Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.82.1.11-19

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Benefits and Problems With Student Teams:
Suggestions for Improving Team Projects
Randall S. Hansen
To cite this article: Randall S. Hansen (2006) Benefits and Problems With Student Teams:
Suggestions for Improving Team Projects, Journal of Education for Business, 82:1, 11-19, DOI:
10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1432

View related articles

Citing articles: 40 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:19

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016

Benefits and Problems With Student Teams:
Suggestions for Improving Team Projects
RANDALL S. HANSEN
STETSON UNIVERSITY
DELAND, FLORIDA

ABSTRACT. Business school faculty
have been placing students into teams for
group projects for many years, with mixed
results. Obvious benefits accrue in using
teams, but so do numerous problems. One

of the main issues is that many business
faculty often place students in teams with
little or no guidance on how teams properly
function. In this article, the author synthesizes a detailed review of the literature on
teams and teamwork, examining the benefits and problems of using student teams
and then suggests processes business faculty can put in place to maximize the benefits
of group projects, while minimizing the

T

eams and teamwork have been
long used by business and, over
the years, much has been written on the
subject specifically examining the
development and use of teams in college
to help prepare students to be productive members of work teams. My purpose in this article is to present a comprehensive review and synthesis of the
literature involving teamwork and student teams from within all aspects of the
business disciplines and beyond, bringing together a meta-analysis of the
extant literature examining the benefits
and problems with student team projects, then suggesting improvements in

the quality of student teamwork to faculty considering using team projects in
their classes.

problems. A preliminary study of student
perceptions of team projects is also included in this review.
Key words: business education, group
projects, teams
Copyright © 2006 Heldref Publications

Work Teams and Teamwork
Workers within organizations have
traditionally worked in teams for some
projects, but the increase of work teams
and the importance of teamwork skills
have increased dramatically over the
last two decades (e.g., Applebaum &
Blatt, 1994; Taninecz, 1997). Several
studies indicate that more than 80% of
organizations employ multiple types of
workplace teams (Cohen & Bailey,

1997; Sundstrom, 1999).
According to Tarricone and Luca
(2002), collaborating in teams requires
much more than traditional business

skills. They noted that “skills such as
problem solving, communication, collaboration, interpersonal skills, social
skills, and time management are actively
being targeted by prospective employers
as essential requirements for employability. Employers consistently mention
collaboration and teamwork as being a
critical skill, essential in almost all
working environments” (Tarricone &
Luca, p. 54).
Hernandez (2002) stated that employers seek employees who can analyze,
evaluate, and find solutions to problems—higher level thinking that comes
from active and cooperative learning.
He added, “employers also need
employees who know how to work
effectively with others. Self-managed

teams are performing increased
amounts of work in many organizations
today” (p. 74).
The ability to manage a team is one
of the skills that employers covet in
potential managers (Ashraf, 2004;
Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski, 2004) and
seek in new business school graduates
(McCorkle et al., 1999; Tarricone &
Luca, 2002; Thacker & Yost, 2002).
Anecdotal data, as presented in Appendix A, show the importance that recent
graduates apply to teamwork. The comments presented here all stress the
amount of teamwork found in the workplace, its value to college students and
graduates, and the importance of learnSeptember/October 2006

11

ing these teamwork skills while in college (Quintessential Careers, 2004).
Furthermore, evidence supports the
theory that decision making is improved

when teamwork is employed (Bamber,
Watson, & Hill, 1996; Hackman, 1990).
Teamwork skills (learning experiences
in group dynamics) are even a learning
standard that Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (2005)
expects its member institutions to
impart to their students as part of
accreditation.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016

Student Teams and
Group Projects
Because of the increased demand for
teamwork in business, employers turned
to business schools to incorporate teambuilding exercises and group projects
into the curriculum, with the idea that
students working in teams would learn
teamwork, problem-solving, communications, leadership, and other key skills

(Alexander & Stone, 1997; Ashraf,
2004; Bolton, 1999; Kunkel & Shafer,
1997). Hernandez (2002) describes
team learning as the creation of cooperative structures that promote active and
higher-level learning or thinking.
The literature provides evidence of a
dramatic increase in the use of teams
throughout the business curriculum
(Batra, Walvoord, & Krishman, 1997;
Deeter-Schmelz & Ramsey, 1998; Hernandez, 2002; Robbins, 1994), but as
Barker and Franzak (1997) stated,
“placing students into groups for class
projects is not the same as developing
teams, even when the term ‘team’ is
applied” (p. 304).
Many faculty assume that student
team projects of any kind provide a realistic experience in terms of team dynamics, cooperation, leadership, group decision making, and communications while
also allowing students to accomplish
larger projects than could be completed
individually and enhancing each team

member’s discipline-specific knowledge
(McCorkle et al., 1999; McKinney &
Graham-Buxton, 1993; Rau & Heyl,
1990).
However, research shows, that, in
many classes, students are simply placed
into team projects with no preparation,
12

