Team dynamics in student programming projects

Scott, Tony; Tichenor, Lee H.; Bisland, Ralph B.; Cross, James H.

doi:10.1145/191033.191076

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Randomly assigned teams produced the presentations and prototypes with individual members that may or may not have been creative or strong presenters. It is highly unlikely that creative teams are always excellent presenters, since team presentations qualities are often heavily influenced by team dynamics (Scott et al , 1994; Maldonado et al , 2007; Georgiadis, 2014). The team dynamics will vary every time the teams are built.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good idea! Or, good presentation? Examining the effect of presentation on perceived quality of concepts

Kwon

Kudrowitz²

2018

AIEDAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the product design realm, designers often use presentations to convey certain ideas about a product or a specific stage of the design process. The popular forms of presentation include verbal pitching, two-dimensional drawing, and prototyping. The clients, investigators, and other audiences rely on such presentations to evaluate an idea. Popular idea evaluation assessment tools, such as the consensual assessment technique, utilize such interactions. On the other hand, numerous pieces of literature state that the audiences are heavily influenced by the quality of presentation when evaluating the worth of the product being presented. In this study, we examine if the audience is able to discriminate between the quality of the presentation and the quality of the idea being presented. A total of 613 ideas were evaluated over a 4-year period during a specific product design class at different phases in the design process. The result shows that no matter the kind of presentation tool used, the presentation quality ratings and the idea value ratings had a very strong positive correlation despite the explicit instructions to reviewers to separate presentation quality from concept quality. Our additional analysis shows that such a pattern did not change during the different phases of the design process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good idea! Or, good presentation? Examining the effect of presentation on perceived quality of concepts

Kwon

Kudrowitz²

2018

AIEDAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When they do assume responsibility, instructors often assign students to teams randomly which can, due to chance, lead to unintended consequences such as inequity in project-relevant resources and collective academic abilities among teams, and a lack of demographic diversity within teams (Bacon et al, 1998). Alternatively, to avoid the unintended consequences of random assignment, instructors can assigned students to achieve a desired mix of project relevant resources and level of diversity within teams, and an equitable allocation of resources across teams (e.g., Bacon et al, 1998; Blowers, 2003; Muller, 1989; Scott, Bisland, Tichenor, & Cross, 1994).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, to avoid the unintended consequences of random assignment, instructors can assigned students to achieve a desired mix of project relevant resources and level of diversity within teams, and an equitable allocation of resources across teams (e.g., Bacon et al, 1998;Blowers, 2003;Muller, 1989;Scott, Bisland, Tichenor, & Cross, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Evidence of Students’ Use of Social Networks and Social Categorization When Self-Selecting Teams

Neu

2018

Journal of Marketing Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents two studies aimed at understanding consequences of giving students complete decision-making authority to select team members for a team assignment. Study 1 concludes that students place a high level of importance on cognitively categorizing their classmates as those to approach and avoid when self-selecting teams, and they put forth a good deal of effort to actually approach some classmates and avoid others. The approach category forms for most students as they develop a team assignment social network comprised of classmates who are highly trusted and believed to be high in trustworthiness. Study 2 finds evidence that, in the absence of network members and prior knowledge of each other, students use social cues (style of dress) to cognitively categorize classmates and make inferences about their trustworthiness based on the category in which they are placed. Study 2 also finds that style of dress influences students' trust in their classmates, preference for who they want on their team, and effort they would put forth to approach some classmates and avoid others. Implications and opportunities for future research are discussed.

show abstract

“…To avoid the shortcomings of random assignment, instructors should organize students to achieve a desired mix of project relevant resources and level of diversity within teams, and an equitable allocation of resources across teams. Specifically, an instructor can first segment students on their skills or strengths (Blowers, 2003;Muller 1989;Scott, Bisland, Tichenor, & Cross, 1994), work experience (Beheshtian-Ardekani & Mahmood, 1998), academic achievement (Scott et al, 1994), or major (Gosenpud, 1989). Then, instructors can assign students to ensure that each team has the needed mix of resources and that all teams are on a level playing field with respect to their collection of resources.…”

Section: Team Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Cues of (Un)Trustworthy Team Members

Neu

2015

Journal of Marketing Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the way in which and the extent to which students engage in social categorization during the process of self-selecting team members for a team assignment. The discovery-oriented method of grounded theory was used. Data were gathered from a sample of 38 undergraduate marketing and management students using the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique. Results indicate that, when faced with having too little information about classmates, students use a variety of social cues to cognitively categorize classmates, and then make a series of inferences about their personality, values, and trustworthiness based on the category in which they are placed. In addition, students use the inferences to help make decisions about who to approach and who to avoid during the self-selection process. Making inferences about classmates based on the social category in which they are placed, rather than on individual merit, is stereotyping. Behaving differently toward classmates based on the social category in which they are placed is discrimination. All 38 students who participated in this study reported that they have used social cues to help decide who to approach and who to avoid during team formation, and 13 reported doing so every time they have self-selected team members.

show abstract

Team dynamics in student programming projects

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Good idea! Or, good presentation? Examining the effect of presentation on perceived quality of concepts

Good idea! Or, good presentation? Examining the effect of presentation on perceived quality of concepts

Quantitative Evidence of Students’ Use of Social Networks and Social Categorization When Self-Selecting Teams

Social Cues of (Un)Trustworthy Team Members

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About