a huge mental and behavioral shift occurs in the classroom dynamics, and the class is typically transformed, reaching high levels of morale and team synergy. Late-semester feedback and end-ofsemester teaching evaluations consistently reflect high positive affect. By the time groups have met several weeks on their problem projects, performed various class activities together, completed at least one feedback session, and have received feedback on team assignments, most members are relatively comfortable giving and receiving feedback. The group has typically navigated their conflicts and is demonstrating some competency in team selfmanagement, so the need for instructor intervention for the majority of teams decreases fairly significantly. At this point, the students feel a sense of both cohesiveness and confidence from having been able to successfully deal with the various difficulties that have emerged in their groups, have an increased set of both interpersonal and problem-solving skills, and are often motivated to perform at a high level on remaining assignments. We have based these observations on assignments (Table 3; conflict, storming and performing stages) which have required detailed individual and group reflection about team development, and videotaped group meetings and our feedback sessions with student groups discussing team development. Furthermore, these observations are consistent with findings in both problem-based and team-based learning (e.g., Duch et al., 2001; Fink, 2002; Knight, 2002). A number of other considerations should be taken into account when planning the course, including class size, instructor styles, and the timing of the course. For instance, because of the high level of student-student, studentteam, faculty-student, and faculty-team interactions, as discussed above, it is advisable that class sizes not exceed 30 students, with approximately 4 to 5 teams per class. The recommended size for both groups and classes is below the sizes often suggested when the problem and team-based learning approaches are each used alone primarily because in the integrative approach, two skills sets are being simultaneously developed, requiring additional monitoring of processes and provision of feedback by the instructor. Also, in the integrative approach, students’ workload is increased because they are being asked to analyze individual and team behavior and the problem being solved. Thus, reducing group size is essential for keeping student work manageable. (For instance, a group process paper requiring that the four MBTI profiles of each of seven group members be analyzed in addition to the overall group MBTI profile could get rather complex.) Another reason we have kept group membership to 4 to 5 students is because we have observed from experience that free ridership problems are typical in groups with 6 to 7 members.


17

The small class and group sizes are particularly needed if the class is being taught primarily at the freshman or sophomore level or to students with little teamwork experience because these types of students will need more guidance on both problem-solving and teamwork skills. Older or more experienced students may require less guidance, which may allow the instructor to teach a larger class or remove aspects of the course that encourage student accountability, such as having representatives from the organization being studied attend the presentations. On the other hand, older or experienced students sometimes have developed bad team habits that are harder to break. If so, these may pose a challenge for the instructor and additional activities focusing on these specific problems may be required. In addition, instructors should model the interpersonal and team skills that students are being asked to develop and leadership styles that are compatible with the course design. Beyond this, instructors will need to be comfortable facilitating group interactions—the change in role from one who supplies information to one who guides and coaches may be difficult for some (e.g., Knowlton, 2003). This role requires, among other things, that the faculty member circulates through the class for in-class activities and is available to students for out-of-class projects (Lerner, 2004). Training in facilitation and debriefing group activities such as challenge course initiatives can increase instructor effectiveness at this coaching role in this course. Another characteristic of successful instructors of this course is a comfort with allowing learning to emerge, a very critical component of this course. The instructor structures the course and creates conditions to facilitate learning, but learning cannot be forced. Issues and insights need to come from the individuals and teams based on their learning experiences. The instructor should keep in mind that one of the goals of problem-based learning is to allow students to learn to become learners. The majority of the time, selfawareness does develop and emergent learning does occur, at both the individual and team levels. The benefits of improved team management and problem-solving skills developed in this class have been apparent in later classes. Several of the authors have taught courses downstream from this course, including organizational behavior and the strategy capstone course, and have noted improved team management skills in students who have had the integrated course compared with students who have not taken it. Most of the students who have been through the course are able to coalesce their teams and be productive much earlier, needing much less help from instructors in managing team processes. Therefore, we suggest that students should take this course early in their undergraduate or graduate curriculum so they will benefit from these skills, and continue to practice them, in the rest of their courses. Introducing the course early also allows for extensions of the format or reinforcement of the material in later classes. For instance, we have found that instructors for other classes have asked for our materials from this course

18


on creating a team document or conducting peer evaluations, so that they can ask students in upper level courses to continue to use some of the team skills they were taught earlier in the curriculum.

Conclusion In an increasingly complex world, problem-solving and teamwork skills are more and more necessary. To meet this challenge, new integrative curricular models and educational practices are needed (e.g., Axley & McMahon, 2006). The integrated course described here uses various techniques, assignments, and experiences, presented in a timely manner, to facilitate conceptual learning and skill development in both problem solving and teamwork. The skills are presented and developed at the time during the group or problem-solving stages when the students most need those skills. Furthermore, they are reinforced within the course using increasingly complex exercises and assignments, and they are also reinforced in later courses. The success of the course rests not only on the sequencing of topics, but also on the focus on both a real problem project and actual group development. These aspects present a messy, emerging learning process, stimulating a more holistic treatment of teamwork and problem solving that is also more reflective of actual work situations. Various types of assessment that have been conducted suggest that learning outcomes are both short and long-term. The immediate success of this holistic treatment is directly evident in student evaluations of their peers’ teamwork skills at the end of the course. The persistence of this learning is evident from workplace skills assessment in subsequent coursework and from ratings and comments found in senior exit and alumni surveys. In conclusion, we believe the relevance of course concepts to the students’ current experiences creates increased engagement in learning and retention of course concepts, and is an example of the kind of active, collaborative course design called for by the NSSE (2006).

