ECE
CLEAR
Teaming
Resource Page
Contents
CLEAR Center Contacts
See your CLEAR
Engineering communication consultant with any questions.
Dynette Reynolds, Writing
dynette@comcast.net
Office Hours: T and R 2-3:30
Keith Cormier, Speaking and Teamwork
keith_k_cormier@hotmail.com
Office Hours: M and W 2-3, T 11-12
Both are in MEB 2233, 581-8715.
A faculty workshop
prepared by the University of Utah
CLEAR Center
Overview
What is cooperative learning?
What are the characteristics of
cooperative learning?
What are the advantages of
cooperative learning?
Preparing the Team Assignment
Guidelines for Using Student Teams
in the Classroom
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning
Guidelines for Goal Development
Getting the Teams Started
Developing Working Agreements
Working Agreement Ground Rules
Examples
Facilitated Working Agreement
Meetings
Feedback and Assessment
Group Presentation Evaluation
Peer Evaluation Questionnaire
Peer Evaluation Questionnaire 2
Excel
spreadsheet example
Evaluating
Teamwork
Handling Problems
Team Firing Guidelines (Sample)
References
References: Cooperative Learning
References: Team Assessment
References: Teams (General)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Introduction
to Cooperative Learning
What is cooperative learning?
Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small
groups to maximize student learning. Students engaged in cooperative learning
create their knowledge and work together to achieve shared goals.
What are the
characteristics of cooperative learning?
1. Positive interdependence – Students
cannot succeed in isolation; they are linked to the success of others. Team
members must rely on one another to accomplish the goal.
2. Face-to-face promotive interaction –
Active exchanges between students such that they discuss the concepts, teach
each other, explain solution procedures, and explain the integration of past
and present learning. Some or all work must be done by members working together.
3. Individual accountability/personal
responsibility – The performance of each individual is assessed with
feedback of the results provided to the group and individual. The group then
recognizes where assistance is needed and each group member is aware that one
individual cannot rely exclusively on the work of others. each team member is
held accountable for doing his or her share of the work and for all of the
material in the assignment, regardless of who was principally responsible for
it.
4. Collaborative skills – Students must
acquire a set of social skills similar to those required for any group-oriented
activity including leadership, time-management, decision-making, conflict
resolution, and communication.
5. Group processing – Time must be set
aside for group discussions; topics should include the perceived goals of the
group activity and the ability of group members to maintain effective working
relationships. Team members should reflect on what they are doing well as a
team, what they could improve, and what, if anything they will do differently
in the future.
** All five elements are required and must be present to
ensure a positive group learning experience.
What are the advantages
of cooperative learning?
1. Students learn
better when working with each other.
2. Students are
forced to practice team and small group communication skills which are a must
in the workplace.
3. Female students’
retention in engineering programs can be positively impacted through the
collaborative learning approaches.
“Over 600 studies have been conducted during the past 90
years comparing the effectiveness of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic efforts. These studies have been conducted by a wide variety of
researchers in different decades with subjects of different ages, in different
subject areas, and in different settings. More is known about the efficacy of
cooperative learning than about lecturing, departmentalization, the use of
instructional technology, or almost any other aspect of education. The more one
works in cooperative learning groups, the more that person learns, the better
she/he understands what she/he is learning, the easier it is to remember what
she/he learns, and the better she/he feels about her/himself, the class, and
other classmates.”
--
Johnson et al. 1992
Guidelines for Using
Student Teams in the Classroom
Adapted from Breslow, L. (1998). Teaching teamwork
skills. MIT Faculty Newsletter 10(4).
1. Assign the teaching staff the
responsibility of creating student teams. Students will have the
opportunity to work with people with whom they’re not familiar, similar to the
experience they will have in the workplace. Make the following decisions about
student teams:
- How
large should the teams be? Consider how much work is required, the time
frame in which it should be completed, etc.
- How
homogeneous or heterogeneous should the teams be? Consider educational
objectives, course requirements, and logistics.
2. Provide training in teamwork skills. Students
need to be taught the interpersonal communication and teambuilding skills that
will help to ensure smoothly functioning groups.
3. Coach the teaching staff in teamwork
skills. If laboratory instructors and/or teaching assistants are assigned
to the class, they should also receive basic training in teamwork skills.
