Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320009599051
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Viewpoint: A Conceptual Framework for Designing
Group Projects
Carol Bormann Young & Janet A. Henquinet
To cite this article: Carol Bormann Young & Janet A. Henquinet (2000) Viewpoint: A Conceptual
Framework for Designing Group Projects, Journal of Education for Business, 76:1, 56-60, DOI:
10.1080/08832320009599051
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320009599051
Published online: 31 Mar 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 58
View related articles
Citing articles: 10 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], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]
Date: 13 January 2016, At: 17:28
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
A Conceptual Framework for
Designing Group Projects
zyxw
CAROL BORMANN YOUNG
JANET A. HENQUINET
Metropolitan State University
Minneapolis, Minnesota
W
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrq
zyx
hat are the skills that will make
the U.S. work force more productive and U.S. organizations more
competitive in the global marketplace?
It appears that one answer to this question may be the ability to work cooperatively (Alie, Beam, & Carey, 1998;
Fiechtner & Davis, 1992; Kolb, 1999;
Singh-Gupta & Troutt-Ervin, 1996;
Slavin, 1990; Ventimiglia, 1984). As
organizations continue to decentralize
decisionmaking and to deal with today’s
complex and changing environment,
there is a greater reliance on teams.
Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991)
stated that “knowledge and skills are of
no use if [one] cannot apply them in
cooperative interaction with other people.” However, working together effectively does not necessarily come naturally; it is something we must learn.
Although specific courses in “working together effectively” may not be in
the curriculum, many college instructors facilitate the acquisition of this skill
by using group assignments in their
courses. Instructors who use effective
group projects can link educational
experience and workplace experience.
In this article we outline a framework
for the design of group assignments that
consists of three areas: (a) pedagogical
purposes, (b) what should be evaluated
56
ABSTRACT. Designing group projects can bewilder the best of instructors. This article provides a framework
that invites the reader to explore systematically the design of group projects. The framework focuses on pedagogical purposes for using such
projects, what should be evaluated and
by whom, and critical factors to consider when designing a group project.
It is not meant to be prescriptive but
can provoke thought and discussion.
The authors conclude with four recurring themes that have emerged from
discussions using this framework.
and by whom, and (c) critical factors in
group project design. The framework is
meant to provoke individual thought
and discussion with colleagues interested in group projects.
We define a “group project” as an
assignment that requires two or more
individuals, interacting and interdependent, to come together to achieve specific objectives (Jaques, 1984; Robbins,
1997). With this broad definition, a
group project need not require a common product or a common grade for the
group members. It may vary from a
simple sharing of information to a
requirement for a collective performance with a common product. Similarly, there may be a blend of individual
and joint accountability. It includes situations where students work in groups
to share information and facilitate
learning, but effort and contribution are
assessed individually.
Pedagogical Purposes for
Utilizing Groups
From a pedagogical perspective there
are numerous reasons to use group projects in the classroom. The following
reasons were developed from a review
of the literature and from information
that we have gathered from seminars on
group projects. They are categorized as
workplace related, student related, and
instructor related.
Workplace Related
Today’s workplace increasingly relies
on the interdependence of employees
working in teams to improve productivity (Gardner & Korth, 1998; SinghGupta & Troutt-Ervin, 1996). Group
projects enable students to practice
important interpersonal skills, including
conflict resolution, the ability to reach
consensus on decisions, and effective
interpersonal communication techniques (Freeman, 1995; Goodsell,
Maker, Tinto, Smith, & MacGregor,
1992; Kolb, 1999; Michaelson, 1992;
Singh-Gupta & Troutt-Ervin, 1996).
zyxwvuts
Journal of Education for Business
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
zyxwvutsrqp
Time management is also an important
skill and is essential in both educational
endeavors and the workplace (SinghGupta & Troutt-Ervin, 1996). By pooling efforts, group members can divide
tasks and work more efficiently to complete projects in a timely manner.
The increasing diversity in workplace
demographics (age, gender, culture, etc.)
must also be considered in the college
classroom. Thus, the use of group projects should prepare students to work in
a diverse work force (Bruffee, 1993;
Goodsell et al., 1992). Broersma (1995)
suggested that dealing with diversity will
become a strategic issue and a source of
competitive advantage for organizations
that are able to attract, retain, and effectively use a diverse workforce.
In preparing students for the workplace, we must teach both discipline
knowledge and group-process skills.
Goodsell et al. (1992) extended the
importance of group process skills
beyond the workplace and suggested that
these abilities are crucial to living in a
community in which individuals participate and have a sense of responsibility.
Student Related
Instructor Related
By building on the benefits of multiple perspectives, pooling of efforts, and
mutual support, group projects allow
instructors to assign more complex and
comprehensive projects. From a pragmatic point of view, as classroom size
increases, instructors may be overwhelmed by the task of grading students
on an individual basis. Assigning a
group project with a common group
product allows the instructor to reduce
evaluation time and provide feedback in
a timely manner (Freeman, 1995).
Instructors also report that students who
participate in group projects that have
been administered well are more satisfied and give better teaching evaluations.
The initial step in designing a group
project requires instructors to identify
clearly their specific purpose in using a
group project.
dimensions of group behavior in theory,
but the interaction of product and
behaviors in groups makes them highly
correlated in practice. If this theory is
accepted, then product quality is affected by process quality, and that argues
for attention to and assessment of
process in the classroom.
Who Should Participate in the
Evaluation ?
For most courses, it is a given that the
instructor is involved in evaluating the
group project. The question remains
whether input from peers or external parties (e.g., consultant, manager, expert) or
self-evaluation will also be included.