References American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1999). Vision project. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.aicpa.org/vision/index.htm Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.greaterexpectations.org Axley, S. R., & McMahon, T. (2006). Complexity: A frontier for management education. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 295-315. Bailey, J. R., Saparito, P., Kressel, K., Christensen, E. W., & Hooijberg, R. (1997). A model for reflective pedagogy. Journal of Management Education, 21, 155-167. Bamber, E. M., Watson, R. T., & Hill, C. (1996). The effects of group decision support systems technology on audit group decision making. Auditing, a Journal of Theory and Practice, 15(1), 122-134.


19

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2000). Commentary on part 1: Process and product in problem-based learning (PBL) research. In D. D. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 185-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bigelow, J. (2004). Using problem-based learning to develop skills in solving unstructured problems. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 591-609. 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. Champion, J. M., & James, J. H. (1989) Critical incidents in management (6th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin. Cox, P. L., & Bobrowski, P. E. (2000). The team charter assignment: Improving the effectiveness of classroom teams. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 1(1), 92-103. Davis, M. H., & Harden, R. M. (1999). AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 15: Problembased learning: A practical guide. Medical Teacher, 21(2), 130-140. Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001) (Eds.). The power of problem-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Dyer, W. G. (1995). Team building (3rd ed., OD Series). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Engleberg, I. A., & Wynn, D. R. (2000). Working in groups (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fink, L. D. (2002). Beyond small groups: Harnessing the extraordinary power of learning teams. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups (pp. 3-25). Westport, CT: Praeger. Fisher, J., Krieger, S., & Fisher, K. A. (1994). Whitewater: A team building simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: ORION International. Goltz, S. M. (1998). Composing a team. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 25, 194-200. Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and inter-group relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hietapelto, A., Tyrell, S. K., Tyrell, S. J., & Walck, C. (2000, June). Challenge ropes course: Trust and team building inside and outside the 21st century classroom. Preconference workshop presented at the Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference, Carrollton, GA. Holt, D. G., & Willard-Holt, C. (2000). Let’s get real: Students solving authentic corporate problems. Phi Kappa Deltan, 82, 243-246. Iacocca, L., & Novak, W. (1984). Iacocca: An autobiography. New York: Bantam. Kearny, T. (2000, December). Problem based learning and education Queensland: The learning organization. Paper presented at the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on PBL, Singapore. Knight, A. B. (2002). Team-based learning: A strategy for transforming the quality of teaching and learning. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups (pp. 200-211). Westport, CT: Praeger. Knowlton, D. S. (2003, Fall). Preparing students for educated living: Virtues of problem-based learning across the higher education curriculum. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 95, 5-12. LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lerner, A. M. (2004). Using our brains: What cognitive science and social psychology teach us about teaching law students to make ethical, professionally responsible choices. Quinnipiac Law Review, 23, 643-706. Lucas, L. A. (2002). Creating group assignments that teach multiple concepts in an interdisciplinary course context. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Teambased learning: A transformative use of small groups (pp. 27-51). Westport, CT: Praeger. Maier, M. (1996). A major malfunction: The story behind the space shuttle challenger disaster [Video]. In J. Schermerhorn, J. Hunt, & R. Osborn (Eds.), Managing organizational behavior (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

20


Mainiero, L. A., & Tromley, C. L. (1994). Developing managerial skills in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Major, C. H. (1988). Connecting what we know to what we do through problem-based learning. AAHE Bulletin, 51(7), 7-9. Marcic, D. (1995). Organizational behavior: Experiences and cases (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West. Michaelsen, L. K. (1999). Integrating the core business curriculum: An experience-based solution. Selections, 15(2), 9-17. Michaelsen, L. K. (2002). Getting started with team-based learning. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups (pp. 27-51). Westport, CT: Praeger. Michigan Technological University, School of Business and Economics. (2000, June 1). Application for initial undergraduate business accreditation self-evaluation report (Vol. 1). Houghton: Author. Moody, D., & McLaughlin, G. (2002, June). Build your dream house: Explaining personality using the MBTI. Paper presented at the Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference, Orange, CA. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2006). NSSE 2006 annual report: Engaged student learning: Fostering success for all students. Retrieved June 24, 2007, from http://nsse .iub.edu Peterson, T. O. (2004). So you’re thinking of trying problem based learning? Three critical success factors for implementation. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 630-647. Saavedra, R. (1990). Beer sales and delivery teams. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work and those that don’t (pp. 361-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sasse, C., Davis, J., & McConnell, C. (2000, September). Using problem-based learning: A multidisciplinary investigation (Rockhurst University Carnegie seminar project). Retrieved October 2, 2002, from http://cte.rockhurst.edu/carnegie/PBL.htm Schmuck, R., & Schmuck, P. (1997). Group processes in the classroom (7th ed.). Chicago: Brown & Benchmark. Scholz, E., Tinsmon, K., Rodney, C., & Polansky, A. (1995, Spring). Diamonds in the rough [Unpublished class exercise]. Binghamton: State University of New York–Binghamton. Sherwood, A. L. (2004). Problem-based learning in management education: A framework for designing context. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 536-557. Smith, J. (1999, July 13). The deep dive [Television series episode]. In Nightline. New York: American Broadcasting Company. Stevens, M. A., & Campion, M. J. (1994). The knowledge, skills and ability requirement for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 207-228. Webster, S. E. (1994). Project adventure ropes course safety manual: An instructor’s guide to initiatives and high and low elements. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Whetton, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2005). Developing management skills (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Wohlberg, J. W., & Weighart, S. (1992). OB in action: Cases and exercises (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Zorn, T. (2002). Converging with divergence: Overcoming the disciplinary fragmentation in business communication, organizational communication, and public relations. Business Communications Quarterly, 65(2), 44-55.