Student perceptions about team projects as a pedagogical tool in upper division undergraduate accounting courses: indifference curves.
Walker, John P. ; Elson, Raymond J. ; O'Callaghan, Susanne 等
BACKGROUND
In the past decade, Corporate America has embraced the team concept
as a platform for building and re-engineering organizations. They also
claim that teamwork is the structural norm now in organizations across
the globe. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) claim that "teams will
become the primary unit of performance in high-performance
organizations."
Assigning students to teams to work on a major project has been
heralded in business school programs as a significantly positive form of
learning which introduces students to the team environment they are
likely to encounter in the workplace. Hansen's (2006) summary of
the literature on the use of group projects supports this contention.
Hansen identified collaborative learning, experience with complex work,
team projects, and improved communication, interpersonal and social
skills, among the various benefits. As part of pedagogy, the authors
have used various types of team involvement. One author prefers and
requires all team project presentations to be videotaped by each team
and shown via television on the presentation day. The authors use other
traditional approaches to team presentations. In discussing the relative
merits of each approach, the author requiring students to videotape
presentation made the following anecdotal observations:
Students who videotaped their presentation, on average, put more
effort into the research and the presentation. This arises as the
students naturally are curious about how they appear on television and
review the presentation for determining how they look. Being their own
critic, they generally redo and revise their work.
Videotaping forces the students to consider the presentation
program in more detail, especially interactions of team members during
the presentation. Live presentations often do not require as much
detailed planning of the presentation.
Students tend to get more out of the other team presentations
because when they make a live presentation, they are so worried about
their own presentation they tend to not focus on the other teams.
Likewise after presenting, they tend to be so exhausted that they have
difficulty focusing attention on the other teams' presentations.
Given the above, the author requiring video presentations believed
that students learned more, spent more time, and met more often than the
more traditional live method of team project presentations.
The authors decided to conduct an experiment to determine if
students perceived that learning is better or enhanced by the use of
videotaping. The experiment was to compare student perceptions of the
team experience from classes where the videotaping was required with
student perceptions from classes using traditional live presentations.
By comparing the student observations, a measure of the effectiveness
might be established.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research by Shaw (2004) examined differences between intragroup
diversity and student diversity-management skills. The researchers
considered age, gender, and nationality of student-subjects to determine
the students' satisfaction, final grade and perception of their own
effectiveness. The research results indicated that the type of group the
students were assigned to affected their grade performance. The position
within the group also affected their grade performance.
Cross-functional teams are hyped as the most effective approach to
succeeding in business projects. Rothstein (2002) used cross-functional
disciplines of "business" and "design" to examine
the values and behaviors of students in group projects. He then had the
students develop and design a "Shopping Experience" for
customers. This collaborative research resulted in perceptions changing
during the duration of the project for both groups in the areas of
creativity and the need for openness in discussions with colleagues.
Research by Kohli and Gruopta (2002) concentrated on student
perceptions concerning team projects done while completing a systems
analysis and design course. Student perceptions when working on these
teams was that team members did not always do their fair share of the
work on the project. But students did believe that working on teams on
real-life projects was a very valuable experience and realized that
users of systems need to be involved during the project duration and
that feedback during a system's design project was important to the
success of the project.
Ferrante, Green and Forster (2006) concentrated on student
perceptions of group projects when the team leaders are incentivized.
Project teams were developed in an introductory financial accounting
course, and each team appointed a leader. The final project grade for
each group-appointed team leader was contingent on their team's
performance. They found that team members experienced fewer
dysfunctional behaviors and teams with incentivized leaders had better
performance.
Sergenian and Pant (1998) believe that at less competitive
colleges, often students come ill-prepared to meet the academic
challenges of college life. Due to socio-economic backgrounds that do
not lend themselves to awareness of what is needed to succeed in the
accounting profession and because students who work too many hours while
in college do not take advantage of the needed socialization activities
that colleges provide, many students come to the recruiting process in
their senior year ill-prepared to succeed at obtaining a satisfactory
first accounting job. This research involved junior accounting students
who were assigned a team project to increase their knowledge of the
accounting profession, the job research process, team learning, and
written and oral communication skills. The pre and post tests indicated
a significant increase in team work skills as a result of this career
enhancing project.
THE EXPERIMENT
Research Design
This research experiment was developed to determine if students
perceived that team project learning is better or enhanced by the use of
videotaping. The design consists of comparing student perceptions of the
team experience from classes where the videotaping was required with
student perceptions from classes using traditional live presentations,
in effect, an experimental group of students and a control group of
students. A questionnaire was developed (Appendix A), using a bipolar
Likert type scale to measure student perceptions about the presentation
experience and the amount of learning obtained. Additional questions
were used to assess demographic information.
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses, Ho (a-j), were developed to test the
assertions of the faculty member who claimed the above mentioned
benefits of requiring team presentations to be videotaped. Each
sub-hypothesis corresponds to one of the claimed benefits.
