Jamie Szwalek

Design work in industry is done by engineering teams, so many engineering courses incorporate team-based projects to teach key skills such as teamwork, communication, and project management. Students develop a life skill vital to their future professional and personal development; the ability to interact in a positive and effective way with colleagues and coworkers (Oakley et al. 2004).  The stakes are lower when working in student teams.  In the professional world, individuals who do not pull weight on work teams eventually suffer consequences far worse than low grades (Kaufman et al. 2000).

Students in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering take Introduction to Engineering Design and Graphics (ME 250), which is a first year required course. The course is taught as a design studio class, where students work in instructor-assigned teams of four to complete a six-week design project. Since this is their first time working in engineering teams, it sets the tone for teamwork in advanced courses, especially for the two-semester long design project in senior design.

In ME 250, students are still developing their skills, so they often struggle to work collaboratively in teams. Some students actively resist engaging in teamwork activities, making this even more challenging, especially if there is no acting team leader. Additionally, students may not fully understand the expectations for teamwork and the time commitment outside of class. In general, student teams do not have the skills to identify a problem, give constructive criticism, and fix any team dynamic problems.

Student teams can become collaborative if they are given impactful and actionable feedback from their instructor. However, this can be frustrating and time-consuming for instructors who teach team-based classes, especially when trying to monitor project progress and guide or assess the team dynamics to increase collaboration. What can be done? Instructors can teach in a strategic and reflective way that emphasizes the importance of teamwork and collaboration.  For example, when team issues arise that are common to many teams, one approach is to hold a “crisis clinic” during class. The instructor provides a common scenario and asks the teams to brainstorm solutions for 10 minutes (Oakley et al. 2004).  This takes practice- a crisis clinic should be run periodically several times during the semester. By the end of the semester, students learn how to deal with team issues by creating a list of potential solutions and choosing the best option; any students who are causing the problem are now aware that they will be identified. Before a crisis clinic can be run, the teams need to become self-aware of their team environment, and this can be done using reflection discussions.

This study addresses the challenges that instructors face when teaching team-based courses.  The goal is to create effective (positive) team experiences that guide students to take ownership of creating and sustaining a collaborative team environment.  Factors that promote effective teamwork are collaboration, inclusivity, participation, equitable work assignments, engaging all members of the team, and determining team strengths and growth areas.  Ideally, the instructor serves as a guide to the team, rather than a manager, by providing “just in time “help. The first step is to build the teams carefully; teams can be diverse based on major, year, availability, and attitude toward teamwork. The second step is to build rapport, so students are comfortable voicing their opinions on a neutral topic before taking on the design project. The third step is for the instructor to set clear expectations about what teamwork entails and what good communication looks like in the course. The fourth step is for teams to come to a consensus about what they expect from each other, setting their “ground rules,” and writing them down in a team contract that they agree to follow. When issues arise, teams may be able to examine their team contract and solve the problem on their own, but typically this is not a common occurrence as they require more guidance.

Instructors who have taught a team-based course multiple times may have an intuitive feel for what challenges the teams face. All teams develop through stages; successful teams work toward a performance goal, and successful teams adopt a common approach and standards [Gatchell et. al 2014]. To develop a common standard, the instructor can give the teams time in class to reflect on their performance, identify their challenges, and discuss potential solutions. The approach used in this study is a formal reflection activity where teams self-assess themselves. Instructors pose specific reflection discussion questions and give teams time to discuss and record their answers, with the key of repeating this each week of the project. This can motivate the teams to make changes to their team environment.  The instructor can quickly review the reflections to identify the challenges and provide guidance to make the action plan specific and meaningful. Not all teams will face the same challenges – this gives each team a more personalized approach just in time. This type of activity could be used in other classes for projects, not just engineering.

This study seeks to map the challenges faced by teams during a six-week design project; the goal is to ensure teams get specific and actionable feedback to create and sustain a collaborative team environment. The method uses a formal reflection activity in class which allows instructors to monitor team progress and provide feedback. Initial research will address the following questions:

• What are the challenges the teams are facing? Are there any common challenges that teams face during the project? How are challenges evolving with time?  How are the teams developing?

This information will allow the instructor to determine if there are additional resources that can be provided to ensure teams have the necessary skills for teamwork.  Later research would address the student’s perception to see if reflections contributed directly to a more positive teamwork experience and its effectiveness at creating a collaborative team environment.