Journal of Education for Business

resulting in students being ineffectively
prepared for work teams (Bacon, Stewart, & Silver, 1999; Bolton, 1999;
Ettington & Camp, 2002; Rotfeld,
1998), as well as in unclear goals, mismanagement, conflict, and unequal participation (Cox & Bobrowski, 2000;
McCorkle et al., 1999; McKendall,
2000; Rau & Heyl, 1990). It is clear that
although group work is an important element of business-school curricula, simply placing students in a team or group
and telling them to be a team does not, in
itself, result in higher achievement

(Johnson & Johnson, 1990).
Despite these problems, several
researchers (McCorkle et al., 1999;
McKinney & Graham-Buxton, 1993)
have reported that students generally
respond positively to group work and
that team assignments can be useful in
the acquisition of team skills. Furthermore, student attitudes about teamwork
have been shown to be positively related
to teamwork effectiveness (Gregorich,
Helmreich, & Wilhelm, 1990; Stout,
Salas, & Fowlkes, 1997). In addition,
many benefits accrue for students when
they work in teams. Numerous researchers have shown that the learning-bydoing approach of group projects results
in active learning and far greater comprehension and retention of information,
higher levels of student motivation and
achievement, development of critical
reasoning skills, improved communications skills, and stronger interpersonal
and social skills than is found with traditional lecture-style teaching methods
(Ashraf, 2004; Williams, Beard, &

Rymer, 1991). When student dissatisfaction and frustration arise, Feichtner and
Davis (1984) reported that it was caused
by students’ self-perceived inability to
manage group process issues, such as
logistics, workload, motivation, and
group dynamics.
Specific problems that students face
in group projects range from a lack of
leadership, scheduling conflicts, lack
of team development, free-riding or
social loafing, and students who prefer
to work alone.
Appendix B lists the key benefits and
problems associated with using team projects that have been covered in the extant
literature along with the specific citations
related to each benefit and problem.

The Team Development Issue
Rotfeld (1998) stated that “Group
projects are many but few faculty

assigning them give attention to
improving student speaking, writing, or
group interactions. The classes do not
teach these things except by contagion
and therein lies the real problem” (p. 6).
Furthermore, Verderber and Serey
(1996) stated that the faculty who assign
group projects “need to assume additional responsibilities if effective student learning is to occur” (p. 23). Finally, Chen, Donahue, and Klimoski
(2004) added that, “although some university curricula focus on developing
some level of teamwork knowledge,
teamwork competencies and skills are
rarely developed” (p. 28).
Therefore, it is fairly clear from the
literature that business faculty have
heeded the call from employers, altering
their courses to emphasize group and
team work. What is also clear, though, is
that group assignments are often made
with little or no preparation to help the
students function in the groups or
teams.
This fundamental disconnect between
the use of teams and teamwork preparation is a significant problem. It is clear
that something needs to change, and
Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy, and Ramsey
(2002) proposed that it is the responsibility of business schools to train students on teamwork.
Suggestions for Improving
Team Projects
Several authors have published articles on student team building (Clinebell
& Stecher, 2003; McKendall, 2000;
Page & Donelan, 2003), managing
teamwork in the classroom (Siciliano,
1999; Verderber & Serey, 1996), and the
importance and value of having teams
that work well together (DeeterSchmelz, Kennedy, & Ramsey, 2002;
Duemer et al., 2004). Newstrom and
Scannell (1998) stated: “High-performing teams usually exhibit an overall
team purpose, mutual accountability,
collective work products, shared leadership roles, high cohesiveness, collaboration in deciding task assignments and
procedures, and collective assessment
of their own success” (p. xi).