4. Give students time to work together in
class. Foster group solidarity through having student teams do things
together. A common practice is for students to meet only to divide up the tasks
and then complete the tasks independently. Affording students class time guards
against this. It also gives instructors the opportunity to oversee their work
and assist where possible.
5. Structure assignments so students must work
together. If assignments are devised so that students can divide the work
up and do it on their own, they will. This has to do with both the assignment
structure and parameters.
6. Give feedback throughout the semester. Provide
immediate, specific feedback to promote team development and learning.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Evaluation
Synthesis
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge
Major Levels of
Cognitive Domain
|
LEVEL
|
OBJECTIVE
|
DESCRIPTIVE
|
|
Basic (low)
|
Knowledge
(Memorization)
|
The
learner must recall information (e.g., bring to mind the appropriate
material).
|
|
Basic
|
Comprehension
(Understanding)
|
The
learner understands what is being communicated by making use of the
communication.
|
|
Basic
|
Application
(Using data)
|
The
learner uses abstractions (e.g., ideas) in particular and concrete
situations.
|
|
Higher
|
Analysis
(Taking apart)
|
The
learner can break down a communication into its constituent elements or
parts.
|
|
Higher
|
Synthesis
(Putting together)
|
The
learner puts together elements or parts to form a whole.
|
|
Advanced
(highest)
|
Evaluation
(Judging)
|
The
learner makes judgments about the value of material or methods for a given
purpose.
|
Bloom’s Taxonomy
An
instructor can determine the taxonomy level of a behavioral objective by
examining the
verb
in the objective. By finding that verb
in one of the following categories he/she can determine the difficulty level of
the question.
Knowledge-remembering
previously learned materials
|
cite
|
label
|
name
|
reproduce
|
|
define
|
list
|
quote
|
pronounce
|
|
identify
|
match
|
recite
|
state
|
Comprehension-ability to
grasp the meaning of material
|
alter
|
discover
|
interpret
|
substitute
|
|
change
|
explain
|
rephrase
|
show
|
|
convert
|
give examples
|
represent
|
summarize
|
|
depict
|
give main idea
|
restate
|
translate
|
|
describe
|
illustrate
|
reword
|
paraphrase
|
Application-ability to use
learned material in new and concrete situations
|
apply
|
direct
|
manage
|
relate
|
|
classify
|
employ
|
predict
|
show
|
|
compute
|
evidence
|
prepare
|
solve
|
|
demonstrate
|
manifest
|
present
|
utilize
|
Analysis-ability to break
down material into its component parts so that its
organizational structure may
be understood
|
ascertain
|
diagnose
|
determine
|
infer
|
|
analyze
|
diagram
|
distinguish
|
outline
|
|
associate
|
differentiate
|
divide
|
point out
|
|
conclude
|
discriminate
|
examine
|
reduce
|
|
designate
|
designate
|
find
|
separate
|
Synthesis-Ability to put
parts together to form a new whole
|
combine
|
devise
|
originate
|
revise
|
|
compile
|
expand
|
plan
|
rewrite
|
|
compose
|
extend
|
pose
|
synthesize
|
|
conceive
|
generalize
|
propose
|
theorize
|
|
create
|
integrate
|
project
|
write
|
|
design
|
invent
|
rearrange
|
modify
|
Evaluation-ability
to judge the value of material for a given purpose
|
appraise
|
conclude
|
critique
|
judge
|
|
assess
|
contrast
|
deduce
|
weigh
|
|
compare
|
criticize
|
evaluate
|
|
Guidelines for Goal
Development
Goals are the roadmaps to student success. Whether your aim is to include collaborative
learning activities in to the classroom, or have students get more out of
lectures and discussions, clearly articulated goals are a must. These guidelines are a tool for assisting
faculty in the development of these goals.
There are three kinds of goals that should be addressed in
any classroom interaction: A. S. K.
This simple mnemonic reflects the kinds of goals to keep in mind when
designing learning activities; it stands for Attitude, Skill, and
Knowledge. These three areas represent the entire learner and are
analogous to the heart, body and mind of the student.
Attitude
Students must value the opportunities they have in the
learning environment; a proper attitude towards activities is imperative.