Conway, Kember, Sivan, and Wu
(1993) listed two forms of peer assessment: by members of the group and by
other members of the class (usually of
the end product). Without input from
group members, the problem of strong
students carrying weaker students or of
students “free riding” on efforts of
peers may occur (Cramer, 1994; Freeman, 1995). Thus, peer evaluation by
group members is a method of group
control (Conway et al., 1993; Freeman,
1995; Goldfinch, 1994). Students also
benefit because it promotes active discussions and interactions when group
members provide feedback to each
other (Cramer, 1994; Johnson, Johnson,
& Smith, 1991; Marcoulides & Simkin,
1995). A possible problem with peer
evaluation is that it may create dissension if used only at the end of a project
without interim feedback. Freeman
(1995) suggested that this might be
overcome by using progress reports and
putting a group member on probation to
ensure awareness of a problem early in
the process.
The second source of peer assessment
is remaining members of the class.
Evaluation input from this group in
addition to a student’s group members
has many benefits. It actively involves
all students in the learning process
(Cramer, 1994) and provides students
an opportunity to develop critical evaluation skills. If a student wants to be a
manager in the future, it is important to
recognize problems with the work of
others and be able to effectively communicate needed changes (Alie et al.,
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsr
From a student learning perspective,
one reason for using group projects is
that additional information and multiple
perspectives may lead to intellectual
synergy and better understanding and
retention of concepts (Goodsell et al.,
1992; Singh-Gupta & Troutt-Ervin,
1996; Ventimiglia, 1984). Increased
understanding may also be a result of
the critical thinking and the communication required by group members to articulate their individual viewpoints (Freeman, 1995). Another advantage of group
projects results from discussions about
members’ perceptions of project objectives. These discussions help clarify
objectives and ensure that all members
are working toward designated goals.
In addition to increased understanding, groups provide a social support system in which students share in the ownership of course content and learning
(Alie et al., 1998; Cramer, 1994; Jaques,
1984). The social support system may
be especially helpful for students
enrolled in a difficult class or just entering college.
What Should Be Evaluated and
by Whom
When an instructor assigns a group
project, two key evaluation questions
usually arise: (a) What specifically will
be evaluated? and (b) Who should participate in the evaluation? The answers
to these questions depend on the purposes identified earlier. It is helpful to
develop a matrix defining these factors
for the group project.
What Specifically Will Be Evaluated?
When deciding what to evaluate, an
instructor can choose to evaluate group
process, product, or both. Product is
defined as an interim or final outcome/output. Instructors require myriad
products, including project proposals,
written papers, and oral presentations.
Process is defined as a series of actions
that bring about an end result. Evaluation criteria under process might
include quality and quantity of participation within a group, preparation for
meetings, and interpersonal skills. Johnson and Johnson (1991) stated that the
purpose of group process is to improve
member effectiveness in contributing to
the achievement of group goals. Davis
(1993) and Fisher (1980) proposed that
product and process may be separate
September/October 2000
57
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
zyxwvutsrq
1998; Singh-Gupta & Troutt-Ervin,
1996). Marcoulides and Simkin (1995)
also stated that in-class peer reviews
provide faster feedback. Peer evaluation
may also motivate students to perform
better because the student knows that a
peer will judge his or her work (Ken,
Kang, & Domazlicky, 1995).
In addition to students providing feedback to others, they need to be encouraged to assess their own work. Hatfield
(1995) asserted that critical self-evaluation may be as important a learning
experience as the actual assigned project. Instruction and practice in selfassessment will help students become
successful lifelong learners (Angel0 &
Cross, 1993). Self-assessment helps students to take charge of their own learning, to become more self-directed, and
to assess their progress toward project
goals and project completion (Marzano,
1992). Finally, Gopinath (1999) stated
that teaching students to practice selfassessment is preparation for “360
degree” feedback in the workplace.
An often overlooked evaluation
source is parties external to the course.
For example, instructors have successfully used professional practitioners
who have expertise in the discipline
(e.g., managers or consultants). That
establishes a clear connection between
the classroom and workplace, and students are often more serious when they
know that they will be evaluated by an
external expert.
Table 1 provides a sample group project’s possible criteria, but instructors
should build a matrix based on their
respective projects.
The final portion of the framework
identifies four critical factors in designing a group project: fit, breadth, instructional issues, and efficacy. These critical
factors build on the first two phases of
the framework.
Breadth is defined as the scope of
evaluation criteria, evaluators, and evaluation points. Evaluation criteria need
to be specific and appropriate in number
rather than few and overly broad
(Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971).
Just as instructors must define what
constitutes a good final product in terms
of specific knowledge, what constitutes
good group process must also be
defined to effectively teach and evaluate
process. As described previously, factors such as being prepared for group
discussions, providing quality input,
and demonstrating effective interper-
TABLE 1. Sample Group Project: Content to Be Evaluated and Possible
Evaluators
Content
Evaluator
Product
Instructor
Initial proposal (individual or
Journal of Education for Business
Process
Individual’s contributions
to group
group)
Written paper (individual or
Effectiveness of group
process
group)
Oral presentation (individual or
group)
Peers in group
Oral presentation (group)
Individual’s contributions
to group
Effectiveness of group
process
Peers outside of group Final product
Fit is defined as the relationship
between use of groups and what is evaluated. The major element of fit is
whether items being evaluated are con-
58
Breadth of Evaluation
sonal skills are examples of welldefined process criteria.
The use of multiple evaluators has
numerous benefits. First, evaluators
have different levels of knowledge and
expertise to contribute to the evaluation
process. For example, instructors often
have limited knowledge of the group
process, whereas peers are intimately
acquainted with process problems and
successes. Similarly, experts from outside the institution may have more
expertise and credibility than the
instructor for assessing content knowledge. Second, students sharpen their
critical thinking skills when required to
provide feedback to others and to
assess their own work (Hatfield, 1995).
