David L. Largent
Skip Abstract Section
Skip Supplemental Material SectionAbstract
To prepare graduates for today's work environment, they must be immersed in positive (and perhaps negative) small group experiences in their courses, which will in turn provide a basic understanding of how teams form and develop over time. In the fall of 2009, we started exploring how software development teams form and interact in a computer science college capstone course setting. Our initial findings were presented at ICER 2010 in Aarhus, Denmark. The focus of our research was on the experiences of computer science college course teams as compared and contrasted to the theory of Bruce Tuckman's stages of small group development model, which he characterized as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
We continued data collection with the computer science capstone course in the fall of 2010 and added an information systems capstone course as well. At the conclusion of the spring 2014 semester, we have collected and analyzed data for a total of 5 academic years from nine cohorts of students taught by five instructors involving 215 students on 51 teams. Each year, participants repeatedly self-assessed their enthusiasm and skill levels over time using a questionnaire by agreeing or disagreeing to statements. The data shows patterns similar to that of Tuckman's model. Since most people find Tuckman's model easy to understand, it may provide an effective tool to teach teamwork and monitor team development.
In addition to briefly presenting our empirical findings in this article, we provide a simple conceptualization of Tuckman's model that can be captured in two data points: enthusiasm and skill level. By comparing changes in these two dimensions over time, team development can be tracked through the various Tuckman stages of small group development. We also provide a minicurriculum which can be used to introduce students to Tuckman's model and provide them insight into what leadership style works best in each of the development stages.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
zip
largent.zip (354.3 KB)
Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Measuring and Understanding Team Development by Capturing Self-assessed Enthusiasm and Skill Levels
- Ball State University. 2014. 2013--14 Undergraduate Course Catalog. Retrieved 07/08/2014 from http://cms.bsu.edu/academics/undergraduatestudy/catalog/current-year.Google Scholar
- Andrew Begel and Beth Simon. 2008. Struggles of new college graduates in their first software development job. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Portland, OR, USA. ACM, New York, NY. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1352135.1352218 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Georgine Beranek, Wolfgang Zuser, and Thomas Grechenig. 2005. Functional group roles in software engineering teams. ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng. Notes 30, 1 (2005). DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1082983.1083108 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Boy Scouts of America. 2004. National Youth Leadership Training: Staff Guide, Staff Development Guide, Syllabus Boy Scouts of America, Irving, TX.Google Scholar
- Donald Chinn and Tammy Vandegrift. 2008. Uncovering student values for hiring in the software industry. J. Educ. Resourc. Comput. 7, 1--25 (2008). DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1316450.1316454 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jan Chong and Tom Hurlbutt. 2007. The Social Dynamics of Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2007.87 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey. 2014. Better Learning Through Structured Teaching: A Framework for the Gradual Release of Responsibility (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
- Marye Anne Fox and Norman Hackerman. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. National Acedemic Press, Washington, DC, 215.Google Scholar
- Robert M. Gagné, Leslie J. Briggs, and Walter W. Wager. 1992. Principles of Instructional Design (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar
- Patricia J. Guinan, Jay G. Cooprider, and Samer Faraj. 1998. Enabling software development team performance during requirements definition: A behavioral versus technical approach. Inform. Syst. Res. 9 (1998), 101--125. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.101 Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Hart and T. Stone. 2002. Conversations with students: The outcomes of focus groups with QUT students. In Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA).Google Scholar
- Jessen T. Havill and Lewis D. Ludwig. 2007. Technically speaking: Fostering the communication skills of computer science and mathematics students. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Covington, Kentucky, USA. ACM, New York, NY. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1227310.1227375 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dennis M. Kivlighan and Debra C. Goldfine. 1991. Endorsement of therapeutic factors as a function of stage of group development and participant interpersonal attitudes. J. Counsel. Psychol. 38 (1991), 150--158. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.2.150Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Kruger and D. Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 77 (1999), 1121--1134.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James D. Lang, Susan Cruse, Francis D. McVey, and John McMasters. 1999. Industry expectations of new engineers: A survey to assist curriculum designers. J. Eng. Educ. 88 (1999), 43--51.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David L. Largent. 2010. “You Mean we Have to Work Together!?!”: A Study of the Formation and Interaction of Programming Teams in a College Course Setting. Master's Thesis. Ball State University, Muncie, IN.Google Scholar
- David L. Largent and Chris Lüer. 2010. “You mean we have to work together!?!”: A study of the formation and interaction of programming teams in a college course setting. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, Aarhus, Denmark. ACM, New York, NY, 41--50. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1839594.1839603 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patricia McCourt Larres, Joan A. Ballantine, and Mark Whittington. 2003. Evaluating the validity of self-assessment: Measuring computer literacy among entry-level undergraduates within accounting degree programmes at two UK universities. Account. Educ. 12, 97 (2003).Google Scholar
