semester, 41 students preferred the individual project, with 47 students preferring ... group projects in teaching marketing research (Dommeyer 1986; Malhotra, ...
THE INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP PROJECT IN TEACHING MARKETING RESEARCH: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING PROGRAMS IN THE NEXT MILLENNIUM Madeleine Ogilvie and Maria M. Ryan Edith Cowan University Abstract This paper presents the findings from research into student’s perception of the group versus the individual assignment in a second year marketing research unit. Students were given the choice as to whether they wanted to participate in a group or individual marketing research project approach. A total of 89 students participated in the study. Initially, 70 students chose the group project with the remaining 19 opting for the individual project. At the end of the semester, 41 students preferred the individual project, with 47 students preferring the group project, an increase of 147% in students preferring the individual project. Results indicated the preference shift was due mainly to logistical problems with the group project, with the individual project offering an attractive alternative. The group project was described as having positive educational benefits, but the difficulties in working in a team outweighed these benefits. These difficulties seemed to be highlighted more by the nature of the marketing research project, in that members were required to work together more closely in preparing the questionnaire and collecting the data, than in previous group projects for other completed units. Results from this study suggest the need to be flexible in offering students a choice of learning option, either the group or individual project, carefully equating the workload and learning opportunities of each. This becomes more imperative as developing courses for the future requires academics to deliver courses across different campuses, through distant learning packages and offshore programs. Consequently, flexible learning options are necessary. In addition, student expectations need to be examined to match teaching methods to create a favourable learning environment. Introduction More recently in the Australian University education systems, the need to tailor education to fit distant learning programs, large class sizes, busy student work schedules and student accessibility have demanded a flexible course approach. In order to meet these course objectives and develop a unit focussing more on students’ needs we sort to investigate students’ choice for a group or individual project within the marketing research unit. The scope of this study was to explore the dynamics of group and individual projects and examine student preferences in a controlled test environment. Similar to the Dommeyer study (1986) this study seeks to identify students’ preference in their choice of assignment. In addition, this paper addresses some of the limitations highlighted in the Dommeyer study by allowing students a choice of either a group or individual project formats at the beginning of the semester and conducting the research within the same semester. This ensures that variables identified by Dommeyer (1986) such as teacher, unit facilitation and class dynamics remain stable over the period of the study.
Literature Review Marketing Research is often perceived by students as difficult, because of the use of statistics in the analysis of data. Consequently, lecturers are always keen to facilitate methods that will maximise the learning process. Various studies have demonstrated the benefits of student group projects in teaching marketing research (Dommeyer 1986; Malhotra, Taschian and Jain 1989; Williams, Beard and Rymer 1991). Student groups conducting real life projects and the benefits this experiential learning offers have been documented in past studies (Burns 1978; Dean 1982; de los Santos and Jensen 1985; Dommeyer 1986; Hallaq 1979; Humphreys 1981; Malhotra, Taschian and Jain 1989; McDaniel 1984; Richardson and Raveed 1980; Thistlewaite and Zimmerley 1978). The literature suggests the benefits of group work on a live project are many fold. In particular, the workplace skills learnt while conducting such a project make the student more marketable in their future careers. Skills such as communication, problem solving, critical thinking and work ethics are a few of the ‘street smart’ survival skills learnt. These benefits are summarised in Table 1.
Skill
Table 1 Benefits of Group Assignments Business Application
Communication
Fine tune oral and written skills
Group skills
Practising interpersonal and group management skills
Problem solving
Ability to define the problem, not the symptom
Critical thinking
Evaluate different courses of action and the most appropriate method to use for the project
Analytical skills
Ability to examine primary and secondary data and analyse its implications.
Technical skills
Learning computer applications
Real world skills
Learning professional conventions and work ethics. Emulating the workplace.
Multicultural experience
Becoming aware of different perspectives
Motivation
Real life projects motivate students to produce a professional result. Peer pressure of the group.
