Group Formation Website - Literature review Example

Introduction Today’s digital technologies and increased access to computers and Internet have a great influence upon high education, so electronic teaching and learning (e-learning) is rapidly becoming its significant features. Ferris and Godar argue that one of the important pedagogy approaches is collaborative learning that is understood as an instruction method in which students work together in small groups for the purpose of achieving an academic goal (vii). Davis also emphasises that active learning occurring in small groups is the best method of learning. She says that students working in small groups tend to learn more and demonstrate better retention, they are more motivated and satisfied with classes, and what’s also important – group work “prepares students for life after school” (190). Ferris and Godar assert that collaborative learning is particularly effective in teaching and learning with virtual teams or small groups, which “avail themselves of an array of computer, digital and telecommunication technologies” (viii). Some researches give the evidence that a composition of a group has a considerable impact on the group effectiveness and performance, namely on satisfaction and motivation, creativity, conflict occurring, problem-solving competency, group cohesion and communication (Higgs, Plewnia and Ploch 228). Ferris and Godar argue that in well formed study groups the students are responsible for one another’s learning as well as their own, so “the success of one student helps other students to be successful” (vii). Thus, it becomes clear that virtual study groups’ forming methods that ensure certain composition of groups can influence noticeably upon the future success or failure of these groups. In this chapter we represent a review of academic and professional literature in order to summarise findings and thoughts, which can help to understand the influence of group composition on its performance and to build a comprehensive theoretical base for the practical purpose of forming effective virtual study groups of first year students via Internet. 1. Defining and understanding groups.  Groups are extremely important for any of us; working in groups was an essential part of human life from its very beginning. In the article Groups that Work Blair considers two separate issues are always involved when people work in groups: the task (or the problem involved in getting the job done) and the process (the mechanism by which the group acts as a unit). So, he argues that a group of people working in the same room or on a common project does not necessarily represent a group work, especially if it is managed in a totally autocratic manner and people have not an opportunity for interaction relating to their work. At the same time, group can successfully work when members of the group are at the distance from each other, as it happens in virtual groups. In other words “the group process leads to a spirit of cooperation, coordination and commonly understood procedures and mores” (Blair). From the individuals point of view, there is the added incentive that groups provide “an environment where the individual’s self-perceived level of responsibility and authority is enhanced, in an environment where accountability is shared: thus providing a perfect motivator through enhanced self-esteem coupled with low stress” (Blair). Thus, through belonging to a group each member can participate in achievements well beyond her own individual potential. Brown provides another comprehensive definition of group work. He asserts that “groupwork provides a context in which individuals help each other; it is a method of helping groups as well as helping individuals; and it can enable individuals and groups to influence  and change personal, group, organisational and community problems” (8). Arrow et al. suggest the following definition of a group: “A group is a complex, adaptive, dynamic, coordinated, and bounded set of patterned relations among members, tasks, and tools” (34). They have summarised existing research and theory about groups in the following set of group characterisations (Arrow et al. 24): Groups serve more than one purpose or function. Besides the fulfilling their main task, groups do influence members’ attitudes, values and behaviours; they do pattern member interactions; they aid individual learning and personal development; they process information, manage conflict, attain consensus, motivate, regulate and coordinate member activities. A group is more than just a collection of individuals, all of what a group is doing has important consequences for how it behaves and what its members gain from group activities. So, members, tasks, and tools are interconnected in complex patterns. In addition, boundaries of a group are not impenetrable; a group is never completely isolated or closed, it engages in interconnection with a number of contexts in which it is embedded – communities, organisations, physical and cultural environment. Groups develop and change over time; they learn from experience and modify their patterned sequences of activity constantly. They also change as they interact with and adapt to changing conditions in the various embedding contexts. It is also necessary to explore what are the differences between a group and a team. Most definitions of teamwork classify a team as a special type of group or as structured groups of people working on defined common goals that require coordinated interactions to accomplish certain tasks. (Levi 4). As Levi notices, to some theorists, the distinction between groups and teams is fuzzy; teams are simply groups in work settings; other theorists focus on how the behaviour of teams differs from that of typical groups (4). Katzenbach and Smith focus on performance in their definition of team: “A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable” (45). In organisational management theory such distinction