Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:55
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Evaluation of MBA Group Work: A Case Study
of Graduate Student Experiences and Perceptions
of Positive Group Work Outcomes
Patricia D. Rafferty
To cite this article: Patricia D. Rafferty (2013) The Evaluation of MBA Group Work: A Case Study of Graduate Student Experiences and Perceptions of Positive Group Work Outcomes, Journal of Education for Business, 88:1, 43-50, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.638680
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.638680
Published online: 19 Nov 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 261
View related articles
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.638680
The Evaluation of MBA Group Work: A Case Study
of Graduate Student Experiences and Perceptions
of Positive Group Work Outcomes
Patricia D. Rafferty
Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
The article forms part of an exploration into how graduate business students experience group work. A single-case, embedded study was conducted in 2010–2011, and reveals new insight and understanding into the manner in which master’s of business administration students perceive evaluation methods of their group work assignments and how these methods contribute to their perception of positive group work outcomes.
Keywords: business school teaching methods, graduate student experiences, group work, group work outcomes, MBA teams
INTRODUCTION
Group work is widely recognized within many academic disciplines as an important pedagogical tool when instruct-ing graduate students (Drake, Goldsmith, & Strachan, 2006; Gatfield, 1999; Hughes & Jones, 2011; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; Sharp, 2006). Working in groups enables learners to leverage the strengths of fellow classmates while experimenting and investigating their own abilities within a safe, educational environment (Snyder, 2009; Waters-Hasler & Napier, 2002). Similarly, working in groups allows students to assess and hone their teambuilding skills for future use in the workplace. This is evident in the manner in which employers require their associates to have teamwork skills and the competency to utilize groups in order to efficiently and effectively achieve organizational goals. In part, employers expect these skills to be learned and acquired within degree granting programs (Chapman, Meuter, Toy, & Wright, 2010.)
For educators who utilize group work, this teaching strat-egy is considered an effective and efficient tool across mul-tiple fields and disciplines within higher education (Drake et al., 2006; Murray & Lonne, 2006; Summers, Beretvas, Svinicki, & Gorin, 2005; Waters-Hasler & Napier, 2002). This is evident in the manner in which group work skills and
Correspondence should be addressed to Patricia D. Rafferty, Saint Joseph’s University, Erivan K. Haub School of Business, 5600 City Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19131, USA. E-mail: patricia.rafferty@sju.edu
overall team effectiveness are considered to be key learning objectives within many higher educational settings (Hughes & Jones, 2011).
In order to provide descriptive data on the phenomenon of group work and its implications for the evaluation of group work assignments in higher education, here I summarize the results of a single case, embedded study that was conducted to describe the manner in which graduate business students ex-perience group work. The objective of this exploration was to add to the knowledge base by documenting authentic student experiences with group work and how master’s of business administration (MBA) students view the assessment process within this paradigm (Yin, 2003). In addition to understand-ing how graduate business students experience group work, the outcome of this investigation provides new insight into the manner in which part-time MBA students view present group work assessment techniques and the manner in which these evaluation methods promote the perception of a positive group work outcome. Within this context, a positive group work outcome is defined as student perception that maxi-mizes satisfaction with the group work process, the learning of focal course material, or the learning about the group work process.
Terms, such asteamwork,group work,cooperative learn-ing, and collaborative learning “are often used synony-mously” (Drake et al., 2006, p. 33). Regardless of the specific terminology, this pedagogical method is commonly under-stood to be the process in which small groups of interde-pendent individuals share responsibility for the outcome of semester-long course tasks and projects (Strom & Strom,
44 P. D. RAFFERTY
2002) and many educators accept this paradigm as a collabo-rative approach that involves students working coopecollabo-ratively (Delucchi, 2006). Stephen Sharp (2006) indicated “the use of group work, in which three or more students jointly produce a piece of work for summative assessment, is an established aspect of teaching and learning in higher education” (p. 329). Literature on this topic demonstrates multiple benefits of us-ing group work as a pedagogical tool in higher education, including: “(1) students learn teamwork skills, (2) students improve their critical thinking skills, and (3) students gain more insight about a particular topic” (Payne, Monk-Turner, Smith, & Sumter, 2006, p. 441).
