Both computer science and business educators have addressed various aspects of peer evaluation in recent work. Kaufman, Felder, and Fuller  addressed some of these issues in a earlier paper, with particular focus on teamprojects in engineering. Clark, Davies, and Skeers  describe a significantly more complex computer- facilitated process, involving timesheets, self and peer evaluations based on behavioral characteristics of good teamwork, individual contribution reports, and a “quantity” report where each student reports the relative percentage of work contributed by each other student. LeJeune  has developed an instructor-weighted assessment mechanism that is combined with peer assessments to arrive at the final grade assignment, an approach that is both more involved and requires more instructor effort than the approach described in this paper. Gueldenzoph and May  conducted a literature review and identified best practices for assessment of group members. Williams  described experience with compulsory peer assessment methods for online collaborative work. Fellenz  developed a protocol for the peer evaluation of the contributions of individuals to student groupwork.
problem solving: The first stage was the student’s realisation of a problem, the second the inspection of the problem, followed by the building of a hypothesis which was then proposed and tested experimentally, then the extension of the hypothesis followed and, finally, learning was concluded by the testing of the hypothesis in practice (Beck 1965). This paper examines a teamprojects scheme which can be described as follows using Dewey’s five steps: A real life client organisation approaches the University of Salford with an actual business problem. This problem description would be passed on to a team of students who would then take ownership of the problem and negotiate with the company the scope and objectives of the project (Step 1). Then working with the client organisation the team would produce a detailed analysis of the problem (Step 2). Based on this analysis a range of solutions would be proposed (Step 3) and one of them selected (Step 4) and tested in real life where appropriate (Step 5). An example problem might be that a client organisation’s website has poor search engine rankings. This problem would be analysed by the students and they might identify a number of problems. Their recommendation might be a re-design of the site to include a higher keyword density and increased number of inbound and outbound links. These solutions would be negotiated with the client and implemented in practice. The students would therefore be learning which of their solutions made a higher impact on search engine ranking and increasing their knowledge of the subject of search engine optimisation. Aside from the subject knowledge increase as proposed by Dewey, and the actual product of the project, the team are also benefiting from experiencing the process of team project work and its associated problems.
Traditional undergraduate campus-based courses incorporate a team project element, as an essential means of ‘learning by doing’. The learning cycle by Kolb (Kolb 1984) summarises the stages of experiential learning as concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation, which can be applied to student learning. This gives a starting point for thinking about how we approach the design of learning activities to achieve the learning outcomes. The main feature is that students do not learn by simply being told facts. They need to be able to practise using the facts, and reflect on the way they are used in order to form connections in the brain, which can be regarded as knowledge. Further experimentation, experience and reflection leads to intelligence or expertise in a subject. If the students are able to talk about this information, then they can be said to have knowledge of the subject, and intelligence shows in their ability to apply the knowledge in a variety of situations. Teamprojects give students an opportunity to discuss their understanding of the subject with their peers, as they apply the theory to practice (Sharan 1990). Students undertaking online courses should be given a similar opportunity to experience team working, but where face to face contact is not possible, technologies may be able to provide additional resources to make the online team experience comparible to campus based.