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016

On the basis of a review of the literature, I developed 10 suggestions for faculty who seek to improve the performance of student teams as well as the
satisfaction of the students in those teams.
The 10 suggestions, described in
more detail in the following section,
include: (a) emphasizing the importance
or relevance of teamwork, (b) teaching
teamwork skills, (c) conducting team
building exercises, (d) determining the
best method of team formation, (e)
assigning a reasonable workload and
clear goals, (f) requiring groups to have
specific or assigned roles, (g) providing
some class time for team meetings, (h)
requesting multiple feedback points for
monitoring typical team problems, (i)
requiring individuals to keep a personal
contributions file, and (j) using detailed
peer evaluations as part of grading.
Emphasizing the Importance and
Relevance of Teams and Teamwork
Researchers have found that attitudes
toward the value of teamwork and relevance to real-world situations are positively related to attitudes toward teamwork and team effectiveness (Gregorich,
Helmreich, & Wilhelm, 1990; Pfaff &
Huddleston, 2003; Stout et al., 1997).
When introducing student team projects,
faculty should emphasize the importance and value of learning teamwork
and leadership skills. Students should be
informed that teams, and more important, the ability to work in teams and to
lead teams, has become an important
skill to master and one that employers
seek of newly graduated business students. Instructors could have students
read one of these or perhaps even invite
an employer or alumnus to class to relate
stories of the importance of teams in
business.
Teaching Team Development and
Teamwork Skills
Perhaps one of the unrealistic aspects
of using groups and teams in the classroom is the process of team development, and the time it takes for teams to
work through issues until they are at the
point at which they can fully function.
Certainly one of the seminal works on
group development is Tuckman’s (1965)
model that theorizes that a group moves

through a number of stages. In the forming stage, members of a group have a
desire for acceptance and attempt to
avoid controversy, while beginning initial examination at the task at hand. In
the storming stage, conflict emerges
over team roles, expectations, and leadership. In the norming stage, a group
structure and cohesion within the group
begin to develop, roles become clearer,
and trust emerges. In the performing
stage, the group is functioning at peak
performance, and members have strong
trust and a high commitment to the
group (Tuckman; Tuckman & Jensen,
1977). Several authors have focused on
the importance of trust in effective team
development (Huff, Cooper, & Jones,
2002; Johnson & Johnson, 1975; Yeatts
& Hyten, 1998). Students should learn
about the stages of team development
and the importance of trust and communication in teamwork.
Conducting Team-Building Exercises
for Cohesive Groups
Chen, Lawson, and Gordon (1996)
discussed the importance of team members’ feeling that they are deeply
involved in a cohesive group and that
cohesion plays a critical role in effective
teamwork. One method of building cohesion is through team-building exercises
(Deeter-Schmelz et al., 2002). Teambuilding is about integrating individuals
into a unified effort (Newstrom & Scannell, 1998). Team-building exercises and
games can focus on improving communications, sharing expectations, clarifying goals, formulating operating guidelines, and solving problems (Barker &
Franzak, 1997), as well as on developing
team identity, morale, trust, or adaptability and flexibility (Newstrom & Scannell). Team-building exercises include
games that break down barriers among
members (self-disclosure); create team
identity through the development of team
names, logos, mottos, songs, mission or
vision statements; and facilitate group
interaction through some task.
Determining Method of Team
Formation
Two main team selection methods are
commonly used: professor-selected and
student-selected. Limited evidence sug-

gests that professor-selected groups are
seldom used possibly because of the perception that student-selected groups perform better than do professor-selected
teams (Connerley & Mael, 2001). However, Muller (1989) stated that student
preferences are not necessarily the most
important criterion for successful group
work, whereas Koppenhaver and Shrader (2003) suggested that instructorassigned teams lead to more stability in
membership, and that stability enhances
each team’s ability to perform effectively. Contrary to earlier researchers, Hernandez (2002) stated that student teams
should be formed by the instructor, and
that students are more likely to have a
positive learning experience when
groups are selected by the professor. The
worst method of team selection is random selection, where students often
choose people from their social network
of friends (Levine & Moreland, 1990).
Professor-selected teams also more
closely match the workplace, in which
supervisors place workers in teams
rather than allowing them to self-select.
Assigning a Reasonable Workload and
Establishing Clear Goals
The team project should be meaningful and relevant (McKendall, 2000), and
present a manageable workload for the
teams (Feichtner & Davis, 1984; Pfaff &
Huddleston 2003). Although one of the
reasons for using teams is for when projects are deemed too large for individual
assignment (Allen, Morgan, Moore, &
Snow, 1987; Freeman, 1996; Latting &
Raffoul, 1991; Williams et al., 1991),
students who perceive they have been
assigned too much work may develop
negative attitudes toward teamwork
(Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003). One suggestion is to use teams for larger, semesterlong, subject-relevant (e.g., the development of a marketing plan in a strategic
marketing class) projects with clearly
defined parameters. It is critical for the
faculty member to be specific about the
parameters and expected outcomes of the
team project.
Requiring Team Members to Have
Specific and Assigned Roles
Page and Donelan (2003) discussed
the value of teaching students the signifSeptember/October 2006