Skill
Most of our assignments are designed to teach students
specific skills and there should be a level of goal attainment related to how they
perform the required tasks.
Knowledge
It is not enough to be able to perform a task in a vacuum,
meaning that students should also come away with adequate knowledge regarding
how and when to apply these skills.
The following table represents some vocabulary choices for
use when planning and developing goals:
|
Attitude
|
Skill
|
Knowledge
|
|
Enjoy, value, trust, respect, accept, appreciate, approve,
believe, commit to, rely on, embrace, have confidence in, depend upon, question,
be skeptical of, obey, admire, fear, wonder about, conform to, approve, like,
etc.
|
*These refer to specific actions within the context. Here are random skill names:
Teach, write, interpret, perform evaluate, observe,
defend, etc.
|
Know, understand, comprehend, recall, name, remember, etc.
|
Developing Working Agreements
Working agreements are guidelines developed by the group as
to how they must work together to create a positive, productive process. Working
agreements describe positive behaviors that, although basic, often are not
automatically demonstrated in group processes. For example, an agreement might
be “We all agree to participate fully.” Agreements are the group’s power tool.
Elements of the working agreement should be posted (written out on a chart or
board, or giving in a hand-out) for easy reference throughout the group
process.
Working agreements:
1. Develop a sense of shared responsibility
2. Increase members’ awareness of their own behavior
3. Empower the facilitator to lead the group according to
the agreements.
4. Enhance the quality of the group process.
Agreements work well when:
1. They are well developed.
-
Important to the team
-
Limited in number (approximately 7)
-
Fully supported by each member
2. They are used.
-
Members are reminded of agreements during process
checks
-
Members are reminded of agreements when they are broken
|
Some Examples of Working Agreement Guidelines are:
-
Attack a problem, not a person
-
Listen to other’s points of view without prejudice
-
Do not take comments personally
-
Show up on time, and if you cannot, contact the group
-
Be prepared for meetings
-
Be willing to take risks
-
Be committed to ending on time if possible
|
Common Concerns: What to do when someone in the group is
breaking an agreement.
Use the agreements. By that I mean, refer back to them. You
might simply do a process check, which means stopping the discussion of task
for a few minutes to focus on process. You might say: “Let’s pause for a
minute to check back to the agreements we made at the beginning of the session.
How are we doing? Which ones are we living up to the best? Are there any we are
ignoring or not living up to?” The
negative behavior is usually recognized and acknowledged by the individual who
has been demonstrating it. If you have been demonstrating negative behavior,
live up to it and discuss it with your group members.
Adapted from Bendaly, L.
(2000) The Facilitation Skills Training
Kit. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Working Agreement Ground
Rules Examples
- Ground
Rules Regarding Logistics
- Date,
time, location
- List
of participants (if different than team0
- Purpose
of the meeting
- Order
of business to conduct
- Ending
time of meeting
- Ground
Rules Regarding Behaviors/Attitudes
- Each
person should be prepared for the meeting
- Each
person should come to the meeting on time
- The
meetings will start and end on time
- As a
team we will value the diversity of team members
- We
will support the team concept and process
- We
will work to maintain positive team dynamics
- We
will make decisions by consensus (we will work out impasses by reverting
to a majority rule after _____ amount of time and discussion)
- Each
person will participate in the meetings
- Each
person will keep track of their own work and the team’s compiled work.
(Or, our team has a designated record keeper)
- Each
person will listen and have an open mind.
- Ground
Rules Regarding Conflict and Team Member Exit
- Each
person will be dedicated to openly discussing issues and conflicts openly
with the team.
- If a
team member is engaging in behaviors or attitudes that disrupt the work
or climate of the team that person will be given a “warning” and an
opportunity to change the disruptive behavior/attitude.
- This
warning will be given up to ____(3)
times.
- If
after the first warning the team member does not end the disruptive
behavior then the instructor (T.A.) will be notified and notified after
each subsequent warning.
- If
the behavior continues after the ___ (3rd) warning, then the
team member will be asked to leave the team. This team member will no
longer receive a team grade for the assignment.
- The
team member who has been asked to leave will acknowledge that they must
now meet with the instructor of the course to work out a potential
arrangement. (Instructors should have an idea of what types of
arrangements they are willing to make with team members who have been
asked to leave their team).