between team and group does matter, teams in organisations typically are engaged in specific activities, they usually are part of larger organisations, and their members should have specific knowledge and skills related to their tasks (Levi 4). But, in theory of collaborative learning there is not such exact difference. In our research we accept a suggestion of Ferris and Godar about using the terms “teams” and “groups” interchangeably, as is the convention in much of the pedagogical literature on collaborative learning (viii). It is especially equitable, taking into account small groups and their characteristics and dynamics. Cragan et al. define a small group as “a few people engaged in communication pattern for meeting their goals in an interdependent manner” (9). They reveal nine characteristics of a small group (see table 1). Table 1. Nine Characteristics of a Small Group. Directly observable Indirectly observable 1. Communication. Groups engage in purposeful, goal-directed, verbal and nonverbal talk. 1. Interdependence. Groups trust that each member will do his/her part of an interlocking task. 2. Space. Groups are territorial about both their physical and virtual environments. 2. Norms. Group share values, beliefs, procedures, and a symbolic identity. 3. Time. Groups vary in how long it takes them to become a true group and how they manage their time. 3. Structural Patterns of Talk. Groups engage in 4 goal-directed patterns of talk: Problem Solving, Role Playing, Relational / Trust Building, and Team Building. 4. Size. The minimum size is 3; the ideal size is 5-7; and the maximum size is 13. 4. Goals. Group communication is goal-directed toward solving a problem and is measured in terms of productivity, quality of work, member satisfaction, and consensus. 5. Perceived Shared Identitiy. The group perceieves a common, symbolic identity among its members, as contrasted with nonmembers. Source: Cragan, John F., David W. Wright, and Chris R. Kasch. Communication in Small Groups: Theory, Process, Skills. Boston, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009: 10. Print. A special attention should be paid to the role of time and space when working in virtual teams. Harnessing the power of computer-mediated communication, work groups can store and share documents so that group members can work on the same problem at different time. It helps people working across time and space to become an effective group without even meeting face-to-face (Cragan et al. 12). Listed above characteristics are very useful for understanding of a small group dynamics, which can be considered as hidden forces that operate within a group and influence group behaviour. Such forces can include: group roles, technologies, culture, personality styles, leadership, procedures and methodologies, etc. (Levi 16). Particular characteristics of a virtual study group create a specific context that determines a group dynamics distinctive from dynamics of other small groups. For example, student culture, which is generally characterised by preference for working alone, procrastination, disregard for process, combativeness, absence of passion (Waite et al. 13), will influence differently groups that adhere to different norms and use different communications. It is important to keep in mind, that the dynamics of a small group is highly depends on whether a group is formal or informal. Pennington gives the following definitions: “Formal groups are created by an organisation to help achieve its collective purpose or mission. Formal groups are set organisational tasks and are held responsible for their achievements. Informal groups are collections of individuals who have a common interest and develop interdependencies, influence each other’s behaviours and contribute to mutual need satisfaction” (5). Examples of formal groups are working groups, task-forced groups or study groups in universities; while informal groups could be represented by such examples as leisure groups, self-help groups or common interest groups. It should be noted that both formal and informal groups may be virtual ones. Pennington asserts that people usually have more choice about joining informal groups compared to formal and work-related groups. However, with some kinds of self-help groups it may be that others are making the choice for a person, or others can advise a person what group he or she would better to join according to the person’s needs and psychological characteristics (9). Thus, we’ve generally defined what a small group is and what characteristics are the most important in relation to a virtual study group. Aimed to forming effective virtual study groups we will examine now the fundamental aspects influencing a group’s effectiveness, namely: roles in groups and group composition. 2. Roles in groups and group composition. Riding and Rayner assert that the “innate characteristics of teams and their members” are central in relation to the effectiveness of group (102). At the moment, there are a number of models of team behaviour connected to members’ roles. At first, we will view the popular team roles model made by Meredith Belbin in relation to management teams. This model is well proofed both during the research and in a long 30-year managerial practice after its introduction in 1981. Besides, it is equiped by a self-perception inventory as well as personality questionnaire and equations to derive team roles, so it can help us to develop our own methods to form virtual study groups for students. In 1981 after a nine-year study of team effectiveness Belbin introduced 8-role model where “a team role was defined as a pattern of behaviour characteristics of the way in which one team member interacts with another in order to facilitate the progress of the team as a whole” (Aritzeta et al. 8). Belbin lists the labels and the principal concerns and characteristics of the eight roles as follows (90): 1. Implementer (IM) - concerned with the practical translation and application of concepts and plans developed by the team. This entails a down-to-earth outlook, coupled with perseverance in the face of difficulties. 