13

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016

icance of different group roles, as well as
motivating them to take responsibility
for those team roles. They suggested one
method of helping students understand
these varying roles was by having them
complete a role-assignment exercise, in
which members of a team take turns as
team leader, gatekeeper, recorder, timekeeper, and social or emotional leader.
Having specific roles and expectations
may also help reduce one of the major
problems of team assignments which is
free-riding or social loafing. Roles can
be assigned by the professor (e.g., when
the professor chooses team leaders), or,
team roles can develop naturally through
team-building exercises and the natural
progression of team formation. It is also
possible for teams to rotate roles and
authority. For example, Erez, Lepine,
and Elms (2002) found that teams that
rotated leadership among members had
higher levels of cooperation and performance. Regardless of the method used,
the key is having teams clearly identify
roles for each member, whether they
rotate or not.
Providing Some Class Time for Team
Meetings
Most big, semester-long projects
take considerable amounts of time to
manage and although students are
expected to meet extensively outside of
class for most group projects, McKendall (2000) stressed the importance
of giving teams time to meet during
class. Besides alleviating some time
pressures, having student teams meet
in class gives the instructor a chance to
observe team behaviors. Furthermore,
both Feichtner and Davis (1984) and
Pfaff and Huddleston (2003) found that
providing more class time devoted to
working on a team project yields more
positive attitudes toward teamwork.
Feichtner and Davis found that students who reported having the best
team experiences had been allotted
36% of class time to work in groups.
Pfaff and Huddleston stress, the importance of providing class time at the
beginning of projects, during team formation, but also commented on the
reality of sacrificing class time for
teamwork, even when students prefer
more of it.
14

Journal of Education for Business

Requesting Interim Reports and Other
Feedback Points
Several researchers (Brooks &
Ammons, 2003; McKendall, 2000) have
suggested the importance of having
multiple points of feedback about group
performance, more so for team members than for the faculty. By completing
interim reports, all members of the team
can see their contributions (or lack
thereof) to date. Verderber and Serey
(1996) suggested requiring teams to
submit written progress reports to the
professor at three points during the
course of the project, each with a specific list of goals and achievements. The
first report deals more with team management and planning, the second (usually around midterm) examines progress
toward goals and forces teams to make
adjustments in order to complete the
project successfully, and the third
(about two weeks before the completion
date) deals with managing the final
stages of the process. Feichtner and
Davis (1992) suggested that providing
feedback to students on their performance within the team at multiple
points allows lagging students the
chance to improve their contributions.
One solution to the lack of feedback
problem is requiring team members to
submit a midterm peer evaluation,
which can then be used not only for
assessing progress, but to help the team
make corrections before final peer evaluations are completed.
Requiring Individual Team Members to
Keep Personal Contributions File
Fostering individual accountability
is critical because it simplifies the management of team processes and can
clearly differentiate performers from
nonperformers (Page & Donelan,
2003) as well as help mitigate the problem of free riding (Joyce, 1999). Student contribution files can be useful
when issues arise about individual contributions and help with providing
more detail in peer evaluations. Students can be requested to record their
contributions to the team as they happen, on a weekly basis, or submitted
with the team interim reports. From a
practical standpoint, getting students
into the habit of documenting their

work and accomplishments will be
extremely beneficial for them in their
careers, where documenting accomplishments is critical to success in
obtaining promotions and new jobs.
Using Detailed Peer Evaluations as a
Part of Grading Team Effort
The use of peer evaluations also helps
with the free-riding problem by serving
as an accountability tool with the added
benefit of providing the instructor with
useful information for the evaluation
process (Johnson & Smith, 1997). McKendall (2000) suggests a 20-item instrument that team members complete about
themselves and all members of the team.
Then, each team meets and consolidates
the individual rankings into one team
rating for each member. Besides using
peer evaluations to evaluate each member’s contribution to the team, Verderber
and Serey (1996) also allow one or two
members of each team to receive leadership bonus points based on their contributions to the team (as decided by peer
consensus). Furthermore, Pfaff and
Huddleston (2003) found the use of peer
evaluations yields a more positive attitude toward teamwork because such
feedback methods allow students to feel
they are more in control of the result of
their efforts. Students react more positively and attain higher levels of performance not only when peer evaluations
are used (Erez et al., 2002), but also
when evaluations contribute to the
course grade (Feichtner & Davis, 1984).
Several researchers (Clinebell & Stecher, 2003; Paswan & Gollakota, 2004;
Siciliano, 1999) have published peer or
team evaluation forms that faculty can
incorporate.
A Measure of Students’ Attitudes
Toward Teamwork
This section provides some preliminary research into whether business faculty have heeded the call to use student
teams, how faculty members approach
teamwork, and student perceptions on
teams. The sample consisted of students
in a senior-level marketing class, composed mostly of marketing majors, but
also finance, management, and general
business majors. A total of 34 students
completed the assessment.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016