Facilitated Working
Agreement Meetings
**This type of format may be used if you wish to have a CLEAR
Consultant work with your students to facilitate their working agreement
meetings.
Goal: To give
students the opportunity to develop team working agreements with the
facilitation of a CLEAR Consultant.
Benefits:
Students have the opportunity to engage each other in conversations about
teamwork preferences, conflict, individual strengths and weaknesses and
particular aspects regarding projects and workload distribution.
Chronological
Instructions:
1. Student teams should be formed.
2. CLEAR consultant will give a brief (10 minute) discussion
in class about the importance of developing team working agreements. The
consultant will explain to the student that they will meet for 1 hour outside
of class with the consultant to develop agreements. In this lecture the CLEAR
consultant will also give the students instructions to go to http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
and fill out the 72 question survey BEFORE the working agreement meeting. The
website will automatically assess the students’ answers and tell them what
their Myers Briggs personality type is. The students will be instructed to
bring their Myers Briggs type to the working agreement meeting.
3. During the working agreement meeting the consultant will
facilitate a discussion about each members’ Myers Briggs personality type and
have a discussion about how these types both compliment and potentially create
conflict for one another.
4. After the Myers Briggs discussion the facilitator will
work with students to hold an open discussion about team preferences, working
style, conflict and desired goals for their end product.
5. When this discussion is complete the consultant will
provide the team with a template for a working agreement contract and allow
them to have uninterrupted time to develop their working agreement items.
6. When the team has finished the consultant will keep a copy of their agreement and check in
with the team at a future date to make sure they are reaching their goals. If
problems arise, the consultant will work with the team to proactively and
productively solve them.
Team Firing Guidelines
(Sample)
Teamwork (if it is done
appropriately) is an activity that can greatly enhance both the generation of
ideas and a team’s final product. However, when teams are not functioning well;
idea generation, the team climate and the final product may suffer.
Appropriate team functioning starts
from the premise that all team members are dedicated to doing their best work,
providing feedback and support and communicating when problems arise.
Unfortunately, this does not always happen. Sometimes team members stop
working, stop communicating and are not dedicated to giving their best effort
to their team. These attitudes and behaviors have the potential to negatively
influence a team. If this happens, team members who are dedicated should have options. Teams will be able to “fire”
members who are not participating in the team process.
Firing a team member is an option
when a member repeatedly fails
to show up for meetings, does not participate in the team process, does not
perform their share of the team’s work, and/or continuously deters the team’s progress
due to negative behaviors.
The process for firing a team member will be outlined below:
- Your
team MUST FIRST attempt to have an open and honest
discussion with the team member deemed negligent about the team problem!
You will not be allowed to fire a member without proving that you have
first tried to fix the problem internally. A CLEAR consultant is available
to help you with this discussion.
- Your
team must document the negligent member’s behavior/actions and keep a
written record of things such as absences, negative behaviors, lack of
participation, etc. There should be sufficient reason to fire someone and
should probably not occur for a first offense.
- If the majority of the team feels as
though a member should be fired, you can take your written documentation
to the instructor to discuss the removal of this person from your team.
The instructor will ask you to prove to him or her that you have first
tried to discuss this problem with your team member.
- The
instructor will ultimately make the final decision as to whether or not
your team member can be fired—and documentation from your team is
required.
If you are fired from a team:
- If
you are fired from your team; then your team has already tried to discuss
your behavior with you, and you either did not respond, or you did not
change your behavior.
- If
you are fired, that means that the instructor has approved your team’s
decision.
- Being
fired from your team means that you will receive a zero for the team
assignments.
- You should
see the instructor as soon as possible if this occurs; however, it is not
a guarantee that an alternative assignment will be provided for you.
Group Presentation Evaluation
Name:
Group Being Evaluated:
Yes/ No
1. Did the
group grab and maintain your attention?
2. Did the
group adequately define the problem? [Or assignment specific]
3. Is the
problem important? [Or assignment
specific]
4. Did the
group present compelling evidence to support their claim?
5. Did the
group handle questions effectively?
6. Were the
visual aids professional and presented effectively?
7. Rate the overall
effectiveness of the presentation.
Poor Average Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8. List two strengths in the presentation.