2. Coordinator (CO) - organises, coordinates and controls the activities of the team. This involves the clarification of team objectives and problems, assigning tasks and responsibilities, and encouraging team members to get involved in achieving objectives and goals. 3. Shaper (SH) - challenges, argues and disagrees. Is achievementmotivated, extrovert, impatient, and has a low frustration threshold. Keen on winning the game. Has good insight, especially if loses. A nonchair leader. 4. Plant (PL) - concerned with putting forward ideas and strategies for achieving the objectives adopted by the team. Performance of this role requires creativity, imagination and innovation. 5. Resource Investigator (RI) - explores the environment outside the team, by identifying ideas, information and resources. Performance of this role involves developing contacts, co-ordination and negotiation with other teams and individuals. 6. Monitor Evaluator (ME) - analyses ideas and proposals being considered by the team, to evaluate their feasibility and value for achieving the teams objectives. Points out in a constructive manner the weaknesses of proposals being considered. 7. Team Worker (TW) - creates and maintains a team spirit. This involves improving communication by providing personal support and warmth to team members and by overcoming tension and conflict. 8. Completer/Finisher (CF) - ensures that the teams efforts achieve appropriate standards, and that mistakes of both commissions and omissions are avoided. It also involves searching for detailed mistakes and maintaining a sense of urgency within the team. In 1993 a ninth role - Specialists (SP) (as a result of recognising that technical expertise is necessary for the performance of some tasks) was added in the model. The current Belbin’s model is represented in the Appendix A. It is well operationalised through a Team Role Self Perception Inventory (TRSPI) and through an Observer Assessment Sheet (OAS). Details of the scoring procedures for these instruments are represented in the Appendix B. The main idea behind the Belbin’s model is in that high performing teams need to have a balanced representation of all team roles. The team role balance hypothesis assumes that if all team roles are present in a team then it will perform better than other teams without the balance (Aritzeta et al. 9). According to Belbin the degree of balance in a team depends on the extent all nine roles are represented “naturally” (Chong 204). If an individual scores 70 or above in a particular role in the TRSPI, the role is identified as “natural” for the individual. If score is between 30 and 69, the role is identified as “secondary”. So, Belbin considers a group well-balanced if it comprises individuals with all nine “natural” roles. It is also important to note that a team member can have more than one “natural”’ role, and it is not necessary roles should relate to nine different individuals – some members of a group can play more than one “natural” roles. Aritzeta et al describe one more method of assessing team roles, widely used by other researchers and psychologists - personality questionnaires, such as the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) (9). In addition, Chong mentions the Big 5 and Learning Style Questionnaire (203). Nevertheless, Belbin’s ideas have been widely used by many organisations and management consultancies, as well as many researchers who continued the role theory studies. It seems useful to view the Balbin’s roles from different perspectives to understand better how they are composed and balanced in a group, as well as how a group composition can influence on its performance. For example, taking into account the Jungian concepts of “introvert” and “extrovert” (Progoff 98; Mattoon 21) we can conditionally make the following classification (see table 2). Table 2. The Belbin’s roles in relation to “extrovert” and “introvert” psychotypes. Extrovert – outwardly-oriented Introvert – inwardly-oriented Coordinator (CO), Plant (PL), Resource Investigator (RI), Shaper (SH) Team Worker (TW), Monitor Evaluator (ME), Implementer (IM), Completer / Finisher (CF), Specialists (SP) Another classification can be done from the perspective of role’s strength. At first, we can see from the roles’ descriptions that there are at least three areas where roles are oriented (it is so called behavioural focus) – ideas, tasks and people (Higgs et al. 234). So, we can classify roles as follows (see table 3). Table 3. The Belbin’s roles according to behavioural focus. Tasks Oriented Roles People Oriented Roles Ideas Oriented Roles Shaper (SH), Completer / Finisher (CF), Implementer (IM) Coordinator (CO), Team Worker (TW), Resource Investigator (RI) Plant (PL), Monitor Evaluator (ME), Specialists (SP) Riding and Rayner suggest to take into consideration one more aspect – leadership; they present the four-factor model of team orientation, where orientation refers to an individual predisposition to the task (idea implementation), leading the team, maintaining relationships, and idea generation (see table 4) (126). Table 4. A four-factor model of team orientation. Leadership Creative / Idea Relationship Task Coordinator (CO), Shaper (SH) Plant (PL) Resource Investigator (RI), Team Worker (TW) Monitor Evaluator (ME), Specialists (SP), Completer / Finisher (CF), Implementer (IM) Source: Riding, R. J. and Stephen Rayner. Self Perception: International Perspectives on Individual Differences, vol.2. Santa Barbara, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001. Print. Table 5.5. As for the effective group composition interesting findings are presented by Higgs at el., which investigated the influence of team composition on team performance. Their comprehensive literature review gives a cogent argument that a team composition