Such benefits have been documented across multiple aca-demic disciplines within higher education. For example, studies of undergraduate students participating in group work within science, mathematics, engineering, and technology courses have generally demonstrated greater student persis-tence, reported more positive attitude toward learning, and typically showed greater academic achievement when com-pared with students who did not work in groups within simi-lar courses (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Simisimi-larly, group work and collaborative learning activities have been shown to improve student grades and increase student en-gagement in courses using this pedagogical approach (Lo & Prohaska, 2011).
However, these conclusions are not universally supported. For example, other studies have reported that group work has not been conclusively shown to support greater aca-demic achievement in a variety of disciplines within higher education. The fundamental assumption that team projects improve learning outcomes is under-researched and it is widely accepted that further studies are necessary on the efficacy of group projects within a variety of academic areas within higher education (Bacon, 2005; Colliver, Feltovich, & Verhulst, 2003; Delucchi, 2006; Lightner, Bober, & Willie, 2007; Thomchick, 1997).
These contrasting findings on the group work paradigm within higher educational settings are not uncommon and are often a result of judgments frequently based on subjec-tive, anecdotal observations from students or faculty (Ashraf, 2004; Delucchi, 2006). Additionally, existing literature on group work is so vast that multiple genres exist, further exacerbating the lack of a common vocabulary regarding this paradigm. For example, leading theorists on group work commonly refer to cooperative learning as structured, group learning activities and projects inside and outside the class-room, whereas collaborative learning groups tend to center on unstructured tasks and projects and is founded on the concept that knowledge is subjective and generated by the interactions between group members. However, these con-structs are so closely related that not all literature concurs on the difference (Bacon, 2005). Nevertheless, collaborative and cooperative group models tend to focus on mutually acquired learning goals and the achievement of group tasks. For the purpose of this study, group work includes cooperative and
collaborative group work involving summative assessment (Bacon, 2005; Michaelsen & Black, 1994; Slavin, 1988).
Although group work for business students often share various tenets found within the collaborative and cooperative group project paradigm, Bacon (2005) explained that tradi-tional business student group projects typically focus on the completion of a specific, semester-long task and frequently diverges from collaborative and cooperative models in some key aspects:
In business classes, the typical student group project differs in some important ways from the prototypical peer-learning task. On business projects, students jointly produce a “de-liverable” of some sort, such as a written report or group presentation. Each member of the group then often receives the same reward, typically the same grade. Thus, a group goal exists; however often there is little if any formal individual accountability. (pp. 252–253)
Based on this commonly accepted description of group work in the graduate business environment, the underpinnings of the group work paradigm in this context are still generally accepted to be closely aligned with collaborative and coop-erative learning in that students work together to accomplish a common task for summative assessment (Gillies, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1988; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993)
However, a review of the literature on group work within higher education, particularly research regarding group work in business schools, provides some insight when examined within the framework of collaborative and cooperative learn-ing. It reveals distinct differences that become evident, prin-cipally when examined through the interactions between students and instructors. Perhaps most significantly, group work with traditional business students differs from the com-monly accepted collaborative and cooperative group envi-ronments by the lack of systematic guidance and regular support mechanisms provided to students by those profes-sors assigning team projects (Ashraf, 2004; Bolton, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1988). As a result, students and course instructors sometimes differ in their judgment of a positive group work experience (Chapman et al., 2010). For example, course instructors may oblige students to support their less competent fellow group members. This may work well in cross-functional groups, where the group’s combined efforts are able to leverage each student’s strengths and expertise to achieve the objective of the task. However, this is problematic when cross-functional groups are not used (Edwards, 2010). As a result, students are often relegated to episodes of trial and error during group work; thus, many students ex-perience only the frustrations and pitfalls of group work, in-stead of the many possible benefits (Bolton, 1999; Yamane, 1996). Therefore, students often report negative perceptions of group work. For example, Payne et al. (2006) conducted a survey of 143 college students who had recently com-pleted a semester-long group project. This study revealed
that 40% of students had reported being part of a team where some members contributed little or nothing at all. Ad-ditionally, one third of respondents reported that they did not look forward to future group work, group members did not necessarily learn from one another, and they did not recom-mend the use of group work for future classes. However, not all student perceptions on group work were entirely negative. This study also found that approximately 85% of students re-ported that the participation in group work will be beneficial to them in the workplace, while approximately 97% consid-ered themselves to have contributed to the group project in a meaningful way (Payne et al., 2006).