Third, prompt feedback is more effective than delayed feedback, and using
multiple evaluators can reduce the
assessment burden and improve timeliness of feedback (Gopinath, 1999).
Finally, it seems reasonable to assume
that students, like employees in organizations, are more likely to respond constructively to feedback and view it as
more fair if it comes from multiple
sources (Jackson & Schuler, 2000).
The use of multiple evaluation points
for feedback purposes is critical to student learning (Bloom et al., 1971; Shaw
& Fisher, 1999). Although the focus is
often on summative evaluation for the
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp
zyx
Critical Factors in Group Project
Design
Fit
sistent with the learning objectives for
the group project. In addition to consistency with the objectives, the instructor
may consider weighting evaluation
components based on the importance of
each learning objective. For example, if
a major objective for assigning a group
project is to teach students conflict-resolution skills, then part of the evaluation
component should address conflict-resolution proficiency. The weight of that
component would be determined by the
importance the instructor places on that
objective. The objective may, therefore,
be very similar to the assessment component (Jaques, 1984).
External professionals Initial proposal
Written paper
Quality of group process
(participation,preparation,
cooperation)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
zyxwv
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
purpose of assigning grades, learning is
most influenced by formative evaluation
that provides feedback during the
course. Feichtner and Davis (1992) have
suggested that multiple opportunities
should be taken to provide students with
feedback on their performance to allow
lagging students the chance to improve.
Multiple evaluators, who share responsibility for both content and process
feedback, can provide students with
quality feedback at more frequent intervals and optimize student learning.
Instructional Issues
Instructional issues are defined as
teaching activities that facilitate group
project effectiveness. The first area of
activity is defining the task and “selling” the students on the benefits and
importance of using groups to achieve
the assigned learning objective(s)
(Davis, 1993). It is the instructor’s
responsibility to design tasks that help
students discover and take advantage of
groups in order to increase the potential
learning of each individual in the group
(Bruffee, 1993). Assignments should be
structured so that students understand
what is expected of them and also so all
students are familiar with the entire
product submitted by the group, not just
the portion they completed individually.
The second instructional activity that
will facilitate group project effectiveness is the clear communication of what
is being evaluated and by whom. This
implies that the instructor must ensure
that students and external evaluators are
skilled in the assessment process
(Cramer, 1994). Evaluation criteria
should be established that are unbiased
and encourage constructive criticism.
Providing all evaluators with checklists
helps them to identify and assess specific contributions.
Another question that the instructor
must deal with is whether to assign a
group or an individual grade for the project, or to what extent students’ final
grades on the project will be interdependent (Ventimiglia, 1984). Cramer (1994)
and Slavin (1990) indicated that both
group goals and individual accountability are essential for student achievement.
They recommend that an instructor combine individual grades with group grades,
thus achieving group goals without sacrificing individual accountability.An alternative point of view is that issuing only a
group grade will increase cohesion when
students must rely on each other for an
acceptable grade (Cramer, 1994).
An additional instructional concern is
the teaching of group process. If
instructors want students to learn group
process skills, then those skills need to
be addressed in the classroom (Siciliano, 1999).The instructor should take a
leadership role and set the climate of
expectations by verbalizing the ground
rules and guiding groups to stay on task.
Bolton (1999) found that students were
significantly more satisfied with group
experiences when the instructor provided team training. This may include
information on stages of group development, communication within a group,
roles that group members can play, and
conflict resolution to name a few areas.
Briefing students on past experiences
with group failures and successes is one
way to convey group behavior expectations (Siciliano, 1999).
parity between outcomes and objectives
signals a need for corrective action(s).
The instructor may decide to change the
learning objectives, re-examine the fit
between objectives and evaluation,
change evaluation processes (breadth),
or address any problematic instructional
issues. If the disparity is great enough,
the group project may become an individual project next semester! In Table 2,
I summarize the four critical factors in
designing an effective group project.
Conclusion
We have presented this framework at
academic conferences and workshops.
Although we have not tested the model
empirically, it has met the original goals
of provoking individual thought and
inspiring spirited discussion among colleagues. Four recurring themes have
emerged from discussions: (a) the
advantages of a systems approach, (b)
the importance of distinguishing
between product and process, (c) the
tension in instructional priorities, and
(d) the merits of multiple evaluators.
Eficacy
Efficacy is defined as the extent to
which the group project achieves the
desired learning objectives. The final
step in group project design is comparing actual student learning outcomes to
the initial learning objectives established for the project. If there is a match
between outcomes and objectives, the
instructor celebrates the success and
repeats the project next semester. A dis-
I
I
I
Systems Approach
The framework demonstrates the
advantages of a systems approach to
thinking about group projects and the
benefits of specifically linking project
goals, instructional issues, and evaluation criteria and techniques. For example, numerous participants in workshops
indicated that they had not considered
the linkage between why they assigned
zyxwvuts
TABLE 2. Critical Factors in Group Project Design
zyxwvutsr
Fit
Evaluating components consistent with objective(s)
Assigning weights to evaluation components
Breadth
Establishing specific and appropriate evaluation criteria
Using multiple evaluators
Using multiple evaluation points (summative and formative)
Instructional issues
Defining the task
“Selling” the benefits of using a group project
Communicating what will be evaluated and by whom
Determining the extent that students’ grades will be interdependent (group vs. individual grade)
Teaching group process
Efficacy
Comparing learning outcomes to learning objectives
Redesigning group project
September/October 2000
59
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
zyx
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvut
group projects and how they evaluated
the group project. As they discussed
group projects used in their courses,
they often were surprised when one or
more of their important teaching objectives had no evaluation component.