do influence on the following group characteristics (228-232): Satisfaction and motivation - higher levels of a team diversity lead to higher satisfaction and motivation and thereby to higher quality team output; diversity provides an environment which encourages every individual to contribute, provides higher satisfaction and then, later in the process, higher motivation. Creativity - heterogeneous groups tendentiously develop higher quality ideas, possibly because the diverse teams have wider ranges of skills, abilities, and experiences. However, a more determining factor of creativity is interactions between members. Conflict - diverse teams have inherently a higher conflict potential than homogeneous teams. This could lead to stress, dissatisfaction, de-motivation, and subsequently worse performances. But cognitive conflict is essential to effective team performance. Thus, the issue is more concerned with minimising affective conflict. Problem-solving competency - diversity of team membership results in a wider range of approaches to problem solving being adopted due to the variety of problem-solving styles within the team and higher levels of group creativity in finding solutions. Group cohesion - diversity increases the tolerance within the team and, therefore, raises the level of acceptance with the team of different views. It becomes easier for the group to agree on common goals and a process of how to achieve these goals. Communication - teams with higher levels of diversity tend to have greater difficulty to agree on a common set of objectives; different levels of knowledge and understanding of the commonly used language within the team can lead to misunderstandings. Thus, in general the team literature is positive in terms of the benefits of heterogeneous teamwork; although a number of potential disadvantages are evident (e.g. more conflicts, reduced group cohesion, higher risk of communication problems) (Higgs et al. 232). Groups like people are unique with their own features and experiences; however researchers in the area of group dynamics have recognised that a general process of group development is rather predictable. In the next section we’ll investigate models of group development; it will help us to understand the behaviour of groups at the different stages of development and, in particular, what should be provided at the very first, initial stage. 3. Stages of group development. Making a brief review of traditional models of group development, Gersick points out that there are two main streams of group development researches (10). The first stream deals with group dynamics, researchers of this stream primarily explored development as the progress in terms of the achievement of personal and interpersonal goals like insight, learning, or honest communication. The second stream concerns group problem solving or decision development; studies have focused on discovering the sequence of activities through which groups reach solutions. Though the streams differ in particulars, models from both of them have important similarities – they are deeply grounded in the idea of “group development as an inevitable progression: a group can not get to stage four without first going through stages one, two, and three” (Gersick 11). So, the most of researchers view group development as movement in a forward direction and expect every group to follow the same historical path. It’s important that in this paradigm, “an environment may constrain system’s ability to develop, but it cannot alter the developmental stages or their sequence” (Gersick 11). The most famous model for group behaviour analysis, which is still frequently cited, was contrived by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. It focuses on the development of the internal relations among the team members. The Tuckman’s model is named from 4 stages that were presented in the initial model – Forming Storming Norming Performing Model (see figure 1). Figure 1. Tuckman’s team development model. Source: Businessballs.com. Levi describes the stages as follows (41): Stage 1 – Forming. During this stage, group members get to know each other and learn how to operate as a group; they tend to be polite and tentative with each other as well as compliant toward the leader. They also can feel uncomfortable and constrained because they do not understand the need of the group, confused about their roles, are not familiar with the rest of the members. They are uncertain about how to act, and they need to spend time planning how to do their tasks. So, common emotions felt by group members at this stage are anxiety, isolation, inadequacy and frustration. Each group member tries to create a comfort zone and doesn’t wish to dispute with others, so oppressive behaviour is least likely during the Forming stage. Stage 2 – Storming. Group members start to express their ideas; conflicts between members can often occur. The group members disagree about requirements, they start to realise difficulties and become polarized into subgroups. Members experience personal, intra- and inter- group conflicts. The potential for oppressive behaviour is strong during the Storming stage as group members vie for preferred roles and release frustrations built within the Forming stage. However, the conflict is important because it reveals different perspectives and leads to a deeper understanding of the members’ positions. Often a conflict resolution leads to increased group cohesion. Stage 3 – Norming. The group begins to work more constructively and organises itself for work, it becomes more cohesive. Agreement and consensus largely form, conflicts are reduced, and group confidence improves. Roles and responsibilities are clear and accepted by group members, commitment and unity are strong. The group uses the established rules, norms, tools and methods, develops processes and working style. Members exhibit good behaviour, mutual trust; they are motivated to work together. Open