ERIC ED473389: Team Process Constraints: Testing the Perceived Impact on Product Quality and the Effectiveness of Team Interactions.

13 Pages·2000·0.2 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 473 389
IR 058 619
Stephens, Charlotte S.; Myers, Martha E.
AUTHOR
Team Process Constraints: Testing the Perceived Impact on
TITLE
Product Quality and the Effectiveness of Team Interactions.
2000-00-00
PUB DATE
12p.; In: Proceedings of the International Academy for
NOTE
Information Management Annual Conference (15th, Brisbane,
Australia, December 6-10, 2000); see IR 058 611.
Reports
Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
Research (143)
PUB TYPE
EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Cooperative Learning; Cooperative Programs; Group
DESCRIPTORS
Instruction; Higher Education; Instructional Design;
*Instructional Effectiveness; Interaction; Interaction
Process Analysis; Teaching Methods; *Teamwork
ABSTRACT
A focused exploration of research presented at the
International Academy for Information Management (IAIM) in 1997, this study
applies the structuring of student teams recommended by Mennecke and Bradley
(1997), adapts the roles, and extends structure to group meetings. Students
enrolled in two sections of a required course in Database Systems
participated in the study. Findings verify the increased team cohesion found
by these prior researchers and, in addition, indicate that the use of meeting
constraints as well leads to a more satisfying team experience.
Recommendations are provided for structuring project teams so that
procrastination is minimized and equal contribution to the effort is
facilitated. The Team Process Evaluation form is appended. Seven tables
include: age and experience; perceptions regarding project teamwork;
perceptions regarding action lists; perceptions regarding roles assignment;
impact of team process constraints; satisfaction with project experience; and
learning content. (Contains 4 references.) (Author/AEF)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
TEAM PROCESS CONSTRAINTS:
TESTING THE PERCEIVED IMPACT ON
,,,°
PRODUCT QUALITY AND THE
71-
EFFECTIVENESS OF TEAM INTERACTIONS
a
Charlotte S. Stephens
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Louisiana Tech University
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
CENTER (ERIC)
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
Pl
This document has been reproduced as
BEEN GRANTED BY
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
T. Case
improve reproduction quality.
Martha E. Myers
Points of view or opinions stated in this
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
document do not necessarily represent
Kennesaw State University
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
official OERI position or policy.
A focused exploration of research presented at IA IM in 1997, this study applies the structuring of student teams
recommended by Mennecke and Bradley (1997), adapts the roles, and extends structure to group meetings. Findings
verify the increased team cohesion found by these prior researchers and, in addition, indicate that the use of meeting
constraints as well leads to a more satisfying team experience. Recommendations are pro videdfor structuringproject
teams so that procrastination is minimized and equal contribution to the effort is facilitated.
find measures of satisfaction to be higher in the
INTRODUCTION
treatment group,
structuring
that
roles
they
find
improved the quality ofthe projects and improved group
The goal of this study is to extend the work of Mennecke
cohesiveness. They conclude that the added structure
and Bradley (1997) concerning the impact of structured
improved team process. They believe that increased use
roles on student team projects. Mennecke and Bradley
of "e-mail, list serv, chat room" (p. 24) would further
(1997) address the problems associated with working in
improve team process and lower transaction costs.
project teams for IS student projects:
Mennecke and Bradley (1997) provide some structure by
Students who choose to engage in group social
requiring that each student assume one key role within
activities prefer to work alone on projects.
Their findings and presentation of these
the team.