Product Versus Process
The framework makes a clear distinction between product and process skills,
and the importance of both in preparing
students for the workplace. Allthough
instructors realize the importance of
group process to achieving a quality
product in both the classroom and the
workplace, they often did not recognize
their role in teaching process skills. For
instance, one person indicated that she
thought groups in the classroom were an
excellent way to simulate a workplace,
but she had never even thought about
evaluating group process, much less
teaching it. In addition, most instructors
indicated that they could not assume
that students would come into their
course with effective group process
skills. Productive discussion focused on
where students should be taught group
process skills in the curriculum.
Instructional Priorities
The framework highlights the critical
issues of how much time instructors are
willing to devote to teaching group
process and how comfortable instructors are in both teaching and evaluating
group process. Some instructors express
concern about taking time away from
discipline or content knowledge, while
others indicate the importance of learning application skills as well as content
knowledge. This continuing tension
between knowing the facts and being
able to apply the facts was illustrated by
the question, “Don’t you want the pilot
of your plane to have both factual
knowledge and experience in the application of that factual knowledge?”
Multiple Evaluators
The framework stimulates discussion
of the relative merits of using the
instructor, the student, or external eval-
60
Journal of Education for Business
uators. Instructors recognize that there
is value in using student and external
evaluators but usually indicate limited
or no use of evaluators other than the
instructor. Barriers included the need to
teach the evaluation process to others,
concerns about fairness, and the difficulty of locating, training, and compensating external evaluators. In theory,
instructors recognize and accept the
advantages of multiple evaluators, but
pragmatic considerations constrain the
use of them.
We hope that instructors will experiment with the framework and that your
discussions with colleagues will be as
stimulating and thought provoking as
the ones we have had.
REFERENCES
Alie, R. E., Beam, H. H., & and Carey, T. S.
(1998). The use of teams in an undergraduate
management program Journal of Management
Education, 22(6), 707-719.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. K. (1993). Classroom
assessment techniques: A handbook for college
teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F.
(1971). Handbook in formative and summative
evaluafion of student learning. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bolton, M. K. (1999).The role of coaching in student teams: A “just in time” approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23(3),
233-250.
Broersma, T. (1995, January). In search of the
future. Training and Development, 49, 3843.
Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborarive learning:
Higher education, interdependence, and the
authority of knowledge. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A., & Wu, M.
(1993).Peer assessment of an individual’s contribution to a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1). 45-56.
Cramer, S. F. (1994). Assessing effectiveness in
the collaborative classroom in new directions
for reaching and learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Davis, J. R. (1993). Better teaching, more learning: Strategiesfor success in postsecondary settings. Phoenix, AZ:American Council on Education, Oryx Press.
Fiechtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park, PA: National Center
on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment.
Fisher, B. A. (1980).Small group decision making
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups
of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 20(3), 289-300.
Gardner, B. S., & Korth, S. J. (1998). A framework for learning to work in teams. Journal of
Education for Business, 74(1),28-33.
Goldfinch, J. (1994). Further developments in peer
assessment of group projects. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 19(1),29-35.
Goodsell, A. S., Maher, M. R., Tinto, V., Smith, B.
L., & MacGregor, J. (1992). Collaborative
learning: A sourcebook for higher education.
University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Gopinath, C. (1999). Alternatives to instructor
assessment of class participation. Journal of
Educationfor Business,75(1),10-14.
Hatfield, S. R. (1995). The seven principles in
action. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (2000).Managing
human resources. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestem College Publishing.
Jaques, D. (1984). Learning in groups. Sydney,
Australia: Croom Helm.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A.
(1991).Acfive learning: Coopemfionin the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T.,& Smith, K. A.
(1991). Cooperative earning: Increasing college
faculty instructional productivity, ASHE ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington,
DC:George Washington University, School of
Education and Human Development.
Ken; P. M., Kang, P. K., & Domazlicky, B. R.
(1995).Peer grading of essays in a principles of
microeconomics course. Journal of Education
for Business, 70(6), 357-361.
Kolb, J. A. (1999).A project in small-group decision making. Journal of Management Educarion, 23(1), 71-79.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1995).The
consistency of peer review in student writing
projects. Journal of Education for Business,
70(4), 220-223.
Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Meyers, S. A. (1997). Increasing student participation and productivity in small-group activities for psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 24(2), 105-1 15.
Michaelsen, L. K. (1992).Team learning: A comprehensive approach for harnessing the power
of small groups in higher education. To improve
the Academy, I I , 107-122.
Robbins, S. P. (1997).Essentials of organizational
behavior: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sharan, S. (1994). Handbook of cooperative
learning methods. Westport, C T Greenwood.
Shaw, J. B., & Fisher, C. D. (1999).Practical organizational behavior education (PROBE): Modifications and innovations. Journal of Management Education, 23(1), 13-30.
Siciliano, J. (1999).A template for managing teamwork in courses across the curriculum. Journal
of Education for Business, 75(5), 261-264.
Singh-Gupta, V., & Troutt-Ervin, E. (1996).
Preparing students for teamwork through collaborative writing and peer review techniques.
