ERIC ED474096: Developing a Robust System for Effective Teamwork on Lengthy, Complex Tasks: An Empirical Exploration of Interventions To Increase Team Effectiveness.

13 Pages·2001·0.22 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 474 096
IR 058 646
Stephens, Charlotte S.; Myers, Martha E.
AUTHOR
Developing a Robust System for Effective Teamwork on Lengthy,
TITLE
Complex Tasks: An Empirical Exploration of Interventions To
Increase Team Effectiveness.
2001-00-00
PUB DATE
12p.; In: Proceedings of the International Academy for
NOTE
Information Management (IAIM) Annual Conference:
International Conference on Informatics Education & Research
(ICIER)(16th, New Orleans, LA, December 14-16, 2001); see IR
058 630.
For full text: http://www.iaim.org.
AVAILABLE FROM
Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
Research (143)
Reports
PUB TYPE.
EDRS Price MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Cooperative Learning; Higher Education; Information Systems;
DESCRIPTORS
Instructional Improvement; *Intervention; Learning
Strategies; Student Participation; Teaching Methods;
*Teamwork
ABSTRACT
Management of student teams in information systems (IS)
courses so that students learn how to participate in teams effectively is an
important task for IS professors. However, most research on this topic
applies what is learned from student teams to teams in the work world, not to
the academic environment. Three professors at two universities in six classes
apply interventions to improve student team process in two courses: Database
Management Systems, and Systems Analysis and Design. Two control groups were
used. Results indicate that these interventions make a significant
difference, although caution must be used in interpreting the results of this
exploration. Includes three tables: meta-analysis of prior research
interventions for improving effectiveness of student teams; class
descriptions; and interventions employed in each class.
(Contains 12
references.)
(Author)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
DEVELOPING A ROBUST SYSTEM FOR
EFFECTIVE TEAMWORK ON LENGTHY,
COMPLEX TASKS: AN EMPIRICAL
EXPLORATION OF INTERVENTIONS TO
INCREASE TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Charlotte S. Stephens
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
Louisiana Tech University
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER (ERIC)
eA7This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
T. Case
originating it.
Martha E. Myers
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Kennesaw State University
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Points of view or opinions stated in this
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
The synergy of informed minds working together is incredible; whereas unprepared minds working together
is nothing more than pooled ignorance (Jones, 1996, 87).
ABSTRACT
Management of student teams in information systems courses so that students learn how to participate in teams
effectively is an important task for IS professors. However, most research on this topic applies what is learned from
student teams to teams in the work world, not to the academic environment. Three professors at two universities in
six classes apply interventions to improve student team process in two courses: Database Managem ent Systems,
Systems Analysis and Design. Two control groups were used. Results indicate that these interventions make a
significant difference, although caution must be used in interpreting the results of this exploration.
that most student teams operate in a very different
INTRODUCTION
context and with a very different
level of work
Because of the increasing emphasis on teamwork by
experience and dom ain expertise. A meta-analysis of the
businesses and subsequently, by higher education,
literature on effective student teams was conducted to
derive a set of interventions with student teams which
teaching students to work effectively in project teams is
had improved project team process and/or content
an important issue (Gardner and Korth, 1998; McKeague
et al, 1999).
However, the characteristics of student
learning (Stephens, 2001).
teams limit the applicability of research on team or
Our interest in ways to make student teams m ore
group process outside the academic environment (Jones,
effective in an academic environment, particularly in
1996). A broad ABI Inform search conducted for the
information systems classes with term-long projects,
most current fifteen years using the search term "student
listed over 450 articles.
However, only six
arose from our suspicion that teamwork as practiced in
teams
academia was serving an opposite from intended
articles during this fifteen-yearperiod dealt with making
student teams in
an academic environment more
purpose. That is, students were learning how not to
Most research used student teams as a
Students tended to
participate in teams effectively.
effective.
procrastinate until the last few weeks of the term and
surrogate for professional work groups, despite the fact
Proceedings of the re Annual Conference of the International Academyfor Information Management
351
AVAILABLE
BEST COPY
2
assignments tend to be team activities in information
then with the high stress levels experienced then,
technology courses (S tephens and O'Hara,
1999):
irritability and conflict in teams increased. Frequently,
research papers and case study analyses. This research
high achieving students on the team exerted a heroic
does not address these two types of team assignments.
effort ("all nighter ) to complete the project either alone
We are concerned with tasks, like information systems
or in pairs. Other students got a free ride and the same
projects, where groups have been shown to perform
grade. The team experience seemed to be decreasing
better than even the best individual in that group: "the
learning and increasing grade inflation as all students
problem has multiple parts, no one member has all the
received grades earned by the better students. Feedback
information necessary, the problem is at least moderately
on the project usually came at the end of the term, but no
complex, interdependence is necessary, and there is
action was required as a result of this feedback. Instead
enough time for members to process information
of learning how to execute a project effectively as part of
(Watson, Johnson, Merritt, 1998, 162).
a team, students seemed to be learning all the "what not
In fact, we asked
to do's
for effective teamwork.