communications increase. Although differences still arise from time to time, they are handled through constructive discussion and negotiation. The Storming and Norming stages are linked, as the group norms often become set through challenging and storming. Stage 4 – Performing. The group has matured and knows how to operate; it performs effectively with defined roles. Finally decisions are positively challenged or reinforced by the group as a whole, so the group focuses on performance through collective decision making and cooperation. Group members demonstrate high levels of loyalty, participation and motivation. Personal growth and knowledge sharing are encouraged among members. This is the best stage for the group to fulfil tasks successfully. Around 1975 Tuckman refined his theory and added a fifth stage – Adjourning. Stage 5 - Adjorning (or Mourning, or Deforming). The final stage is a dissolution stage; it is the group termination, when the task of the group is completed. It can be both the planned end, and the end because of failure to accomplish goals or because of problems that make further group work impossible. This stage can be rather stressful for group members because it means the end of social relations, which they have developed. In relation to leadership style, the Tuckman’s model explains that as the team develops maturity, the leader has to be changing a leadership style. If at the Forming stage the leader demonstrates a directing style, then moving through coaching and participating, she should finish with delegating style. At this stage the team may produce a new leader. Thus, each stage of Tuckman’s model is an essential step for a team and if the first step is not accomplished appropriately, the latter stages will not be successful (Johnson et al. 381). One could see that in the Tuckman’s model of team development there is a considerable difference between the first Forming stage and the others - Storming, Norming, and Performing - stages. The difference is that during the Forming stage the group is not cohesive yet, and members mostly focus on their own objectives, while in the later stages there is some commitment to the shared goals. Therefore the Forming stage is extremely important for all subsequent life path of the group in terms of a rapid group unity and integration. Thus, we are faced with a dilemma – on the one hand, as we saw in the section 2, a group should be more heterogeneous to be effective; on the other hand, it should not be too diverse to unite more strongly and faster. Another important finding we can keep in mind that affective influences are of great importance in group forming and development, and emotions tend to be shared among group members. Kelly and Sigal argue that individual-level moods and emotions, emotion sharing processes, and group affective composition may all be modified by the emotion norms that govern emotional expression in various group contexts (114). Thus, from the very first stages of a group its members should be acquainted with the behaviour and emotional norms. 4. Learning in virtual teams.  Probably the most important characteristic of a virtual team is that the members cannot always meet face-to-face; they communicate via computer-mediated communication channels, using a number of digital information technologies such as web-sites, e-mail, chat systems, instant messaging. Godar and Ferris assert that when operating in virtual teams individuals’ behavioural and psychological communication characteristics are the same as their conventional face-to-face counteparts (41). Like with face-to-face teams, virtual team members can express themselves and communicate with each other, moreover group interaction styles have the same effect on performance outcomes. However, Warkentin et al. argue that virtual teams are not able to duplicate the normal face-to face discussion, e.g. group members who type slowly or edit more thoroughly may find their comments are no longer relevant, or the conversation may appear to lack focus because multiple group members are “talking” at once. For asynchronous tools, such as web-forum or wiki, considerable delays typically occur between the time a message is sent and the time a reply is received. There are many other evidences that virtual teams communicate less effectively than face-to-face groups (978). Johnson et al. define virtual teams as “groups of individuals who interact through various communication technologies to accomplish its common goals” (380). They argue that virtual learning teams are being used in education as an attempt to enhance collaboration and cooperative learning experiences. Collaborating from a distance in their individual social network, virtual teams are uniquely dependent on team interaction and individual acceptance. Exploring dynamics of virtual learning teams Johnson et al. revealed that the Tuckman’s concept of stages are relevant to virtual learning teams “as it was evident that team performance was dependent on how well the teams were able to establish procedures, resolve conflicts, and collaborate to bring about a successful task” (390). However there are some specific problems in the virtual teams, which are generally caused by the following factors: a lack of willingness to participate, a lack of planning, conflicting schedules, or individual disagreements. Most of them are probably connected with social interaction issues, such as lack of non-verbal cues. This important finding evidently refers to a necessity of face-to-face meetings and better communications, as well as to the appropriate group leadership. Hausstatter and Nordkvelle emphasise the following challenges, which should be also taken into account when planning virtual learning programmes (110): Some students are negative that they had to work in virtual study groups. Time and place represent important factors determining the opportunities students have to complete group work. A great deal of the frustration about