Teams require higher transaction costs in terms of
findings stimulated the current adaptation of the roles.
time to complete the project, communication, and
In the current study, students are required to vary
scheduling.
of the
the
project.
course
assigned
roles over
Teams "procrastin ate until the project due date" and
Precondition data is gathered, e.g., participation on prior
"as the pressure increases, group cohesiveness
project teams, work experience, preference for working
breaks up" (p. 23).
regarding
the
teams, perceptions
alone
or
in
effectiveness of working in teams and transaction costs
Working with traditional students who lack work
of team work. Not only are roles structured, but the
experience, they find stu dents unskilled in team process.
conduct and scheduling of meetings
structured.
is
Therefore, they test structuring roles for project teams,
failure to meet
Anecdotal evidence suggests
that
after controlling
and measuring results
for many
throughout the semester and failure to conduct meetings
confounding variables. While their instruments do not
159
Proceedings of the 15' Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
meeting. E-mail is recommended for this task. Each
effectively adversely affects team process. Meeting s are
meeting must result in an action list designating
a major source of team conflict. Further, documentation
tasks to be performed, responsibility for the task,
of team process are made a component of project
and deadline for the task. The first item on every
deliverables and evaluation for the treatment group.
meeting's agenda should be a review of the action
After projects are complete but before projects are
list from the prior meeting. Each meeting's agenda
graded, students complete a questionnaire concerning the
formal recognition of the
should also include
team experience as well as open-ended questions
The control or
approval of the minutes of the prior meeting. These
concerning the team process.
minutes can be approved via e-mail
after
all
comparison group is another database class in which
necessary revisions are made. The scheduler should
these team process constraints are not employed but
always be on each agenda, reporting on project
which uses the same syllabus for the course and the same
status against the timetable.
requirements for the database project.
The scribe must record the minutes of each meeting
Our objective is to recommend methods for improving
and these minutes are an essential part of the project
student team process, beyond the increased team
minutes
must
include
the
deliverables.
The
cohesion demon strated by Mennecke and Bradley (1997)
following items: m embers present, m embers absent,
We want these
through the use of structured roles.
members playing each of the three primary roles,
methods to lead to some degree of satisfaction with the
of
notes
detailed
the agenda,
on
copy
team process. Further, we want to use the team project
discussions/decisions for each agenda item, the
to teach effective meeting skills.
action list for the next meeting. The action list for
the next meeting must be distributed to each team
METHODOLOGY
member via e-mail within two days of the meeting.
Minutes must also be distributed to team m embers
Students enrolled in two sections of a required course in
for approval via e-mail no m ore than two days after
Database Systems participated in the study. One section
each meeting.
applied the treatment described above; the other required
team projects but did not structure the team interactions
The scheduler must contact each team member at
or even describe the possibility of role assignment or use
least two days prior to each meeting to confirm
of meeting agendas, action lists, and minutes. At the
meeting attendance, reschedule meetings when
beginning of the semester, the treatment class is given a
attendance is prdblematic, and maintain the project
description of team process constraints, involving both
timetable. The scheduler should report the status of
As recommended by
meetings and structured roles.
the project against the timetable at each meeting.
Mennecke and Bradley (1997) in their future research
The team may wish for each member to serve as
section, extensive use of e-mail is required to facilitate
scheduler for two consecutive weeks.
communication and coordination.
After this description of team process is presented, each
Project teams are to meet at least once per week,
member of the class is asked to briefly introduce himself
beginning with wee k 2 of the sem ester. A regular
and to indicate good meeting times. Students chose their
meeting time at the same place, time, day is strongly
own team members after these introductions. Students
recommended., Teams may need to meet more than
in the control group-also chose their own team mem bers.
once per week during some phases of the project.
These project team constraints extend those specified by
Each project team member must play one of the
Mennecke and Bradley (1997, 21), where four roles are
three primary oles during the course of the semester
defined.
and each of the three roles must be designated at
each meeting. The three roles are meeting facilitator,
Presider or Meeting Leader
scribe, and scheduler.
File Manager or Project Leader
Meeting Coordinator
Each meeting must have an agenda provided by the
Intermediary
meeting facilitator to each team member prior to the
Proceedings of the 15" Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management
160
3
perceptions by students, we will consider the following
We employ three roles which are parallel but not
research questions:
precisely equivalent to their first three roles.