9. List one area for improvement.
Adapted from:
Smith, R. E. (2001). Principles of human communication. 5th Ed. Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Peer Evaluation Questionnaire
Name:
Group Member Name:
1. How many meetings did this member attend?
2. How many did he/she miss?
3. What role did this group member play?
4. How productive was this group member?
Not at all Extremely
1 2 3 4 5
5. How well did he/she work with others?
Not at all Extremely well
1 2 3 4 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Member Name:
1. How many meetings did this member attend?
2. How many did he/she miss?
3. What role did this group member play?
4. How productive was this group member?
Not at all Extremely
1 2 3 4 5
5. How well did he/she work with others?
Not at all Extremely
well
1 2 3 4 5
Adapted from:
Smith, R. E. (2001). Principles of human communication. 5th Ed. Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Peer Evaluation Questionnaire 2
Your Name: _____________________________
Individual Being Evaluated: _____________________________
Please rate your peer (individual being evaluated) on
his/her ability to function as a member of your team.
Use the following scale:
5 Always/Positive
Contributor
4 Most of the
Time
3 Sometimes
2 On Occasion
but Not Consistently
1 Rarely/Negative
Contributor
|
Rating
|
Topic
|
Question
|
|
|
Has a “sharing” attitude toward team members
|
1
|
|
|
Has a positive attitude towards team
|
2
|
|
|
Is this team member truly earning the grade being received
|
3
|
|
|
Willing to help other team members in and out of class
|
4
|
|
|
Eagerly accepts and shares all team responsibilities
|
5
|
|
|
How well does team member attempt to accomplish team’s
mission and goals
|
6
|
|
|
Did team member participate in establishing team’s mission
and goals
|
7
|
|
|
Attends class regularly
|
8
|
|
|
Participates in the team’s out-of-class discussions
|
9
|
|
|
Demonstrates respect for other team members
|
10
|
|
|
Level of contribution to the team
|
11
|
|
|
Shows up for team meetings
|
12
|
|
|
Is team member available for extra team study sessions for
test
|
13
|
|
|
Contributes to the team’s solution to examination problems
|
14
|
Source: Martinazzi, R. (1998). Design and development of a peer evaluation instrument
for “student learning teams. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education
Conference.
Evaluating Teamwork
I. Five reasons for using peer evaluations (Mills and
Cottell, 1998, p. 194)
- Teachers
play less of a role in evaluation; the process is shared.
- Students
are in a logical position to judge the individual contributions of their
peers more effectively than an instructor can.
- Peer
feedback is usually directed toward an individual within the context of a
specific task. Besides being context-specific, it tends to be delivered
promptly which is when feedback is most effective.
- Peer
evaluation builds in accountability: Students realize that they are held
accountable for their academic achievements and group contributions.
- Students
benefit from the process of peer evaluation. They learn valuable lessons
about the learning process and about teamwork efforts.
II. Peer Evaluation Debate’s Points of Convergence
- Academic
Programs: comm. pedagogical studies,
practices, and JEEE recommends peer evaluation.
- Many
cooperative learning advocates agree that the team approach works best if
team grades are adjusted for individual performance.
- Faculty
measures of teamwork by observing a portion of the team were effective in
determining a “true measure of teamwork.”
- Triangulation
may be more useful between various measurements such as faculty
observation, peer evaluation, and other forms of evaluation.
- Reliability
and validity were improved by improving the administration of the
instructions given to the students.
- Multiple
item instrument yields better validity by separately assessing multiple
aspects of team citizenship, rather than asking the students to summarize
their peers with a single number.
III. U. Pittsburgh Johnston Students developed their own set
of criteria for peer evaluation
Priority Score
4.42 Shows up for team meetings
4.37 Attends class regularly
4.26 Contributes to
the team’s solution to examination problems
4.11 Demonstrates respect
for other team members
4.05 Willing to
help other team members in and out of class
3.95 Is team member
available for extra team study sessions for tests?
3.89 Level of
contribution to the team
3.89 Did team
member participate in establishing team’s missions and goals?
3.84 Has a positive
attitude towards the team
3.79 Participates
in the team’s out of class discussion
How well does team member attempt
to accomplish team’s mission and goals?
