1. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition1 Forming Teams or How to mix things up a bit…

2. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition2 Topics Introduction to forming teams Team selection criteria Forming teams in practice Summary

3. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition3 Intro to Forming Teams Items to consider when forming teams Project scope Skills required for the project Skills provided by the group members Relative importance of exposure to varying group dynamics

4. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition4 Intro to Forming Teams Project scope Duration – How long will the team be working together? Size – How much work needs to be done? Complexity – How varied/specialized are the tasks that need to be done?

5. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition5 Intro to Forming Teams Project skills What skills are needed? What skills are supplied? Do the provided skills match well with the required skills? If not, can they be learned while the project is underway?

6. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition6 Intro to Forming Teams Group dynamics How important is exposure to different learning/working/personality styles? How important is learning to function in different team environments? Importance likely related to project duration and frequency

7. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition7 Intro to Forming Teams Once the scope, necessary skills, and importance of exposure to different group dynamics are determined, then a method for creating the groups can be considered that best fits the project.

8. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition8 Methods of Forming Teams Some common methods: Random Student Selected Instructor Selected Learning Styles or Personality Types Majors or Background of Students Gender and Race

9. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition9 Random How to: Count off by numbers Make a randomized list Draw names from a hat, etc. Assign teams a place to work together

10. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition10 Random Pros: Forming teams requires little time Potential for diverse styles – working, learning, personality Opportunity to generate new partnerships. Cons: Teams may be slow to start Random assignment does not guarantee diversity of styles

11. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition11 Student Selected How to: Give the students a few minutes to decide on teams Make sure no one is left over

12. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition12 Student Selected Pros: Because students often choose to work with people who are familiar to them, this method can allow teams to “auto start” quickly Cons: May develop “super groups” of stronger students Tending toward the familiar potentially reduces student exposure to various forms of diversity – learning, personality, and working styles, backgrounds, gender, race, age

13. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition13 Instructor Selected Instructor chooses teams based on various criteria that could include one or more of the following: Learning/Personality Styles Geography (Classroom and Residence) Gender/Race/Age Student Majors/Backgrounds Student Input

14. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition14 Learning/Personality Styles Pros: Students benefit from group members having complementary styles. Cons: Testing can be time consuming and expensive. Developing balanced teams may be time intensive

15. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition15 Learning/Personality Styles A free alternative to expensive learning styles testing is available Developed by Barbara A. Soloman and Richard M. Felder of North Carolina State University http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f /felder/public/ILSpage.html

16. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition16 Geography (Classroom) Pros: Team formation requires little planning. Students don’t have to move which saves time Cons: If people generally sit in the same area, it may result in the same people working together.

17. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition17 Geography (Residence) Pros: Minimizes travel time/inconvenience for group work outside of class. Cons: May conflict with other criteria such as ensuring the requisite skill sets are brought to the project

18. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition18 Diversity Gender/Race/Age When forming teams in which one of the goals is to expose group members to those who differ in gender, race, or age, it is advisable to pair minority group members in order to strengthen their voice and prevent them from being made to feel even more of a minority.

19. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition19 Diversity Gender/Race/Age Pros: Students become more adept at overcoming racial, gender, and cultural differences. Cons: Maintaining an even distribution may prevent minority students from ever working together. Racial, gender, and age mixing may seem heavy-handed to students.

20. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition20 Major/Background of Students Pros: Allows teams to be balanced in terms of areas of study and backgrounds Cons: Groups can only be as diverse as the class allows Not all projects require all skill sets.

21. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition21 Instructor Selected with Input In this method student input is requested regarding with whom they would and would not choose to work. The instructor can then factor student choice, along with the various other criteria, into team formation.

22. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition22 Instructor Selected with Input Three general combinations are possible Yes – Yes Yes – No No – No

23. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition23 Yes – Yes When you get these combinations, you find that your teams start quickly to get the team project done.

24. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition24 Yes – Yes Pros: Teams can “self-start” quickly given that members are already acquainted and desire to work together. Cons: Comfort level with team members may not challenge students to improve their interaction and conflict resolution skills Potential for the team to become overly social

25. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition25 Yes – No The Yes-No method allows students to work with: At least one person they want No one they do not want

26. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition26 Yes – No Pros: Students get to work with at least one person of their choosing. Conflict is reduced by keeping counter- personalities apart. Well suited for long term teams Cons: This method requires significant planning and iteration by the instructor to decide groups. Ideally, students should have prior experience with many of their classmates in order to accurately make judgments.

27. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition27 No – No The No-No method forces students to work with people with whom they would ideally choose not to work.

28. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition28 No – No Pros: Well suited for teaching students how to make bad teams work. Students gain experience/skills in working with polarized personalities. Cons: Some instructor intensive choices are required for team formation. This team forming method is typically only suitable for short-term projects.

29. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition29 Team Forming in Practice In practice, there are many things to consider when deciding what methods to use to form teams: Goal of the team Duration of the project Desired diversity How well you want the students to match up

30. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition30 Team Forming in Practice Remember, many of these methods are not mutually exclusive and may work best as a subset of another plan.

31. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition31 Summary We’ve shown: Several team formation methods that should help augment the instructor’s toolset. The pros and cons of each method so that intelligent and appropriate selection can be made.

32. Gateway Engineering Education Coalition32 Q & A