As can be seen in Table 1, college
seniors participated in an average of 5–6
teams with the two most common methods for assigning students to teams
being: professors randomly placing students in teams and students self-selecting
based on personal factors. Student selection is not only the most common, but is
also the most frequently used method.
The results show, that overall, students
are aware of the relevance of teamwork
and at least somewhat satisfied with student team projects.
The results in some of the areas that
were identified for improvement are
mixed. The teaching of team building or
the requirement to conduct team-building exercises was used in only some
classes. Even with this modest approach
to team development, students found
team projects meaningful and relevant
for the most part, with a reasonable
workload and clear goals. Although

peer evaluations were used in at least
some classes, having each team member
keep a personal contributions file was
rarely used. Finally, while students had
to submit one or more interim reports to
the instructor in only some classes, the
students received some sort of feedback
from the instructor before completing
the final project in more classes.
Finally, students were asked an openended question regarding key characteristics of their most satisfying group projects. Their responses, shown in
Appendix C, are easily organized
around several of the key elements of
successful teams identified earlier in
this article, including: cooperation,
leadership, relevancy, clear goals, team
roles, and interim reports.
DISCUSSION
It is clear that faculty have gotten at
least half the message about teams. Fac-

TABLE 1. Median Responses for Select Aspects of Teamwork on a
Measure of Teamwork Attitudes
Question

Median

How often was the relevance of team projects and teamwork to
your future career discussed?

In some classes

How often has team building and team development been
taught?

In some classes

In how many of the classes were the teams given time to meet
during at least several class periods?

In some classes

How often did you find the project meaningful and relevant to
the course?

In most classes

How often did you find the project had clear goals?

In most classes

How often did you find the project had a reasonable workload?

In most classes

In how many of the classes did your team have to submit one
or more interim reports to the instructor?

In some classes

In how many of the classes did the group have at least some
feedback from the instructor before completing the final project?

In most classes

In how many classes were you asked to keep a personal
contributions file so that you could clearly demonstrate your
value to the team?

Rarely

How often were peer evaluations used?

In some classes

How often were students told peer evaluations would
specifically be used in determining each team member’s grade?

In some classes

Note. Responses: in every class, in most classes, in some classes, rarely, never.

ulty have heeded the call from employers to incorporate more team projects in
their classes. For the foreseeable future,
the use of student teams seems likely to
continue, both as a pedagogical tool and
in response to the demands of outside
stakeholders regarding the need of business school graduates to have teamwork
and leadership skills and experience.
However, it appears that the majority of
faculty who place students into teams do
nothing more than that, either because
of time constraints or not being overly
familiar (or comfortable) with the teamwork and team-building literature.
My purpose in this article was to
review the large body of research on
teams and teamwork, summarize the
value of teams and team skills, illustrate
the problem of using teams for the sake
of having group projects, provide an
overview of the benefits and problems
with student teams, offer some suggestions for improving team projects, and
provide some preliminary results from a
pilot study on business students’ perceptions of teamwork.
The detailed literature review in this
article lays an important foundation for
planning future research. The results
described in this article concerning
student responses to teamwork confirm
that while teams are being used in
many business classes, there is much
improvement that can be done based
on the 10 suggestions for improving
team projects. That said, this study was
extremely limited in size and scope.
What is needed is a much larger sample across several institutions. More
specific research into the value of each
of the 10 suggestions also could be
developed and tested. The team-building and teamwork area is a rich area
for scholars and should continue to be
investigated.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Randall S. Hansen, School of
Business Administration, Stetson University, 421
N. Woodland Blvd., Unit 8398, DeLand, FL
32723.
E–mail: rhansen@stetson.edu
REFERENCES
Alexander, M. W., & Stone, S. F. (1997). Student
perceptions of teamwork in the classroom: An
analysis by gender. Business Education Forum,
51(3), 7–10.