Q 1. Is the tendency to procrastinate reduced through the
Facilitator
increased structure of team processes?
Scribe
Scheduler
Q2. Do the students perceive the use
of meeting
constraints to be valuable?
The facilitator like the Presider or Meeting Leader
develops and distributes a meeting agenda and is
Q3. Do the students perceive the assignment of roles to
responsible for keeping the meeting on task. No Project
be valuable?
Leader was designated but documentation, a primary
responsibility of the File Mana ger or Project Leader, was
Q4. Do the students in the treatment group experience
the scribe's role for meetings. Project documentation
higher satisfaction with the team process?
would have been an action list item, assigned by
The Meeting Coordinator
consensus at the meeting.
We will also consider mitigating factors such as declared
tasks were filled primarily by the Scheduler.
The
work experience, previous project experience within a
Scheduler also kept the project schedule or time table.
class, and overall preference for team projects. Finally,
Regularly scheduled weekly meetings w ere held, so no
recommendations for improving team process for IS
meeting coordinator needed to call a meeting.
The
be formulated, applying and
student projects w ill
Itermediary role, where a student was assigned to act as
building on the work of M ennecke and Bradley (1997).
the intermediary between the project team and the
They demon strated that group cohesion was positively
instructor, was not employed. The roles have many
impacted by their treatment but that satisfaction with
similarities, but perhaps most importantly, students have
"group process, satisfactionwith the group's project, and
well defined roles to play in both studies.
group member ratings" (p. 22) were not significantly
different in the treatment group.
However, in this study, students must play all roles
whereas roles were assigned for the entire project in the
MITIGATING FACTORS
Mennecke and Bradley (1997) study. Our rationale is
that students need to learn all three roles and that
Age and Experience
students who have played a role will tend to be more
cooperative with other students playing this role. The
The age, number of prior information systems courses,
major extension to team structure is to specify weekly
and work schedules of the two groups were very similar.
meetings with an agenda, published minutes, and action
However, the control group, a slightly older group, had
list. This structural component should work to prevent
significantly more experience in information systems
procrastination, a major problem with student team
work, and of those who had such experience, the control
projects.
group had a greater percentage of members who had
This IS experience,
been on development teams.
RESULTS
coupled with development experience, should predispose
this group to have a better project experience.
The following research questions are examined through
a two-part questionnaire completed at the close of the
By analyzing these
term project (Appendix A).
Proceedings of the 15' Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management
161
4
TABLE 1
AGE AND EXPERIENCE
T-test
Treatment
Control
ATTRIBUTES OF AGE AND EXPERIENCE
p value
Mean
Mean
Std. Dev.
Std. Dev.
27.55
.14
29.73
Average Age
1.
8.35
7.71
4.16
.35
No. of prior IS courses
5.1
2.
2.87
3.85
30%
33.33%
Work full time
3.
45%
43.33%
Work part time
4.
25%
23.33%
Do not work
5.
16%
43%
Worked in IS (y/n)
.01
6.
35%
.009
If y to #6, part of a development team? (y/n)
8%
7.
.054
3.21
No. of IS projects completed
2.2
8.
1.51
1.47
to the statement, "Establishing a weekly meeting time
Overa 11 preference for team projects. Students in both
helped the team to work on the project throughout the
the treatment and control group agreed that they like to
semester instead of as a 'last minute' endeavor," was
work on a project team and liked to work alone. The
4.43 with a .68 standard deviation. The mode was 5.0 or
treatment class actually showed a stronger preference for
working as a member of a project team, but that
strongly agree.
preference was not statistically significant compared to
Agenda
the control group. Both groups agreed that projects take
more time if completed as a team activity. However, 88
In general, treatment students agreed that "Publishing an
percent of the students agreed with the statement that
agenda for each meeting was valuable," with a mean
"Project quality is improved if the project is a team
response of 3.8 and standard deviation of .89.