Literature Review
Given these circumstances, the evaluation and grading of group work on the graduate level is often problematic (Bolton, 1999; Payne et al., 2006; Yamane, 1996). Never-theless, at the conclusion of group work, instructors must provide final assessments of the finished group work as-signment (Hughes & Jones, 2011; Strijbos, Narciss, & Dunnebier, 2010; Thomchick, 1997). Within the context of higher education, the most familiar category of group work assessment takes the form of student evaluations for summative or formative purposes. Typically, summative as-sessment involves reviewing, categorizing, and making judg-ments about a student’s achievement or ability at a fixed time for recording and reporting functions. On the other hand, formative assessment is typically considered an evaluation and appraisal of a student’s achievement or ability at vari-ous stages to facilitate the learning process (Bastick, 1999; Harlen, 2005; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; Sharp, 2006). Although these two forms of assessment techniques are not always mutually exclusive (Harlen), the vast majority of assessment methods for group work are summative and “group work by its very nature favors the award of a grade to a group of stu-dents collectively rather than grades awarded to individual students” (Sharp, p. 330).
However, the use of summative student assessment in group work has significant implications. For example, Thomchick (1997) explained,
One concern when using any type of group assessment is fair assessment. When individuals combine efforts to produce a group product, judgment is made on the final product, and it is usually difficult for the assessor to know how much each individual contributed to it. (p. 203)
One way to avoid this pitfall is the use of assessment triangulation. This is a method where the faculty utilizes an assessment structure that allows for both individual and group grading elements. “By using multiple measures, or triangulation, the instructor can construct a more complete picture of the individual participant of each group member”
(Norman, Rose, & Lehmann, 2004, p. 10), thus encouraging full participation by each group member.
However, an assessment approach that seeks to identify individual student contribution is not universally supported because it deviates from the primary objective of group work, which is to work cooperatively and collectively as a group (Sharp, 2006). Additionally, peer assessments have been shown to be deficient in the manner in which they can be utilized as a supplement to instructor assessment of in-dividual student contribution to a group project (Cheng & Warren, 1999). Peer assessments have not been shown to be sufficiently reliable due to (a) students’ lack of practical ex-perience and overall competence in assessing the nature of particular tasks, (b) social and cultural style bias among stu-dents, and (c) simple leniency bias or schemes that involve group consensus on positive scores for all group members (Cheng & Warren; May, 2008). Furthermore, the content of peer feedback and the manner in which it affects student learning has received very little study (Strijbos et al., 2010). On the other hand, rater training and the use of the diary method can reduce certain peer assessment biases and im-prove the manner in which peer assessments of a student’s individual contribution to group work can be a trustworthy supplement to instructor assessment (Dommeyer, 2007; May, 2008). Similarly, using a wiki has also been shown to assist both peer and instructor evaluation of a student’s individual contribution to a group project (Trentin, 2009). Wikis are so-cial software programs that offer students working in a group a variety of online information sharing and collaborative writ-ing features, which use “embedded wiki functions (version-ing, tags, comments, linkers) to support the monitoring of both the students’ activities and their level of contribution to the collaborative work” (Trentin, p. 44). Both established and newer methods of evaluating individual student contri-butions have important implication on overall assessment methods of group work because grading protocol in higher education requires professors to assign individual grades to each student, often causing an inequity when an individual student cannot be sufficiently recognized for contributing sig-nificantly more to a group project than other group members (Sharp, 2006).
Within the context of higher education, peer assessment is often used to address this dilemma and identify an individual student’s contribution to the group work project. Typically, peer assessments are based on a student’s overall perception and impression of a fellow group member’s contribution and efforts toward the group work project. The available liter-ature on this topic indicates that peer assessment may take the form of holistic or category-based assessment. In holistic peer assessment, each student assigns a single grade to each of his or her fellow group members in order to designate the overall perception of that group member’s contribution to the general group work effort. On the other hand, category-based peer assessment involves each group member evaluat-ing one another on a number of specific criteria. Then, these
46 P. D. RAFFERTY
categorical scores are used to determine each group mem-ber’s contribution to the group work effort. In either case, the peer assessment evaluations are used to account for a per-centage of each student’s grade. In some cases, students are asked to indicate whether they would hire the fellow group member again for another group work project, attempting to simulate the actual work environment (Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; McCloskey, 2004; Sharp, 2006).
