Team formation tools assume instructors should configure the criteria for creating teams, precluding students from participating in a process affecting their learning experience. We propose LIFT, a novel learner-centered workflow where students propose, vote for, and weigh the criteria used as inputs to the team formation algorithm. We conducted an experiment (N=289) comparing LIFT to the usual instructor-led process, and interviewed participants to evaluate their perceptions of LIFT and its outcomes. Learners proposed novel criteria not included in existing algorithmic tools, such as organizational style. They avoided criteria like gender and GPA that instructors frequently select, and preferred those promoting efficient collaboration. LIFT led to team outcomes comparable to those achieved by the instructor-led approach, and teams valued having control of the team formation process. We provide instructors and designers with a workflow and evidence supporting giving learners control of the algorithmic process used for grouping them into teams.
more »
« less
Composing Team Compositions: An Examination of Instructors’ Current Algorithmic Team Formation Practices
Instructors using algorithmic team formation tools must decide which criteria (e.g., skills, demographics, etc.) to use to group students into teams based on their teamwork goals, and have many possible sources from which to draw these configurations (e.g., the literature, other faculty, their students, etc.). However, tools offer considerable flexibility and selecting ineffective configurations can lead to teams that do not collaborate successfully. Due to such tools’ relative novelty, there is currently little knowledge of how instructors choose which of these sources to utilize, how they relate different criteria to their goals for the planned teamwork, or how they determine if their configuration or the generated teams are successful. To close this gap, we conducted a survey (N=77) and interview (N=21) study of instructors using CATME Team-Maker and other
criteria-based processes to investigate instructors’ goals and decisions when using team formation tools. The results showed that instructors prioritized students learning to work with diverse teammates and performed “sanity checks” on their formation approach’s output to ensure that the generated teams would support this goal, especially focusing on criteria like gender and race. However, they sometimes struggled to relate their educational goals to specific settings in the tool. In general, they also did not solicit any input from students when configuring the tool, despite acknowledging that this information might be useful. By opening the “black box” of the algorithm to students, more learner-centered approaches to forming teams could therefore be a promising way to provide more support to instructors configuring algorithmic tools while at the same time supporting student agency and learning about teamwork.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2016908
- PAR ID:
- 10460879
- Editor(s):
- Jeff Nichols
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Volume:
- 7
- Issue:
- 2
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The configuration that an instructor enters into an algorithmic team formation tool determines how students are grouped into teams, impacting their learning experiences. One way to decide the configuration is to solicit input from the students. Prior work has investigated the criteria students prefer for team formation, but has not studied how students prioritize the criteria or to what degree students agree with each other. This paper describes a workflow for gathering student preferences for how to weight the criteria entered into a team formation tool, and presents the results of a study in which the workflow was implemented in four semesters of the same project-based design course. In the most recent semester, the workflow was supplemented with an online peer discussion to learn about students' rationale for their selections. Our results show that students want to be grouped with other students who share the same course commitment and compatible schedules the most. Students prioritize demographic attributes next, and then task skills such as programming needed for the project work. We found these outcomes to be consistent in each instance of the course. Instructors can use our results to guide team formation in their own project-based design courses and replicate our workflow to gather student preferences for team formation in any course.more » « less
-
It is difficult for instructors, and even students themselves, to become aware in real-time of inequitable behaviors occurring on student teams. Here, we explored a potential measure for inequitable teamwork drawing on data from a digital pedagogical tool designed to surface and disrupt such team behaviors. Students in a large, undergraduate business course completed seven surveys about team health (called team checks) at regular intervals throughout the term, providing information about team dynamics, contributions, and processes. The ways in which changes in students’ scores from team check to team check compared to the median changes for their team were used to identify the proportions of teams with outlier student scores. The results show that for every team size and team check item, the proportion of teams with outliers at the end of the term was smaller than at the beginning of the semester, indicating stabilization in how teammates evaluated their team experiences. In all but two cases, outlying students were not disproportionately likely to identify with historically marginalized groups based on gender or race/ethnicity. Thus, we did not broadly identify teamwork inequities in this specific context, but the method provides a basis for future studies about inequitable team behavior.more » « less
-
Commitment is a multi-dimensional construct that has been extensively researched in the context of organizations. Organizational and professional commitment have been positively associated with technical performance, client service, attention to detail, and degree of involvement with one’s job. However, there is a relative dearth of research in terms of team commitment, especially in educational settings. Teamwork is considered a 21stcentury skill and higher education institutions are focusing on helping students to develop teamwork skills by applied projects in the coursework. But studies have demonstrated that creating a team is not enough to help students build teamwork skills. Literature supports the use of team contracts to bolster commitment, among team members. However, the relationship between team contracts and team commitment has not been formally operationalized.This research category study presents a mixed-methods approach towards characterizing and operationalizing team commitment exhibited by students enrolled in a sophomore-level systems analysis and design course by analyzing team contracts and team retrospective reflections. The course covers concepts pertaining to information systems development and includes a semester-long team project where the students work together in four or five member teams to develop the project deliverables. The students have prior software development experiences through an introductory systems development course as well as multiple programming courses. The data for this study was collected through the team contracts signed by students belonging to one of the 23 teams of this course. The study aims to answer the following research question: How can team commitment be characterized in a sophomore-level system analysis and design course among the student teams?A rubric was developed to quantify the team commitment levels of students based on their responses on the team contracts. Students were classified as high or low commitment based on the rubric scores. The emergent themes of high and low commitment teams were also presented. The results indicated that the high commitment teams were focused on setting goals, effective communication, and having mechanisms in place for timely feedback and improvement. On the other hand, low commitment teams did not articulate the goals of the project, they demonstrated a lack of dedication for attending team meetings regularly, working as a team, and had a lack of proper coordination while working together.more » « less
-
Peer evaluations are critical for assessing teams, but are susceptible to bias and other factors that undermine their reliability. At the same time, collaborative tools that teams commonly use to perform their work are increasingly capable of logging activity that can signal useful information about individual contributions and teamwork. To investigate current and potential uses for activity traces in peer evaluation tools, we interviewed (N=11) and surveyed (N=242) students and interviewed (N=10) instructors at a single university. We found that nearly all of the students surveyed considered specific contributions to the team outcomes when evaluating their teammates, but also reported relying on memory and subjective experiences to make the assessment. Instructors desired objective sources of data to address challenges with administering and interpreting peer evaluations, and have already begun incorporating activity traces from collaborative tools into their evaluations of teams. However, both students and instructors expressed concern about using activity traces due to the diverse ecosystem of tools and platforms used by teams and the limited view into the context of the contributions. Based on our findings, we contribute recommendations and a speculative design for a data-centric peer evaluation tool.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