Ten
activity ." There were no significant differences between
percent of the students disagreed that the agenda was
the two groups in regard to preference for team projects
valuable, twenty percent were indifferent, and 70%
versus working alone.
agreed that the agenda was valuable.
On ly twenty
percent strongly agreed, however. A more focused
PERCEPTIONS REGARDING
statement, "Publishing an agenda for each meeting
MEETING CONSTRAINTS
caused us to use meeting time more effective," received
a similar respon se: me an of 3.9 with a standard deviation
Weekly Meeting Time
of .91.
The treatment group was required to meet weekly
Action List
beginning with the second week of the semester. The
objective of this constraint was to facilitate incremental
Treatment students tended to agree that the action list
work and thus, reduce procrastination. In class, the
was valuable and that it helped the team stay organized.
instructor strongly recommended establishing a regular
Agreement was not as strong or consistent concerning
weekly time and place, so that students could work the ir
the action list's impact on everyone doing his or her fair
schedules around this regularly scheduled meeting.
share. However, only one student disagreed with this
third statement. Half the students did find the action list
Students perceived this practice to be highly effective
helpful for distributing work equally.
means ofpreventing procrastination. The mean response
Proceedings of the 15' Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management
162
5
TABLE 2
PERCEPTIONS REGARDING PROJECT TEAMWORK
5= Strongly Agree, 1=Strongly Disagree
T-test,
Treatment
Control
p value
Mean,
Mean,
Std.
Std.
Deviation
Deviation
3.80
I like to work on a project team.
3.75
.84
1.16
.97
3.60
.22
I like to work alone.
3.3
1.10
.80
3.20
2.65
I prefer to do project work alone.
.13
1.37
.93
.24
3.50
3.90
I prefer to do project work as a member of a team.
1.02
1.25
Projects take more time if completed as a team
3.10
2.95
.81
activity rather than as an individual activity.
1.32
1.45
3.10
Project quality is improved if the project is a team
.36
3.5
activity.
1.28
1.47
TABLE 3
PERCEPTIONS REGARDING ACTION LISTS
Treatment
Statement
Mean
Std. Dev.
Creating an action list was valuable
4.3
.57
Creating an action list helped us to stay organized.
4.4
.68
Creating an action list helped us to make sure everyone did his or
3.85
her "fair share."
.93
ROLES ASSIGNMENT
Minutes
Three statements were designed to assess whether the
Not surprisingly, minutes were not altogether popular.
On the scale of 1-5 with 3 being indifferent and 5
student perceived playing each of the three roles to be of
value. One of the differences with the Mennecke and
strongly agree, treatment students agreed (mean 3.75,
Bradley (1997) study was that students had to play all
std. dev. 1.07) on their value and agreed (mean 3.65, std.
that recording and publishing minutes
roles. Then, the student was asked to assess whether the
dev.
1.18)
use of roles improved team process. Finally, students
improved communication. Notably, action lists were
were asked to assess the value of each role. In general,
perceived to be more valuable than minutes.
treatment students agreed that playing a role, particularly
Proceedings of the 15' Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management
163
$
Satisfaction with the Project Experience
that of facilitator, had been a valuable experience. They
perceived that the use of the three roles improved team
Mennecke and Bradley (1997) demonstrated that the use
process, with the role of facilitator being perceived as
of roles increased group cohesiveness. The authors have
improving team process the most. Interestingly, only one
observed that when students are unhappy with the
student disagreed with each of the seven statements
project results or the experience itself, "finger pointing"
concerning the value of roles.
occurs and students are unhappy with their group.
Therefore, as an assessment of satisfaction, we asked
Perceptions of Im pact of Team Process Constraints
students to agree or disagree with the statement, "I
would choose the sameteam members again." Treatment
Both the control and treatment groups perceived that
group students agreed with the statement and were very
team skills were improved by the project and that they
Even though the control
close to strong agreement
had learned to use meeting time more effective.
group should have been predisposed to work well in
Stronger agreement occurred in the treatment group, but
teams because of their higher percentage of students with
differences are not statistically significant (p= .41, .36).
work experience and IS development experience, the
The treatment group agreed with the statement that the
treatment group actually ended the project more willing
constraints had increased team effectiveness.
to work with their team again.