Lejk and Wyvill (2001) suggested that category-based peer assessment of group work is most useful for formative assessment, whereas, the method of holistic peer assessment is best used for summative assessment of group work. This conclusion is generally supported by the literature; however, the use of project diaries and iterative peer reviews at various times throughout the group work project were also shown to be useful in formative assessment. Project diaries and it-erative peer reviews also helped to ameliorate undesirable group and individual behaviors, as well as to clarify ex-pectations, ensure student accountability, and reduce flawed student memory of the group work experience (Baker, 2008; Dyrud, 2001).
Despite these challenges, there is a dearth of present lit-erature on the evaluation and grading methods used in group work in a higher educational setting from the student’s point of view. An exception to this deficit is Gatfield’s (1999) study, which addressed this subject and found that there were gen-erally high levels of student satisfaction with the peer as-sessment process. This study indicates that there were no differences in the levels of satisfaction with the overall peer assessment process when sex and age were used as indepen-dent variables. However, “there was a fairly significant dif-ference (t[259],p=.059) in the level of satisfaction between students with work experience and those without experience” (Gatfield, p. 369, italics added). Students with work experi-ence reported higher levels of satisfaction with group work in higher educational settings. Yet, Gatfield maintains that it is necessary to apply this study to other areas within higher education.
Although formative and summative assessments, along with the utility of peer-review topics, were recurrent themes in much of the literature, a third assessment framework emerged in the literature that involved long-term learning within the context of group work in higher education. Long-term learning has evolved to be an essential factor within assessment because assessors of group work are intrinsically involved in the preparation of students in “making complex judgments about their own work and the work of others and for making decisions in the uncertain and unpredictable cir-cumstances in which they will find themselves in the future” (Boud & Falchikov, 2006, p. 402).
Referred to as learning-oriented assessment, this is a sig-nificant deviation from the central feature of formative and summative assessment, where the instructor is the active player in the assessment process and students are the recipi-ents of such assessment. Instead, this assessment framework
purports that practices intended for long-term learning in the group work process involve students becoming major agents in the process of assessment and not simply receivers of as-sessment practices. Learning-oriented asas-sessment also helps to equip students with the competence to be an assessor of learning long after the student leaves the university (Boud & Falchikov, 2006).
Although the methods and framework of assessment in higher education within the context of group work are evolv-ing, Boud and Falchikov (2006) summarized the essence of any group work assessment approach when they write that “assessment in higher education is commonly held to con-tribute to feedback to students on their learning and the cer-tification of their achievement” (p. 399). However, a serious dilemma exists when this short-term focus is not “balanced against a longer-term emphasis for learning-oriented assess-ment to foster future learning after graduation” (Boud & Falchikov, p. 399).
Learning-oriented assessments tend to be student-centered and involve more than simply gathering and evalu-ating the end product of group work. These alternative forms of assessment within higher education include evaluations of both individual and group contributions and, in the end, focus and reflect the highly contextualized learning that takes place in an individual’s personal and professional lives. Regardless of the specific technique, one goal of assessment should be to help prepare students to learn about the nature of group work beyond the confines of the classroom and develop their skills long after they leave the university (Boud & Falchikov, 2006; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004).
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
In 2010–2011, a descriptive, embedded, single-case strategy was conducted to study the phenomenon of group work in higher education (Yin, 2003). The main unit of analysis was a part-time MBA program at a private, coeducational univer-sity on the East Coast of the United States. A typical-case, purposive sampling strategy was used for the selection of the study site and all research participants were chosen for maximum variation. This technique added significantly to the strength of the study by identifying shared themes and pat-terns that exist among student participants with noteworthy variations, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, course selection, number of years in program, use of satellite campus, dual de-gree enrollment, and grade point average (Golafshani, 2003; Hoepfl, 1997).
Study participants comprised three subgroups. The first subgroup included nine part-time students enrolled in the MBA program at the research site and served as key infor-mants (Yin, 2003). These key inforinfor-mants participated in two in-depth interviews lasting at least one hour each. The sec-ond subgroup included six MBA instructors at the study site who required semester-long group work of their part-time
students. Each MBA instructor participated in a 1-hr inter-view and also provided extensive case study documents.