TETYC,May, 127-136.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on cooperative
learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-54.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Student team learning: A
practical guide to coopereative learning. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Ventimiglia, L. M. (1984). Cooperative learning
at the college level. Thought and Action: The
NEA Higher Education Journal. Washington,
DC: NEA CommunicationsServices.
zyxwvut
zyxwvut
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Viewpoint: A Conceptual Framework for Designing
Group Projects
Carol Bormann Young & Janet A. Henquinet
To cite this article: Carol Bormann Young & Janet A. Henquinet (2000) Viewpoint: A Conceptual
Framework for Designing Group Projects, Journal of Education for Business, 76:1, 56-60, DOI:
10.1080/08832320009599051
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320009599051
Published online: 31 Mar 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 58
View related articles
Citing articles: 10 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], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]
Date: 13 January 2016, At: 17:28
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
A Conceptual Framework for
Designing Group Projects
zyxw
CAROL BORMANN YOUNG
JANET A. HENQUINET
Metropolitan State University
Minneapolis, Minnesota
W
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrq
zyx
hat are the skills that will make
the U.S. work force more productive and U.S. organizations more
competitive in the global marketplace?
It appears that one answer to this question may be the ability to work cooperatively (Alie, Beam, & Carey, 1998;
Fiechtner & Davis, 1992; Kolb, 1999;
Singh-Gupta & Troutt-Ervin, 1996;
Slavin, 1990; Ventimiglia, 1984). As
organizations continue to decentralize
decisionmaking and to deal with today’s
complex and changing environment,
there is a greater reliance on teams.
Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991)
stated that “knowledge and skills are of
no use if [one] cannot apply them in
cooperative interaction with other people.” However, working together effectively does not necessarily come naturally; it is something we must learn.
Although specific courses in “working together effectively” may not be in
the curriculum, many college instructors facilitate the acquisition of this skill
by using group assignments in their
courses. Instructors who use effective
group projects can link educational
experience and workplace experience.
In this article we outline a framework
for the design of group assignments that
consists of three areas: (a) pedagogical
purposes, (b) what should be evaluated
56
ABSTRACT. Designing group projects can bewilder the best of instructors. This article provides a framework
that invites the reader to explore systematically the design of group projects. The framework focuses on pedagogical purposes for using such
projects, what should be evaluated and
by whom, and critical factors to consider when designing a group project.
It is not meant to be prescriptive but
can provoke thought and discussion.
The authors conclude with four recurring themes that have emerged from
discussions using this framework.
and by whom, and (c) critical factors in
group project design. The framework is
meant to provoke individual thought
and discussion with colleagues interested in group projects.
We define a “group project” as an
assignment that requires two or more
individuals, interacting and interdependent, to come together to achieve specific objectives (Jaques, 1984; Robbins,
1997). With this broad definition, a
group project need not require a common product or a common grade for the
group members. It may vary from a
simple sharing of information to a
requirement for a collective performance with a common product. Similarly, there may be a blend of individual
and joint accountability. It includes situations where students work in groups
to share information and facilitate
learning, but effort and contribution are
assessed individually.
Pedagogical Purposes for
Utilizing Groups
From a pedagogical perspective there
are numerous reasons to use group projects in the classroom. The following
reasons were developed from a review
of the literature and from information
that we have gathered from seminars on
group projects. They are categorized as
workplace related, student related, and
instructor related.
Workplace Related
Today’s workplace increasingly relies
on the interdependence of employees
working in teams to improve productivity (Gardner & Korth, 1998; SinghGupta & Troutt-Ervin, 1996). Group
projects enable students to practice
important interpersonal skills, including
conflict resolution, the ability to reach
consensus on decisions, and effective
interpersonal communication techniques (Freeman, 1995; Goodsell,
Maker, Tinto, Smith, & MacGregor,
1992; Kolb, 1999; Michaelson, 1992;
Singh-Gupta & Troutt-Ervin, 1996).
zyxwvuts
Journal of Education for Business
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
zyxwvutsrqp
Time management is also an important
skill and is essential in both educational
endeavors and the workplace (SinghGupta & Troutt-Ervin, 1996). By pooling efforts, group members can divide
tasks and work more efficiently to complete projects in a timely manner.
The increasing diversity in workplace
demographics (age, gender, culture, etc.)
must also be considered in the college
classroom. Thus, the use of group projects should prepare students to work in
a diverse work force (Bruffee, 1993;
Goodsell et al., 1992). Broersma (1995)
suggested that dealing with diversity will
become a strategic issue and a source of
competitive advantage for organizations
that are able to attract, retain, and effectively use a diverse workforce.
In preparing students for the workplace, we must teach both discipline
knowledge and group-process skills.
Goodsell et al. (1992) extended the
importance of group process skills
beyond the workplace and suggested that
these abilities are crucial to living in a
community in which individuals participate and have a sense of responsibility.
Student Related
Instructor Related
By building on the benefits of multiple perspectives, pooling of efforts, and
mutual support, group projects allow
instructors to assign more complex and
comprehensive projects. From a pragmatic point of view, as classroom size
increases, instructors may be overwhelmed by the task of grading students
on an individual basis. Assigning a
group project with a common group
product allows the instructor to reduce
evaluation time and provide feedback in
a timely manner (Freeman, 1995).
Instructors also report that students who
participate in group projects that have
been administered well are more satisfied and give better teaching evaluations.
The initial step in designing a group
project requires instructors to identify
clearly their specific purpose in using a
group project.
dimensions of group behavior in theory,
but the interaction of product and
behaviors in groups makes them highly
correlated in practice. If this theory is
accepted, then product quality is affected by process quality, and that argues
for attention to and assessment of
process in the classroom.
Who Should Participate in the
Evaluation ?
For most courses, it is a given that the
instructor is involved in evaluating the
group project. The question remains
whether input from peers or external parties (e.g., consultant, manager, expert) or
self-evaluation will also be included.
Conway, Kember, Sivan, and Wu
(1993) listed two forms of peer assessment: by members of the group and by
other members of the class (usually of
the end product). Without input from
group members, the problem of strong
students carrying weaker students or of
students “free riding” on efforts of
peers may occur (Cramer, 1994; Freeman, 1995). Thus, peer evaluation by
group members is a method of group
control (Conway et al., 1993; Freeman,
1995; Goldfinch, 1994). Students also
benefit because it promotes active discussions and interactions when group
members provide feedback to each
other (Cramer, 1994; Johnson, Johnson,
& Smith, 1991; Marcoulides & Simkin,
1995). A possible problem with peer
evaluation is that it may create dissension if used only at the end of a project
without interim feedback. Freeman
(1995) suggested that this might be
overcome by using progress reports and
putting a group member on probation to
ensure awareness of a problem early in
the process.
The second source of peer assessment
is remaining members of the class.
Evaluation input from this group in
addition to a student’s group members
has many benefits. It actively involves
all students in the learning process
(Cramer, 1994) and provides students
an opportunity to develop critical evaluation skills. If a student wants to be a
manager in the future, it is important to
recognize problems with the work of
others and be able to effectively communicate needed changes (Alie et al.,
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsr
From a student learning perspective,
one reason for using group projects is
that additional information and multiple
perspectives may lead to intellectual
synergy and better understanding and
retention of concepts (Goodsell et al.,
1992; Singh-Gupta & Troutt-Ervin,
1996; Ventimiglia, 1984). Increased
understanding may also be a result of
the critical thinking and the communication required by group members to articulate their individual viewpoints (Freeman, 1995). Another advantage of group
projects results from discussions about
members’ perceptions of project objectives. These discussions help clarify
objectives and ensure that all members
are working toward designated goals.
In addition to increased understanding, groups provide a social support system in which students share in the ownership of course content and learning
(Alie et al., 1998; Cramer, 1994; Jaques,
1984). The social support system may
be especially helpful for students
enrolled in a difficult class or just entering college.
What Should Be Evaluated and
by Whom
When an instructor assigns a group
project, two key evaluation questions
usually arise: (a) What specifically will
be evaluated? and (b) Who should participate in the evaluation? The answers
to these questions depend on the purposes identified earlier. It is helpful to
develop a matrix defining these factors
for the group project.
What Specifically Will Be Evaluated?
When deciding what to evaluate, an
instructor can choose to evaluate group
process, product, or both. Product is
defined as an interim or final outcome/output. Instructors require myriad
products, including project proposals,
written papers, and oral presentations.
Process is defined as a series of actions
that bring about an end result. Evaluation criteria under process might
include quality and quantity of participation within a group, preparation for
meetings, and interpersonal skills. Johnson and Johnson (1991) stated that the
purpose of group process is to improve
member effectiveness in contributing to
the achievement of group goals. Davis
(1993) and Fisher (1980) proposed that
product and process may be separate
September/October 2000
57
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
zyxwvutsrq
1998; Singh-Gupta & Troutt-Ervin,
1996). Marcoulides and Simkin (1995)
also stated that in-class peer reviews
provide faster feedback. Peer evaluation
may also motivate students to perform
better because the student knows that a
peer will judge his or her work (Ken,
Kang, & Domazlicky, 1995).
In addition to students providing feedback to others, they need to be encouraged to assess their own work. Hatfield
(1995) asserted that critical self-evaluation may be as important a learning
experience as the actual assigned project. Instruction and practice in selfassessment will help students become
successful lifelong learners (Angel0 &
Cross, 1993). Self-assessment helps students to take charge of their own learning, to become more self-directed, and
to assess their progress toward project
goals and project completion (Marzano,
1992). Finally, Gopinath (1999) stated
that teaching students to practice selfassessment is preparation for “360
degree” feedback in the workplace.
An often overlooked evaluation
source is parties external to the course.
For example, instructors have successfully used professional practitioners
who have expertise in the discipline
(e.g., managers or consultants). That
establishes a clear connection between
the classroom and workplace, and students are often more serious when they
know that they will be evaluated by an
external expert.
Table 1 provides a sample group project’s possible criteria, but instructors
should build a matrix based on their
respective projects.
The final portion of the framework
identifies four critical factors in designing a group project: fit, breadth, instructional issues, and efficacy. These critical
factors build on the first two phases of
the framework.
Breadth is defined as the scope of
evaluation criteria, evaluators, and evaluation points. Evaluation criteria need
to be specific and appropriate in number
rather than few and overly broad
(Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971).
Just as instructors must define what
constitutes a good final product in terms
of specific knowledge, what constitutes
good group process must also be
defined to effectively teach and evaluate
process. As described previously, factors such as being prepared for group
discussions, providing quality input,
and demonstrating effective interper-
TABLE 1. Sample Group Project: Content to Be Evaluated and Possible
Evaluators
Content
Evaluator
Product
Instructor
Initial proposal (individual or
Journal of Education for Business
Process
Individual’s contributions
to group
group)
Written paper (individual or
Effectiveness of group
process
group)
Oral presentation (individual or
group)
Peers in group
Oral presentation (group)
Individual’s contributions
to group
Effectiveness of group
process
Peers outside of group Final product
Fit is defined as the relationship
between use of groups and what is evaluated. The major element of fit is
whether items being evaluated are con-
58
Breadth of Evaluation
sonal skills are examples of welldefined process criteria.
The use of multiple evaluators has
numerous benefits. First, evaluators
have different levels of knowledge and
expertise to contribute to the evaluation
process. For example, instructors often
have limited knowledge of the group
process, whereas peers are intimately
acquainted with process problems and
successes. Similarly, experts from outside the institution may have more
expertise and credibility than the
instructor for assessing content knowledge. Second, students sharpen their
critical thinking skills when required to
provide feedback to others and to
assess their own work (Hatfield, 1995).
Third, prompt feedback is more effective than delayed feedback, and using
multiple evaluators can reduce the
assessment burden and improve timeliness of feedback (Gopinath, 1999).
Finally, it seems reasonable to assume
that students, like employees in organizations, are more likely to respond constructively to feedback and view it as
more fair if it comes from multiple
sources (Jackson & Schuler, 2000).
The use of multiple evaluation points
for feedback purposes is critical to student learning (Bloom et al., 1971; Shaw
& Fisher, 1999). Although the focus is
often on summative evaluation for the
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp
zyx
Critical Factors in Group Project
Design
Fit
sistent with the learning objectives for
the group project. In addition to consistency with the objectives, the instructor
may consider weighting evaluation
components based on the importance of
each learning objective. For example, if
a major objective for assigning a group
project is to teach students conflict-resolution skills, then part of the evaluation
component should address conflict-resolution proficiency. The weight of that
component would be determined by the
importance the instructor places on that
objective. The objective may, therefore,
be very similar to the assessment component (Jaques, 1984).
External professionals Initial proposal
Written paper
Quality of group process
(participation,preparation,
cooperation)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
zyxwv
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
purpose of assigning grades, learning is
most influenced by formative evaluation
that provides feedback during the
course. Feichtner and Davis (1992) have
suggested that multiple opportunities
should be taken to provide students with
feedback on their performance to allow
lagging students the chance to improve.
Multiple evaluators, who share responsibility for both content and process
feedback, can provide students with
quality feedback at more frequent intervals and optimize student learning.
Instructional Issues
Instructional issues are defined as
teaching activities that facilitate group
project effectiveness. The first area of
activity is defining the task and “selling” the students on the benefits and
importance of using groups to achieve
the assigned learning objective(s)
(Davis, 1993). It is the instructor’s
responsibility to design tasks that help
students discover and take advantage of
groups in order to increase the potential
learning of each individual in the group
(Bruffee, 1993). Assignments should be
structured so that students understand
what is expected of them and also so all
students are familiar with the entire
product submitted by the group, not just
the portion they completed individually.
The second instructional activity that
will facilitate group project effectiveness is the clear communication of what
is being evaluated and by whom. This
implies that the instructor must ensure
that students and external evaluators are
skilled in the assessment process
(Cramer, 1994). Evaluation criteria
should be established that are unbiased
and encourage constructive criticism.
Providing all evaluators with checklists
helps them to identify and assess specific contributions.
Another question that the instructor
must deal with is whether to assign a
group or an individual grade for the project, or to what extent students’ final
grades on the project will be interdependent (Ventimiglia, 1984). Cramer (1994)
and Slavin (1990) indicated that both
group goals and individual accountability are essential for student achievement.
They recommend that an instructor combine individual grades with group grades,
thus achieving group goals without sacrificing individual accountability.An alternative point of view is that issuing only a
group grade will increase cohesion when
students must rely on each other for an
acceptable grade (Cramer, 1994).
An additional instructional concern is
the teaching of group process. If
instructors want students to learn group
process skills, then those skills need to
be addressed in the classroom (Siciliano, 1999).The instructor should take a
leadership role and set the climate of
expectations by verbalizing the ground
rules and guiding groups to stay on task.
Bolton (1999) found that students were
significantly more satisfied with group
experiences when the instructor provided team training. This may include
information on stages of group development, communication within a group,
roles that group members can play, and
conflict resolution to name a few areas.
Briefing students on past experiences
with group failures and successes is one
way to convey group behavior expectations (Siciliano, 1999).
parity between outcomes and objectives
signals a need for corrective action(s).
The instructor may decide to change the
learning objectives, re-examine the fit
between objectives and evaluation,
change evaluation processes (breadth),
or address any problematic instructional
issues. If the disparity is great enough,
the group project may become an individual project next semester! In Table 2,
I summarize the four critical factors in
designing an effective group project.
Conclusion
We have presented this framework at
academic conferences and workshops.
Although we have not tested the model
empirically, it has met the original goals
of provoking individual thought and
inspiring spirited discussion among colleagues. Four recurring themes have
emerged from discussions: (a) the
advantages of a systems approach, (b)
the importance of distinguishing
between product and process, (c) the
tension in instructional priorities, and
(d) the merits of multiple evaluators.
Eficacy
Efficacy is defined as the extent to
which the group project achieves the
desired learning objectives. The final
step in group project design is comparing actual student learning outcomes to
the initial learning objectives established for the project. If there is a match
between outcomes and objectives, the
instructor celebrates the success and
repeats the project next semester. A dis-
I
I
I
Systems Approach
The framework demonstrates the
advantages of a systems approach to
thinking about group projects and the
benefits of specifically linking project
goals, instructional issues, and evaluation criteria and techniques. For example, numerous participants in workshops
indicated that they had not considered
the linkage between why they assigned
zyxwvuts
TABLE 2. Critical Factors in Group Project Design
zyxwvutsr
Fit
Evaluating components consistent with objective(s)
Assigning weights to evaluation components
Breadth
Establishing specific and appropriate evaluation criteria
Using multiple evaluators
Using multiple evaluation points (summative and formative)
Instructional issues
Defining the task
“Selling” the benefits of using a group project
Communicating what will be evaluated and by whom
Determining the extent that students’ grades will be interdependent (group vs. individual grade)
Teaching group process
Efficacy
Comparing learning outcomes to learning objectives
Redesigning group project
September/October 2000
59
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:28 13 January 2016
zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
zyx
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvut
group projects and how they evaluated
the group project. As they discussed
group projects used in their courses,
they often were surprised when one or
more of their important teaching objectives had no evaluation component.
Product Versus Process
The framework makes a clear distinction between product and process skills,
and the importance of both in preparing
students for the workplace. Allthough
instructors realize the importance of
group process to achieving a quality
product in both the classroom and the
workplace, they often did not recognize
their role in teaching process skills. For
instance, one person indicated that she
thought groups in the classroom were an
excellent way to simulate a workplace,
but she had never even thought about
evaluating group process, much less
teaching it. In addition, most instructors
indicated that they could not assume
that students would come into their
course with effective group process
skills. Productive discussion focused on
where students should be taught group
process skills in the curriculum.
Instructional Priorities
The framework highlights the critical
issues of how much time instructors are
willing to devote to teaching group
process and how comfortable instructors are in both teaching and evaluating
group process. Some instructors express
concern about taking time away from
discipline or content knowledge, while
others indicate the importance of learning application skills as well as content
knowledge. This continuing tension
between knowing the facts and being
able to apply the facts was illustrated by
the question, “Don’t you want the pilot
of your plane to have both factual
knowledge and experience in the application of that factual knowledge?”
Multiple Evaluators
The framework stimulates discussion
of the relative merits of using the
instructor, the student, or external eval-
60
Journal of Education for Business
uators. Instructors recognize that there
is value in using student and external
evaluators but usually indicate limited
or no use of evaluators other than the
instructor. Barriers included the need to
teach the evaluation process to others,
concerns about fairness, and the difficulty of locating, training, and compensating external evaluators. In theory,
instructors recognize and accept the
advantages of multiple evaluators, but
pragmatic considerations constrain the
use of them.
We hope that instructors will experiment with the framework and that your
discussions with colleagues will be as
stimulating and thought provoking as
the ones we have had.
REFERENCES
Alie, R. E., Beam, H. H., & and Carey, T. S.
(1998). The use of teams in an undergraduate
management program Journal of Management
Education, 22(6), 707-719.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. K. (1993). Classroom
assessment techniques: A handbook for college
teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F.
(1971). Handbook in formative and summative
evaluafion of student learning. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bolton, M. K. (1999).The role of coaching in student teams: A “just in time” approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23(3),
233-250.
Broersma, T. (1995, January). In search of the
future. Training and Development, 49, 3843.
Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborarive learning:
Higher education, interdependence, and the
authority of knowledge. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A., & Wu, M.
(1993).Peer assessment of an individual’s contribution to a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1). 45-56.
Cramer, S. F. (1994). Assessing effectiveness in
the collaborative classroom in new directions
for reaching and learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Davis, J. R. (1993). Better teaching, more learning: Strategiesfor success in postsecondary settings. Phoenix, AZ:American Council on Education, Oryx Press.
Fiechtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park, PA: National Center
on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment.
Fisher, B. A. (1980).Small group decision making
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups
of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 20(3), 289-300.
Gardner, B. S., & Korth, S. J. (1998). A framework for learning to work in teams. Journal of
Education for Business, 74(1),28-33.
Goldfinch, J. (1994). Further developments in peer
assessment of group projects. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 19(1),29-35.
Goodsell, A. S., Maher, M. R., Tinto, V., Smith, B.
L., & MacGregor, J. (1992). Collaborative
learning: A sourcebook for higher education.
University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Gopinath, C. (1999). Alternatives to instructor
assessment of class participation. Journal of
Educationfor Business,75(1),10-14.
Hatfield, S. R. (1995). The seven principles in
action. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (2000).Managing
human resources. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestem College Publishing.
Jaques, D. (1984). Learning in groups. Sydney,
Australia: Croom Helm.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A.
(1991).Acfive learning: Coopemfionin the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T.,& Smith, K. A.
(1991). Cooperative earning: Increasing college
faculty instructional productivity, ASHE ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington,
DC:George Washington University, School of
Education and Human Development.
Ken; P. M., Kang, P. K., & Domazlicky, B. R.
(1995).Peer grading of essays in a principles of
microeconomics course. Journal of Education
for Business, 70(6), 357-361.
Kolb, J. A. (1999).A project in small-group decision making. Journal of Management Educarion, 23(1), 71-79.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1995).The
consistency of peer review in student writing
projects. Journal of Education for Business,
70(4), 220-223.
Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Meyers, S. A. (1997). Increasing student participation and productivity in small-group activities for psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 24(2), 105-1 15.
Michaelsen, L. K. (1992).Team learning: A comprehensive approach for harnessing the power
of small groups in higher education. To improve
the Academy, I I , 107-122.
Robbins, S. P. (1997).Essentials of organizational
behavior: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sharan, S. (1994). Handbook of cooperative
learning methods. Westport, C T Greenwood.
Shaw, J. B., & Fisher, C. D. (1999).Practical organizational behavior education (PROBE): Modifications and innovations. Journal of Management Education, 23(1), 13-30.
Siciliano, J. (1999).A template for managing teamwork in courses across the curriculum. Journal
of Education for Business, 75(5), 261-264.
Singh-Gupta, V., & Troutt-Ervin, E. (1996).
Preparing students for teamwork through collaborative writing and peer review techniques.
TETYC,May, 127-136.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on cooperative
learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-54.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Student team learning: A
practical guide to coopereative learning. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Ventimiglia, L. M. (1984). Cooperative learning
at the college level. Thought and Action: The
NEA Higher Education Journal. Washington,
DC: NEA CommunicationsServices.
zyxwvut
zyxwvut