Eagerly accepts and shares all team
responsibilities
Has a “sharing” attitude towards
team members
Is this team member truly earning
the grade they are receiving?
*Martinazzi argues that you can determine the most
synergistic groups based on comparisons of these rating.
References: Cooperative
Learning
Boehm, R. F. & Gallavan, N. P. (2000). Adapting
cooperative learning in an introductory analysis class. Journal of Engineering Education, Oct., 419-421.
Demetry, C. & Groccia, J. E. (1997). A comparative
assessment of students’ experiences in two instructional formats of an
introductory Materials Science course. Journal
of Engineering Education, Jul., 203-210.
Felder, R..M. & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and
payoffs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service Reference Number ED 377038.
Felder, R..M. & Brent, R. (2001). Effective strategies
for cooperative learning. Cooperation and
Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75.
Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (2003). Designing and teaching
courses to satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, Jan., 7-25.
Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (2004). The ABC’s of
engineering education: ABET, Bloom’s taxonomy, cooperative learning, and so on.
Proceedings of the American Society for
Engineering Education, session 1375.
Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (2004). The intellectual
development of science and engineering students, part 2: Teaching to promote
growth. Journal of Engineering Education,
93(4), 279-292.
Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., & R. M.
Felder. (2000). Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education, Jul., 285-293.
Haynes, W. L. & Riordan, C. A. (1996). Student
cooperative learning workshops go mainstream: UMR’s Excel Program. Journal of Engineering Education, Oct., 293-302.
Howell, K. C. (1996). Introducing cooperative learning into
a Dynamics lecture class. Journal of
Engineering Education, Jul., 69-72.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college
faculty instructional productivity. ERIC Document Reproduction Service
Reference Number ED347871.
Kaufman, D. B., Felder, R. M., & Fuller, H. (2000).
Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams. Journal of Engineering Education, Apr., 133-140.
Morell, L., Buxeda, R., Orengo, M., & A. Sánchez.
(2001). After so much effort: Is faculty using cooperative learning in the
classroom? Journal of Engineering
Education, Jul., 357-362.
Mourtos, N. J. (1997). The nuts and bolts of cooperative
learning in engineering. Journal of
Engineering Education, Jan., 35-37.
Mourtos, N. & Allen, E. L. (2001). Introducing
cooperative learning through a faculty instructional development program. Journal of Engineering Education, Oct., 669-675.
Pimmel, R. (2001). Cooperative learning instructional
activities in a capstone design course. Journal
of Engineering Education, Jul., 413-421.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work: A review of
research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Smith, K. A., Shepperd, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & R.
Thompson. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-102.
Trytten, D. A. (2001). Progressing from small group work to
cooperative learning: A case study from Computer Science. Journal of Engineering Education, Jan., 85-91.
References: Team Assessment
Burtner, J. (2000).
The changing role of assessment in engineering education: A review of
the literature. Proceedings of the ASEE Southeast Section.
Kaufman, D. B. & Felder, R. M. (2000). Accounting for individual effort in
cooperative learning teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 89
(2), 133-140.
McGourty, J.
& DeMeuse, K. P. (2000). The Team Developer: An Assessment and Skill Building Program
Student Guidebook. New York: Wiley.
Martinazzi, R. (1998).
Design and development of a peer evaluation instrument for student
learning teams. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.
Mills, B. J. & Cottell Jr., P. G. (1998). Cooperative
learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix,
American Council on Education/Oryx Press.
Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Carter, R. L., & A. G.
Yuhasz. (2004). Designing a peer
evaluation instrument that is simple, reliable, and valid. Proceedings
of the American Society for Engineering Education, session 1526.
Thompson, R. S. (2001).
Relative validity of peer and self-evaluations in self-directed
interdependent work teams. Proceedings Frontiers in Education
Conference.
References: Teams (General)
Brewer, M. B. (1995). Managing diversity: The role of social
identities. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing work place
(pp.47-68). Wahsington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Fisher, B. A. (1979). Content and relationship dimensions of
communication in decision-making groups. Communication
Quarterly, 27, 2-11.
Katzenbach, J.
R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The
wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston:
Harvard Business
School Press.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The
fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Currency Doubleday.
Wilson, G. L. (2002).
Groups in context: Leadership and participation in small groups. Boston:
McGraw – Hill Irwin.
