A Team-Oriented Approach to Learning:

An Effort to Improve Student Retention and Performance

Jennifer Kreie, New Mexico State University, MSC 3DH, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, 505-646-2990

Wayne Headrick, New Mexico State University, MSC 3GSP, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, 505-646-8003

Robert Steiner, New Mexico State University, MSC 3CQ, Las Cruces, NM 88003, 505-646-4164

ABSTRACT

Most educators have experienced the difficulty of motivating students in a course they must take to fulfill some general education requirement. Students in such courses are often relatively new to the university environment and, as a consequence, are prone to drop out or fail at a significantly higher rate than students in upper-division and/or major courses. This paper reports the results of a study on a “team-oriented approach to learning” [1] conducted in an introductory course in computer information systems. Based on a growing body of research indicating that team-oriented activities may make students feel more involved in their coursework, promote discussion among students that reinforces the concepts being taught, and even improve student retention and performance, the instructors in this course developed a wide range of team-oriented activities that were integrated into nearly all phases of the course. While students in the course were still required to complete a number of individual activities, regular group quizzes, in-class group software projects and other group activities were scheduled at least once per week throughout the term. Frequent, prompt feedback was provided on both individual and group activities. To assess the success of this teaching approach, objective student retention and performance measures are compared with data from two terms in which the team-oriented approach to learning was not used in the course. Qualitative assessments of the impact of the team-oriented approach to learning are also reported.

INTRODUCTION

An introductory course in computer information systems is one of the general education requirements at a southwestern university. Instructors of this freshman-level course have found that many students drop out during the semester or do poorly, most likely due to poor attendance, lack of preparation for tests, and missed or incorrect assignments. To help address the problem of retention and performance in this course, two instructors decided to try a team learning proposed by Michaelsen and Fink [1] ,[2].

The team learning approach is more than using group exercises to help student interact with one another. There are four principles of team learning [1]. First, teams should be properly formed rather than randomly assigned. Second, students must be held accountable so they are motivated to do individual work and preparation for group activities. Third, team assignments must promote learning and group interaction. Fourth, there should be frequent and prompt feedback on individual and team assignments.

STUDY

In this study two sections of an introductory course in computer information systems were taught using the team learning approach. (referred to as the TL sections in this paper) These two sections were compared with two sections of the same course taught in the previous year without the team learning approach (referred to as the traditional sections in this paper) but which did include in-class small group exercises. All sections of the course used the same textbook and schedule of reading assignments. Individual quizzes and exams were generated from the same bank of questions. Individual assignments were essentially the same, though they sometimes varied enough to discourage cheating. All sections of the course also used WebCT to provide course information, e-mail access to the instructor, and to provide students’ with ready access to their individual and team scores. All sections were taught in the same computer classroom—each student had a computer.

To address the issue of properly formed teams, the instructors of the two TL sections decided prior to the beginning of the semester how they would form teams. Because of the course subject and numerous hands-on computer assignments, the instructors felt the main goal in forming the teams should be to distribute computer expertise throughout the teams. A secondary goal was to distribute more experienced students, i.e., sophomores and juniors, across the teams. The teams were formed the first day of class and consisted of five to six students in each team. (This fairly high number of team members is recommended [1] so a team can lose one or two students and still benefit from the input of several team members.)

To hold students accountable for their preparation and work, as well as promoting group interaction with team assignments, there were both individual and team quizzes and assignments. For example, the quizzes covered assigned chapters from the textbook. Team quizzes were given for about half the chapters assigned but there was an individual quiz for every chapter. When a chapter was assigned, the students had to complete their individual quiz online, via WebCT, before the chapter was discussed in class and before the team quiz was given. All team quizzes was given in class, also through WebCT. Members of a team could discuss each question but they had to come to an agreement on which answer to submit. All members of a team received the team quiz score. Therefore, each student got an individual quiz score for a chapter and, if a team quiz was given, he/she also received the team quiz score. The same approach was used for assignments. Individual assignments were given and completed before in-class team assignments.

Another way to hold students accountable was to let teammates score each other at the end of the semester for peer participation and contribution to the team. Students were told at the beginning of the semester there would be peer evaluation scores. These scores were averaged for each student and made up 3% of a student’s overall percentage. Aside from the individual and team quizzes and assignments, there were three exams taken only individually by the students.

Quick and frequent feedback was provided for the individual and group quizzes because WebCT grades and posts the score as soon as a quiz is submitted. The group quiz items were also used as the basis for in-class discussion and lecture. Scores for in-class team exercises were usually available within 48 hours. Individual software assignments took somewhat longer. Scores were usually posted in WebCT between 7 to 10 days after the assignment due date.

To assess the impact of the team learning approach, two objective measures of retention and performance were compared with the two traditional sections. Retention was measured as the proportion of students who took the final exam. Performance was measured through the students’ final percentage for the course. Percentages were analyzed because total points varied between the two teaching methods. For subjective input, students in the TL sections were also asked to comment on their team experiences.

RESULTS

Retention and Performance

The two TL sections had a total of 69 students (34 and 35). The two traditional sections had a total of 74 students (36 and 38). The impact of the team learning approach was first measured for retention. The total number of student who dropped out, i.e., did not take the final exam, in the TL sections was 10 (4 and 6). The total number of students who dropped out in the traditional sections was 21 (13 and 9). This is a 14.5% percent dropout rate compared to 29.7% and the chi-square test for difference in proportions was significant (p-value = .029).

Student performance was the second measure of the team learning approach’s impact. The overall averages were compared only for students who took the final exam. The overall average for students in the team learning approach was 74.6% (77.3% and 71.7%). The overall average for students in the traditional approach was 75.1% (74.7% and 75.4%). This difference was not significant at the  = .05 level.

Student Comments

The team learning approach received mixed reviews from students—some liked it and some didn’t. The typical comments from students who liked the team learning approach were:

  • We get to share our knowledge and help each other out.
  • Sometimes we get a better grade than when we work by ourselves.
  • We work together and figure things out.
  • It gives people the opportunity to talk about things.

Some students were frustrated by the experience, however. Generally, their comments were:

  • Half the team doesn’t show up.
  • The team brings down my average.
  • One or two know the stuff and others don’t do anything.
  • If we took the group quizzes before the individual quizzes it might help.

A few observations from the instructors of the team learning section were:

  • Class attendance was always greater when a group quiz or exercise was scheduled.
  • One or two teams in each section suffered from lack of attendance and participation of at least half the team members.
  • The fact that each student sat in front of a computer may have been too distracting for some. It was not uncommon in some teams for one or two members to spend time checking personal e-mail or grades while others worked on the assignment.

CONCLUSIONS

The team learning approach was definitely successful in terms of retention. Significantly more students completed the semester in the TL sections. Although overall student performance wasn’t significantly different between the two teaching approaches, the improvement in reduced dropouts makes team learning a worthwhile effort for the teacher. It should also be noted that this was the first time these instructors had tried the team learning approach. It’s certainly possible their application of team learning could be improved and be even more effective in future semesters.

REFERENCES

[1] Team Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups, edited by Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Expected publication date: August 2002

[2] Team Learning Homepage Summer 2002.