group work is caused by student difficulties in using precisely digital software and communication tools. Some students argued for a different form of organisation for group work than the one chosen by the programme. Thus, one could conclude that virtual group work encounters challenges that are different compared with traditional teaching. For the most part, the challenges are connected with the distance between the students and communication tools and software they use. Conclusion and recommendations Aimed to form effective virtual study groups of first year students, we reviewed some research findings and theoretical thoughts concerning the influence of group composition on its performance, group development stages, as well as specific features of learning in virtual small groups. We suppose that to form an effective group it is necessary to try composing it from individuals able to play different group roles. To provide a well-balanced group composition it makes sense to take an advantage of existing methods and tools of psychometrics, although they can be simplified and abridged. A specific dynamics of virtual groups should be taken into account. In addition to main findings about group composition, recommendations of Michaelson concerning grouping members of mixed talents and temperaments and balancing teams would be useful (2-4): Distribute different majors or specialisations among teams. Distribute people from different geographic locations among teams. Distribute people of different genders or ethnic background among teams. Try to avoid one woman or one minority on a team. That person may feel isolated or may be inadverdently shut out by other team members. Do a mini survey on learning styles or temperaments and distribute people of different learning styles on one team. According to Johnson et al. several strategies should be considered as important to improve virtual learning group development and processing (391): 1. Select appropriate virtual learning team tasks. There should be a clear objective and benefit established for using group assigned tasks, especially in a virtual environment. 2. Provide team building and collaboration training. Virtual team members need more time in the beginning to coordinate their first task, so establishing relationships and protocols in their initial meeting is critical. Instructional material on team effectiveness, formation, planning, as well as emotional and behavioural norms should be included early in online programs. The majority of good teams do not occur out of happenstance—they are developed. 3. Develop project timelines that match the team development model. Project timelines that are established by the instructor should be reasonable and allow enough time for students to adjust themselves to work in a virtual environment. 4. Provide reliable technical support, acknowledge member feedback and act upon it as rapidly as possible. An important factor to consider when creating effective virtual teams is the psychological profile and personality characteristics of the specific group members. In order to be successful in a virtual environment, an individual must possess patience and persistence, along with a certain degree of tolerance, flexibility, and understanding (Warkentin et al. 989). Works cited Aritzeta, Aitor, Stephen Swailes and Barbara Senior. “Team Roles: psychometric evidence, construct validity and team building”. Centre for Management and Organisational Learning, Business School, University of Hull, 2005. Web. 07 April 2010. Arrow, Holly, Joseph Edward McGrath, and Jennifer L. Berdahl. Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation. London: Sage Publications, 2000. Print. Belbin, R.M Meredith. Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann: 1993. Print. Belbin, R. Meredith. “A Reply to the Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory by Furnham, Steele and Pendleton”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66 (1993): 259−260. Print. Blair, Gerard M. “Groups that Work”. The School of Engineering, The University of Edinburgh. Web. 07 April 2010. Brown, Allan G. Groupwork, 3rd Edition. Great Yarmouth: Ashgate Publishing, 1994. Print. Chong, Eric. “Role balance and team development: A study of team role characteristics underlying high and low performing teams”. Journal of Behavioural and Applied Management, 8. 3 (2007): 202-218. Web. 07 April 2010. Cragan, John F., David W. Wright, and Chris R. Kasch. Communication in Small Groups: Theory, Process, Skills. Boston, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Davis, Barbara Gross. Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Wiley, 2009. Print. Ferris, Sharmila Pixy, and Susan Hayes Godar. Teaching and Learning with Virtual Teams. London: Information Science Publishing, 2006. Print.    Gersick, Connie J.G. “Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development”. Academy of Management Journal, 31. 1 (1988): 9-41. Print. Godar, Susan Hayes and Sharmila Pixy Ferris. Virtual and Collaborative Teams: Process, Technologies, and Practice. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing, 2004. Print. Hausstatter, Rune Sarromaa, and Yngve Troye Nordkvelle. Perspectives on Group Work in Distance Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8.1 (2007): 105-113. Web. 07 April 2010. Higgs, Malcolm, Ulrich Plewnia, and Jorg Ploch. “Influence of team composition and task complexity on team performance”. Team Performance Management, 11. 7/8 (2005): 227-250. Print. Johnson, Scott D., Chanidprapa Suriya, Seung Won Yoon, Jared V. Berrett, and Jason La Fleur. “Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams.” Computers & Education, 39 (2002): 379–393. Print. Katzenbach, Jon R. and Douglas K. Smith. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 1993. Print. Kelly, Janice R. and Sigal G. Barsade. “Mood and Emotions in Small Groups and Work Teams.” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 86. 