The third subgroup of participants included 600 part-time MBA students. This population received a web-based survey. A total of 160 students returned a completed survey, yielding a response rate of approximately 27%. Survey respondents were shown to be representative of the general population of part-time MBA students at the study site based on gender. Of survey respondents, 48% were women and 52% were men. This is closed aligned with the population at the study site, of which 45% were women and 55% were men. A chi-square goodness-of-fit was performed to determine if the gender of survey respondents differed significantly from that of the population. It was determined that the observed chi square is not significantly different from expected,χ2(1,N)=0.364,
p>.05. Similarly, the average age of the general population
of part-time MBA students was closely aligned with survey respondents. The average age of the general population was 29 years and the majority of survey respondents were be-tween the ages of 25 and 30 years. The age distribution of survey respondents included 29.4% between the ages of 20 and 25 years; 43.8% between the ages of 26 and 30 years; 10.6% between the ages of 31 and 35 years; 6.9% between the ages of 36 and 40 years; 5.6% between the ages of 41 and 45 years; and 3.8% were age 45 years and older.
This study utilized multiple information collection strate-gies in order to understand this topic from the perspective of the learner, including open-ended and semistructured in-terviews, document collection, journaling by part-time MBA students, and a web-based survey. This information collec-tion strategy allowed for data triangulacollec-tion, one of the tech-niques used to contribute to the credibility of this study.
Case Study Credibility and Analysis Techniques
The overall credibility of this study was established by the ap-plication of three case study tactics proposed by Yin (2003). First, construct validity was established during the informa-tion collecinforma-tion and analysis phases through the use of multi-ple information sources, the establishment of a logical chain of evidence, and extensive feedback from key informants and other participants. External validity was maintained during the research design phase so that analytical generalizations may be tested by replicating this study at other universities in future studies. Finally, reliability was established during the study’s information collection phase through the use of a clearly defined case study protocol, as well as the use of thick, rich description (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Yin, 2003). Furthermore, the factual accuracy of all accounts and the precision of participants’ meaning on the topic being stud-ied support the descriptive and interpretive trustworthiness of this study (Johnson & Turner, 2003) and was established by following carefully prescribed verification procedures at every stage of the research process, including (a) triangula-tion, (b) member checking, (c) multiple-session interviews,
(d) multiple information analysis strategies, (e) the use of a critical friend, and (f) the use of rich, thick description (Costa & Kallick, 1993; Glesne, 1999; Swaffield, 2008).
This study used a multiple information analytic strategy and followed Yin’s (2003) descriptive framework method, which is useful in embedded unit analysis. First, the specific analytic technique of chronologies was employed in order to compile chronological events and apply these to the specific objective of the case study. Second, meaning condensation was also utilized as an information analysis strategy (Kvale, 1996). This technique has been shown to be an appropri-ate and valuable approach in separating study information into manageable units that identify themes and assist the researcher in deriving meaning of complex participant expe-riences (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Glesne, 1999; Kvale, 1996; Payne et al., 2006).
FINDINGS
Within the context of group work, this case study revealed a noteworthy finding regarding student perception of the peer evaluation process used in the assessment of group work on the graduate level. Information gathered through key in-formant interviews and journals demonstrated that part-time MBA students did not view the peer evaluation as a learning tool or device to understand their role in the group work pro-cess. This is because the information gleaned from this tool is used solely by the professor for the purpose of grading and is never seen by the student. Although all key informants and faculty participants reported using some kind of peer evalu-ation at the conclusion of group work, this tool was used to assist the course instructor in the grading process, not as a reflective device.
The case study revealed that graduate business courses used some type of peer evaluation at the end of group work, which included a rubric that served as a scoring tool for stu-dents to evaluate their fellow group members. Some course rubrics also included a scoring mechanism for students to evaluate their own level of contribution to the group work project. This assessment technique allows each student to as-sess their fellow group members on attendance, promptness, and preparation for group meetings. Evaluation forms also allow for a student’s opinion regarding cooperative efforts of fellow group members, the meeting of deadlines, quantity and quality of work, as well as a judgment on whether group members did their fair share of the group work. Some peer evaluation forms asked if a student would choose to work with another group member in the future.
However, students do not perceive the peer evaluation as an effective tool for learning about an individual’s role in the group work process. Overall, key informants reported being fully aware of the purpose of the peer evaluation form as it is presently used in their MBA program. They under-stand it is used as a tool for instructors to gauge individual
48 P. D. RAFFERTY
contributions to the group work assignment and acknowl-edged that course documents are clear in this intent. Students recognized that this device is their opportunity to make course instructors aware of any deficiency with a group member, as well as a tool to recognize group members who performed well. Nevertheless, they did not view the peer evaluation as a learning tool or device to understand their own role in the group work process. Students reported this as a missed opportunity in the assessment and evaluation process.