Given projects with these attributes, what interventions
ourselves, "would the students enter the work world be
will facilitate the following objectives?
better prepared for effective teamwork if they had not
had teamwork in the academic environment?
increase learning of course content
Jones (1996) calls for the development of a robust
learn how to work in teams effectively including
of
set
student
managing
teams,
for
system
a
professional meeting conduct, conflict resolution, peer
interventions that is not instructor dependent or task
evaluation, workload sharing, incremental versus last
dependent as long as the task is a complex one like a
minute development, management of non-performers
term-long systems project. Preliminary results indicate
that significant improvements can be made with these
improve quality for final project deliverables
interventions and that the results are not dependent on a
Thus, we demonstrate progress
particular instructor.
increase student and instructor satisfaction with the
toward a robust system for effective student team work
team experience and the project deliverables
on lengthy, complex tasks such as a system s project.
prepare students to participate effectively on project
This paper describes our exploration of guidelines for
teams in the work environment
increasing the effectiveness of student project teams,
both in terms of learning course content and learning to
We begin our exploration of these questions knowing
First, we review the results of a
work well in teams.
that the development of these guidelines will be an on-
meta-analysis of prior research (Stephens, 2001) and
of our
going process, one of the
"holy
grails
then we look at our explo ration of intervention sets with
pedagogical efforts. However, work over the past two
results obtained thus far (data collection and analysis for
years has been productive.
three of seven classes is incomplete at this writing).
Student surveys and comments, peer evaluations,
INTERVENTIONS EMPLOYED
anecdotal information, and instructorjudgment are used
results
make
Finally,
our
we
analysis.
for
A review of prior research and an
analysis of
recommendations for interventions based upon prior
interventions shown to be effective (Stephens, 2001)
research and our results. Needs for further research are
provides a background for instructor selection of both
addressed in our conclusion.
interventions and timing of interventions.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Tables 2 and 3 provide summary data concerning the
classes in which interventions were employed and the
Our primary concern is with large, m ore complex
for this
intervention sets employed in each class
require coordination throughout
the
projects that
Other than projects, two types of
empirical study.
academic term.
Proceedings of the 16' Annual Conference of the International Academyfor Information Management
352
3
TABLE 1
META-ANALYSIS OF PRIOR RESEARCH
INTERVENTIONS FOR IMPROVING EFFECTIVENESS OF STUDENT TEAMS
Source(s)
Interventions
Jones (1996); Watson et al. (1998), McKeague et al. (1999)
Rapid, frequent feedback on team process
(documentation in form of reports, minutes,
agendas, action lists, meeting journals) and
project content (reports,presentations,project
deliverables)
Jones (1996), McKeague et al. (1999), Stephens and Myers (2000)
Frequent, regularly scheduled meetings
Jones (1996); Mennecke et al. (1998); McKendall (2000),
Training on working in teams
Siciliano (1999)
.