Data for the research study was successfully collected over two data collection periods. Participation in this research was high, though no financial incentives were offered to the participants. The findings come from mixed methods – a qualitative analysis and a quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis gathered thematic information through written weekly reflections in which teams are asked to discuss pre-selected topics and summarize their discussion on paper. The weekly reflections had 26 students consent out of an enrollment of 43, roughly 60% of the class consented (6 teams). Entire teams had to consent for their data to be used in the research study; teams are composed of either 4 or 5 students.  A quantitative method is used at the end of the project to assess the team’s performance at the end; this is an anonymous survey on teamwork in Qualtrics. Approximately 55 students responded, out of a total enrollment of 86 students (for two data collection periods), roughly 64%.

Instructors had previously implemented a good framework in the course for the team-based project. These methods included the following: weekly team evaluations for individual accountability, team contract assignment for determining ground rules especially regarding communication and behavior, required task management process (i.e. Gantt chart spreadsheet), icebreakers to build community and psychological safety, and reflection discussions.

Weekly team evaluations have been used for a long time in the course. They are completed privately and focus on the individual’s accountability to the team to alert instructors to developing problems. While they are mainly used to determine overall teamwork grades, it can allow instructors to intervene and meet privately with a student who does not meet teamwork expectations. Ideally, the team solves its own problems internally, but most likely that is not the case. Contributing to success of cooperative effort requires teamwork skills, including skills in leadership, decision making, trust building, communication, and conflict management; many students do not have these skills (Smith et al 2005) and some are adjusting to college expectations. Students may not want to get teammates in trouble by giving poor reviews, so honesty can be an issue in team evaluations. Individual accountability is addressed by team evaluations, but improving team dynamics is usually not.

Of the methods used, reflections are the only one that tasks students to talk about how their team works together (team dynamics). Reflection discussions had been used informally prior to this research study, but they were not emphasized or used consistently enough to help the team, and they were not shared with the instructor. Through this research study, the reflections became formalized and theme-based, more specific to perceived challenges facing the team that week, and more reflective regarding assessment of the team’s dynamics. They are meant to be useful to all teams – even high functioning teams by asking what the team is doing well and what the team can do (action item) to improve. As part of the process, reflections are shared with the instructor so they can provide a “crisis clinic” (Oakley et al 2004, Felder and Brent 2001) or tailored advice can be given regarding team dynamics. While teams perform project work during class, the instructor checks in and has one teammate summarize what they discussed in the reflection. The instructor is more of a guide; the responsibility of the teacher becomes less an imparter of knowledge and more a designer and facilitator of learning experiences and opportunities; cooperative learning requires carefully structured individual accountability (Smith et al 2005).

The reflections are carefully designed to cultivate team awareness, provide topics for discussion to better understand each other, be pro-active in upcoming challenges they might face, and brainstorm opportunities for them to work better together. For example, teams were asked to talk about prior team-based experiences in both high school and college; while some have experienced positive learning experiences, others may have had negative experiences. To promote positivity, teams are asked to create a goal of hope for their teamwork afterward.  Each reflection tasks the team to identify what they can do differently and create at least one action item intended to improve how their team performs. This brings forward issues of importance to one or more teammates – alerting all teammates to an issue – and together they brainstorm a solution (action item). This has the added effect of building community and communication skills every week, which benefits the team.

There has been some refinement to the methods used prior to the study.  A careful reflection of how the teams worked together indicated that more icebreakers are needed than originally thought – at least three icebreakers over the first three classes are used, at the start of the project.  They serve to develop trust and encourage participation. Icebreakers encourage positive interdependence – students must believe they are linked with others in a way that one cannot succeed unless all members of the team succeed and vice versa (Smith et al 2005).  Additionally, a “No Judgement” policy is explained in class as a ground rule for team behavior and this is reiterated as needed to engage full participation (Felder and Brent 2001).

Teams work together to complete a project in college, but there is usually no formal discussion of team roles. A short discussion of expected team roles is formalized during class, along with handouts for reference and small laminated cards they can use during class. The laminated cards were handed out when the roles rotated and left on the desks for the team to use. The cards explain the team roles and give examples of statements that the role player would say. Teams were given four roles that they rotate among the first four weeks of the project – after that point, they can choose the role that best suits them. It is emphasized in class discussion that while they may be tempted to skip rotating roles, do try them all out, emphasizing a growth mindset. This is one-way teammates can develop skills by trying out a role they usually do not assume.

