Christine Devine & Melody de Laat Queensland University of Technology A student-centred intervention enhances collaboration in an undergraduate science capstone unit Christine Devine & Melody de Laat Queensland University of Technology

Graduate capabilities Employer expectations Develop and evidence achievement Inquiry into innovation and creativity: workforce for the new economy: ensure that Aus tertiary system can meet needs of future labor force focused on innovation and creativity. Key recommendation is to look at skill base employers require from STEM graduates now and in future. Convergence of university graduate capabilities and employer expectations. Need to identify capabilities STEM graduates need now and in future – graduate capabilities, in consultation with employers/industry – expectations. Capstone unit provides a means to ensure evidencing and development of graduate outcomes. Capstone

Science graduates need to be able to work effectively in teams Expressed course learning outcome ‘culture of science’ ‘product’ to ‘process’ of team work transferable skills? Opportunities to practise? Low stakes?

QUT context Bachelor of Science (ST01) 5 majors: Chemistry Physics Earth Science Environmental Science Biology QUT context – ST01 – how many students enrolled? % in Biology major

Approach: Students as Partners Why? “Partnership is framed as a process of student engagement, understood as staff and students learning and working together to foster engaged student learning and engaging learning and teaching enhancement”. Healey et al., 2014, p. 7 Staff/Institution Snapshot at transition – inform curriculum renewal Students Active participants in development and design of T&L project Benefits – for staff/QUT

Research questions How do students perceive team work, and team-based assessment, in the final year of their science degree? 2. Does additional training enhance the perceived value of teamwork and improve assessment outcomes? Design elements, philosophical underpinnings are sound – but does it deliver.

Methods – study design Experimental approach Data collection via A validated “feelings about teamwork” survey instrument (Cantwell and Andrews, 2002) Paper-based evaluations - individual and team student assessment outcomes - group cohesion scoring rubric Interview with NP and PP Context – BVB301, Capstone unit, applied and authentic assessment. Transition to workforce, additional study

Students demonstrate a preference for group work Figure 1: Likert-scaled responses to the initial survey questions from all students (n=20) Transition – given the efforts to embed teamwork/group work throughout the course, efforts to train students in teamwork, group work does not meet expectations? They preferred working in a team to working individually They demonstrated an understanding of what is required to work effectively in a team/how to improve a teamwork experience >80% of them felt let down by their other team members Despite a preference for group work… the collaborative experience often fails to meet their expectations Why?

Why is teamwork important? Interdependence Team composition Logistics Employability “allows a multidisciplinary approach” “you can be more productive” “In the workplace you often have to work in groups”

What are the problems with team-based assessment? Communication Team composition Expectations “different understandings and ideas” “group members not agreeing on the effort required to complete the task”

What do students expect from teamwork? Interdependence Achievement “equal contribution” “cooperation” “to pass” Problems surrounding team-based assessment mirror the expectations of individuals for effective team outcomes

82% of students agreed their team work well together Students valued a team-building activity that enabled them to work together in a non-threatening environment Over 70% agreed the team-building activity would have a positive effect on process and outcomes 82% of students agreed their team work well together

A team-building activity provides timely feedback for group effectiveness Purpose: Practice working as a team outside of the lab Reflect on team processes prior to team-based assessment What limited your progress? STOP: Process What aspect was most productive? CONTINUE: Interdependence What would improve performance? START: Process

Participant expectations of group work improved after the intervention The project participants felt more strongly (A, P<0.05) about feeling involved/satisfied (no change for NP) felt less let down by their group members following the intervention (B, P<0.05) AQ: Even when the group is achieving its goals, I don’t really feel involved or satisfied (for the PP, more strongly disagree after intervention) BQ: I sometimes feel let down by other group members (for the PP, some agrees have converted to neutral) Figure 3: Likert-scaled responses to the follow up survey questions from both PPs (n=12) and NPs (n=8)

The intervention did not change team-based assessment outcomes P = 0.006 Group 3 – this was the group with David where he was playing on the phone while his group was presenting Caveats: small sample size; assessment rubric one student lowered the group cohesion score for one of the PP teams

Moving forward: recommendations Interviews provided an in-depth reflection on the requirement for teamwork training in the undergraduate science degree at QUT Communication Co-dependence Time management Preparedness Low-stakes opportunities to practise Timing: earlier in the degree Culture Purpose: collaborate with the students to identify opportunities for future curriculum Learnt the value of time, co-dependence Skills training – more experience in the lab Communication – team, project leader – humble and accepting advice despite wanting autonomy. Start early. Value of the contract? Include – they were given opportunity to debrief on findings, attend Opportunities to embed skill development earlier in the degree Formative WIL Culture – interdependence/normalise help-seeking

Conclusions Final year science students were primarily concerned with the process of working in a team and disliked the uncertainty surrounding a reliance on others for achieving outcomes Participation in team-building activities resulted in a significant improvement in satisfaction around teamwork experiences Formative feedback on group communication, time management and effective approaches to problems/challenges provided timely feedback for each team prior to team-based assessment Group cohesion scores during assessment were not improved Overall, an improvement in team satisfaction and confidence occurred

Acknowledgements QUT Students as partners (QUT) seed grant BVB304 Integrative Biology students Brett Fyfield for advice and technical assistance