The Merit Kit: Methods For Evaluating Roles And Interactions In Teams

This paper describes the development of a complementary instructional kit designed to support collaborative learning and team problem solving skills. The MERIT kit is developed based on two learning theories (Bandura’s social cognitive theory and Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory) and a series of prior studies the author conducted with engineering teams in college classroom settings. These prior studies, which employed video and discourse analysis methods, provided evidence for identifying areas where students needed scaffolding. Due to the constraints in observing all teams when teaching and providing feedback on their processes, a metacognitive structure was used to engage students in self reflection and group processing. The MERIT kit has three key components that are designed to address common challenges we face in teaching and assessing collaborative learning and teaming skills. These three components are: (a) “Vicarious Learning Experiences” using case study videos (e.g., PBS Design Squad clips) along with group processing with MERIT cards, (b) the “I Know My Team Members” document, and (c) a “Performance Assessment Task” used for pre and post evaluation. Next steps, in the validation of the MERIT kit, is wide dissemination and evaluation of the kit in supporting individual student learning. Factors that Motivated the Development of the MERIT Kit Today, more than 50% of science and engineering faculty require their undergraduate students to participate in collaborative group projects (National Science Board, 2008). Current trends suggest that this percentage will increase (Project Kaleidoscope, 2006). The results of research on the impact of cooperative and collaborative learning methods on student learning at the undergraduate level are also promising. Hake’s (1998) study involving six-thousand students provides robust evidence that interactive teaching methods involving group work are more effective than traditional teaching methods. In addition, ABET requires that all accredited engineering programs demonstrate student attainment of outcomes related to design, problem solving, and teaming. For instance, the engineering accreditation Criterion 3 (ABET, 2005) specifically addresses teaming: “an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams (criterion 3d). ” Recent National Academy of Engineering reports (NAE, 2004; NAE, 2005) also recognize the growing need for teaming skills to solve increasingly complex problems in a global context. Small-group learning strategies are effective in creating positive attitudes towards learning and increased persistence in STEM courses (Springer, Stanne, and Donovan, 1999). However, despite the historical literature-base on cooperative learning (Johnson Johnson, & Holubec, 1998), educators still strive for answers to questions such as: How can I scaffold group learning? How can I teach teaming skills to my students? What criteria should I use to build effective teams? Despite the importance of gaining effective teaming skills for our students and the increased popularity of using collaborative learning methods in college classrooms, there are limited modules and instructional tools designed to teach teaming skills to engineering students. P ge 15242.2 There are indeed no comprehensive teaming kits that provide ready to use materials for the instructors and the students, tips on how to adopt these materials to meet specific classroom constraints, examples of common student responses and how these responses reflect learning and challenges, and data on how and why the kit addresses certain student learning objectives. Although the use of collaborative, cooperative, and team-based teaching methods is not a new concept, educational research in engineering is still in its infancy in terms of teaching and assessing skills, such as the ability to function in multidisciplinary teams (Shuman et al., 2005). What we know about teams is that a team is not only a group of individuals assembled to reach a common goal but it is also a social entity that engages in complex interactions. There is a need for a kit that truly addresses students’ challenges and needs. In the context of a classroom, the features such as equality and mutuality do not occur naturally just by bringing people together to solve a common problem. This is because students come to class with their diverse content knowledge, engineering skills, and teaming experiences. How do students utilize such diversity and solve problems collaboratively and effectively? Prior research shows the weaknesses of engineering student teams lay in two key areas (Roberts, Yaşar-Purzer, Morrell, Henderson, Danielson, & Cooke (2007). First, student teams have difficulty defining their goals and the design problem and fail to monitor their own progress. Second, teams commonly make decisions based on opinions, and do not gather external information or engage in rich discussions of data and evidence. The video-based study conducted by the author also showed that first-year engineering student teams engage in four types of actions when solving design problems: goal, relationship, learning, and challenge actions (Purzer, 2009). These actions are described in Figure 1. I started developing the MERIT project with a vision of engineering student teams that can work in multidisciplinary and multicultural teams and consequently design innovative solutions to complex and global problems. While there are effective teaming modules available to be used by higher education faculty to manage student teamwork (e.g., BESTTEAMS and Team Developer) there are no comprehensive curriculum materials that are specifically designed to support individual student learning and collaborative learning skills with a focus on increasing the involvement and academic self-efficacy of underrepresented groups. MERIT is a comprehensive teaming kit that can be used in any engineering classroom setting as a complementary curriculum material. Current Instructional Methods and Tools Teaming is an essential component of engineering design and problem solving. Currently, there are well-written books and curriculum materials that address teaming skill development such as the Team Developer (McGourty and DeMeuse, 2000), Team-based Learning (Mickelson, Bauman-Knight, & Fink, 2004), Teamwork and Project Management (Smith & Imbrie, 2004), BESTEAMS (Schmidt, Schmidt, Smith, Bigio, & Bayer-Contardo, 2005), and CATME (Ohland, Pomeranz, & Feinstein, 2006). These books and modules have many strengths. For example, the BESTEAMS module is designed to guide engineering faculty in supporting student team effectiveness and management and provides a series of nine learning modules that can be delivered in 50 – 90 minute sections. CATME is a system available to faculty via Internet and P ge 15242.3 enables the design of teams and evaluation of team effectiveness. The book by Smith and Imbrie (2004) presents useful guidelines such as how to run a meeting and how to manage team conflicts. They provide instructors with instructional tools such as peer evaluations and grading strategies that promoted individual accountability (Imbrie, Maller, and Immekus, 2005; Ohland, Layton, Loughry, &Yuhasz, 2005). The MERIT kit adopted strategies from the previously tested methods and instruments but also addresses some of the gaps. For example, according to Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1998), there are five basic elements that are critical for effective collaboration: goal setting; goal interdependence; face-to-face interactions; individual accountability; and time for group processing. Among these elements and essential component, group processing, is missing in both the instructional modules and student team interactions. In the prototype MERIT kit, video clips and design tasks accompanied by group processing activities support group processing. Theoretical Framework that Guided the Kit Design We have limited knowledge of how teams learn. To understand how students learn how to work in a team and to increase the potential of team-based learning for promoting student learning and engagement, the MERIT curriculum is designed based on: A) learning theories, and B) the needs of engineering students identified through qualitative research, and C) a focus on underrepresented groups and promoting an equitable participation of all students in team tasks. A key characteristic that distinguishes the MERIT curriculum from other teaming modules is that it is built on learning theories such as the “how people learn” framework (Bransford & Donovan, 2005), social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), as well as social constructivist and scientific argumentation theories (Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2008). Through the MERIT curriculum, students will be asked to engage in group processing and reflective practice. Reflective practice is commonly a key behavior of expert problem solvers (Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988). Engaging in reflective practice will reinforce student team relationships, goal attainment, and design processes. Another framework that guides the design of the curriculum is Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. This theory states that mastery experiences (first-hand experiences) are not the only form of learning. People can also learn through vicarious experiences and observing others completing a task. The MERIT kit promotes learning through both mastery and vicarious experiences. In other words, students will be provided with vicarious and apprenticeship activities where they will observe other teams and learn from their team interactions. But students will also have opportunities to practice these skills. Traditionally students are expected to learn teaming skills through first-hand experiences; however, very often these experiences do not result in fruitful interactions. Using scaffolding through vicarious activities and reflective practice are essential in increasing students’ mastery experiences durin