Ground Rules in Team Projects: Findings from a Prototype System to Support Students

Student team project work in higher education is one of the best ways to develop team working skills at the same time as learning about the subject matter. As today’s students require the freedom to learn at times and places that better match their lifestyles, there is a need for any support for team project work to be also available online. Team working requires that the task roles as well as the maintenance roles are taken into consideration, in that social interactions are just as important as carrying out the tasks of the project. The literature indicates that groupware, whilst effective in supporting the task roles, provides limited support for the maintenance roles of team working in the work place. As groupware was not specifically designed for student team working, it provides limited support for maintenance roles in student team projects. Virtual learning environments similarly provide support for completing the task roles. Many researchers have found that students experience difficulties with their team project work that reduce the perceived benefits of working in a team. It is proposed that helping students to agree on ground rules at the start of a project will improve team cohesion. This paper describes the implementation and evaluation of a prototype system to help students to agree on ground rules as they start their team projects. The system was tested with teams of students carrying out information systems team projects, using an interpretive case study research approach. In this case the teams had the additional problem of being composed of students from across three years of their undergraduate degree programmes, so they did not always have prior knowledge of each other’s preferences. We were trying to establish how useful this software tool would be to these student teams, in starting their project work. The findings showed that some of the student teams did find the ground rules function useful, but the team leaders were the ones who most appreciated its potential. The students may use the outputs in very different ways, but even just looking at the ground rules appeared to get team members thinking about their expectations for team working. Student teams do not often start by thinking about norms, but this study shows a positive benefit of encouraging teams to agree on ground rules at the start of their projects.

[1]  Rebecca Brent,et al.  Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs. , 1994 .

[2]  Steven H. Appelbaum,et al.  The management of multicultural group conflict , 1998 .

[3]  Connie E. Wells Teaching Teamwork in Information Systems , 2002 .

[4]  Colin Allison,et al.  A Group Based System for Group Based Learning ♦ , 2001 .

[5]  H. Rutenberg Group processes. , 1974, Hospital progress.

[6]  B. Tuckman DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  Marilyn Ford,et al.  Using Micro Management Techniques to Overcome Problems in Group Assignments , 2003 .

[8]  K. Lynch,et al.  Group Project Work and Student-centred Active Learning: Two different experiences , 2000 .

[9]  Randall S. Hansen,et al.  Benefits and Problems With Student Teams: Suggestions for Improving Team Projects , 2006 .

[10]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Are norms enough? The role of collaborative norms in promoting organizational knowledge seeking , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Sue Newell,et al.  Exploring Trust among Globally Distributed Work Teams , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

[12]  G. Conole,et al.  What are the affordances of information and communication technologies ? , 2004 .

[13]  Richard L. Groesbeck,et al.  Enabling team wellness: monitoring and maintaining teams after start‐up , 2001 .

[14]  R. Belbin Beyond the Team , 2000 .

[15]  Jack W. Fellers,et al.  Teaching teamwork: exploring the use of cooperative learning teams in information systems education , 1996, DATB.

[16]  E. Berscheid Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills , 1976 .

[17]  Jessica Burdman,et al.  Collaborative Web Development: Strategies and Best Practices for Web Teams , 1999 .

[18]  G. Goodwin,et al.  What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. , 2006 .

[19]  David Powell,et al.  Group communication , 1996, CACM.

[20]  Dennis O’Connor,et al.  Team Leadership , 2007 .

[21]  Eli B. Cohen,et al.  Challenges of information technology education in the 21st century , 2001 .

[22]  Gwenny Ruël,et al.  Free-riding and team performance in project education , 2003 .

[23]  Lauren Maxwell,et al.  A guide to global virtual teaming , 2007 .

[24]  Debbie Thorne McAlister,et al.  The Project Management Plan: Improving Team Process and Performance , 2006 .

[25]  Norah Jones,et al.  Managing collaboration across further and higher education: a case in practice , 2007 .

[26]  Michael Workman,et al.  Goals, relationships, information and processes in global virtual team performance , 2004 .

[27]  A. Carrón,et al.  The influence of team norms on the cohesion–self-reported performance relationship: a multi-level analysis , 2005 .

[28]  Christopher Connolly,et al.  How Teamwork Works: The Dynamics of Effective Team Development , 1996 .

[29]  S. Mennin Small-Group Problem-Based Learning as a Complex Adaptive System. , 2007 .

[30]  Rosalind Hordyk,et al.  A convergence of perspectives: Enhancing students' employability by becoming members of the same team , 2008 .

[31]  Janice Whatley,et al.  Intelligent agents to support students working in groups online , 2000 .

[32]  Lewis A. Bizo,et al.  Team-skills training enhances collaborative learning , 2006 .

[33]  Elisabeth Dunne,et al.  Bridging the Gap Between Industry and Higher Education: Training Academics to Promote Student Teamwork , 2000 .

[34]  C. Chapman,et al.  Strong community, deep learning: exploring the link , 2005 .

[35]  Robert Freed Bales Personality and interpersonal behavior / Robert Freed Bales , 1970 .

[36]  Binshan Lin,et al.  Effect of team diversity on software project performance , 2007, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[37]  Blake Ives,et al.  Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research , 2004, DATB.

[38]  Jane Burdett,et al.  Making Groups Work: University Students' Perceptions , 2003 .

[39]  J. Adair Effective Teambuilding: How to Make a Winning Team , 1986 .

[40]  Cornelia Boldyreff,et al.  Distributed group working in software engineering education , 1998, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[41]  Mark A. Edwards,et al.  Supporting the Collaborative Learning of Practical Skills with Computer-Mediated Communications Technology , 2001, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[42]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperative learning : increasing college faculty instructional productivity , 1991 .

[43]  Nina Bonderup Dohn Affordances - a Merleau-Pontian Account , 2005 .

[44]  Aharon Tziner,et al.  Teams: Structure, Process, Culture and Politics , 1999 .

[45]  R. Golembiewski,et al.  The centrality of interpersonal trust in group processes , 1975 .

[46]  Darren Gergle,et al.  Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development , 2002, CHI.

[47]  B. Garratt,et al.  The Learning Organization , 1987 .

[48]  Zane L. Berge Differences in Teamwork between Post-Secondary Classrooms and the Workplace. , 1998 .

[49]  W. Bion,et al.  Experiences in groups. , 1961, Human relations; studies towards the integration of the social sciences.

[50]  Minna Lakkala,et al.  Teachers' pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study , 2005, Comput. Educ..

[51]  Grahame Cooper,et al.  Cenralisation of Assessment: Meeting the Challenges of Multi-Year Team Projects in Information Systems Education , 2007, J. Inf. Syst. Educ..