Teamwork: Learning by Doing or Learning through Frustration?

Monday, February 24, 2020


Ask a group of undergraduate students about their experiences of teamwork, and most – if not all – of the responses you hear will be negative: ‘Person X was a freeloader’, ‘Person Y is lazy’, ‘I’m aiming for a First, but everyone else is happy with a 2.1’ – just some of the common complaints. And feedback from teaching staff can be equally unfavourable, with colleagues often reporting that they spend too long dealing with issues in groups, and less time than they would like focused on supporting students with the disciplinary content of their group project. In short, student teamwork can be painful for both educators and learners.

But here’s the thing. Teamwork too often becomes a negative experience because we work on an assumption that students will learn teamworking skills simply by working in a team. We expect experiential learning to take place, but fail to scaffold it sufficiently – either because of a focus on the goal and disciplinary content, or because of a lack of awareness of how best to support team development.

This situation leads to a typical pattern in the life-cycle of student teams. First, the project is set, new teams are formed, and there is a general level of excitement; students see possibilities and imagine what they will achieve. This part of the process is usually well-supported, because it frequently happens in class, with some planning time after introduction of the project brief. Next, individuals’ interests, commitment and motivations become clearer, and frustrations emerge as students decide that some members of the group are less committed than others, or have different grade aspirations. Perhaps there’s one member of the team that never shows up, and everyone decides, on the basis of lack of being present alone, that he or she is lazy. Students may attempt to resolve these frustrations by appealing to teaching staff for help, but more often than not, students who see themselves as committed and hard-working resign themselves to this situation being normal for teamwork; some team members then contribute more than their share, working hard even if complaining to each other, in order to get the task done to the standard they have determined is acceptable. Students accept that this is the way of things; that their success may result in inflated and undeserved success for others, but that is the price to be paid for their personal positive outcome. That said, if peer marking opportunities are available, they will attempt to seek fairer outcomes by downgrading peers judged not to have contributed equally, with peer marking therefore representing a measure of effort, not quality of contributions.

Little wonder, then, that students report that they do not like working in teams, and suggest that they prefer individual assignments. In the terms of Tuckman’s widely-cited model of team development (1965), problems arise in the storming and norming stages, which lead to hampered performance. Teams rarely become effective and fully functional, and so students’ view that teamworking is hard and not worth the effort are reinforced. And the bigger problem is that teamworking does not end on graduation: it is a crucial professional capability, essential for success in the workplace. Graduates need to be equipped to value and thrive through working in a team, where outputs and outcomes are stronger as a result of combining multiple ideas, perspectives and skillsets. 

Interestingly, students who have been on year in industry placements often perform much better in team scenarios when they return to studying. This is unsurprising, because of a crucial difference in their experience of teams in the workplace: they are working with other people who are experienced, more highly-skilled team members, who understand how to work professionally, how to work through different perspectives and ideas, build consensus, and avoid or navigate conflict. No-one teaches students how to work in teams in this workplace context, but they learn a lot. The environment, where learners are working alongside more experienced role models, with professional relationships, and an expectation of professional behaviour, is ripe for successful experiential learning.

Compare that context with our classrooms. We have students who are all equally inexperienced in teamworking, all similarly unskilled in navigating team dynamics and handling conflict, but we are expecting them to learn how to build a successful team. Without some external input, or more experienced team members, this learning is always going to be painful. It is experiential learning with no underpinning experience. It becomes a process of trial and error, of frustrating wrong turns, and ultimately, a distraction from achieving whatever project or output is required of the team. Outcomes are often lower grades for the output work, and little or no learning about how to manage working in a team effectively.

Student teamwork does not have to be this way, but the challenge for educators is to scaffold and support the learning journey of students – through approaches such as explicit training and support with teamworking; mentoring; or providing role models, especially where projects with students from different levels, and so varied experiences, are possible. It is time to shift the emphasis away from reactive fire-fighting in response to students protesting that members of their team are not performing, or complaints about grades being unfair. It is time to invest the time and energy that those things take into supporting students to have the capabilities to avoid the problems in the first place. Professional skills, outside a workplace context, need effective teaching and coaching. Without it, learning by doing can only ever be learning through frustration.

Look out for a future post sharing approaches to supporting students working in teams to build their teamworking skills.

References

Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin. 63(6), 384–399.

You May Also Like

8 comments

  1. It’s nice to see that a member is staff is recognising the realities of group projects, I understand that they’re intended for us to gain team working skills but all I’m really learning is to suck it up and do the work myself

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your feedback Lauren. Working in teams can be challenging, but it's such a big part of professional life and so very important that we help you to develop the capabilities to manage it effectively during your degree. In my current role I'm working on developing strategies to help us do that more effectively - look out for a future blog post sharing some of those ideas!

      Delete
  2. This was a great read, Gary. An insightful view into teamwork activities in higher education. I do think that a focus needs to be on supporting students in how to create productive teams, and play to individuals strengths. This has been an eye opening process during the SELA course so far, and just goes to show how possible it is to show growth for personal, and group development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Sam! Really glad you enjoyed it. Did it resonate with your experiences? I’m planning a follow up post on some strategies for supporting students, so welcome any thoughts you have on how you might want to be supported with building teamworking skills.

      Delete
  3. This is a really interesting read Gary. I am planning to share it with those students doing group projects (and particularly group industrial projects). Look forward to the next blog post on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Anne. I'd be interested to hear what your student make of it, and if it resonates with them. Feel free to encourage them to share their experiences here in the comments.

      Delete
  4. This is definitely true in my experience, teaching a module for fourth year students. I found that the timing of different types of support really matters. We attempted to take a step back at one point in our module, and taught about Tuckman's model of team development, Lencioni's 5 Dysfunctions of a Team, and effective, productive communication. We received a lot of push-back as we were "trying to teach them to suck eggs", even though most of the teams were having problems, which could have been avoided by considering some of these materials. Giving the right support, sooner, I think will be beneficial to all concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Harriet. I agree with your conclusions about timing. Teamworking skills benefit from a just-in-time approach, so students can apply and see value in what they've learnt – and so build their capability – soon after learning it. I also think applied approaches work best with these skills. Have you considered delivering training that's informed by work and models like Tuckman's, but where that's work is not the explicit focus?

      Delete