September/October 2006

15

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016

Allen, N., Morgan, M., Moore, T., & Snow, C.
(1987). What experienced collaborators say
about collaborative writing. Journal of Business
and Technical Communications, 1, 70–90.
Applebaum, E., & Blatt, R. (1994). The new
American workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Ashraf, M. (2004). A critical look at the use of
group projects as a pedagogical tool. Journal of
Education for Business, 79, 213–216.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (2005). Eligibility procedures and
accreditation standards for business accreditation. Tampa, FL: Author
Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Silver, W. S.
(1999). Lessons from the best and worst student
team experiences: How a teacher can make a
difference. Journal of Management Education,
23, 467–488.
Bamber, E. M., Watson, R. T., & Hill, M. C.
(1996). The effects of group decision support
systems technology on audit group decision
making. Auditing: A Journal of Theory & Practice, 15, 122–134.
Barker, R. T., & Franzak, F. J. (1997). Team building in the classroom: Preparing students for
their organizational future. Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication, 27, 303–315.
Batra, M. M., Walvoord, B. E., & Krishman, K. S.
(1997). Effective pedagogy for student-team
projects. Journal of Marketing Education,
19(2), 26–42.
Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A ‘Just-in-Time’ approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23,
233–250.
Boyer, E. G., Weiner, J. L., & Diamond, M. P.
(1985). Why groups? The Organizational
Behavior Teaching Review, 9(4), 3–7.
Brooks, C. M., & Ammons, J. L. (2003). Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing,
frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer
assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 268–272.
Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J.
(2004). Teaching undergraduates to work in
organizational teams. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 3, 27–40.
Chen, Z., Lawson, R. B., & Gordon, L. R.
(1996). Groupthink: Deciding with the leader
and the devil. The Psychological Record, 46,
581–590.
Clinebell, S., & Stecher, M. (2003). Teaching
teams to be teams: An exercise using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Five-Factor Personality Traits. Journal of Management
Education, 27, 362–383.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes
teams work: Group effectiveness research from
the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of
Management, 23, 239–290.
Connerley, M. L., & Mael, F. A. (2001). The
importance of invasiveness of student team
selection criteria. Journal of Management Education, 25, 471–494.
Cox, P. L., & Bobrowski, P. E. (2000). The team
chapter assignment: Improving the effectiveness of classroom teams. Journal of Behavioral
and Applied Management, 1, 92–103.
Decker, R. L. (1995). Management team formation for large scale simulations. In J. D. Overby
& A. L. Patz (Eds.), Developments in Business
Simulation & Experimental Exercises (pp.
128–129). Statesboro, GA: Association for
Business Simulation and Experiential Learning.
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. R., & Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding

16

Journal of Education for Business

of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 114–124.
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., & Ramsey, R. (1998). Student team performance: A method for classroom assessment. Journal of Marketing Education, 20, 85–93.
Denton, H. G. (1994). Simulating design in the
world of industry and commerce: Observations
from a series of case studies in the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Education, 6,
1045–1064.
Dommeyer, C. J. (1986). A comparison of the
individual proposal and the team project in the
marketing research course. Journal of Marketing Education, 8(1), 30–38.
Duemer, L. S., Christopher, M., Hardin, F.,
Olibas, L., Rodgers, T., & Spiller, K. (2004).
Case study of the characteristics of effective
leadership in graduate student collaborative
work. Education, 124, 721–727.
Erez, A., Lepine J. A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects
of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the
functioning and effectiveness of self-managed
teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929–948.
Ettington, D. R., & Camp, R. R. (2002). Facilitating transfer of skills between group projects
and work teams. Journal of Management Education, 26, 356–379.
Feichtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1984). Why some
groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences
with learning groups. Organizational Behavior
Teaching Review, 9, 75–88.
Feichtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park, PA: National Center of
Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Forman, J., & Katsky, P. (1986). The group report:
A problem in small group or writing processes?
Journal of Business Communication, 23, 23–35.
Freeman, K. A. (1996). Attitudes toward work in
project groups as predictors of academic performance. Small Group Research, 27(2), 265–282.
Goretsky, M. E. (1984). Class projects as a form
of instruction. Journal of Marketing Education,
6(3), 33–37.
Gregorich, S. E., Helmreich, R. L., & Wilhelm, J.
A. (1990). The structure of cockpit management attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75, 682–690.
Hackman, J. R. (Ed.) (1990). Groups that work
(and those that don’t). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Henke, J. W., Jr. (1985). Bring reality to the introductory marketing student. Journal of Marketing Education, 7(3), 59–71.
Hernandez, S. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: Cooperative structures
that facilitate active learning and higher level
thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 24,
73–85.
Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The
development and consequences of trust in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 24–35.
Johnson, C., & Smith, F. (1997). Assessment of
complex peer evaluation instrument for team
learning and group processes. Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice, and
Research, 2, 21–40.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition and individualization. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1984–85).
Structuring groups for cooperative learning.