TABLE 4
PERCEPTIONS REGARDING ROLES ASSIGNMENT
Mean, Std. Dev.
Statement
3.65,
Playing the role of facilitator Was valuable to me.
.81
3.55,
Playing the role of scribe was valuable to me.
.83
3.40,
Playing the role of scheduler was valuable to me.
.75
4.10,
.72
Having a designated scheduler, scribe, and facilitator improved the
team process.
3.65,
Having a designated scheduler improved the team process.
.75
3.85,
Having a designated scribe improved the team process.
.75
.76
3.95,
Having a designated facilitator improved the team process.
TABLE 5
IMPACT OF TEAM PROCESS CONSTRAINTS
Treatment
Control
Statement
Mean,
Mean,
Std. Dev.
Std. Dev.
4.05
3.83
My skill at working on team s has improved as a result of this
.89
.93
experience.
4.05
I learned how to use meeting time more effectively.
3.83
.69
.95
3.90
The project team worked m ore effectively with the constraints
N/A
concerning meetings and roles played than other teams on which
.72
I have worked which had no team process constraints.
Proceedings of the 15`h Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management
164
7
TABLE 6
SATISFACTION WITH PROJECT EXPERIENCE
T-test p value
Treatment
Control
Mean, Std. Dev.
Mean, Std. Dev.
.003
4.35
3.24
.93
1.41
recommend having everyone play each of the roles
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
for at least one week, then assign the roles for longer
durations. Many students found the constant shift in
We posed four research questions:
roles confusing.
Ql. Is the tendency to procrastinate reduced through the
Students recommend a midterm project review and
increased structure of team processes?
submitting weekly team process documentation for
feedback and possibly, grading. They would prefer
of meeting
Q2. Do the students perceive the use
increm ental feedback.
constraints to be valuable?
Thirdly, many students recommended a team
Q3. Do the students perceive the assignment of roles to
contract to insure agreemen t on meeting times, roles,
be valuable?
etc.
Q4. Do the students in the treatment group experience
they found
Some students
the
commented
that
higher satisfaction with the team process?
constraints time consuming and burdensome, but the
tenor of the comments was that students had found these
In answer to these questions, we found regular, weekly
constraints effective and used them voluntarily for
meetings tended to prevent waiting until the last minute.
projects in other courses.
Students did perceive the use of all other meeting
constraints to be valuable, and found the action list to be
LEARNING CONTENT
most valuable. Likewise, students perceived the use of
roles to be valuable to themselves and to the project
The objective of a project is two fold: students learn to
team, particularly the role of facilitator. Students in the
work well on project teams and students reinforce course
treatment group would work with the same team again,
content by actually applying what is learned.
Both
satisfaction with the team process. Satisfaction with the
groups were asked to assess whether or not the project
team process was the strongest difference experienced in
helped them to learn con tent and thus affected their
the control and treatment group. This finding extends
course grade. Interestingly, both groups perceived that
Mennecke and Bradley's (1997) finding that cohesion
the project had helped learn course content with the
increased with the use of roles.
treatment group having a slightly stronger perception of
learning content. However, neither group agreed that
STUDENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
exam scores had been improved by their project work.
IMPROVING TEAM PROCESS CONSTRAINTS
This statement may confound satisfaction with the grade
on exam scores with learning content through the
team
improving
process
for
Recommendations
project.
constraints further include the follow ing:
that changing roles
Student comments reveal
throughout the semester became burdensome. They
165
Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management
8
TABLE 7
LEARNING CONTENT
T-test
Treatment
Control
Statement
p value
Mean
Mean
Std. Dev.
Std. Dev.