Cooperative learning
Students teaching each other
Peer modelling
Observing successful peers
Human resource Referees for future employment (Adapted from Williams, Beard and Jone 1991 p 45 and Malhotra, Tashchian and Jain 1989 p35)
Extensive educational research demonstrates that team projects, which encourage cooperative learning, tend to increase student achievement more than individual assignments. “Students
learn more through collaborative group work because they teach each other, becoming active rather than passive learners and assuming the responsibility for their own learning.” (Williams, Beard and Rymer 1991:47) The group project, however, does have its disadvantages. Decreased effort by team members, inter-group conflict and the damaging effect this can have on the group dynamic have all been documented as problems with group work. (Williams, Beard and Rymer 1991, Dommeyer C J, 1986) The free loader or free rider effect of unequal contributions or domination of the project by one group member often give rise to the collapse of the group synergy that the team project aims to achieve. Williams, Beard and Rymer (1991) discuss strategies for managing inequitable contributions by group members and the need to evaluate each individual’s contribution to the group project in order to overcome some of these problems. They conclude that the answer is not a simple one as the problem is multifaceted ranging from students’ inexperience in communication to cultural preferences. Christopher and Soutar (1997) found that culture had a significant impact in preference of assessment, with Australian students in an accounting course preferring individual assessment, whilst Asian students preferred a group assessment. Dommeyer (1986) concludes that factors such as age and achievement standards also impact substantially on the students’ preference for group or individual assessment. Methodology Dommeyer (1986) examined the dynamics of group versus individual work within a marketing research unit. The purpose of our study was to replicate and extend his work. Unlike Dommeyer’s study, this study offered students a choice at the beginning of the semester between the individual and group project. Students choosing either the group or the individual project attended the same lectures and tutorials and had similar project requirements to complete. Similar to the Dommeyer (1986) study both group and individual projects were live cases. The individual cases were actual ‘live’ client requests for research just as in the group project. The only difference being that the individuals did not have to collect their own data. Students were spread over three classes with the same lecturer for all classes. Dommeyer (1986) reduced the work required of the individual project by requiring only a proposal of the data analysis, whereas in this study the individual assignment included a requirement to analyse data provided by the lecturer. The researchers felt that both the individual and the group projects were similar in workload and content. Offering students a choice at the beginning facilitated the ability of each student to evaluate their own choice and indicate which option they would recommend in the future. At the completion of the unit, students were surveyed to gain an understanding of their attitudes and perceptions to the two project types. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. Students were asked to describe their personnel advantages and disadvantages in their choice of project type, whether they would recommend an individual or group project in the future, and a standard set of demographic questions. In addition, eight in-depth interviews were conducted with students who had selected the group (4 students) and the individual projects (4 students). The interviews were used as a method of examining student responses in greater depth. Results
A total of 89 students completed a questionnaire examining their reactions to the particular project they chose for their semester work. Seventy (70) students completed a group project and nineteen (19) chose the individual assignment. Comparison of basic demographic data between these two groups indicated a higher incidence of males chose an individual assignment than females (individual project choice: 58% males, 42% females, group project choice: 38% males, 62 % females). In response to the question asking students to list the benefits of their choice, comments related mostly to the freedom in doing an individual assignment, with statements like, “more freedom and flexibility” (15), “can choose own starting time” (10) and, “less hassle with no group meeting” (6). Only five out of the 40 comments for this group related to any improvement in the learning experience or the quality of the work by choosing an individual project. Students who had chosen the group project focused on the “shared learning experience” (63), “learning to work in a group” (18) and the “development of team spirit” (9). Sixty seven percent of comments (105 out of 156) related to some sort of enhanced learning experience, whereas only 33% (51 out of 156) of comments related to the logistical aspects such as shared workload, and work done faster. The qualitative findings supported these conclusions. In addition, these results compare favourably with the Dommeyer (1986) study in that the group project approach was seen to have more educational value than the individual project. When asked which type of project they would recommend to students in the future there was a significant shift toward the individual project. This was in contrast to the findings by Dommeyer (1986) that indicate little change in the overall preference for group or individual project format. In our study originally 21% (19 students) chose the individual project. At the conclusion of the semester 46% (41) students preferred the individual project option. Fourteen of the original nineteen students (74%) who had initially chosen an individual project preferred the individual option at the end of the semester. Twenty-seven of the original seventy students (39%) who had initially chosen a group project changed their option to the individual project format. The main reasons given for this choice were “can work on my own” (7 comments), “more flexible” (5), and “learn more by covering a wider area” (11). This last reason was interesting in that it came from students switching from group to individual projects. Indicating perhaps, a difficulty in learning across all aspects of the project, when part of a group. Whilst previous research has highlighted the need to overcome the distribution of group marks (Williams, Beard and Rymer 1991), there is also a need to facilitate equal learning opportunities in a group scenario. Often what happens is the ‘good’ writer does the writing, the ‘good’ computer person does the computer data analysis and so on, and skill development is limited to a defined, often already developed area. Comments from two mature aged students in the indepth interviews indicated that whilst there were benefits in group work they did not outweigh the disadvantages that group work posed and would not influence their decision to chose group work again. “the group itself was OK but we had to carry a third member who did very little.” “working full time with divided interests meant meeting and collating the information became impossible at times.” “The next time I would do an individual assignment as I would get a better mark and it would be logistically easier.” Discussion