This finding is directly aligned with another major out-come of this study, in that students did not view their ex-periences in a vacuum. In fact, key informants reported the importance of viewing their group work experiences more holistically, suggesting a process that would allow them to link each group work experience to the next and build upon the experiences and skills learned from prior group work. One key informant labeled this concept as a learning portfo-lio. Research participants suggested this would be a tangible tool that would allow them to (a) understand how one group work experience relates to another, (b) gain substantive feed-back from fellow group members that is not currently made available to them through the peer evaluation process, (c) ex-pand on the feedback they receive from instructors about all aspects of group work, and (d) reflect on what they have expe-rienced and how it relates to their professional and personal lives. Students did not consider this to be a summative or individual assessment device for course instructors. Rather, it is a development tool to be used solely by students during the MBA program and beyond.
This is not a novel approach (Hoover, Giambatista, Sorenson, & Bommer, 2010; Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette, 2010); student learning portfolios are used in various dis-ciplines within higher education, such as educational ad-ministration, architecture, art, and engineering programs, as well as medical schools (Deketelaere et al., 2007; Heinrich, Bhattacharya, & Rayudu, 2007; Norton, 2004; Scott, 2010; Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette). Although recent research on management education indicates there is “relatively lit-tle systematic, empirical study of the efficacy of learning portfolios” (Scott, p. 431); literature in other disciplines has reported that the effectiveness and efficiency of student port-folios as a learning tool have been confirmed (Deketelaere et al.).
Defined as a tangible, dynamic document designed to or-ganize, chronicle, and record a student’s professional growth and achievement during a program of study, a learning port-folio includes a collection of personal thoughts and self-assessments, as well as feedback from other relevant par-ticipants in a student’s learning experience (Hoover et al., 2010; Norton, 2004; Scott, 2010). Although this process in-volves protracted student and faculty involvement, there is opportunity for self-directed learning (Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette, 2010). Scott wrote that the time is right for man-agement education to reexamine its positivist orientation and consider such a constructivist approach as a student learning
portfolio. Although time consuming (Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette).
Suggestion for the use of a student learning portfolio by key informants in this case study correlates with student feedback concerning the absence of reflection at the end of group work and their perception that the current peer evaluation process lacks utility as a means of feedback for students. For example, one student reported, “I think it’s important for self-reflection, and also peer reflection and professor reflection.” He went on to explain that, at the con-clusion of group work, students “need three levels of reflec-tion at this stage: (1) self-reflecreflec-tion by the student, (2) peer reflection—how your group members perceived you, and (3) instructor reflection—feedback from your professor.” This was a common theme among all key informants. They view this kind of tripartite assessment process at the end of group as a way to promote feelings of a positive group work outcome by allowing students to understand how one group work experience relates to another.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Within the context of assessment and evaluation of part-time MBA group work, this case study has practical implications in the areas of pedagogy, professional and organizational development, and graduate student experiences. The impli-cation in the area of pedagogy can be found in the manner in which the results of this case study demonstrate the link between MBA course instructors and their ability to maxi-mize student perceptions of a positive group work outcome. For example, this study demonstrates the limitation of the peer evaluation process in group work and the importance of providing assessment and evaluation mechanisms for stu-dents to understand how his or her growth and achievement is related to group work over time.
Second, there are implications in the area of professional and organizational development within higher education. This is evident in the manner in which the results of this study demonstrate the importance of utilizing existing insti-tutional resources and structures to train and develop admin-istrators, faculty, and staff to make more informed decisions regarding group work within the MBA classroom, as well as better respond to the needs of students. Such professional development issues surrounding group work include a better understanding of the importance of linking past, present, and future group in the assessment and evaluation process.
A third implication of this study can be found in the area of student experiences, specifically the manner in which part-time MBA students do not view their group work experiences in a vacuum. This study revealed that students prefer each group work experience be linked, building on the experi-ences and skills learned from prior group work. This would allow students to (a) understand how one group work expe-rience relates to another, (b) gain substantive feedback from
fellow group members that is not currently made available to them, (c) expand on the feedback they receive from in-structors about all aspects of group work, and (d) reflect on what they have experienced and how it relates to their pro-fessional and personal lives. This could take the form of a learning portfolio, which is compiled over the tenure of a student’s graduate program. The learning portfolio reflects more than just academic learning and considers the whole student, including diverse past, present, and future learning experiences (Hoover et al., 2010). Students did not consider this to be a summative or individual assessment device for course instructors. Rather, it is a tool to be used solely by stu-dents as a learning instrument during their graduate program and beyond.
