1 / 32

Mitigating Conflict in Student Online Teams

Mitigating Conflict in Student Online Teams. Dr. Richard Dool Seton Hall University Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning 2007. The Challenge. Online student teams face many of the same challenges on-campus and work teams face

binta
Download Presentation

Mitigating Conflict in Student Online Teams

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Mitigating Conflict in Student Online Teams Dr. Richard Dool Seton Hall University Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning 2007

  2. The Challenge • Online student teams face many of the same challenges on-campus and work teams face • The prime difference is that online team’s conflicts are rarely played out in “real time” • Adds tension • Limits instructor interventions

  3. Student Reactions to Teams • 60% of surveyed students “dislike” team assignments • Difficulty in getting everyone on the “same page” • Unclear expectations and instructions • Grade dependence on others

  4. Why Teams? • Instructors- • Belief in the value of learning to be an effective team member • Pedagogical rationale • Reducing the grading load

  5. The Use of Teams • Organizations with 50+ employees • In the 2000s: 50% of all employees will be working in self-managed or problem solving teams (Boyett & Snyder,1998) • 70% of surveyed students worked on teams in the last 12 months. • CEOs routinely list “teamwork” as a top desired skill (Hart Research Associates, 2006). • Use of virtual teams increasing • By 2008, 41M employees will operate virtually at least one day per week Gartner Group (2006)

  6. Online Student Team Projects • Over 200 online student team projects since 2002 • “Conflicts” - identified and tracked • “Conflicts” defined as “issues that have or may negatively effect the expected team outcomes or course learning objectives.”

  7. Sources of Conflict • Mirror those of face to face teams • Differences in… • Expected outcomes (grades) • Roles and skills • Styles • Values • Resources (time) • Quality • Personality conflicts • Structural issues • Systems, time zone differences

  8. Conflict Personas • “Martyr” • Quick to point out that he/she has more to do than others or that no one else is taking the project “seriously.” • “Excuse-meister” • Lots of creative energy - focused on excuses versus contribution. • Array of last minute illnesses, computer issues or last minute work commitments.

  9. Conflict Personas • “Breathless in…” • Calls at the first sign of trouble • Tends to “cry wolf” • Annoying but good “early warning system” • “Silent Partner” • Most problematic • “Going silent” is very disruptive and creates outsized stress • Appears at the end with a “tale of woe”

  10. Conflict Rankings • Student surveys, top sources of conflict: • #1 - Teammates “going silent” • #2 - “Quality” issues • Dissonance in the quality of inputs • #3 - Accusations of plagiarism within teams

  11. Four Stages of Conflict Mitigation • Setting the Stage and Rules of Engagement • Inspecting What You Expect • Interventions Matrix • The Aftermath

  12. Setting the Stage and the Rules of Engagement • The Syllabus • There is no “I” in Team • “On the same page” conference call • Student Pledges • Team Charter • Team Logs • Team Formulation

  13. Setting the Stage and the Rules of Engagement • The Syllabus • Critical foundational element • Clearly state the purpose and expectations of the team assignment(s) • Clearly state the grading policy for the group assignment(s) • Significant portion of final grade • 15-30%

  14. “There is no “I” in Team” • Positive teaming document posted in addition to the syllabus • Stresses: • Importance of being a productive and positive member of a team • Common pitfalls of teams • Examples of productive and unproductive teaming behaviors • “We are all in it together” grading policy

  15. On the Same Page… • If possible, hold a “kick-off” live conference call with the students. • Reiterate the expectations and importance of team assignments. • Discuss the potential pitfalls and how to manage them within the team. • Answer questions. • Review the schedule.

  16. Student Pledges • “Excuse elimination” • Require each student send an email to the instructor indicating expressly that the student has read and understands the syllabus, teaming document and expectations on plagiarism. • Instructor “reminder” emails • As a follow-up, 2-3 email reminders of the importance of positive teaming referring to the course documents.

  17. Team Charters • Team Charters provide direction, clarify objectives and set limits(Gadiesh & Olivet, 1997). • Element of subconscious “pledging.” • Charters include: role assignments, skills inventory, contact information, meeting information and the conflict management process • First team “deliverable” • Assign points to emphasize importance (5% of team assignment grade)

  18. Team Charter Sample

  19. Team Charter Sample

  20. Team Logs • Documents the team activities and who did what. • Helps create “evidence” for use in conflict interventions. • Team logs are delivered with each team assignment or on a periodic basis, as required by the instructor.

  21. Team Log Sample

  22. Team Formulation • Instructors form teams in several ways: • Let students decide amongst themselves • Re-use of prior teams • Teams assigned by instructor • Recommendation: Assign teams • Observe students for a few weeks if possible, assess talent and activity level. • Spread out the talent ensuring stronger and weaker students are intermixed and balanced between teams • Time zones - try to assign team members within the same time zone or no more than 1 hour different

  23. Inspecting What You Expect • Performing in the “Open” • Creating “Evidence” • Instructor “Hovering”

  24. Performing in the “Open” • Instructor role - monitoring and encouraging. • Expect teams to perform in the “open.” • Use of “Team Rooms” • Witness the team in action • “Evidence” of conflict

  25. Creating Evidence • Student must create evidence of participation • Obvious presence and activity in the team room • Team Log acknowledgement

  26. Instructor “Hovering” • Let the students know you are there. • Periodic postings in team rooms • “How are you doing”? • “Any questions”? • “I noticed…have you thought of this…” • Email reminders with examples or suggestions

  27. Interventions Matrix • Soft Interventions • Hard Interventions • “Shock and Awe” Shock & Awe Hard Team Conflict or Tension Soft Impact on Learning Objectives

  28. Soft Interventions • Conflicts will happen and interventions may be necessary • Soft interventions are the first line of defense • Essentially - “team heal thyself” • Posted or email reminders • Expectation of positive teaming • “Team first” attitudes are required • Grade interdependence • Advice and food for thought, not direction • Nudge in the right direction without solving problem

  29. Hard Interventions • Time for a more direct approach. • Specific recommendations to get the team on track. • Directly speak to a student or • Directly speak to the team • Live conference call • Monitor for the next week or so to ensure the team is back on track. • Increase “hovering”

  30. “Shock and Awe” • Other interventions have failed, learning objectives are in jeopardy • Team can no longer operate effectively • Direct intervention • Instructor prescribes specific steps for recovery • Compliance with team expectations is required • Grading risk for the team • Live conference calls with team • Initial and follow-up (1-2)

  31. The Aftermath • The prime dilemma: Grading • Methods: • One grade fits all- no distinction between team members • Differentiation methods - means to evaluate individual contributions and adjust individual grades • Team Evaluations • Student assessment of their contribution as well as their teammates.

  32. Team Assignments - Worth the Trouble? • Conflict mitigation adds to instructor workload but it works. • Four Stage methodology has reduced identified conflicts in online teams by 70% • Positive team membership is a necessary career competency. • Do we have an obligation to nurture these skills? • Employers value teaming skills

More Related