The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review,
9, 8–17.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan
(Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and
research (pp. 23–37). New York: Praeger Press.
Johnson D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A.
(1998). Cooperative learning returns to college:
What evidence is there that it works? Change,
30, 27–35.
Joyce, W. B. (1999). On the free-rider problem in
cooperative learning. Journal of Education for
Business, 74, 271–274.
Koppenhaver, G. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003).
Structuring the classroom for performance:
Cooperative learning with instructor-assigned
teams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 1, 1–21.
Kunkel, J. G., & Shafer, M. L. (1997). Effects of
student team learning in undergraduate auditing
courses. Journal of Education for Business, 72,
197–200.
Latane, B. K., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979).
Many hands make light the work: The causes
and consequences of social loafing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
822–832.
Latting, J. K., & Raffoul, P. R. (1991). Designing
student work groups for increased learning: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Social Work,
27, 48–59.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress
in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.
McCain, B. (1996). Multicultural team learning:
An approach towards communication competency. Management Decision, 34, 65–73.
McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F.,
Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C., & Iyer, R. V. (1999).
Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the
ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 21,
106–117.
McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to
become teams. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 277–282.
McKinney, K., & Graham-Buxton, M. (1993).
The use of collaborative learning groups in the
large class: Is it possible? Teaching Sociology,
21, 403–408.
Mello, J. A. (1993). Improving individual member
accountability in small work group settings.
Journal of Management Education, 17, 253–259.
Meyer, J. (1994, November). Teaching teams
through teams in communication courses: Letting structuration happen. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Muller, T. E. (1989). Assigning students to groups
for class projects: An exploratory test of two
methods. Decision Sciences, 20, 623–634.
Newstrom, J., & Scannell, E. (1998). The big book
of team building games: Trust-building activities, team spirit exercises, and other fun things
to do. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Nichols, J. D., & Hall, J. (1995). The effects of
cooperative learning on student achievement
and motivation in a high school geometry class.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association.
San Francisco, CA.
Page, D., & Donelan, J. P. (2003). Team-building
tools for students. Journal of Education for
Business, 78, 125–128.
Paswan, A. K., & Gollakota, K. (2004). Dimensions of peer evaluation, overall satisfaction,
and overall evaluation: An investigation in a

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016

group task environment. Journal of Education
for Business, 79, 225–231.
Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter
if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing
Education, 25, 37–45.
Quintessential Careers. (2004). Real world advice:
Teamwork skills are in demand. DeLand, FL:Author.
Rau, W., & Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the
college classroom: Collaborative learning and
social organization among students. Teaching
Sociology, 18, 141–155.
Robbins, T. (1994). Meaningfulness and community in the classroom: The role of teamwork in
business education. Journal of Education for
Business, 69, 312–316.
Rotfeld, H. (1998). Hello, bird, I’m learning
ornithology. Marketing Educator, 17, 4–6.
Sheppard, J. A. (1995). Remedying motivation and
productivity loss in collective settings. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 131–134.
Siciliano, J. (1999). A template for managing
teamwork in courses across the curriculum.
Journal of Education for Business, 74, 261–264.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research in cooperative

learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47, 52–55.
Stout, R. J., Salas, E., & Fowlkes, J. E. (1997).
Enhancing teamwork in complex environments
through team training. Group Dynamics, 1,
169–182.
Strong, J. T., & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and
preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12, 61–67.
Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom &
Associates (Eds.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance (pp. 3–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sutton, J. C. (1995). The team approach in the
quality classroom. Business Communications
Quarterly, 58, 48–51.
Taninecz, G. (1997). Best practices and performances. Industry Week, 246, 28–43.
Tarricone, P., & Luca, J. (2002). Employees,
teamwork, and social independence—a formula for successful business? Team Performance
Management, 8, 54–59.

Thacker, R. A., & Yost, C. A. (2002). Training
students to become effective workplace team
leaders. Team Performance Management, 8,
89–95.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequence in
small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
384–399.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of
small group development. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419–427.
Verderber, K. S., & Serey, T. T. (1996). Managing in-class projects: Setting them up to succeed. Journal of Management Education, 20,
23–38.
Williams, D. L., Beard, J. D., & Rymer, J. (1991).
Team projects: Achieving their full potential.
Journal of Marketing Education, 13, 45–53.
Yamane, D. (1996). Collaboration and its discontents: Steps toward overcoming barriers to successful group projects. Teaching Sociology, 24,
178–181.
Yeatts, D. E., & Hyten, C. (1998). High-performing, self-managed work teams: A comparison
of theory to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