The ability of students to reflect on their experiences as a way to increase learning is a consistent theme within the literature on group work in general, as well as group work among graduate business students in particular (De-splaces, Congden, & Boothie, 2007; Isabella, 2005; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2007). For example, Isabella expanded on this concept by explaining an approach taken at the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia. In the same way, Tonn and Milledge (2002) explained how the College of Management at the University of Massachusetts addresses this issue by embedding a course within the MBA curriculum that addresses group work performance and reflection among this population.
Finally, the learning portfolio concept suggested by key informants offers a unique student insight and enhances what we already know from recent literature. For example, Boud and Falchikov (2006) wrote in detail on this topic. Referred to as learning-oriented assessment, they described a significant deviation from the central feature of formative and summa-tive assessment, where the instructor is the acsumma-tive player in the assessment process and students are the recipients of such as-sessment. Instead, this assessment and evaluation technique encourages long-term learning within the context of group work and permits students to become active agents in the process of assessment and not simply receivers of assess-ment practices. Learning-oriented assessassess-ment also endows students with the competency to be an assessor of learning long after the student leaves the graduate classroom (Boud & Falchikov).
REFERENCES
Ashraf, M. (2004). A critical look at the use of group projects as a pedagog-ical tool.Journal of Education for Business,79, 213–216.
Bacon, D. (2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning.
Journal of Management Education,29, 248–267.
Baker, D. (2008). Peer assessment in small groups: A comparison of meth-ods.Journal of Management Education,32, 183–209.
Bastick, T. (1999, April).Reliable and valid measurement of individual’s contributions to group work. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Irvine, California.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007).Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Person Education.
Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A just-in-time approach to learning.Journal of Management Education,23, 233–2500.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 399– 413.
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M. L., Toy, D., & Wright, L. K. (2010). Are student groups dysfunctional? Perspectives from both sides of the classroom.
Journal of Marketing Education,32, 39–49.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of oral and written tasks of a group project.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,24, 301–314.
Colliver, J. A., Feltovich, P. J., & Verhulst, S. J. (2003). Small group learn-ing in medicine education: A second look at the Sprlearn-inger, Stanne, and Donovan meta-analysis.Teaching and Learning in Medicine,15, 2–5. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend.
Educational Leadership,51(2), 49–51.
Deketelaere, A., Kelchtermans, G., Druine, N., Vandermeersch, E., Struyf, E., & DeLeyn, P. (2007). Making more of it! Medical student’s motives for voluntarily keeping an extended portfolio.Medical Teacher,29, 798–805. Delucchi, M. (2006). The efficacy of collaborative learning groups in an
undergraduate statistics course.College Teaching,54, 244–248. Desplaces, D. E., Congden, S. W., & Boothie, P. (2007). The group creativity
exercise: Getting MBAs to work and think effectively in groups.Teaching & Learning,4, 69–85.
Dommeyer, C. J. (2007). Using the diary method to deal with social loafers on the group project: Its effects on peer evaluations, group behavior, and attitudes.Journal of Marketing Education,29, 175–188.
Drake, R., Goldsmith, G., & Strachan, R. (2006). A novel approach to teaching teamwork.Teaching in Higher Education,1, 33–46.
Dyrud, M. A. (2001). Group projects and peer review.Business Communi-cation Quarterly,64, 106–112.
Edwards, A. L. (2010). Applying learning organizations to the classroom.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,14(4), 1–20.
Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 365–377.
Gillies, R. M. (2000). The maintenance of cooperative and helping behaviors in cooperative groups.British Journal of Educational Psychology,70, 97–111.
Glesne, C. (1999).Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.The Qualitative Report,8, 597–607.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning—Tensions and synergies.The Curriculum Journal,16, 207– 223.
Heinrich, E., Bhattacharya, M., & Rayudu, R. (2007). Preparation for life-long learning using e-portfolios.European Journal of Engineering Edu-cation,32, 653–663.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technol-ogy education researchers.Journal of Technology Education,9, 47–63. Hoover, J. D., Giambatista, R. C., Sorenson, R. L., & Bommer, W. H. (2010).