Jones (1996), McKeague et al. (1999)
Individual as well as team accountability
Watson et al. (1998),Roe buck (1998), McK endall (2000), Siciliano
Peer evaluation
(1999), Rajlich et al. (2000), Stephens and Myers (2000)
McKendall (2000)
Team contract
McKendall (2000)
/Reflection on team experience
McKendall (2000)
Student evaluation of other team projects
Gardner and Korth (1998)
Lessons on importance of teamwork
Gardner and Korth (1998), Siciliano (1999)
Discussions of prior problemswith teamwork
Gardner and Korth (1998)
Assign to teams based on learning styles
Siciliano (1999)
Development of ideal team member profile
Clark (1998), Stephens and Myers (2000)
Attention to meeting management
McKeague et al. (1999), Stephens and Myers (2000)
Weekly scheduled meetings
McKendall (2000)
Meeting time in class
Clark (1998), Mennecke and Bradley (1997), Stephens and Myers
Defined roles in meetings
(2000)
Clark (1998), Stephens and Myers (2000)
Use of meeting agendas
Clark (1998), McK eague et al. (1999), Stephens and Myers (2000)
Use of meetin g minutes, journals
Stephens and Myers (2000)
Team process as grade component
McKeague et al. (1999)
Meeting management as grade component
Clark (1998) , Stephens and Myers (2000)
Use of e-mail for information sharing prior to
meetings
Stephens and Myers (2000)
Use of action lists in meeting
TABLE 2
CLASS DESCRIPTORS
University
Instructor
Course
Class
Database Management
A
1
1
Database Management
2
B
1
Analysis and Design
2
C
1
Analysis and Design
2
D
1
1
Analysis and Design
2
E
3
Database Management
F
2
1
Database Management
G
3
1
353
Proceedings of the 16h Annual Conference of the International Academyfor Information Management
TABLE 3
INTERVENTIONS EMPLOYED IN EACH CLASS
*
*
Interventions
G
F
C E
A B
D
Rapid, frequent feedback on team process (documentation in form of reports,
X
X
X X X
minutes, agendas, action lists, meeting journals) and project content (reports,
presentations, project deliverables)
X
Frequent, regularly scheduled meetings
X X X
X
Training on working in teams
X
X
Individual as well as team accountability
X X
X
X
Peer evaluation
X X
X X
Team contract
X X
X
X
Reflection on team experience
X
Student evaluation of other team projects
X X
X
X
Lessons on importance of teamwork
X
Discussions of prior problems with team work
X
X
X X
Assign to teams based on learning styles
Development of ideal team member profile
X
X
Attention to meeting management
X
X X
X X
Weekly scheduled meetings
X
X
X X X
Meeting time in class
X X X
X
Defined roles in meetings
X X
X
X X
Use of meeting agendas
X
X X
X X
Use of m eeting minutes, journals
X
X X
X X X
Team process as grade component
X
X X
X
X
Meeting management as grade component
X
X
Use of e-mail for information sharing prior to meetings
X
X X
X X
Use of action lists in meeting
X X
X X
X
In Classes F and G, students were allowed to choose to use no interventions or to use the interventions described on
*
Student team s who chose to use the interventions comprise Class F. Students who chose to use no
a web site.
interventions comprise Class G. The same survey was administered to both groups.
allowed students to take on a role for longer periods of
For the continuation of our study (Stephens and Myers,
Secondly, we required a team contract.
time.
The
2000) with Class C, three major changes were made to
contract must specify
the treatment for Class A: roles could be assigned for
longer durations, a contract was required, and frequent
time and place of the regular weekly meeting;
feedback was emphasized with three team presentations
instead of the prior final presentation of the project. In
number of permiss ible absences and justifiable reasons
Class A, we had required that roles rotate, allowing each
for absence;
team member to play each role.
Students in this class
(Stephens and Myers, 2000) asked that each team
conduct during the meeting;
member play each of the three roles (Facilitator, Scribe,
Scheduler) then that the roles be assigned for at least
conditions under which a team member could be
three weeks to the same student (see Stephens and
terminated from the team;
Myers, 2000,for a full description ofthese roles). So we
Proceedings of the 10 Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management
354
5
responded to feedback on the first presentation by the
grade to which the team aspired and time/week willing
second presentation had to meet with the instructor. At
to devote to the project;
midterm, each team member completed a survey on the
These were
behaviors of other team members.
use of e-mail (for example, check e-mail at least once per
summarized and given to each team member. Further,
day, use a certain format for attachments); and
after midterm, teams were allowed some class time for
meeting. Class D, an analysis and design class, used
other issues of importance to the group.
these additional conditions.
We emphasized that teamwork is important in our field
Class E used almost the same conditions (no midterm
and also emphasized that we were expecting professional
and two versus
peer evaluation
milestone
three
team management, including the termination of non-
presentations) as Class D but had a larger team size on
performing team mem bers. Schedules were the basis for
average and had a different instructor. As with Class D,
Each class member introduced
team assignment.
the course content was analysis and design. Classes F
her/him self to the class and indicated when s/he could
were given a
and G, database management classes,
meet every week. Team contracts had to be accepted by
choice concerning team process. They could use the
all team members and by the instructor. Elements of the
guidelines posted on the class web site or use very few
ideal team member (Sciliano, 1999) were used for the
guidelines. The guidelines for Class G are most like
contracts.
those for Class A with the following exceptions.
Thirdly, instead of one project presentation, Class C
Class time was allowed for meeting
made three presentations. At each presentation, the class
served as Steering Committee, completing an evaluation
Assignment to teams is based on studentpreference of
form and making recommendations. Teams submitted
no preference (random
three methods:
used),
the project notebook for instructor review. Feedback
description of ideal team member, list of preferred
given became a part of project documentation. Before
team members
the next prese ntation and review, changes recommended
by the instructor should be made.
These changes
Feedback in the form of two midterm deliverables
become part of the next review. One analysis and design
class, Class C, used these team process constraints.
Those students in the two classes who did not choose to
use the team process guidelines were called Class G.
The following term, three modifications were made for
They did participate in the feedback in the form of two
Class D .
midterm deliverables, class time allowed for meetings,
and choosing their preferred method of team assignment.
Additional incentives were added for weekly meetings
These two intervention sets are especially interesting
and for responding to feedback.
because the class had both computer science and
information systemsmajors. Additional data for analysis
Peer evaluation concerning the perceived behavior of
is provided in terms of performance according to choice
each team member was administered at midterm.
concerning team process and choice according to major.
Furthermore, these classes had a mix of non-traditional
Some class time was allotted for team meetings.
and traditional students. Many non - traditional students
had work experience with teams, whereas traditional age
Points were given for agendas issued two days prior to
students lacked such experience.
the meeting and for minutes distributed within two days
after the meeting. A template was used for the agenda
The same instructor managed the team process in
and the minutes. Teams might not receive full points if
Classes A, C, and D. Another instructor managed the
minutes were sketchy or agenda items missing. Any
team process in Classes B, F, and G. A third instructor
student missing the meeting received no points for either
managed the team process in Class E. Instructor
the agenda or minutes, thus extending controls beyond
1
and 2 while
managed teams at both University
the team itself. To encourage timely response to feed-
1
Instructor 2 managed teams at University
and
back, the team's track record on looping back to revise
1
Instructor 3, at University 2.
or correct project work based on feedback became a
component of the project grade. Teams that had not
355
Proceedings of the 16h Annual Conference of the International Academyfor Information Management
6
Wor king in Teams Effectively
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The use of agendas, meeting minutes templates, action
As Mennecke and Bradley noted (1997), studies of these
lists, and designated roles all contributed to professional
types will always have confounded results and are by
meeting conduct. All students, including the control and
nature, more exploration than experiment. We examined
those who chose not to use constraints, agreed that they
each of our research questions objectives in terms of
learned to use meeting time more effectively as a result
both survey results, student comments, and professor
All but one of the treatment groups
of the project.
Our objectives for these interventions
judgment.
agreed that agendas were valuable and contributed to
parenthesis with the survey question
followed
in
effective use of meeting time. All groups agreed that
numbers (Appendix A) which address that objective are
action lists were valuable and contributed to equitable
as follows.
The strongest agreement came from the
workloads.
groups that were rewarded for weekly meetings (D,E).
increase learning of course content (18,19, comments,
Peer evaluations at midterm seemed to be an effective
professor judgement)
intervention. Group D had a more favorable experience
overall than other groups and was the only one with this
learn how to work in teams effectively including
intervention. Group D also dismissed one student from
professionalmeeting conduct, conflict resolution, peer
a team for contract violation. The effect of midterm
evaluation, workload sharing, incremental versus last
evaluation needs further exploration based on these
minute development, management of non-performers
results. Peer evaluations at the end of the quarter did not
(1-17, 20-2 6, comm ents, professor judgm ent)
in grade changes for any individual student
result
because they indicated that individual contributions had
improve quality for final project deliverables (7,
been reasonably equitable. Professors judge that action
comm ents, profess or judgem ent)
contracts, and weekly meetings
list
monitoring,
positively affect workload sharing. Results on the use of
increase student and instructor satisfaction with the
roles are mixed. The facilitator role was found most
team experience and the project deliverables (27,28,
valuable and teams with regular weekly meetings agreed
comm ents, professor judgm ent)
that the scribe and scheduler were valuable. The weaker
results for the scheduler may indicate that more class
prepare students to participate effectively on project
time needs to be devoted to this role's duties.
teams in the work environment (professor judgment)
One of the most important results of the interventions
Increased Learning
experienced by groups C,D, and E was the requirement
that deliverables be presented throughout the quarter.
All student groups agreed that the project helped them to
Results indicate that an incentive for weekly meetings
understand course topics, with the strongest agreement
and increased use of feedback along with the use of
being from students who had points given for weekly
roles and meeting management, improves the project and
Surprisingly, students
team meetings (Appendix B).
the project experience (Class D,E,A). The deliverables
were indifferent about whether the project help ed with
for the project are nearly complete at the same time in
exams except for students who had grade incentives for
the term as the project was typically begun without these
weekly meetings (D and E) and they agreed that the
Almost all members of the team
interventions.
project helped them with the exams. In fact, the most
participate in the project substantially or are terminated
frequent rating for that statement was a mode of 5 or
by their team, in keeping with the terms of the team
agree between those two groups.
The
strongly
After implementation of the contract and
contract.
intervention that made a difference with learning course
rewarded weekly meetings (Class D and E), teams
content was to provide a grade incentive for weekly
actually terminated members, as happens in the "real
meetings, as demonstrated by meeting minutes and
Thus, two key problems have been addressed:
world.
action lists submitted weekly. Professors involved also
procrastination and free loading. All groups agreed that
judged that background readings were completed on a
their skill at working in groups had improved, but
week-to-week because the readings were needed to
treatment groups D and E, where week ly meetings were
complete incremental project deliverables.
International Academyfor Information Management
Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the
356
7
CS majors were evenly split between interventions F
part of the grade, experienced strong agreement with this
and G. IS majors were less likely to choose to use the
statement.
team process (intervention F) only 24% of IS majors
made this choice.
Project Quality
Students with intervention set F were more like ly to be
Professors judged that the quality of the final project was
employed full or parttime, perhaps because they have
significantly improved as a result of incremental team
a more mature understanding of the power of teams
developm ent. Using grades as an indicant of quality has
when run effectively.
proved difficult since grades tend to be relative to overall
Students with intervention F were more like ly to
class perform ance. With incremental presentations, the
comment about increased team effectiveness related to
expectation for the final project may shift as well.
minutes and action lists, though minutes were required
Students perceive that the quality of the project is
of all students.
improved as a result of team activity in all groups, but
the strongest agreement is found in groups where team
Students (F and G) recognize the effectiveness of
so student
process interventions were employed,
regular, well-planned meetings, but are lo ath to take
perception agrees with the professors' perception on
time outside of class.
improved project quality.
Several teams expressed frustration with students who
Satisfaction with the Team Experience
contributed very little, procrastinated until the last
minute, or simply had lower grade expectations.
Student satisfaction with the team process imp roves with
increased interventions and decreases with less structure
Many suggested that the derelict students be handled
or a lower level of interventions. The lowest satisfaction
peer
end-of-term
formally,
an
although
more
with the team project was experienced by Class B, a
evaluation accounted for 25% of the project grade. A
control team with the fewest interventions, and the next
few suggested the use of contracts. These comments
lowest, by Class G, students who had some interventions
originated with students involved in both interventions
but who chose to not follow team process guidelines.
F and G.
The students with the highest level of interventions,
Class D, experienced the highest satisfaction (Appen dix
F m ore
frequently
intervention
with
Students
B). All teams using a contract strongly agreed with the
expressed satisfaction with the use ofemail and phone
statement in question 27, "The project team worked
calls as a way to address differing schedules.
effectively with the
concerning
constraints
more
meetings and roles played than other teams on which I
intervention G m ore
frequently
with
Students
have worked which had no team process constraints.
expressed a need for more detailed guidelines (!).
Teams with follow-up (whether rewarded or not) on
regular weekly meetings strongly agreed with the
Even students with extensive work experience express
statement, "I would choose the same team members
frustration about covering for the slackers in order to
again.
delivery a high quality project.
When Stud ents Choose
One student expressed concern over the distribution of
felt that his/her team contained
international students
The results with Classes F and G, where students chose
too many international students which generated
team process
interventions,
are
whether
use
to
communication problems.
particularly interesting. While class B was a control
class, students in the F group chose not to employ team
One student expressed concern over the gender
process constraints. Highlights of these results follow.
she was the only female.
distribution of her team
36% of the students chose to use the prescribed team
At the beginning of the term all students were asked
process (intervention set F). They were not given any
in an on-line survey.
The
for "team preferences
encouragement from the instructor. The guidelines
instructor attempted to use these requests to meet
were simply available to students as a link off the web
At the end of the team
students' perceived needs.
page describing the team project.