1 (2001): 99–130. Print. Levi, Daniel. Group dynamics for teams. London: Sage Publications, 2001. Print. Mattoon, Mary Ann. Jung and the human psyche: an understandable introduction. Hove: Routledge, 2005. Print. Michaelsen, Larry K. “Myths and Methods in Successful Small Group Work”. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 8. 6 (1999): 1-5. Print. Pennington, Donald C. The Social Psychology of Behaviour in Small Groups. Hove: Psychology Press Ltd, 2002. Print. Progoff, Ira. Jungs Psychology and Its Social Meaning. London: Routledge, 1953.Print. Riding, R. J. and Stephen Rayner. Self Perception: International Perspectives on Individual Differences, vol.2. Santa Barbara, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001. Print. Waite, William M., Michele H. Jackson, Amer Diwan and Paul M. Leonardi. “Student Culture vs Group Work in Computer Science”. SIGCSE Bulletin 36.1, (March 2004): 12-16. Print. Warkentin, Merrill E., Lutfus Sayedd, and Ross Hightower. “Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System”. Decision Sciences, 28.4 (1997): 975-996. Print. Appendix A. Team Role Descriptors, Strenghts and Allowed Weaknesses. Role Descriptors Strenghts Allowed Weaknesses Completer / Finisher (CF) Anxious, consentious, introvert, self-controlled, self-disciplined, submissive and worrisome. Painstaking, conscientious, searches out errors and omissions, delivers on time. Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to delegate. Implementer (IMP) Conservative, controlled, disciplined, efficient, inflexible, methodical, sincere, stable and systematic. Disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient, turns ideas into practical actions. Somewhat inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities. Team Worker (TW) Extrovert, likeable, loyal, stable, submissive, supportive, unassertive, and uncompetitive. Co-operative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic, listens, builds, averts friction, and calms the waters. Indecisive in crunch situations. Specialist (SP) Expert, defendant, not interested in others, serious, self-disciplined, efficient. Single-minded, self-starting dedicated; provides knowledge and skills in rare supply. Contributes on a narrow front only. Dwells on technicalities. Monitor Evaluator (ME) Dependable, fair-minded, introvert, low drive, open to change, serious, stable and unambitious. Sober, strategic and discerning, sees all options, judges accurately. Lacks drive and ability to inspire others. Coordinator (CO) Dominant, trusting, extrovert, mature, positive, self-controlled, self-disciplined and stable. Mature, confident, a good chairperson, clarifies goals, promotes decision making, delegates well. Can be seen as manipulative. Offloads personal work. Plant (PL) Dominant, imaginative, introvert, original, radical-minded, trustful and uninhibited. Creative, unorthodox, solves difficult problems. Too preoccupied to communicate effectively. Shaper (SH) Abrasive, anxious, arrogant, competitive, dominant, emotional, extrovert, impatient, impulsive, outgoing and self-confident. Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure, has drive and courage to overcome obstacles. Prone to provocation. Offends people’s feelings. Resource Investigator (RI) Diplomatic, dominant, enthusiastic, extrovert, flexible, inquisitive, optimistic, persuasive, positive, relaxed, social and stable. Extrovert, communicative, explores opportunities, develops contacts. Over-optimistic, loses interest after initial enthusiasm. Source: Belbin, Meredith. “A Reply to the Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory by Furnham, Steele and Pendleton”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 1993: 259−260. Print. Appendix B. Details of TRSPI-9R and OAS Scoring. The Team Role Self Perception Inventory (TRSPI) contains seven sections each containing ten statements (items) (see table B1). Each section contains one item per team role plus one item to measure social desirability. Items in one section are independent of items in other sections. Respondents are asked to distribute ten points between the ten items in each section according to the strength of their belief that the items most accurately reflect their behaviour. Thus, at extremes, ten points could be given to one item or one point to each of ten items. Usually, two to four items are scored. The scoring of each scale (team role) is achieved by summing the points awarded to each of the relevant seven items. The total raw score achieved in the TRSPI-9R is always 70 and hence it is an ipsative measure overall. Since the items are dispersed throughout sections such that there is one item for each role in each section, the scores given to items for any team role are not fully ipsative as they do not sum to a constant value. However, while the scores for items in the same scale are independent of each other, they are partly dependent on the scores given to other scales. Thus, the TRSPI is ipsative within its sections (since scores always sum to 10), but not between its sections. The Observer Assessment Sheet (OAS) is used by co-workers who know an individual well. It is a 72 item peer-rater checklist divided into two parts. Part 1 contains 45 positive adjectives which are possible descriptors of the individual being observed. Part 2 contains 27 negative adjectives or phrases. Observers select the words or phrases that they think describe the individual. Each team role is scored with five positive and three negative adjectives. The OAS produces a ranking of team roles for each individual observed. Source: Aritzeta, Aitor, Stephen Swailes and Barbara Senior. “Team Roles: psychometric evidence, construct validity and team building”. Centre for Management and Organisational Learning, Business School, University of Hull, 2005. Web. 07 April 2010. Table B1. Team Role Self Perception Inventory (TRSPI). Section I: What I believe I can contribute to a Team 10 I think I can quickly see and take advantage of new opportunities. 