1. 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

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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?

9. 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”

10. 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”

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

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