4.35
.12
3.97
The project helped me to better understand
.59
topics and problems in the database course.
1.16
3.45
.42
My participation on the project team improved
3.3
.89
1.12
my exam scores.
weekly submission of the action list along with
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
results of prior week's action list and minutes of the
AND CONCLUSIONS
weekly meeting
each student plays each role at least one, then roles
This study is primarily a qualitative study further
are assigned for the semester
exploring and applying the work presented by Mennecke
optional contract, with a discussion of possible
and Bradley (1997). The two classes involved in this
contract points.
study are insufficient for reaching broad, general
conclusions. While assumptions of randomness are not
As Mennecke and Bradley point out, "Research of this
met, we have used statistical comparisons of groups as
type is always confounded by extraneous factors that
some indication of whether differences are significant.
To some extent, what
cannot be eliminated" (p. 23).
Because of the difficulty of comparing project results
we have accomplished is a structured trial-and-error.
when two instructors assign the grade and when team
But we have demonstrated that certain team process
process was a major grade component in the treatment
constraints do seem to make a positive difference for
group but not the control group, no objective measure of
team process, student satisfaction, content learning, and
project quality has been used at this time.
instructor management of project teams.
The use of meeting constraints, particularly regularly
REFERENCES
scheduled weekly meetings and action
were
lists,
perceived as valuable as was the use of ro les. Regularly
Mennecke, B. and Bradley, J. (1997). Making project
scheduled meetings did tend to reduce procrastination.
groups work: The impact of structuring group roles
The facilitator role was perceived as
particularly
on the performance and perception of information
important. Significantly, students operating under team
systems project teams. Proceedings of International
process constraints were more willing to work together
Academy for Information Management. (12), 19-24.
again, thus these constraints served to reduce the
dissatisfaction often associated with student project
McKinney, K and Graham-Buxton, M. (1993). The use
teams. As an instructor, dealing with the students in the
of collaborative learning groups in the large class:
treatment group was much pleasanter because only two
is it possible? Teach ing Sociology. (21), 403-408.
instructor with team
team members came to
the
problems during the entire semester. As a result of this
Putnam, L.L. (1979). Preference for procedural order in
of meeting
experiment, we recommend
use
the
small Communication
groups.
task-oriented
following
with
the
roles
and
constraints
along
Monographs (46), 193-218.
modifications:
Sadler, C. (1994). Guidelines for group work. National
Teams review each
mid-term, project review.
Teaching and Learning Forum (3:6), 8-11.
other's work, then each team presents the project in
class
Proceedings of the Igh Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Managemwt
166
9
APPENDIX A
TEAM PROCESS EVALUATION
Name
Part 1: Using the following scale, pleaseevaluate the following statements. Please mark the accompanying Scan-tron
form. Please record your name on the Scan-tron form as well as this form.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
E.
Indifferent
D.
Agree
Strongly Agree
B.
C.
A.
1 like to work on a project team.
1.
I like to work alone.
1.
I prefer to do project work alone.
2.
I prefer to do project work as amember of a team.
3.
Projects take more time if completed as a team activity rather than as an individual activity.
4.
Projects take less time if completed as a team activity rather than as an individual activity.
5.
Project quality is improved if the project is a team activity.
6.
Establishing a weekly meeting time helped the team to work on the project throughout the semester instead of as a "last
7.
minute" endeavor.
Publishing an agenda for each meeting was valuable.
8.
Publishing an agenda for each meeting caused us to use meeting time more effectively.
9.
10. Creating an action list was valuable.
11. Creating an action list helped us to stay organized.
12. Creating an action list helped us to make sure everyone did his or her "fair share."
13. Recording and publishing the minutes of meetings was valuable.
14. Recording and publishing the minutes of meetings improved communication.
I learned how to use meeting time more effectively.
15.
16. My skill at working on teams has improved as a result of this experience.
Proceedings of the Igh Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management
167
10
EST COPY AVAILABLE
III