Assessing the effectiveness of whole person learning pedagogy in skill acquisition.Academy of Management Learning & Education,9, 192–203. Hughes, R. L., & Jones, S. K. (2011). Developing and assessing college student teamwork skills.New Directions for Institutional Research,149, 53–64.
Isabella, L. A. (2005). Using existing teams to teach about teams: How an MBA course in managing teams helps students and the program.Journal of Management Education,29, 427–452.
Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),Handbook of
50 P. D. RAFFERTY
mixed methods in social and behavioral research(pp. 297–319). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Cooperative learning: Two heads learn better than one.In Context,18, 34–39.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2007). The state of coop-erative learning in postsecondary and professional settings.Educational Psychology Review,19, 15–29.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993). The discipline of teams.Harvard Busi-ness Review,71, 111–120.
Kvale, S. (1996).InterViews: As introduction to qualitative research inter-viewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assess-ment & Evaluation in Higher Education,26, 61–72.
Lightner, S., Bober, M. J., & Willi, C. (2007). Team-based activities to promote engaged learning.College Teaching,55, 5–18.
Lo, C. C., & Prohaska, A. (2011). Creating an environment conducive to active and collaborative learning: Redesigning Introduction to Sociology at a large research university.Journal of Excellence in College Teaching,
21, 75–98.
May, G. L. (2008). The effect of rater training on reducing style bias in peer evaluation.Business Communication Quarterly,71, 297–313.
McCloskey, D. (2004). Adding realism to the formation, management, and evaluation of project teams.Journal of Information Systems Education,
15, 9–11.
Michaelsen, L. K., & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning teams: The key to harnessing the power of small groups in higher education. In S. Kadel & J. Keehner (Eds.),Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education(pp. 65–81). State College, PA: National Center for Teaching Learning and Assessment.
Murray, M. H., & Lonne, B. (2006). An innovative use of the web to build graduate team skills.Teaching in Higher Education,1(11), 63–77. Norman, C. S., Rose, A. M., & Lehmann, C. M. (2004). Cooperative
learn-ing: Resources from the business disciplines.Journal of Accounting Ed-ucation,22, 1–28.
Norton, M. S. (2004). Student learning portfolios: How they are being im-plemented in educational administration preparation programs.Planning and Changing,35, 223–245.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004).Curriculum: Foundations, princi-ples, and issues. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Payne, B. K., Monk-Turner, E., Smith, D., & Sumter, M. (2006). Improving group work: Voices of students.Education,126, 441–448.
Scott, S. G. (2010). Enhancing reflection skills through learning portfolios: An empirical test.Journal of Management Education,34, 430–457. Sharp, S. (2006). Deriving individual student marks from a tutor’s
assess-ment of group work.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,31, 329–343.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Edu-cational Leadership,46, 31–33.
Snyder, L. G. (2009). Teaching teams about teamwork: Preparation, practice, and performance review.Business Communication Quarterly,72, 74–79. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.Review of Educational Research,69, 21–51. Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dunnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback con-tent and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?Learning and Instruction,20, 291–303.
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2002). Overcoming limitations of cooperative learning among community college students.Community College Journal of Research and Practice,26, 315–331.
Summers, J. J., Beretvas, S. N., Svinicki, M. D., & Gorin, J. S. (2005). Evalu-ating collaborative learning and community.The Journal of Experimental Education,73, 165–188.
Swaffield, S. (2008). Critical friendship, dialogue and learning, in the context of Leadership for Learning.School Leadership and Management,28, 323–336.
Thomchick, E. (1997). The use of collaborative learning in logistics classes.
Journal of Business Logistics,18, 191–205.
Tompkins, M., & Paquette-Frenette, D. (2010). Learning portfolio models in health regulatory colleges of Ontario, Canada.Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions,30, 57–64.
Tonn, J. C., & Milledge, V. (2002). Team building in an MBA “gateway” course: Lessons learned.Journal of Management Education,26, 415–428. Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
25, 43–55.
Waters-Hasler, L., & Napier, W. (2002). Building and supporting student team collaboration in the virtual classroom.The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,3, 345–352.
Yamane, D. (1996). Collaboration and its discontents: Steps toward over-coming to successful group projects.Teaching Sociology,24, 378–383. Yin, R. K. (2003).Case study research design methods(3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