357
Proceedings of the 16h Annual Conference of the International Academyfor Information Management
8
Although much work
Our results are encouraging.
process, several students mentioned the importance of
remains to be done, we conclude that it is possible to
choosing their own teammates, most esp ecially students
learning, student
team
dramatically
increase
in treatment G. It is interesting to note that students with
effectiveness, and both student and instructorsatisfaction
very specific ideas of who to work with were m ore likely
with the experience when team process interventions are
to choose to follow treatment F (team guidelines).
employed. A phased approach may be used (Stephens,
2001). These interventions allow student teams to more
Also students who initially described the ideal team
accurately simulate the experience of professional
member using phrases like "achievers or "[students]
business teams, thus better preparing our students for
who work hard were placed on teams together. At
role on these teams in the work world.
the end of the process, they were generally the most
Perhaps, students
dissatisfied with the experience.
REFERENCES
accustomed to star performers carrying the group,
The link
selected each other with this preference.
Clark, T. (1998). "Teaching Students to Enhance the
between ideal team member definition and project
Ecology of Small Group Meetings.
Business
outcomes bears further investigation.
Communication Quarterly 61(4), 40-52.
Students with some work experience are m ore likely to
Jones, D. (1996). "Empowered Teams in the Classroom
choose to follow a stmctured approach to teamwork.
Journal for
and
Therefore, it may be more important to required
Quality
Work.
Can
The
Participation 19(1), 80-90.
adherence to the team process when students have
little personal experience with the world of work.
Kayser, T. A. (1990). Mining Group Gold. El Segundo,
Instructor 2 will experiment with contracts in the
CA: Serif.
future.
McKeage, K., Skinner, D., Seymour, R., Donahue, D
and Christensen, T. (1999). "Implementing an
Instructor 2 will explore assigning student to teams
Marketing/Engineering Course
Interdisciplinary
based on work styles or habits, as with the Myers-
Project: Project Format, Preliminary Evaluation, and
Briggs instrument or similar.
Journal of Marketing
Critical Factor Review.
Education 21(3), 217-231.
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
McKendall, M. (2000). "Teaching Groups to Become
Our experience in the initial study involving Classes A
Journal of Education for Business (May,
as well as this continuation with five more
Team s.
and B,
June), 277-282.
classes, leads us to believe that student team projects can
teach effective teamwork and better prepare students for
Mennecke, B., Bradley, J., and McLeod, M. (1998).
a team environment in the work world. Student teams
"Making Project Groups Work II: The Impact of
can reinforce the learning of course content for all
Group Process Training and Role Assignment on the
students, not just the stars who have been carrying the
Performance and Perception of Information Systems
load for most student team projects.
Project Teams. Proceedings of the International
A cad emy for Information Management (December),
Two interventions appear to be critical.
110-120.
Weekly meetings as evidenced by meeting agendas,
Mennecke, B. and Bradley, J. (1997). "Making Project
minutes, action lists submitted for grading purposes.
Groups Work: The Impact of Structuring Group
Any absent student receives no points.
Roles on the Performance and Perception of
Information Systems Project Teams. Proceedings
Milestone presentations throughout the quarter timed
of the International Academy for Information
to follow the topics currently being studied. Student
Management (December), 19-24.
teams receive feedback from peers and the professor.
Proceedings of the 16h Annual Conference of the International Academyfor Information Management
358
9
Stephens, C. and Myers, M. (2000). "Team Process
Roebuck, D. (1998). "Using Team Learning in Business
Constraints: Testing the Perceived Impact on
Classes.
Communication
Organizational
and
Product Quality and the Effectiveness of Team
Business Communication Quarterly 61(3), 35-49.
Proceedings of the International
Interactions.
Academyfor Information Management (Decemb er),
for Managing
"A Template
(1999).
Sciliano,
J.
70-77.
Teamwork in Courses Across the Curriculum.
Journal of Education for Business (May/June), 261-
Stephens, C. (2001). "A Meta - Analysis of Research on
264.
Proposed
Effectiveness:
Student
Team
A
Application of Phased Interventions.
Working
Stephens, C. and O'Hara, M. (1999). "The Required IT
Louisiana Tech
paper submitted to IAIM 2001.
Management Course in AAC SB Curriculums: A
University.
Comparison of the Undergraduate and MBA
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Inter-
Course.
national Academy for Information Management
(December), 264-273.
359
Proceedings of the 16h Annual Conference of the International Academyfor Information Management
10