APPENDIX A
Recent Graduates Comments About Teamwork
Recent college graduates were asked about their college experiences and how they
related to their current work experience, specifically related to teamwork. Here are
their responses:
• “College was the ultimate test of teamwork, and nine out of 10 jobs require you to
work with other people. If you aren’t willing to compromise how you work to fit the
needs of others, you’re probably not going to make it very far.”
• “Teamwork skills are expected and demanded in my job. Being in sales requires me
to communicate/work with pretty much every department in my company.”
• “Teamwork is very important in the workplace, especially with regard to how you
communicate with the people you work with. My college education was okay for
preparing me to participate in a team; however, I would have liked to have more
group projects with an emphasis on presentations.”
• “People that can’t work in teams don’t last long in my line of work.”
• “Definitely my job wouldn’t happen without teamwork. College was more individual for my studies, and it took some adjusting for me to learn how to adjust well in
a team environment, because I have a very dominant, individual personality.”
• “A lot of work is project-based, where you have anywhere from four to ten different
people staffed on a project. It is critical that you can handle your amount of work as
well as be able to interact with all members of your team, including your boss.”
• “Teamwork is definitely required, and although my education partially prepared me
for it, previous jobs and work-related experiences had more of an impact.”
• “Teamwork skills are a must at my job. The many group projects really gave me a
taste for how to deal with group dynamics.”
• “There are few positions that don’t require teamwork on some level. I work with
developers, producers, client operations, sales, and executive leadership. Teamwork
is expected. If you can’t work well with others you’re never going to make it very
far.”
• “Teamwork is essential for my job. You work with so many different organizations
and personalities that teamwork is the only way to get things done the right way.”
• “Teamwork skills are definitely important in the workforce and were NOT taught at
college [for me].”
• “All of my previous positions required teamwork. It is as crucial as your professional
skills.”
Note. From Realworld Advice: Teamwork Skills Are In demand, by Quintessential Careers, 2004.
Copyright 2004 by Quintessential Careers.

September/October 2006

17

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016

APPENDIX B
Benefits and Problems Associated With Group Projects

Benefits

Problems

Collaborative Learning
(Boyer, Weiner, & Diamond, 1985;
Hernandez, 2002; Williams, Beard,
& Rymer, 1991)
Experience With Complex Work
(Goretsky, 1984; Henke, 1985)

Free-Riding or Social Loafing
(Ashraf, 2004; Joyce, 1999;
Latane, Williams, & Harkins,
1979; McCorkle et al., 1999;
Mello, 1993; Strong & Anderson,
1990; Williams, Beard, & Rymer,
1991)

Realism or Emulating Work
Environment
(Williams, Beard, & Rymer, 1991)

Inadequate Rewards or Poor
Grading Schemes
(Sheppard, 1995)

Improved Communication Skills
(Meyer, 1994; Williams, Beard, &
Rymer, 1991)

Behavioral or Attitude Problems
(Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003; Sutton,
1995)

Improved Interpersonal or
Social or Team Skills
(Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998;
Joyce, 1999; Kunz, 1994;
McCorkle et al, 1999; Williams,
Beard, & Rymer, 1991)

Inferior Skills
(Sutton, 1995)

Active or Advanced Learning
(Freeman, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1984–85; Williams, Beard, &
Rymer, 1991)
Persistence When Facing
Adversity
(Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,
1998)
Increased Knowledge Base or
Deep Thinking
(Boyer, Weiner, & Diamond, 1985;
Nichols & Hall, 1995)
Higher Student Motivation
(Denton, 1994; Dommeyer, 1986;
Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998)
Positive Interdependence
(Joyce, 1999)
Greater Achievement
(Freeman, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1984–85; Johnson, Johnson,
& Smith, 1998)
Sense of Meaningfulness
(Robbins, 1994)
Improved Multicultural
Relations
(McCain, 1996; Slavin, 1990)

18

Journal of Education for Business

Lack of Leadership
(Forman & Katsky, 1981)
Specialization of Skills
(Batra, Walvoord, & Krishman,
1997)
Transaction Cost Issues
(Yamane, 1996)
Stifling of Individual Innovation
or Creativity
(Batra, Walvoord, & Krishman,
1997)

APPENDIX C
Elements of the Most Satisfying Group Experience
Cooperation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

All group members worked hard and together
Group members were cooperative
Group members worked well together
Team really came together
Everyone worked hard to complete the project
Everyone worked well together
Everyone worked productively and motivated each other
All group members contributed and were enthusiastic

Leadership

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:19 11 January 2016

• Strong team leader or someone leading at all times
• Organized leader
• Team leader was very organized
Relevancy
• Working with real businesses makes it more worthwhile
• Relates to the real business world
Clear Goals
•
•
•
•

Having a well-defined problem and examples of how it had been solved before
Having a clear-cut goal
Clear goals
Clearly defined goals

Specific Team Roles
• All members knew what was expected of them
• Had clearly defined roles
• All members had their role and did their jobs
Interim Reports or Checkpoints
•
•
•
•

Had deadlines and midpoint checks
Project guidelines and specific milestones
Checkpoints for progress
Set due dates throughout semester

September/October 2006

19