Ho: There is no difference between perceptions of students who
videotaped their presentations from those who did not videotape their
presentations among the following items:
Ho (a): value of team projects.
Ho (b): team projects ability to help learn course material.
Ho (c): stress arising from worry about presenting distracting from
what other teams present.
Ho (d): exhaustion after presenting the project distracting from
what other teams present.
Ho (e): learning something new from other teams.
Ho (f): amount of learning from one's own team members.
Ho (g): ranking of the team project with respect to other learning
experiences in college.
Ho (h): relative value of time invested in team project work.
Ho (i): influence of team meetings in changing presentations.
Ho (j): quality of presentation relative to team presentations in
other classes.
Subjects
The experimental group consisted of 57 responses from senior
accounting majors at one university in an audit course and 45 senior
accounting majors in an advanced accounting course at another university
as the control group. This comprised 102 usable responses.
RESULTS
Analysis of variance using t-tests on each of the opinion questions
in the questionnaire was used to determine significant differences at
the .05 level. Results are identified in Table 1 and indicate the
acceptance of the null hypothesis for 8 of the 10 sub-hypotheses.
Hypothesis Ho (e) and Ho (f) showed that a significant difference exists
between the perceived learning for students whose group projects
required video tape projects and students who presented live in class.
The results of the study of Ho (e) and Ho (f) indicate that
students agree in their perceptions with the faculty member who favors
the live in-class presentations and reject the assertions of the faculty
member asserting benefits from required videotaping. These students who
presented live in the classroom believed that they learned something new
from the other teams and from their own teammates.
Interestingly, analysis of the demographic type data, as seen in
Table 2, using paired comparison analysis, revealed that students
required to videotape spent significantly more hours and held more team
meetings than their counterparts with live presentations. This seems
obvious, in that time to plan and produce the videotape is required in
addition to the research and analysis time required to complete the
project.
Exploring the relationship of hours to the same perceptions but
classified by the number of hours of activity spent in the team activity
produced interesting results. Table 3 summarizes results of paired
comparison data among students spending less than 10 hours on the
project with those who spent 10 to 20 hours and those who spent 10 to 30
hours.
Significant differences exist among these groups in several
perceptual dimensions as indicated with p < .100 representing a
significant difference at the .05 level.
Individuals spending more than 20 hours on their project were
significantly more likely to say that the project was a waste of time
than students spending 10 to 20 hours or students spending less than 10
hours [Ho (a)]. Students spending more than 20 hours on their project
were significantly less likely to perceive that they learned more from
other team members than students spending 10 to 20 or less than 10 hours
on their project [Ho (e)]. Students spending less than 10 hours on their
project are significantly more likely to perceive that teams are a waste
of time than teams spending 10 to 20 or 20 to 30 hours on their project
[Ho (h)]. Students spending 20 to 30 hours on their project were
significantly more likely to have changed their presentation after
rehearsing with their teams than students spending less than 10 hours on
their project [Ho (i)]. Students spending 20 to 30 hours on their
project were significantly more likely to perceive that class
presentations were better in this class than other classes than students
spending less than 10 hours or students spending 10 to 20 hours on their
project [Ho (j)].
Plotting the average responses of each group of students by
hours-spent on the project reveals an indifference type curve among
student perceptions (see Figure 1). It appears that up to a point, the
more time required to complete the project results in positive
perceptions about the project. Beyond that point, the more time required
for the project results in less positive perceptions about the project.
This suggests an indifference curve type effect resulting from the
amount of time required to complete the project.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Series 1 in the chart represents Ho (a), "This project was a
waste of time." Along the y-axis, positive numbers agree with the
statement, while negative numbers disagree with the statement. The
leftmost point on the x-axis represents less than 10 hours. The
mid-point represents 10 to 20 hours, while the rightmost point
represents 20 to 30 hours. Students in the 10 to 20 category were more
likely to strongly disagree than the other two categories. Series 2
corresponds to Ho (e), "I learned a lot from other team
members". Series 3 corresponds to Ho (h), "Teams are a waste
of time." Series 4 represents Ho (i), "I changed my
presentation after rehearsing with my team", and Series 5
represents Ho (j), "Presentations in this class were better than
presentations in other classes." In each of the series, the trend
line is kinked in the middle, except the last series, indicating an
indifference point somewhere between 10 and 20 hours working on a team
project among student perceptions.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
The implications of this study are two-fold: a) students do not
perceive any benefit from videotaping team projects and b) the amount of
time required to complete the project may be subject to an indifference
type curve among student perceptions of the team project experience. The
first implication leads us to conclude that an instrument that measures
learning needs to be developed to determine whether or not the asserted
benefits of more learning from videotaping have merit. The second
implication leads to several considerations about how faculty structure
team projects. Projects that require extensive time commitments from
students, more than twenty hours, could result in more dissatisfaction
on the part of students, adverse faculty evaluations, poorer performance
among students and an undeserved negative reaction to the program's
reputation.
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE
Team Presentation Questionnaire
Age: Under 21__, 21 to 26__, 27 to 32__, 33 to 40__, over 40__.