In a study with students from five different higher education institutions, it was found that stu- dents rarely pay much attention to agreeing on ground rules before they embark on their teamprojects (Whatley et al., 1999). When the team project was completed without establishing ground rules at the beginning, this may have contributed to some of the problems that arose in these teams, which resulted in some projects not being completed satisfactorily or on time. Trust or reliance is an important feature of work teams, based upon the socio-emotional level at which the team is working. A team based on mutual trust is cohesive and co-operative, whereas a non-trusting team is defensive (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975). Trust implies reliance on or confidence in some event, process, or person, reflecting an expectation about outcomes based on perceptions and life experiences. In team project work each member relies upon other members to perform particular tasks and to agreed deadlines, and failure to deliver reduces the levels of trust members will have in each other. Trust implies some risk in the expectation of gain, so at the early stages of the group life cycle members trust each other on the basis of little knowledge about others’ experience and abilities, but if delegation of tasks and work is successful the group benefits considerably in performance at the task level towards the final product. In a study of trust within face-to-face teams, a possible relationship between trust in teams and setting ground rules was found (Bos, Olsen, Gergle, Olsen, & Wright, 2002). Knowing about each other’s capabilities and preferences can be a factor in developing trust, for instance, contributing to a “shared lan- guage”, understanding, or shared knowledge base (Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Knowing facts about someone is not necessarily the same as knowing someone, but it may play a large part in moving individuals in the team from:
The earlier work of educational research was based on the teaching of associationist (Herbart, 1776-1841) and functionalist (Dewey, 1859-1952) theory (see Clark, 1999 for an overview of these theorists and their theories). Associations were based on the early beliefs that ideas were similar to real life. It was thought that new ideas would therefore create new paths in our brains. Herbart (1982) believed that if an idea was to be entrenched in someone’s mind it would have to be related to similar ideas. A learner would therefore be more interested in ideas that they are al- ready relatively familiar with, thus a teacher has to be aware of this and utilize it for teaching. This resulted in the five steps that defined teaching from Herbart’s point of view: Preparation, Presentation, Association, Generalization and Application (Beck, 1965:98). The first step would prepare students by drawing out any issue related to the topic to be studied. The presentation step would explain the new topic. Herbart suggested using concrete examples to explain the theory or a concept in question. Association would connect the already known with the newly learned with the differences and similarities highlighted. In the generalization section students are asked to consider the larger picture and use these ideas in other subjects. The final, application step, gives students the opportunity to apply the learned theory in practice, and appreciate new experiences. Herbart’s views were criticized by John Dewey, who observed that all work in a Herbartian class was teacher-and-subject-centered, in which case, students were only concerned with learning. Dewey on the other hand was of the opinion that students should learn problem solving rather than remembering and reciting (Beck, 1965:100). Dewey echoed Darwin’s (1809–1882) evolu- tion principles and related evolution to an individual’s learning. Dewey’s view of the mind was that it is driven by the need for problem solving, rather than the association of already known facts as proposed by Herbart. To counteract Herbart’s beliefs Dewey proposed his own five steps for teachers so that they could engage students in problem solving: Dewey’s five stages are ech- oed in the stages followed in subjects that have teamprojects; for example; finding a business problem, determining the requirements; building and testing the solution and finally by imple- menting the completed product. Regardless of the theorist, teamprojects, and in particular IT cap- stone teamprojects allow for learning behaviors that cannot be realized in an individual learning environment.
and deeper understanding. Teams or groups of students working together on a product simulate real working in the creative technology industry. The term used in the industry is ‘the production pipeline’, in which a product is produced in stages: an example would be pre-production such as specification definition, initial concept designs, then the main production and post-production stages. Finally, the final product is tested against the original specification. The tutor’s role within teamprojects should be to inspire, guide, encourage and monitor progress.
The MBA Managerial Communication course has now been taught four times with the focus on team-based communication audits for organizations in the local community. Despite the logistical challenges of graduate student schedules and organizational work requirements, the benefits clearly outweigh the limitations. In this article, we describe communication audits, how an audit was integrated into our MBA course, identify student outcomes as a result of implementing this experiential, collaborative and team-based service learning project, and offer recommendations and insights for using a communication audit to help students connect classroom theory to workplace practice. As Shelby and Reinsch (1996) say, “While a challenging assignment both for student and professor, the audit is – in our judgment – clearly worth the effort.” We concur and highly recommend this approach for teaching a graduate-level communication course. As one student wrote on the course evaluation at the end of the semester, the focus on transitioning our communication style from academic to business was exactly what we needed. The real world experience of the communication audit was something that kept me actively engaged every day!
Team working is an important skill for undergraduate students to acquire, whilst studying in higher education. Many organisations use teamwork extensively to produce results, particularly in systems development and software engineering. Within global organisations, members of staff are separated physically, but often required to work as a team. Team working as a virtual team is possible using computer mediated communication and the Internet, and different skills are required in order to achieve effective team working online. In this paper a software system for supporting team working is described. This system will help students to acquire virtual team working skills in a co-located context. This will be useful within large co- located organisations, where they may rely on this type of software, as well as helping to prepare students for virtual team working in a global workplace. The development of this system has been advised through prototyping at various stages, and involving students and tutors in the modifications incorporated at each stage.