11 My comments on both general and specific points are well received. 12 I can work well with a very wide range of people. 13 Producing ideas is one of my natural assets. 14 My ability rests in being able to draw people out whenever I detect they have something of value to contribute to group objectives 15 I can be relied upon to finish any task I undertake. 16 My technical knowledge and experience is usually my major asset 17 I am prepared to be blunt and outspoken in the cause of making the right things happen. 18 I can usually tell whether a plan or idea will fit a particular situation 19 I can offer a reasoned and unbiased case for alternative courses of action. Section II: If I have a possible shortcoming in team work, it could be that.. 20 I am not at ease unless meetings are well structured and controlled and generally well conducted. 21 I am inclined to be too generous towards others who have a valid viewpoint that has not been given a proper airing. 22 I am reluctant to contribute unless the subject deals with an area I know well. 23 I have a tendency to talk a lot once the group gets on to a new topic. 24 I am inclined to undervalue the importance of my own contributions. 25 My objective outlook makes it difficult for me to join in readily and enthusiastically with colleagues. 26 I am sometimes seen as forceful and authoritarian when dealing with important issues. 27 I find it difficult to lead from the front, perhaps because I am over responsive to group atmosphere. 28 I am apt to get too caught up in ideas that occur to me and so lose track of what is happening. 29 I am reluctant to express my opinions on proposals or plans that are incomplete or insufficiently detailed. Section III: When involved in a project with other people.. 30 I have an aptitude for influencing people without pressurizing them. 31 I am generally effective in preventing careless mistakes or omissions from spoiling the success of an operation. 32 I like to press for action to make sure that the meeting does not waste time or lose sight of the main objective. 33 I can be counted on to contribute something original. 34 I am always ready to back a good suggestion in the common interest. 35 One can be sure I will just be my natural self. 36 I am quick to see the possibilities in new ideas and developments. 37 I try to maintain my sense of professionalism. 38 I believe my capacity for judgement can help to bring about the right decisions. 39 I can be relied on to bring an organised approach to the demands of the job. Section IV: My characteristic approach to group work is that.. 40 I maintain a quiet interest in getting to know colleagues better. 41 I contribute where I know what I am talking about. 42 I am comfortable challenging the view of others or holding a minority view myself. 43 I can usually find a line of argument to refute unsound propositions. 44 I think I have a talent for making things work once a plan has to be put into operation. 45 I prefer to avoid the obvious and to open up lines that have not been explored. 46 I bring a touch of perfectionism to any job I undertake. 47 I like to be the one to make contacts outside the group or the firm. 48 I enjoy the social side of working relationships. 49 While I am interested in hearing all views I have no hesitation in making up my mind once a decision has to be made. Section V: I gain satisfaction in a job because.. 50 I enjoy analysing situations and weighing up all the possible choices. 51 I am interested in finding practical solutions to problems. 52 I like to feel I am fostering good working relationships. 53 I can have a strong influence on decisions. 54 I have a chance of meeting new people with different ideas. 55 I can get people to agree on priorities and objectives. 56 I feel in my element where I can give a task my full attention. 57 I can find an opportunity to stretch my imagination. 58 I feel that I am using my special qualifications and training to advantage. 59 I usually find a job gives me the chance to express myself. Section VI: If I am suddenly given a difficult task with limited time and unfamiliar people.. 60 I usually succeed in spite of the circumstances. 61 I like to read up as much as I conveniently can on the subject. 62 I would feel like devising a solution of my own and then trying to sell it to the group. 63 I would be ready to work with the person who showed the most positive approach. 64 I would find some way of reducing the size of the task by establishing how different individuals can best contribute. 65 My natural sense of urgency would help to ensure that we did not fall behind schedule. 66 I believe I would keep cool and maintain my capacity to think straight. 67 In spite of conflicting pressures I would press ahead with whatever needed to be done. 68 I would take the lead if the group was making no progress. 69 I would open discussions with a view to stimulating new thoughts and getting something moving. Section VII: With reference to the problems I experience when working within groups.. 70 I am apt to overreact when people hold up progress. 71 Some people criticize me for being too analytical. 72 My desire to check that we get the important details right is not always welcome. 73 I tend to show boredom unless I am actively engaged with stimulating people. 74 I find it difficult to get started unless the goals are clear. 75 I am sometimes poor at putting across complex points that occur to me. 76 I am conscious of demanding from others the things I cannot do myself. 77 I find others do not give me enough opportunity to say all I want to say. 78 I am inclined to feel I am wasting my time and would do better on my own. 79 I hesitate to express my personal views in front of difficult or powerful people. Source: Chong, Eric. “Role balance and team development: A study of team role characteristics underlying high and low performing teams”. Institute of Behavioural and Applied Management: 2007. Web. 07 April 2010. Read More