- Eric C. Lee. 2008. Forming to performing: Transitioning large-scale project into agile. In Proceedings of the Agile 2008 Conference, Toronto. 106--111. DOI:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/Agile.2008.75 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patrick Lencioni. 2005. Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Leaders, Managers, and Facilitators (1st ed.). Josey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael K. Lindell and Christina J. Brandt. 2000. Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 (2000), 331--348. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.331Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jie Liu, John Marsaglia, and David Olson. 2002. Teaching software engineering to make students ready for the real world. J. Comput. Small Coll. 18 (2002), 43--50. Google ScholarDigital Library
- National Association of Colleges and Employers. 2005--2013. Job Outlook 2006--2014 National Association of Colleges and Employers, Bethlehem, PA.Google Scholar
- Sridhar Nerur, RadhaKanta Mahapatra, and George Mangalaraj. 2005. Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Commun. ACM 48 (2005), 72--78. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1060710.1060712 Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. A. Neuman and J. Wright. 1999. Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 (1999), 376--389.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fran Rees. 1997. Teamwork from Start to Finish: 10 Steps to Results! Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Debbie Richards. 2009. Designing project-based courses with a focus on group formation and assessment. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 9 (2009), 1--40. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1513593.1513595 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Darren Rowley and Manfred Lange. 2007. Forming to performing: The evolution of an agile team. In Proceedings of the Agile 2007 Conference, Washington, DC. 408--414. DOI:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/AGILE.2007.28 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Armando Rugarcia, Richard M. Felder, Donald R. Woods, and James E. Stice. 2000. The future of engineering education: Part 1. A vision for a new century. Chem. Eng. Educ. 34 (2000), 16--25.Google Scholar
- Rebecca H. Rutherfoord. 2006. Using personality inventories to form teams for class projects: a case study. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Information Technology Education, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. ACM, New York, NY. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1168812.1168817 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ravi Seethamraju and Mark Borman. 2009. Influence of group formation choices on academic performance. Assess. Eval. Higher Educ. 34 (2009), 31--40. DOI:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602930801895679Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vivien Sieber. 2009. Diagnostic online assessment of basic IT skills in 1st-year undergraduates in the Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 40 (2009), 215--226. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00926.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Eric W. Skopec and Dayle M. Smith. 1997. How to use Team Building to Foster Innovation Throughout Your Organization. Contemporary Books, Lincolnwood, IL.Google Scholar
- Debra Smarkusky, Richard Dempsey, J. Ludka, and F. de Quillettes. 2005. Enhancing team knowledge: Instruction vs. experience. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1047344.1047493 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Annette Lerine Steenkamp. 2002. A Standards-Based Approach to Team-Based Student Projects in an Information Technology Curriculum.Google Scholar
- Stanley R. Strong, Josephine A. Welsh, Jean L. Corcoran, and William T. Hoyt. 1992. Social psychology and counseling psychology: The history, products, and promise of an interface. J. Counsel. Psychol. 39 (1992), 139--157. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.39.2.139Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacquelyn F. Sullivan, Daniel W. Knight, and Lawrence E. Carlson. 2002. Team building in lower division projects courses. In Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA. DOI:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/FIE.2002.1157889Google Scholar
- Eric Sundstrom, Kenneth P. de Meuse, and David Futrell. 1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. Am. Psychol. 45 (1990), 120--133. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120Google ScholarCross Ref
- The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, Association for Computing Machinery and IEEE Computer Society. 2013. Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. ACM, New York NY. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen. 1977. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Organ. Stud. 2 (1977), 419--427.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bruce W. Tuckman. 1965. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychol. Bull. 63 (1965), 384--399.Google ScholarCross Ref
- William M. Waite, Michele H. Jackson, Amer Diwan, and Paul M. Leonardi. 2004. Student culture vs group work in computer science. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Norfolk, Virginia, USA. ACM, New York, NY. DOI:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/971300.971308 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ellen L. Walker and Oberta A. Slotterbeck. 2002. Incorporating realistic teamwork into a small college software engineering curriculum. J. Comput. Small Coll. 17 (2002), 115--123. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Connie E. Wells. 2002. Teaching teamwork in information systems. In Challenges of Information Technology Education in the 21st Century, Eli B. Cohen (Ed.). Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. 2006. Understanding by Design (2 ed.). Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Measuring and Understanding Team Development by Capturing Self-assessed Enthusiasm and Skill Levels
Recommendations
"You mean we have to work together!?!": a study of the formation and interaction of programming teams in a college course setting
ICER '10: Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education researchWe explored how software development teams form and interact in a computer science college course setting and what an instructor can do to enhance effective teamwork. The experiences of computer science college course's teams are compared and contrasted ...
Expanding student enthusiasm for, and understanding of, introductory CS: panel discussion
Professors in computer science are challenged by the wish to make CS1 courses more appealing to a broader audience, both to induce more students to enter computer science and also to open up students to the possibilities of the field. This challenge is ...
Comments