This study offered 89 students a choice to participate in either a group or individual marketing research project. Students’ initial choice was based in part by their previous group work experience (92% of students had previously been involved in group work) and resulted in 78% (69) choosing group work. At the end of the semester, this had reduced by 25% to 53% (47) preferring group work for the marketing research unit. In discussions with students it was evident that the marketing research task required more group cohesiveness and team meetings than previous group work where students could work individually then collate their work together. The marketing research project required joint effort in questionnaire development and especially the data collection process. This often highlighted logistical problems with students’ busy schedules. This contributed to the shift to preferring the individual project at the end of the semester. The study by Dommeyer (1986) concluded that the group project appeared to produce more positive results in terms of the project being enjoyable, educational, and a good experience. This study, however, found that the group project had limitations in that student’s found logistical problems in working with a group often outweighed the positive aspects of the group learning environment. Another problem highlighted in the research was the perception by some group members that they were not learning across all aspects of the marketing research process. While research has advocated ways to ensure equal workloads (and subsequent marking implications), equal learning opportunities also need to be ensured. Group projects provide many specific and general skill development opportunities. However, the learning opportunities can be limited if students just do what they are good at and the assignment process makes the group so busy that learning may not occur (Graeff, 1997). A number of suggestions to overcome these problems are offered: • Providing the opportunity during tutorial time for (semi-structured) group meetings. • Offering a choice to students to either participate in a group or individual assignment. • Provide opportunities for peer review and reflective learning at each stage in the research process to give every student exposure to all the elements that make up the marketing research process. A total of 36% (32) of students switched options at the end of the semester, indicating a significant group unhappy with their initial choice. This has possible implications for student evaluations of the unit, and needs to be addressed by further examining student expectations and commitment at the beginning of the semester. Offering students a choice at the beginning of the semester may influence their expectations of the unit and therefore requires further examination. Indeed, further research could include a survey of expectations at the beginning of the semester, compared with evaluations at the end of the semester. References Argote, Linda (1993) “Group and organizational learning curves: Individual, system and environmental components”, British Journal of Social Psychology 32, 31-51 Basden, Barbara H., David R. Basden, Susan Bryner, Robert L.Thomas III, 1997 “A Comparison of Group and Individual Remembering: Does Collaboration Disrupt Retrieval Strategies?”, Journal of Experimental Psychology Vol 23, No 5, 1176-1189
Burns, Alvin C. (1978) “The Extended Live Case Approach to Teaching Marketing Research”, in Exploring Experiential Learning: Simulations and Experiential Exercises, C. Brenenstuhl and Samuel C. Certo, eds., 1978 Proceedings of the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, pp245-251 Dean, Michael L. (1982) “Conducting a Business College Image Study Through a Marketing Research Class Project”,. Journal of Marketing Education. 4 (Spring), 42-46 De los Santos, Ggilberto andThomas D. Jensen, (1985) “Client Sponsored Projects: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice”, Journal of Marketing Education (Summer) , 45-50 Dommeyer, Curt J., (1986) “A Comparison of the Individual Proposal and the Team Project in the Marketing Research Course”, Journal of Marketing Education. Spring: 30-38 Greaff, Timothy R. (1997) “Bringing Reflective learning to the Marketing Research Course: A Cooperative Learning Project Using Intergroup Critique”, Journal of Marketing Education Spring: 53-64 Hallaq, John H., (1979) “A Practical Approach to Field Experiments and Statistical Design”, in 1979 AMA Educators Conference Proceedings. Series No 44, Neil Beckwith et al., eds., pp170-172 Humphreys, Marie A., (1981) “Client-Sponsored Project in a Marketing Research Course”, Journal of marketing Education 3 (Fall) 7-12 Malhotra, Naresh K., Armen Tashchian, and Arun K. Jain, (1989) “The Project Method Approach: An Integrated Teaching Tool in Marketing Research”, Journal of Marketing Education Summer:33-39 McDaniel, Stephen W. (1984) “The Client-Sponsored Project: Its Benefits in Teaching Marketing Research”, in 1984 AMA Educators Proceedings Series No 50, Russel W. Blek et al., eds., pp 106-109 Miller, Judith E., John Trimbur and John M..Wilkes, (1994) “Group Dynamics: Understanding Group Success and Failure in Collaborative Learning”, New Directions for Teaching and Learning: Fall, No 59, 33-44 Richardson, Neil and Sion Raveed (1980) “A Live-Case Program for Teaching Marketing Research”, Journal of Marketing Education. 3 (Spring), 38-42 Stahl, Abraham (1992) “Personal and Cultural Factors Interfering With the Effective Use of Individual and Group Learning Methods”,. The Journal of Eductional Thought Vol 26, No 1, April, 22-32 Theo, Christopher and Geoffrey N. Souter (1997) “Accounting Student Assessment Preferences: A Conjoint Analysis” Ninth Asian-Pacific Conference on International Accounting Issues,Bangkok. Thistlethwaite, Paul C. and Belle M. Zimmerly (1978) “Experimental Learning in Marketing: Student Consultants”, in Exploring Experiential Learning: Simulations and Experiential
Exercises, Daniel C. Brenensthul and Samuel C. Certo, eds., 1978 Proceedings of the Association for Business simulation and Experiential Learning , pp 252 -258 Williams, David J., John D. Beard and Jone Rymer, J., (1991) “Team Projects: Achieving Their Full Potential”, Journal of Marketing Eduction Summer: 45-53
