4.1 Team training
Positively this study demonstrates that the team training activities
designed for an Australian 1st year biology course
(Rasmussen et al., 2011) was also effective in a British
3rd year plant science course and allows for
comparisons between studies (same team training sessions run by the same
lecturer).
Interestingly there was a large difference in student perceptions of
teamwork. While only 59% of first year students reported a positive
attitude to team-work (Rasmussen et al., 2011), here 84% of our third
year students reported positivity towards teamwork (and all had a
positive experience in this team assignment). Despite this disparity the
reasons for liking teamwork were similar with Learning/academic and
shared workload/working as a team as the two most reported benefits in
both studies followed by social/personal reasons. Similarly Wilson et
al., (2018) found meeting new people (71%), sharing workload (67%),
getting to work with friends (56%), Peer teaching experiences (54%) as
the most common team-work benefits in science undergraduates (Wilson et
al., 2018). However they found less than half their respondents reported
positive teamwork experiences and less than 20% believed they achieved
a better mark than if they worked individually (Wilson et al., 2018).
Unsurprisingly with their honours dissertations (in addition to other
courses) being concluded parallel to this team assignment, our
third-year students were less concerned with social or personal benefits
of teamwork compared to the first year students (Rasmussen et al.,
2011). While unequal workload was the most common detriment of teamwork
in both studies, our third year students reported logistics and marks as
more concerning than conflict or social issues which were both important
to the first year cohort (Rasmussen et al., 2011). These seem to be
common across institutions, year groups and science disciplines as
scheduling meetings (logistics), unequal workload, relying on others,
time management and conflict were also the most common detriments
reported in (Wilson et al., 2018).
Including social interactions and an introduction to logistics, as
implemented in the first Team Training Session, are important for
encouraging the development of team synergies and a shared understanding
of the task goals (Panteli et al., 2019). This will be equally important
in virtual teams to overcome that sense of ‘working with strangers’
(Panteli et al., 2019). In contrast to our study, plan-making activities
were only found to improve engagement early in semester (Kizilcec et
al., 2020). One reason for this difference may be because students were
not asked to follow up and reflect on their plan implementation and
working as individuals (Kizilcec et al., 2020) there was less incentive
to stick to a plan. In contrast our students were asked to reflect on
their actions in Session 3 (using the same list of behaviours introduced
in the first session) and working in teams where they were held
accountable for their contribution encourages more consistent
engagement.
There were also differences between cohorts in relation to the
usefulness of each Team Training Session. In both BIOL1030 (Rasmussen et
al., 2011) and Plants and the Soil Environment only a third of
the respondents found the second Session (negotiation) useful.
Interestingly while only 40% of the first year students found the first
session (team forming) useful, 92% of the third years reported that it
was useful with reasons such as “helped to establish people’s strengths
and weaknesses” and “Great to have time to meet people that you are
working with but might not know”. This emphasises that in diverse
courses (and in programmes where some students spend a year in industry
between second and third year) the students even at third year may not
know each other.
While negotiating contribution was considered useful by the most
students in the first year course (Rasmussen et al., 2011), it was the
second least useful according to the third years. This may reflect that
the third year students ‘leant’ on each other more for support as a
result of lockdown and reported fewer conflicts (none reported in this
class while more than a quarter reported team-conflict-related issues in
the first years (Rasmussen et al., 2011)). It is also relevant to note
that sharing emotions and feelings can help build camaraderie in a team
(Ayoko et al., 2012). The exceptional circumstances created by COVID-19
may have forced our students into a situation where they felt it was
acceptable to talk about how they were which may have helped move all
the teams into a ‘performing’ state where they worked together to
overcome complex problems. Similarly it may be that the training was
enough to enable the students to overcome (at least smaller) conflicts
before they became a problem using the non-personal mediation-style
techniques. Ayoko et al., (2012) reported that teams moving into
‘storming’ tended to resort to personal attacks, which can damage
self-confidence. However they noted that the successful teams used
feedback-seeking or mediation behaviours (Ayoko et al., 2012) – the
type of exercises included in our Team Training Session 2.
Our students also reported that ensuring the sessions were compulsory
was important for regular team contact. Other studies have also reported
that students appreciate regular allocated class time for teamwork
(Wilson et al., 2018) and Gleadow et al., (2015) found that blog
engagement increased when marks were also allocated for comments –
further evidence that compulsory sessions or components need to be
associated with marks to ensure success.
Since the marking criteria were presented as explicit rubrics with
different expectations (and learning objectives) to the previous year’s
essays it is unhelpful to compare the marks between cohorts. However it
is useful to note that the video groups performed better than expected
based on the rubric provided and expectations will be raised for the
2020-2021 cohort. Other studies have also found that multimedia
activities are often more explicit in their expectations leading to
improved learning outcomes (Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2015).
Additionally when those multimedia tasks involve communicating to a
non-science audience (as in our task) students also had a better
understanding of the content (Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2015).
As highlighted by Andrew Churches (2008), videos and animation
(implemented by several teams) are tasks creating knowledge (top of
Blooms (digital) taxonomy). Videos are also good for encouraging team
interaction, providing a multimodal educational experience (Visosevic &
Myers, 2017). This paper is not focussed on the video as a mode of
education but rather uses it as an example of an appropriate team
assignment that incorporated explicit team skills and online
collaboration training. For more detailed analyses of multimedia
assessments see (Kuchel et al., 2014; Visosevic & Myers, 2017).
While COVID-19 was an extreme disruption, our students overcame the
challenge, becoming cohesive teams and producing decent end products
(videos). They even enjoyed the task and were engaged such that they all
(except 2) logged in to watch online together in the last
(non-compulsory) session. This raises an interesting (and potentially
controversial) question about whether inflicting some controlled
disruption may in fact better prepare our graduates for a changing
world. By providing them with the tools to succeed they not only had a
positive team experience but gained confidence for future challenges.