Qualitative Data Analysis of Reflections

A coded study was performed to identify themes from the reflections and selected data is shown in this section. The open-ended responses are tagged with codes to be grouped with similar ideas so that themes can be observed. The top five themes include: working with a limited time frame (i.e. one-week deadlines), completing tasks on time, organizing and assigning tasks, lacking technical comprehension, and meeting outside of class. Working with teammates can take longer, especially when the teams are asked to collaborate –the expectation is to review each other’s work and give feedback for improvement. It is always a challenge to complete and submit work on time when you are waiting for others to complete their tasks.  Students are struggling with their own personal time management skills and they may be working too close to the deadline. Another challenge is meeting outside of class due to schedule conflicts (work, midterms, classes, etc.); teams were grouped by availability of when they can work on the project outside of class – this helped alleviate some issues as they were required to meet outside of class at least one time and complete the work. Meeting weekly increased communication, collaboration, and satisfaction with their team.  Lacking technical comprehension meant that the students had not mastered the material yet and could signal not being prepared for class.

The thematic analysis for what the team is doing that is helping it succeed while working on the project demonstrated: Communicating outside of class is the top theme, since all project work is started in class, but must be finished outside of class. The other top themes include being able to depend and trust their teammates, organizing and assigning tasks, and completing tasks on time.  Seeing dependability and trust as a top theme and also motivating/supporting teammates on the list signal positive attributes of collaboration.

Organizing and assigning tasks appeared as challenges and as things teams are doing that help them succeed.  Without a required task allocation process, teams skip entirely or struggle to track the increasing work that happens as the project progresses. Having a specific task organization method is helpful and instructors provide a blank template (Gantt chart spreadsheet) that teams can fill in to track tasks, assignments, and deadlines. To keep accountability, instructors check that they are updated weekly. It can be difficult to convince students that Gantt charts are not just another item to check off a list, rather it is the team’s main method of communication for task allocation and management. Teams struggled more than expected with managing Gantt charts, but this can be an area of improvement now that it is known that more feedback might be needed.

Quantitative Data Analysis of Survey Responses

An anonymous survey is given to all students in the class at the end of the project- anyone in the class can consent to participate in the survey, even if they did not participate in the weekly reflection data collection. The responses contain two data collection periods as the survey was repeated (n=55 samples). Some of the data is presented here in this section for quantitative data analysis.

Many of the things done to emphasize teamwork have contributed to building a positive learning community – additional icebreaker activities to build trust, and reflections to promote open discussion and awareness of team dynamics. By the end of the project, most ratings regarding the team’s environment fall into 3 (meets instructor expectations) or 4 (exceeds instructor expectations) which is a measure of success, showing that teams are working well together.

I plan to write a paper for the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition and develop a how to teach with team-based projects workshop for my department.

Conducting action research on teamwork has changed classroom dynamic. The goal is to build a community of learners who care about each other first.  When teams are working together in class well, it is exciting to pause and cheer them on. Talking weekly with the teams has been preventative measure, meaning less intervention required outside of class. It promotes a different classroom environment in which the instructor is confident and relaxed in dealing with teams.  Overall, less team-related anxiety has been observed by students while working on the project, and there are fewer complaints about teammates.

Researching best teamwork practices has been beneficial in refining the methods used in the class and adding others. It has been both challenging and enlightening to develop explicit expectations for teamwork and work toward clarity. For any teammate who is underperforming, the objective is to be clear, direct, and honest with them and circle back to the expectations for teamwork. Overall, this has improved my teaching by allowing time to reflect intentionally on what is done and why and re-thinking if there is a better way.

There has been an attitude shift toward growth mindedness that “students cannot work in teams” to “students do not have all the skills needed for teamwork,” rather they can be guided by the instructor and be successful working with a team. The study here indicates that teams need both intervention and guidance weekly. Mapping out the challenges of the project has allowed for a more proactive approach to teaching teamwork.  By identifying the challenges the teams face, the instructor can fill in gaps where needed – at the time it is most needed. These methods can be expanded to other classes which use team-based projects– not just engineering design.

D. Gatchell, B. Ankenman, P. Hirsch, A. Goodman, and K. Brown (2014, June), “Restructuring Teamwork Pedagogy in a First-Year Engineering Design Program: Lessons Learned and Future Plans” in Proc. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana.

D. Kaufman, R. Felder, and H. Fuller (2000), “Accounting for Individual Effort in Cooperative Learning Teams.” Journal of Engineering Education, vol 89, no.2, 133-140.

R. Felder, and R. Brent (2001), “Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning.” Journal of Cooperation and Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75.

B. Oakley, R. Felder, R. Brent, and I. Elhajj, (2004) “Turning Student Groups into EffectiveTeams,” Journal of Student-Centered Learning, vol. 2, no. 1, 2004, pp. 8–33.

K. Smith, S. Sheppard, D. Johnson, and R. Johnson (2005), “Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices,” Journal of Engineering Education., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 87–101, Jan. 2005.