Gender: Male__ Female__.
Number of team presentations other than in this class:
None__, One__, Two__, Three__, More than three__.
How many times did your team meet as a group to prepare for
the class presentation?
None__, 1 time__, 2 to 5 times__, 6 to 10 times__, More than 10__.
How many hours did you spend on this project?
Less than 10__, 11 to 20__, 21 to 30__, More than 30__
Strongly
Agree Agree Neither
Statement 2 1 0
Ho (a): This project was a waste of time.
Ho (b): This project really helped me
understand the course material.
Ho (c): I was so stressed about
presenting that I didn't much pay
attention to the other teams presenting.
Ho (d): I was so exhausted after
presenting that I didn't much pay
attention to the other teams presenting.
Ho (e): I learned something new from the
other teams.
Ho (f): I learned a lot from my team
members.
Ho (g): This project was one of my best
learning activities in college.
Ho (h): Working in teams is a waste of
time.
Ho (i): I changed my presentation after
rehearsing as a team.
Ho (j): The team presentations in this
class were a lot better than team
presentations in other classes.
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Statement -1 -2
Ho (a): This project was a waste of time.
Ho (b): This project really helped me
understand the course material.
Ho (c): I was so stressed about
presenting that I didn't much pay
attention to the other teams presenting.
Ho (d): I was so exhausted after
presenting that I didn't much pay
attention to the other teams presenting.
Ho (e): I learned something new from the
other teams.
Ho (f): I learned a lot from my team
members.
Ho (g): This project was one of my best
learning activities in college.
Ho (h): Working in teams is a waste of
time.
Ho (i): I changed my presentation after
rehearsing as a team.
Ho (j): The team presentations in this
class were a lot better than team
presentations in other classes.
REFERENCES
Ferrante, C.J., S. G. Green & W. R. Forster (2006). Getting
more out of Team Projects: Incentivizing Leadership to enhance
Performance. Journal of Management Education, 30(6), 788-796.
Hansen, R.S. (2006). Benefits and Problems with Student Teams:
Suggestions for Improving Team Projects. Journal of Education for
Business, 82(1), 11-19.
Katzenbach, J.R., & K. Smith, (1993, March/April). The
Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review, 111-120.
Kohli, R, & J. Grupta (2002, July-September). Effectiveness of
Systems Analysis and Design Education: An Exploratory Study. Journal of
End User Computing, 14(3), 16-32.
Partington, D., & H. Harris (1999). Team Role Balance and Team
Performance: An Empirical Study. The Journal of Management Development,
18(8), 694-704.
Rothstein, P. (2002). When Worlds Collide: Integrated Development
with Business and Design Students. Design Management Journal, 13(3),
62-72.
Sergenian, G. K., and L. W. Pant (1998). Increasing Students'
Professionalism: A Careers Project for Accounting Majors. Issues in
Accounting Education, 13(2), 429-443.
Shaw, J. B. (2004). A Fair Go For All? The Impact of Intragroup
Diversity and Diversity-Management Skills on Student Experiences and
Outcomes in Team-Based Class Project. Journal of Management Education,
8(2), 139-170.
John P. Walker, Queens College--CUNY
Raymond J Elson, Valdosta State University
Susanne O'Callaghan, Pace University
Table 1
Survey Questions Live
Videotape Presentation
Survey Questions [eta] = 57 [eta] = 45 P =
Ho (i): I learned something new
from the other teams .7193 1.000 .005
Ho (j): I learned a lot from my
team members .5789 .8222 .025
(Strongly agree = 2, Agree = 1, Disagree = -1, Neither = 0, Strongly
Disagree = -2)
Table 2
Live
Videotape Presentation
Survey Questions [eta] = 57 [eta] = 45 P =
Number of hours spent on project:
x < 10 = 1, 10 < x < 20 = 2, 2.0877 1.8000 .078
20 < x < 30 = 3,x > 30 = 4
Number of meetings:
none = 1, once = 2, 2 < x < 5 = 3, 3.3684 3.0889 .000
5 < x < 10 = 4, x > 10 = 5
Table 3
A B C
Hours <10 >10<20 >20<30
Ho (a): This project was a waste of time -.8000 -.9434 -.4167
Ho (e): Learned a lot ... other
team members .5667 .7736 .4167
Ho (h): Teams are a waste of time -.8000 -.9059 -.8333
Ho (i): Changed presentation after
rehearsing -.1000 -.1132 0.333
Ho (j): Presentations in this
class better .6000 .3019 0.000
Number of meetings 2.9 3.245 3.833
A:B A:C B:C
Hours p= p= p=
Ho (a): This project was a waste of time .574 .045 * .009 *
Ho (e): Learned a lot ... other
team members .594 .046 * .025 *
Ho (h): Teams are a waste of time .047 * .517 .022 *
Ho (i): Changed presentation after
rehearsing .541 .203 .072 *
Ho (j): Presentations in this
class better .154 .034 * .014 *
Number of meetings .086 .035 .083
* Significant difference