The research presented in this thesis investigates student team working, by designing, implementing and evaluating a software system as an aid for co-located students in carrying out their team project work. Undergraduate students in the university at which the author works, have reported that they find it difficult to undertake teamprojects (Jones and McMaster 2004; Cooper and Heinze 2007). This is a problem that has been reported elsewhere, e.g. (Ruel and Bastiaans 2003; Hansen 2006), and results in dissatisfaction with team working, so students do not reap the full benefit of participating in teamprojects. However, undergraduate teamprojects are a good way to learn skills and prepare for team working in the workplace. The literature identifies three main stages of any project: getting started, carrying out the tasks and completing the project. There is also evidence that getting started on a project is a crucial stage in effectively achieving outcomes. The author had been working on software agent technology, so it was proposed that using agent technology might provide some additional support to students for getting started on their teamprojects, which would alleviate some of the difficulties they typically encounter. In this thesis undergraduate students, working on IT systems development teamprojects are being investigated, in order to find out whether team communication through a software system, based on agent technology, can enhance the students’ experience of team working.
The projects have in common identifying and formulating a specific investigation problem based on a task by the industry partner. Secondly, the students have to decide on the appropriate information sources and data collection/analysis methods, and thirdly they have to develop a specific research proposal to meet not only the client’s needs and cost constraints but also the time constraints of the class schedule. Kennedy argues that live business cases are powerful learning tools because they provide an ‘open-ended environment that fosters the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills’ (Kennedy et al., 2001, p.147). Besides, most of the collaborative industry projects conducted by student teams give students the opportunity to develop their team ability and their interpersonal skills. This is an important outcome given the changed requirements of employers towards the graduates of higher education mentioned before (Kennedy et al., 2001). In summary teamprojects generally offer many pedagogical benefits such as higher motivation of the students, multicultural experiences, positive peer modelling, cooperative learning, as well as the development of essential workplace skills including communication, group interaction and technical skills (Williams et al., 1991) and in our case also managerial skills.
Teams sought the leadership of a project sponsor, who was responsible for supporting project teams at each site. Depending on the needs of each team, the responsibilities of sponsors involved securing staff release time to dedicate to projects, socialising the projects with other senior leaders, assisting teams to problem solve and maintaining project momentum. The project sponsor was typically a member of staff who was known to the project team, had an interest in supporting co-design approach in their organisation, and was in a management or leadership position, such as a clinical leader, service manager, general manager, quality manager or director.
Furthermore, the opportunity to discuss, compare, share and learn from others who have similar challenges is something that should not be underestimated. The discussions that arose during the process generated a cross-cultural view on solutions to delivery issues, and were a bonus to the collaborative writing process. Subsequent discussions not associated directly with the capstone or team project issues, for example, the conundrum of the decline in IT student numbers together with the increase in demand for IT professionals, were welcomed as a global perspective is not always easy to gather or contribute to in a non- threatening environment.
This makes it important to implement a management technique tailored to suit refurbished projects. Value management is a systematic process that is used by multi- disciplinary teams to ensure the improvement of the value of projects by analysing functions . It was first introduced in the United States of America during the Second World War when a shortage was discovered with materials in the manufacturing sector. Lawrence Miles was compelled to use alternative materials and discovered that the alternatives were cheaper and be performed better than the original choice. The practice of VM remained in use after the war to eliminate unnecessary cost and improve design, it was introduced to the building development industry in the early 1960s . Existing value management studies that pertain to the construction industry have mostly focused on new building projects , . These studies have looked into the implementation of value management to new building development. Since the building refurbishment process is different from the new building construction process, a different strategy is needed for its inclusion. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to review the refurbishment process, and identify how value management can be included. For the purpose of this study, refurbishment refers to the improvements, major repair works, alterations, renovations, extensions, conversions, and modernisation of buildings . This excludes cleaning and routine maintenance. The remaining sections include Methods (Section 2), The Review (Section 3) and Conclusions and Recommendations (Section 4).
Team cohesion is the extent to which team members bond to the team as a whole, commit themselves to the team’s tasks, and take pride in being part of the team [Barrick, Bradley, Kristof-Brown, and Colbert, 2007]. Team cohesion has been found to be a predictor of team performance in many research studies and meta-analyses [Beal et al., 2003; Chang and Bordia, 2001; Evans and Dion, 2012; Greer, 2012; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006; Mullen and Copper, 1994]. Team cohesion has three facets: (1) interpersonal attraction, which helps the members of a team to collaborate with others; (2) task commitment, which increases individual efforts to complete a task; and (3) group pride, which encourages members to share attraction to the group task or goal. These three facets explain why, after team members have had an opportunity to work together or at least to become acquainted with one another, they may develop bonds to the team and its task, which facilitates their work collaboration within the team. Team cohesion has a stronger effect on team performance when the team is working on interdependent tasks that require high work collaboration [Gully et al., 1995].
communication was preferred at the beginning of projects, and email towards the end, and for managing conflicts. The lack of interpersonal elements in lean media was an advantage when respondents needed to focus on the facts and when there were interpersonal problems. As an example to illustrate how media richness and social influence theories might be tested to explain choices, McGee describes a disagreement between two managers at Microsoft who chose to use email to avoid heated FtF interaction, and to resolve a conflict of opinion (McGee 2000 p38). In this example, media richness theory would predict that email is not the optimum medium for the ambiguous task of conflict resolution. In reality the leaner medium was chosen to “diffuse the emotional content of their previous interactions, while still salvaging their ability to continue working on the same project” (McGee 2000 p38). Applying social influence theory, McGee suggests that email was promoted and routinely used at Microsoft, and that another organizational norm, the work ethic to resolve conflicts which hinder project progress, might have played a role in the medium choice. The example may also illustrate two propositions of social influence theory, that media choices are not necessarily efficiency motivated and may be designed to preserve ambiguity, for example in this case, to preserve ambiguity over an
According to Benson and Lawler (2007), pressures deriving from the need to develop new ideas in dynamic, uncertain and complex environments causes start of team conflicts. The Storming stage is characterized by interpersonal issues such as conflict and polarization. Understanding that this type of conflict is normal for any team will help you pass through this stage successfully. During this stage, some of the skills that will help you build your team are conflict management, active listening, and relationship building. It is also important for you to be assertive, confident, and positive during this stage, especially if some of the team members are challenging your leadership (Sims, Salas & Burke, 2005). As conflicts become less intense and the team members begin to understand and accept each other, the team will gradually move into the Norming stage. It is during this stage that your team starts to come together and is able to focus more effectively on the project tasks and objectives. During this stage, you will want to focus on keeping everyone moving in the right direction. Communication and constructive feedback will help you do this (Aritzeta & Alcover, 2006). In the Performing stage, team members are comfortable with each other and group norms have been accepted. Interpersonal and structural issues have been settled and support task performance. Team synergy is high during this stage which results in high performance. This theory supports the study by extensively exploring the project team culture, and project scheduling. The theory also gives insight to project managers or team leaders on team behavior, the basis and foundation of tackling group issues to enhance performance in executing projects.
- Acceptance of Team Decision - Regular decision So, the ability to foster relationships between members of the IMB Technical Team is an adhesive to bring together team members through mutual respect and receiving input from colleagues which can later lay the foundation for a good relationship.
Maria Yang and Yan Jin  strongly believes that that distributed teams in the classroom tend to have task orientation in the way they function, while co-located teams tend to have a social orientation. Hey have considered total 8 factors – Goals and objectives, trust & conflict, utilization of resources, communication problem solving & evaluation, cohesion experimentation. 7 of them remains same except control and productivity which is higher in co-located team.
The questionnaires were constructed based on the research of E. Turner , who is dedicated to industrial and commercial learning. His research concluded that most strategies failed due to several factors, which we incorporated completely in our questionnaire. Its bold title (Why strategies DO fail) did not provoke any dissent, which confirmed that it’s an agreed on statement. Managers and team leaders were invited to distribute 100% of strategy’s failure among the following eight categories: