Group Work in the MBA Classroom

Abstract

This article forms part of an exploration into how graduate students experience group work. A single case, embedded study was completed in 2011, which reveals insight and understanding into the manner in which part-time MBA students experience group work assignments and how these experiences contribute to their perception of positive group work outcomes. The fundamental underpinnings of the case study findings suggest a practical pedagogical shift for educators of part-time graduate students engaged in group work. Specifically, this article proposes a situational group work model, which can be defined as a pattern or mapping that identifies crucial situational factors involved with student group work on the part-time graduate level. The central focus of this article is to understand this new model, which is rooted in group work experiences from the students’ point of view. The model also explicates the manner in which instructors and other students facilitate the perception of a positive group work outcome for students. Using authentic MBA student voices, this article seeks to empower group work practitioners and educators with knowledge to improve group practice and also to better inform facilitators of group work in the graduate classroom.

Keywords

group work MBA students group work outcomes teamwork graduate-level teams

Introduction

Group work is widely recognized within many academic disciplines as an important pedagogical tool when instructing graduate students (Drake, Goldsmith, & Strachan, 2006; 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 team-building skills for future use in the workplace. For educators who use group work, this teaching strategy is considered an effective and efficient tool across multiple fields and disciplines within higher education (Murray & Lonne, 2006; Summers, Beretvas, Svinicki, & Gorin, 2005).

Grounded in this context, the purpose of this article is to summarize a case study that was conducted to better understand how part-time graduate business students in the United States experience the phenomenon of group work. The study focused on authentic student voices and explored student-reported testimony of MBA students and their direct experience with group work. The study also explored how these students perceive faculty and other students as facilitators in positive group work outcomes. The research questions in this case study focused on two specific themes. The first research question centered on the experiential side of this topic: How do graduate business students experience group work?

The second research question further clarified and expanded on the narrative of student experiences: How do part-time MBA students use faculty and fellow group members for the most positive group work outcome? Collectively, the objective of these two research questions was to document real student experiences with group work and identify how part-time MBA students perceive positive outcomes with group work. Within this context, a positive group work outcome is defined as student perception that maximizes satisfaction with the group work process, the learning of focal course material, or the learning about the group work process.

Terms such as team work, group work, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning “are often used synonymously” (Drake et al., 2006, p. 33). Regardless of the specific terminology, this pedagogical method is commonly understood to be the process in which small groups of interdependent individuals share responsibility for the outcome of semester-long course tasks and projects (Strom & Strom, 2002). Many educators accept this paradigm as a collaborative approach that involves students working cooperatively (Delucchi, 2006). Stephen Sharp (2006) indicates “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 (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998, 2007) on this topic demonstrates multiple benefits of using 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 academic 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 persistence, reported a more positive attitude toward learning, and typically showed greater academic achievement when compared with students who did not work in groups within similar courses (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999; Tonn & Milledge, 2002). However, these conclusions are not universally supported. For example, more recent studies report that group work has not been conclusively shown to support greater academic achievement in a variety of disciplines within higher education (Lightner, Bober, & Willi, 2007). The fundamental assumption that team projects improve learning outcomes is underresearched, 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; Delucchi, 2006; Lightner et al., 2007; Tonn & Milledge, 2002). Furthermore, this article neither suggests nor provides a “one size fits all” solution to the topic of group work in the MBA classroom.

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 subjective, 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 (Bacon, 2005; Desplaces, Congden, & Boothie, 2007; Johnson et al., 2007) on group work commonly refer to cooperative learning as structured, group-learning activities and projects both inside and outside the classroom, whereas they define collaborative learning groups as groups that tend to center on unstructured tasks and projects and are founded on the concept that knowledge is subjective and generated by the interactions between group members. However, these constructs are so closely related that not all literature concurs on the difference (Bacon, 2005). Nevertheless, both collaborative and cooperative group models tend to focus on mutually acquired learning goals and the achievement of group tasks. For the purpose of this article, group work will include both cooperative and collaborative group work involving summative assessment (Bacon, 2005; Slavin, 1988).

Typically, summative assessment involves reviewing, categorizing, and making judgments 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 evaluation and appraisal of a student’s achievement or ability at various stages to facilitate the learning process (Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; Sharp, 2006). Although these two forms of assessment techniques are not always mutually exclusive (Lejk & Wyvill, 2001), the vast majority of assessment methods for group work are summative and “that group work by its very nature favors the award of a grade to a group of students collectively rather than grades awarded to individual students” (Sharp, 2006, p. 330). Therefore, group work using summative assessment was chosen as the focus of this study.

Although group work for business students often share various tenets found within the collaborative and cooperative group project paradigm, Bacon (2005) explains that business student group projects typically focus on the completion of a specific, semester-long task and frequently diverge from collaborative and cooperative models in some key aspects. For example, business students engaged in group work are typically required to work together in order to produce a deliverable, such as a written report or group presentation. Although a group goal exists, each group member normally receives the same grade, and there is typically very little individual liability (Bacon, 2005). Within this context, the underpinnings of the group work paradigm in the business school setting is still generally accepted to be closely aligned with collaborative and cooperative 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 learning. It reveals distinct differences that become evident, principally when examined through the interactions between students and instructors. Perhaps most significantly, group work with traditional business students differs from the commonly accepted collaborative and cooperative group environments by the lack of systematic guidance and regular support mechanisms provided to students by those professors assigning team projects (Ashraf, 2004; Johnson & Johnson, 1988).

As a result, students are often relegated to episodes of trial and error during group work; thus, many students experience only the frustrations and pitfalls of group work, instead of the many possible benefits (Tonn & Milledge, 2002). Therefore, students often report negative perceptions of group work. For example, Payne and Monk-Turner (2006) conducted a survey of 143 college students who had recently completed 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. Additionally, 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 recommend 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 reported that the participation in group work would be beneficial to them in the workplace while approximately 97% considered themselves to have contributed to the group project in a meaningful way (Payne & Monk-Turner, 2006).

Group Work and the MBA Classroom

Understanding the context in which group work is embedded is crucial for users of this pedagogical approach. Although much can be learned from integrating various studies and literature on the small group process, it provides only one piece of the puzzle that makes up the phenomenon of student group work for summative assessment within higher education. It is essential to understand the significant necessities and realities that make up the milieu of the classroom within graduate business schools today, as well as all of tertiary education (Sweet & Svinicki, 2007).

For example, Bacon, Stewart, and Silver (1999) report that group work is maximized when students (a) are given clear group work objectives, (b) have autonomy to choose fellow group members whose numbers are appropriate for the group assignment, (c) have feedback mechanisms other than traditional peer evaluations, and (d) are placed in groups early in the semester to leverage prolonged group interaction. These elements help facilitate positive group work outcomes by placing “students in team situations that have the greatest chance for success” (Bacon et al., 1999, p. 472). At its core, these elements exemplify a focus on student learning rather than teacher instruction. There is more of a focus on course design that is intended to facilitate the group work process and maximize a positive team experience (Whetten, 2007). In the end, students learn more about working in a group from their good experiences than they do from their bad experiences (Bacon et al., 1999).

Within this context, these elements are indicative of the necessary pedagogical building blocks of caring that an instructor brings to the group work experience in order to maximize positive outcomes for students (Hawk & Lyons, 2008). These conditions allow for student-centered and student-directed learning that permits group experiences to be active, rather than passive. Fellow group members learn from one another and unique collaborative opportunities are created within the group experience that allow for autonomy, which often maximizes positive group work outcomes (Mundell & Pennarola, 1999). These collaborative opportunities are

like seeds in a desert. Cooperation waits in every college classroom for the right conditions to occur so that it can bloom and flourish. Doing so will have many benefits for the students, faculty, and the college as a whole. (Johnson et al., 2007, p. 27)

However, it cannot be assumed that all group work fosters cooperation and effective outcomes, and there must be a clear understanding of what does and does not constitute an authentic cooperative and collaborative learning group, which is often quite distinct from the traditional small group work that is common in today’s university classrooms. For example, when instructors assign group work projects to students and yet those students have no interest in working together and assume that they will be individually assessed or ranked on their work, the result is a pseudo-learning group. This situation is characterized by competition, distrust, and self-interest among group members. The outcome of such a group is competition and distrust among group members. In the case of pseudo-learning groups, greater student achievement could have been realized if students actually worked individually (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).

Similarly, the more common cooperative and collaborative group work experience occurs when students accept that they must work together to complete a semester-long task or project. However, students are not assessed and rewarded as productive members of that group. As a result, group members sometimes use other group members for individual gain, while “some students seek a free ride on the efforts of group-mates, who feel exploited and do less” (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, p. 68). As a result, higher achieving and more assiduous students could have realized higher achievement if they actually worked individually (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).

In contrast, authentic cooperative and collaborative learning groups consist of three key characteristics that enable group members to experience higher levels of academic achievement than if they had worked alone. First, students must perceive the task to be accomplished as a shared goal. Second, group members aim to achieve outcomes that are beneficial to all members and assist one another in accomplishing the assigned task or learning goal. Third, the group consistently monitors the efforts and energy of each individual group member in order to ensure that all group members are contributing to goals of the assigned task. As a result, students comprising an authentic cooperative and collaborative small group experience higher academic achievement than if they had worked individually (Johnson & Johnson, 1988, 1999; Johnson et al., 1998; Johnson et al, 2007).

However, Tonn and Milledge (2002) write that it is common for individual students to be challenged by this paradigm. In the United States, students participating in undergraduate and graduate educational programs often come from high schools that emphasized class rank and individual merit within a competitive environment. Therefore, it is uncommon for students to have received the guidance or training required to accomplish group tasks in a team setting (Johnson et al., 1998). Similarly, further obstacles to group work include the transaction costs, such as making time for team meetings. Such challenges to group work must be understood, and instructors requiring group work within their courses must recognize the necessity to proceed with concrete strategies for managing these obstacles throughout the group work process (St. Clair & Tschirhart, 2002).

However, Hansen (2006) writes the utilization of group work as a teaching tool continues to be problematic for some business school faculty. For example, business school faculty have certainly heard the cry from employers who want MBA courses to stress group and team work. However, group work assignments are often made with little or no preparation to assist students within their group work tasks and goals. This lack of support and facilitation is problematic, often reducing learning opportunities for students (“Changing Role of Instructors,” 2006). As a result, assigning group work to students may not always be an effective learning tool (Hansen, 2006; Mundell & Pennarola, 1999). However, prospective employers continue to solicit business schools to emphasize the use of team projects in the classroom in order to enhance students’ ability to work effectively in groups and maximize group performance of future employees (Ferrante, Green, & Forster, 2006). For example, “when human resources personnel were asked what they considered their number-one priority, they answered teamwork and how to capitalize on it” (Stashevsky & Koslowsky, 2006, p. 63).

Finally, perhaps one of the most intriguing lenses from which to view the group work phenomenon is through Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) group development framework. Before this study, this theory had not yet been applied to the graduate business student population, most important from the context of the student’s point-of-view within a real-life context. Prior studies that have included students groups have been conducted solely within a laboratory setting (Chang, Duck, & Bordia, 2006). Wheelan (1994) summarizes this framework as follows:

Groups have a developmental life cycle. They go through stages of development analogous to those of human beings. Thus, there is a dependent stage similar to our childhood and a rebellious stage similar to adolescence. There is a stage where trust and intimacy and preparation for work are emphasized. This stage is reminiscent of young adulthood. There is also a mature stage devoted to relational and work generativity. Like people, groups can also regress to or get stuck in a developmental stage. (p. xiii)

As one of the most accepted sequential theories of group development available today, Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) generalizable model of group evolution originally defined four stages of small group development, which include (a) forming, (b) storming, (c) norming, and (d) performing (Tuckman, 1965). This theory was later developed to include a fifth stage, identified as adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). This collective model maintains that small groups progress through sequential or progressive stages of development, and “Tuckman’s five-stage sequential theory of group development appears to be the most accepted sequential theory and has the strongest base in research, resulting from a review of 20 years of small group research” (Connors & Caple, 2005, p. 105).

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). Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) five-stage theory of group development was applied as an analysis tool for this study in order to understand graduate business student experiences with group work and its implications for pedagogical practice. The advantage of employing this theoretical lens is the unique perspective it offers to the study of group work among MBA students. This framework had not yet been used as an interrogative tool with the graduate business student population; nor had it been used as a technique to examine this topic from the student’s point of view within a real-life context (Chang et al., 2006).

Because the phenomenon of group work is not readily distinguishable from the larger, collective environment (O’Connor & Yballe, 2007; Stake, 2005; Yin, 2003), this study was limited to part-time MBA students. This is a recommended strategy when the intent is to understand a complex phenomenon and experiences under the context of a “specific, unique, bonded system” (Stake, 2005, p. 445). Although this aspect of the study limits its generalizability to undergraduates and full-time graduate students, its focus allowed the elimination of confounding variables when exploring this form of student experience and describing a “contemporary situation within its real-life context” (Jacelon & Imperio, 2005, p. 49).

The main unit of analysis was a part-time MBA program at a private, coeducational university on the East Coast of the United States. A typical-case, purposive sampling strategy was used for the selection of the study site, and research participants were chosen for maximum variation. This technique added significantly to the strength of the study by identifying shared themes and patterns that exist among student participants with noteworthy variations, such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, course selection, number of years in program, use of satellite campus, dual degree enrollment, and grade point average (Golafshani, 2003). Since the embedded unit of analysis was restricted to part-time MBA students in the United States, international students were not included as participants because of their full-time student status.

Part-time MBA students were chosen as the focus of this study because of the growth of this population as well as their distinctive profile. For example, part-time MBA students make up half of all MBA students in the United States, and almost 50% of all part-time programs reported an increase in applications in 2011, compared with 20% for full-time programs. Unlike their full-time counterparts, part-time MBA students are typically employed during their graduate studies, and their salaries often make it possible for them to evade or diminish the debt associated with student loans. However, their employment status often necessitates that part-time students balance considerable work/school issues that are not typically a significant part of the full-time student experience (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, 2007; Wecker, 2012). Finally, the part-time student distinction is important to note because it allowed the researcher to study a specific, bonded system (Jacelon & O’Dell, 2005; Stake, 2005); however, the transferability of study findings to the full-time student dimension needs additional study. See the implication section of this article for further comment.

Study participants comprised three subgroups. The first subgroup included nine part-time students enrolled in the MBA program at the research site who served as key informants (Yin, 2003). These key informants participated in two in-depth interviews lasting at least 1 hour each. Key informants also completed journals of their group work experiences. The second 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-hour interview 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 female and 52% were male. These demographics are closely aligned with the population at the study site, of which 45% were female and 55% were male. 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 was not significantly different from expected, with χ²₍₁₎ = 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 between 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 aged 45 years and older.

The web-based survey instrument was designed to collect descriptive data on part-time MBA student experiences with group. The levels of measurement consisted of eight questions addressing categorical variables, along with 7 Likert-type scaled questions. The Likert-type scaled questions were organized according to the theatrical framework of this study, which helped address the central aim of this research. There were also 11 questions that allowed for optional, open-ended responses to expand on specific areas of the two research questions. The Likert-type scaled questions addressed the central focus of this study and consisted of measurement levels with a scaled response from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For each Likert-type scaled question, respondents were asked to what extent they agree with statements involving their experiences with group work. These ratings included strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, and strongly agree. The survey provided descriptive statistics, and analysis did not control for any variables.

In addition to providing demographic and other descriptive data, the survey also allowed for the gathering of qualitative data on the phenomenon of group work. The qualitative information was used to (a) corroborate the information gathered through the interview stages, (b) inform the researcher to any information that might be lacking or not thoroughly interrogated by interviews with key informants, and (c) indicate conditions and subject matters associated with this research topic that had not been divulged within the parameters of this study.

Case Study Credibility and Analysis Techniques

The overall credibility of this study was established by the application of three case study tactics proposed by Yin (2003). First, construct validity was established during the information collection and analysis phases through the use of multiple 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 might 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 by the researcher and the precision of participants’ meaning on the topic being studied support the descriptive and interpretive trustworthiness of this study (Johnson & Turner, 2003). Factual accuracy was established by following carefully prescribed verification procedures at every stage of the research process, including (a) triangulation, (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 (Glesne, 1999; Swaffield, 2008).

In addition to using a multiple information collection strategy that allowed for data triangulation, this study also 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 events to the specific objective of the case study. Second, meaning condensation was also used as an information analysis strategy (Kvale, 1996). This technique has been shown to be an appropriate and valuable approach in separating study information into manageable units that identify themes and assist the researcher in deriving meaning of complex participant experiences (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Glesne, 1999; Kvale, 1996; Payne et al., 2006).

Synopsis of Findings

With the intent to better understand how part-time graduate business students in the United States experience group work as well as how faculty and fellow students contribute to their perception of positive group work outcomes, the research questions in this case study focused on two specific themes. Designed to explore the experiential side of this topic, the first research question asked, “How do graduate business students experience group work?” In order to clarify this research question and expand on the narrative of student experiences, the second research question asked, “How do part-time MBA students use faculty and fellow group members for the most positive group work outcome?”

Using Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) theory of group development as an analytical lens, this investigation yielded insights in five key areas, including (a) the early stage of group work in the MBA classroom, (b) the key aspects of group work conflict and how instructors might mitigate these issues, (c) the norms and behaviors of student group work that affect learner experiences, (d) the manner in which certain group work experiences affect the ability of students to achieve their group work objectives, and (e) student experiences and perceptions at the conclusion of group work. Each of these key areas is explained in the following sections.

The Early Stage of Group Work

Tuckman’s (1965) theory of group functioning and the conceptualization of changes in group behavior begins with the forming stage, which is characterized by testing and dependence of group members in a newly formed group. During this first stage, orientation to the task at hand also deals with discovering appropriate interpersonal group behaviors. Thus, the forming stage deals with behavior in both the interpersonal and task realms. Using Tuckman’s forming stage as an analytical lens, this study revealed that domestic, part-time MBA students have needs similar to their undergraduate counterparts, complete with feelings of uncertainty and apprehension surrounding their initial group work assignment. This finding was aligned with a second outcome of the first research question, which revealed student perceptions of a positive group work outcome are maximized when instructors allow them to begin working on the group work assignment from the first day of class, even though the focal course content has not yet been presented.

The relationship of these two findings was demonstrated through student interviews and journals, as well as survey data. Students reported such experiences as, “[In the beginning,] I’m nervous and waiting to see what happens.” Allowing students to begin working in groups from the very beginning mitigates this uncertainty. Additionally, students explained that beginning early mitigates other anxieties. Students reported the early anxiety surrounding group work was associated with its semester-long nature. Similarly, other students explained that not knowing fellow classmates before and during the early stage of group formation “increases uncertainty, especially if it’s a semester project.” Likewise, other students reported that “apprehension is usually felt around coordinating schedules and the experience of each team member.” This apprehension was often related to fears surrounding the potential of a noncontributing group member, logistical issues, and other group difficulties.

Within the context of group formation and the beginning of a group work experience, this study also revealed that graduate business students value cross-functional groups and prefer that instructors use this criterion in the formation of groups, rather than random assignment or self-selection by students. This outcome corresponds to another finding regarding the early stages of group work, which is, the perception of a positive group outcome is maximized when instructors ensure that the use of group work as a teaching technique is truly congruent with the assignment given to students.

The relationship between these two findings is indicative of the manner in which an assignment that is truly congruent with group work will likely involve a cross-functional group of students. For example, one student explained, “As much as I like picking my own team, it is helpful to have people with different backgrounds on your team. Aside from the actual deliverable for the class, you learn so much more from each other.” Similarly, another student reported, “What I like about a true cross-functional team is that . . . I get to learn things from different perspectives.”

These findings attend to the shortage of research on the topic of group work among graduate students, particularly as it concerns the experiences, needs, and perceptions of business students (Gottschall & Garcia-Bayonas, 2008; Nesheim, Guentzel, Gansemer-Topf, Ross, & Turrentine, 2006; Winter, Neal, & Waner, 2005). Nesheim et al. (2006) explain that most available literature “tell educators very little about the needs and experiences of student at their particular institutions” (p. 8). Within the early stages of group work, the narratives that resulted from this case study invite educators within higher education to adjust the way they think about themselves, indicating a fundamental shift from instructors as sources and instillers of knowledge to instructors serving as learning facilitators (“Changing Role of Instructors,” 2006).

Group Work Conflict

Tuckman (1965) labeled the second phase of group development as the storming stage, characterized by a period of internal conflict within the group. Using this perspective as an analytic lens, it was shown that participants in this case study often experienced periods of conflict with fellow group members. In some instances, this conflict lasted throughout the semester-long group experience. Within this context of group work, part-time MBA students revealed they were more likely to withdraw from this conflict or sort out differences as a group, rather than involve their instructors. However, the study showed that direct instructor intervention and involvement throughout the group work, especially during times of conflict, maximized the perception of a positive group work outcome for part-time MBA students. Examples of instructor intervention include (a) assistance with navigating team disagreements, (b) support with managing group members who are not fulfilling team responsibilities, and (c) acknowledgement of group members who are performing well within their group.

Students reported three main reasons for choosing to withdraw or handle this group conflict independently. First, students believed their grade would be negatively affected if they brought a group work conflict to their teacher. Second, they felt they would be viewed as less capable by the instructor. Third, students were reluctant to include their instructor in group conflict because they would be viewed as “tattletales.” However, students valued intervention and assistance from instructors during group work conflict. For example, a student reported that instructors often say, “Work it out.” However, she reported, “That only goes so far.” Additionally, students admit that when conflicts arise, they are often unsure of the best way to handle these difficulties. The conflict may start out relatively minor but can quickly evolve into a significant obstacle for the group without counsel from their instructor.

Similarly, interviews with students showed that one source of group work conflict for part-time MBA students is the outcome of language barriers and cultural uncertainty exhibited by international students who have newly arrived to the United States. In these incidences, part-time, domestic students often assumed the responsibilities of the international students and experienced a significant increase in work load on group assignments because their fellow group members had difficulties with English or had other cultural hesitancies. In the same way, students revealed that a major source of group work conflict was the perception of unequal sharing of group work tasks in general. The perception of a positive group work outcome is maximized when group members believe that work was being shared equally among group members and the distribution of tasks and work load were reciprocal. This finding has significance in today’s diverse and multicultural MBA classroom. Since this finding was outside the scope of this case study, further investigation in this area is needed and encouraged.

Group Norms and Behaviors

Closely related to the challenges imposed by group work conflict is the manner in which behaviors and norms are established by students during group work. Tuckman (1965) describes this as the norming stage, where “group members accept the group and accept the idiosyncrasies of fellow members” (p. 386). There is group cohesion, where group norms are created to ensure the group’s existence and to maintain harmony so that task objectives can be realized. Within this context, another significant outcome of student interviews revealed that part-time MBA students perceive their group work norms as differing significantly from the group work behaviors and norms of their full-time counterparts. This finding is closely aligned with another study outcome, which revealed that instructors who guide desirable behaviors and clearly explain desirable group standards and how these standards will be reflected as a grade on the peer evaluation maximize the perception of a positive group work outcome for part-time MBA students.

Another significant group work norming experience that emerged from the study’s exploration demonstrated that group work is typically divided up among group members to resemble multiple individual tasks. However, an informal leadership role often developed within each group to organize these discrete task components into a coherent group project. This finding is aligned with another finding concerning norming behaviors, which found that the incorporation and teaching of virtual-team tools enhanced the perception of a positive group work outcome for part-time MBA students. Virtual-team tools often mitigated the logistical challenges of physical group meetings and, in turn, alleviated the incentive to “divide and conquer.”

Although it was outside the scope of this case study, factor and reliability analyses were also conducted on the survey data in order to determine any correlations that might help further the understanding of the phenomena discovered in this case study. For example, survey responses within the norming realm of student group work were analyzed. This analysis revealed a marginally significant correlation with student groups who develop tacit norms for group work completion reporting a more positive overall experience with group work as a graduate student (r = .165, p < .10).

Task Achievement

Tuckman’s (1965) fourth group developmental phase is labeled performing, where the group becomes “a problem-solving instrument” (p. 387) and the focus is on the achievement of group tasks. Using this stage as a lens, case study results demonstrated that part-time MBA students often experience a stage of group work that is focused on productive action and achievement of group tasks in order to achieve the goals of the assignment. Within this context, part-time MBA students consider logistical challenges, such as finding time for group meetings and balancing work–life requirements, as a significant impediment to performing these group work goals. This finding also aligns with a related finding, which demonstrated that when confronted with a noncontributing group member, part-time MBA students take on extra work and perform the responsibilities of the noncontributing member in order to achieve the goals of the group work assignment. Because of multiple, conflicting priorities, students simply choose to take on the extra work of a noncontributing group member. Students reported, “Rather than chasing down another student to make sure he [sic] does his part, it’s easier just to do it myself.”

Within the context of achieving the goals of the group assignment, two additional findings were shown to be highly interrelated. First, the perception of a positive group work outcome for part-time MBA students was maximized when a group member shared professional expertise or knowledge resulting from independent exploration on an aspect of the group project. Similarly, the perception of a positive group work outcome was maximized for part-time MBA students when they viewed their group work experience as relevant and directly correlated to their careers and professional development.

Group Work’s Conclusion

As a result of the revisitation of Tuckman’s original 1965 study, Tuckman and Jensen (1977) put forward “the existence of a final discernible and significant stage of group development—termination” (p. 426). This stage is commonly referred to the adjourning stage. Within this perspective, it is not unexpected that results of this case study revealed that students reported a feeling of relief on the completion of the group work assignment and the disbanding of the group. Even when a group work experience was positive, participants reported being relieved when the group work experience was over. However, the most salient theme that emerged regarding the conclusion of group work was that student groups typically disband without the class reflecting on their experiences or discussing their group work experience as part of the course. This finding is directly related to another finding concerning disbanding, which revealed that the perception of a positive group work outcome was maximized at the conclusion of group work when the instructor involved the class in group-specific, and classroom-wide, discussion on the manner in which their group work experience related to their professional development and current work situation.

Finally, there was also evidence of a close relationship between two additional findings connected with the conclusion of the group work experience. First, students typically complete a peer evaluation of their fellow group members at the end of the group work assignment. However, part-time MBA students do not view this as a tool for learning or a device to better understand their own role in the group work process. Similarly, at the conclusion of group work, peer evaluations are not perceived to help maximize a positive outcome for part-time MBA students. Instead, students suggested a more comprehensive learning tool in the form of a tripartite learning portfolio.

Students suggested the learning portfolio to be a tangible tool that would allow them to (a) understand how one group work experience relates to another, (b) gain substantive feedback from fellow group members that is not currently made available to them through the peer evaluation process, (c) expand on the feedback they received from instructors about all aspects of group work, and (d) reflect on what they have experienced and how it relates to their professional and personal lives. Students did not consider this tool to be a summative or individual assessment device for course instructors. Rather, they saw it as a development tool to be used solely by students during the MBA program, and beyond.

A Situational Group Work Model

We can also learn much by examining these findings beyond the confines of Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) theoretical framework as well as the specific research questions posed for this study. As a whole, the fundamental underpinnings of these findings suggest a functional shift in the manner in which educators understand how part-time graduate students experience group work. Specifically, the results of this case study propose a situational group work model, which can be defined as a pattern or mapping that identifies crucial situational factors involved with student group work on the part-time graduate level. Although not all situational patterns identified in this case study are present in every group work experience at any given time, the notion that situational patterns can exist and the manner in which they affect the group work experience is a crucial understanding for educators whose objective is to maximize positive group work outcomes for part-time graduate students.

The situational group work model does not replace or refute Tuckman’s model or other accepted models of group development or team interaction. Instead, the situational group work model that emerged from this case study reflects the multiple situational and contextual factors at work that directly affect a part-time graduate student’s perception of a positive group work outcome. One of the most salient situational factors is the manner in which course instructors and fellow group members have a direct effect in furthering or hindering a part-time graduate student’s perception of a positive group work experience. Based on the findings of this case study, the situational group work model requires educators to recognize the manner in which their approach and engagement can no longer be viewed as separate and distinct from the group work experience of their students. A key element is the convergence of individual student responsibility and resourcefulness with a culture of collaboration, support, and engagement by course instructors and others. This reflects the necessity of self-reliance on the part of the student, together with the intrinsic nature of interdependence that exists between student and student and student and instructor.

Defining the situational group work model is derived from the manner in which part-time graduate students self-identify key situational factors that affect their group work experiences and the perception of positive group work outcomes. A tripartite model emerged, providing a perspective on these experiences and clarifying the current understanding of collaborative group work among part-time graduate students. Specifically, the essential elements of the situational group work model include

Facilitator-oriented factors refer to course instructors, administrators, and others who contribute to a part-time graduate student’s perception of a positive group work outcome. Situational factors within this realm include mechanisms to ensure the cross-functionality of groups, ensuring the use of group work is truly congruent with the assignment, guiding desirable behaviors and providing meaningful intervention, the value of an informal leadership role with the student group, and demonstrating the manner in which a student’s personal and professional growth is related to group work over time.

Learner-oriented factors involve the needs, perspectives, and competencies of the part-time graduate student in a group work context. Situational factors within this dimension include students’ perception of readiness for and apprehension of group work, the degree to which the group work experience is related to their professional growth or job circumstances, the mitigation of logistical challenges, the manner in which students can reflect and learn from their experiences, and their ability to connect past, present, and future group work experiences so that they can apply what they have learned in a variety of contexts.

Collaborative-oriented factors include the relationship between fellow group members, students, and instructors, as well as all others involved in the group work experience situational factors within this dimension include factors relating to noncontributing group members, the reciprocal nature of group work, issues relating to conflict resolution, the ramifications of working with international and full-time graduate students, and the importance of peer learning and group thought within the group work experience.

From a situational group model perspective, these three factors comprise an integrative relationship and unified perspective on the topic of group work for the part-time graduate student. The model characterizes specific experiences that maximize positive group work outcomes from the perspective of part-time graduate students. Not only are the individual factors important, but the interaction of these factors are critical within this context. Just as importantly, these elements are dynamic and each factor is shared among all stakeholders within the classroom, from both an individual and collective nature. This individual and collective manner, along with the integrative and contingent elements of these factors, illustrates the common characteristics present in each and the manner in which the perception of positive outcomes depends on this interaction.

The situational group work model that emerged from this case study proposes a situational inventory that educators can use as a map to guide them through the factors that promote or hinder student perception of positive group work outcomes. This inventory includes the integrative findings of this case study, which were summarized in the preceding section. This inventory of situational factors is consistent across wide variations of part-time MBA students and may be transferable to part-time graduate students in other disciplines. However, the situational group work model that emerged from this study is unique to the part-time graduate context. This is because part-time graduate students are often employed full time and have an interest in the relevancy of their group work experiences to their professional development or job circumstances. However, further research should be conducted to determine whether the results yielded from this study can be replicated across other part-time graduate samples.

The identification of these patterns does not imply that group work on the part-time graduate level is a monolithic concept. However, the situational group work model that originated from this case study demonstrates that group work within the part-time context is very complex. It involves both individualistic and collective behaviors, which often take place at the same time and within the same context. Similarly, it differs significantly from the manner in which group work is conducted in the professional realm because of the absence of formal, positional leadership within most student group situations. Although it can be argued that the course instructor represents positional power within the classroom, student group work experiences and outcomes do not have the same implications for the course instructor as for a manager on the job if group work goals are neither met nor maximized.

Similarly, the situational group work model suggests that the conduct of course instructors and the manner in which they employ group work in their courses are seen as an integral part of the group work experience by part-time graduate students and directly affects their perception of a positive group work experience. In other words, group work is not only a student activity. It is intrinsically an activity that involves all stakeholders in the classroom, including course instructors. Simply by employing its use as a pedagogical tool, the course instructor becomes an active agent in the process, whether he or she realizes it or not.

Similarly, the situational group work model suggests that the line of active engagement extends beyond the classroom. For example, administrators who oversee part-time graduate programs must recognize the situational factors noted in this case study and take measures to properly prepare and resource faculty to address these issues. This study clearly demonstrated the challenges involved with noncontributing group members or international students who have newly arrived in their host country. There must be resources from which both faculty and students may draw in order to attend to these issues from both the learner and facilitator perspectives.

Likewise, the situational group work model demonstrates the confluence of individual group work members and the indisputable manner in which they directly affect one another during group work on the graduate level. Most important, this is seen in the manner in which certain behaviors of fellow group work members positively affect the perception of group work outcomes for students. In other words, the actions of fellow students in the course have a direct affect on the manner in which the part-time graduate student perceives the group work experience.

The findings of this case study and the proposal of a situational group work model demonstrate that group work is a very complex phenomenon for the part-time graduate student as well as for those committed to their education. Although group work by part-time graduate students is composed of disparate situations and experiences, it is also a unified continuum of experiences that affects an overall perception of positive group work outcomes. This is part of the complexity of group work and supports the value of a learning portfolio approach referenced in the previous section.

Consequently, the results put forth by this study, as well as a situational group work model, provide unique insight into the crucial situational and contextual identifiers that affect a part-time graduate student’s perception of positive group work outcome and the manner in which educational practitioners can help facilitate group work for this population. As educators, these findings compel us to be mindful of our role in this process. As these results attest, educators of part-time graduate students play an integral part in the group work process and must use this pedagogical tool from the position of active engagement and purposeful facilitation.

Implications

As explicated, the situational group work model does not contrast or challenge existing theories on the topic of group work. Rather, the situational group work model that emerged from this case study offers practical implications in the areas of pedagogy, professional, and organizational development, and graduate student experiences. The practical implications can be used together with existing theories in the field of group work.

For example, the implication in the area of pedagogy can be found in the manner in which the results of this case study demonstrate the link between course instructors as well as fellow students and their ability to maximize student perceptions of a positive group work outcome. These pedagogical techniques include (a) ensuring student groups are cross-functional and allowing students to begin the group work process on the first day of class, (b) recognizing the logistical challenges to group work that may impede the perception of positive outcomes, (c) mitigating the consequences of a noncontributing group member, (d) teaching virtual team tools, (e) guiding desirable behaviors and providing active involvement with student groups, especially in time of conflict, (f) understanding the need for reflection at the conclusion of a group work experience and, (g) providing mechanisms for students to understand how his or her professional 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 using existing institutional resources and structures to train and develop administrators, faculty, and staff to make more informed decisions regarding group work within the graduate classroom as well as better respond to the needs of students. Such professional development issues surrounding group work include a better understanding of (a) student feelings of uncertainty and apprehension before and during the early stage of group formation, (b) unique challenges for international students during group work, (c) student difficulties with group work conflict, (d) ensuring the use of group work as a teaching technique is truly congruent with the assignment given to students, and (e) the importance of linking group work experiences to a student’s career, professional development, and personal growth.

A third implication of this study can be found in the area of student experiences. For example, this study demonstrated that part-time MBA students view their group work norms as differing significantly from the group work behaviors and norms of their full-time counterparts. For example, part-time MBA students reported that full-time students avoid group meetings after 5:00 pm, have a slower response time with answering e-mail, and prefer virtual group meetings rather than face-to-face meetings. However, it is important to keep in mind that full-time MBA student experiences were beyond the scope of this study; therefore, further investigation is needed. Yet this finding has implications for graduate programs that offer a shared program of study, which allows part-time and full-time students to take courses together and share in group work experiences. This may suggest that, with its logistical challenges, imbalanced work distribution, and feelings of uncertainty, both part-time and full-time MBA students require adequate preparation and mentoring during group work to maximize the perception of a positive outcome.

Finally, a further implication in the area of student experiences is the manner in which 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 experiences and skills learned from prior group work. This linkage would allow students to (a) understand how one group work experience 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 instructors about all aspects of group work, and (d) reflect on what they have experienced and how it relates to their professional and personal lives. This learning could take the form of learning portfolio, which is compiled over the tenure of a student’s graduate program. Students did not consider this portfolio to be a summative or individual assessment device for course instructors, but rather a tool to be used solely by students 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 (Desplaces et al., 2007; Isabella, 2005; Johnson et al., 2007). The learning portfolio concept suggested by key informants in this study 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 describe a significant 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 recipients 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 assessment practices. Learning-oriented assessment also helps to equip students with the competence to be an assessor of learning long after the student leaves the university (Boud & Falchikov, 2006).

Limitations

Although this case study revealed valuable findings and implications on the topic of group work on the graduate level, there are three main limitations that exist. First, this case study was limited to one institution, as well as one graduate business program. Therefore, the findings may not be representative of other institutions and programs. Enlarging this study to include additional business schools, as well as other graduate disciplines, would allow for these study conclusions to be assessed and explored more fully as well as additional findings to be documented. Similarly, this study may not be generalizable to undergraduate student experiences with group work; therefore, further study in this area is recommended and encouraged.

Similarly, a second limitation is the length of this study. Information collection was conducted in multiple phases over two semesters during one academic year. Extending study of this topic beyond one year may allow additional student experiences with group work to be captured and may reveal further outcomes as they evolve over time.

A final limitation of this case study was its singular focus on part-time MBA students with group work experiences in the classroom. The results of this study may not be relevant to full-time MBA students as well as other student categories. Although the focus on part-time MBA students helped to mitigate confounding variables, it is recommended that additional studies on the topic of group work include full-time MBA students, international students, distance learners, and other graduate business student populations that use group work for summative assessment.

Conclusion

This article forms part of an exploration into how graduate students experience group work with the intent to provide educational practitioners within a higher educational setting with practical knowledge that may serve to improve pedagogical practice and assist the process of student group work. Stake (2005) classifies this form of research as an intrinsic case study because of its intent to provide a better understanding of a particular phenomenon, such as group work in higher education. “It is not undertaken primarily because the case represents other cases or because it illustrates a particular trait or problem, but instead because in all its particularity and ordinariness, this case itself is of interest” (Stake, 2005, p. 445).

In order to better understand the phenomenon of group work among part-time MBA students and interrogate this topic more fully, Tuckman’s (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) five-stage small group models were used as a lens through which graduate student group work was studied. This theoretical framework provided a blueprint in which students progress through a developmental schema when working in small groups (Caouette & O’Connor, 1998) and helped define a situational group work model. This framework is defined as a pattern or mapping that identifies crucial situational factors involved with student group work on the part-time graduate level.

The central focus of the situational group work model is rooted in group work experiences from the students’ point-of-view and explicates the manner in which instructors and other students facilitate the perception of a positive group work outcome for students. Using authentic MBA student voices, this article seeks to empower group work practitioners and educators with knowledge to improve group practice as well as better inform facilitators of group work in the graduate classroom. Within this context, these findings demonstrate how important it is for business school instructors to lead by example. Those who use group work in the classroom as a pedagogical tool must ensure their instruction is followed up with equivalent action on their part. Practicing what we preach with regard to student teams is essential and our own actions must be consistent with what we teach and what we require of our students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2007). Investment advice: Go for the MBA. Biz Ed, January/February, 36-40.

Ashraf

(2004). A critical look at the use of group projects as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 213-216.

Bacon

(2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning. Journal of Management Education, 29, 248-267.

Bacon

D. R.

Stewart

K. A.

Silver

W. S.

(1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences. How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23, 467-488.

Bogdan

R. C.

Biklen

S. K.

(2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Person Education.

Boud

Falchikov

(2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 399-413.

Caouette

M. J.

O’Connor

B. N.

(1998). The impact of group support systems on corporate teams’ stages of development. Journal of Organizational Computing, 8, 57-81.

Chang

Duck

Bordia

(2006). Understanding the multidimensionality of group development. Small Group Research, 37, 327-350.

Changing Role of Instructors. (2006). The EduTech Report, 22, 1-7.

10.

Connors

J. V.

Caple

R. B.

(2005). A review of group systems theory. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 30(2), 93-110.

11.

Delucchi

(2006). The efficacy of collaborative learning groups in an undergraduate statistics course. College Teaching, 54, 244-248.

12.

Desplaces

D. E.

Congden

S. W.

Boothie

(2007). The group creativity exercise: Getting MBAs to work and think effectively in groups. Teaching & Learning, 4, 69-85.

13.

Drake

Goldsmith

Strachan

(2006). A novel approach to teaching teamwork. Teaching in Higher Education, 1(11), 33-46.

14.

Ferrante

C. J.

Green

S. G.

Forster

W. R.

(2006). Getting more out of team projects: Incentivizing leadership to enhance performance. Journal of Management Education, 30, 788-797.

15.

Gillies

R. M.

(2000). The maintenance of cooperative and helping behaviors in cooperative groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 97-111.

16.

Glesne

(1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

17.

Golafshani

(2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597-607.

18.

Gottschall

Garcia-Bayonas

(2008). Student attitudes towards group work among undergraduate students in business administration, education, and mathematics. Educational Research Quarterly, 32, 3-28.

19.

Hansen

R. S.

(2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 11-19.

20.

Hawk

T. F.

Lyons

P. R.

(2008). Please don’t give up on me: When faculty fail to care. Journal of Management Education, 32, 316-338.

21.

Hughes

R. L.

Jones

S. K.

(2011). Developing and assessing college student teamwork skills. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149, 53-64.

22.

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.

23.

Jacelon

C. S.

Imperio

(2005). Participant diaries as a source of data in research with older adults. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 991-997.

24.

Johnson

Turner

L. A.

(2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(1988, Winter). Cooperative learning: Two heads learn better than one. In Context, 18, 34-39.

26.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 67-73.

27.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

Smith

K. A.

(1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 27-35.

28.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

Smith

K. A.

(2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29.

29.

Katzenbach

Smith

(1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 111-120.

30.

Kvale

(1996). InterViews: As introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

Lejk

Wyvill

(2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 61-72.

32.

Lightner

Bober

M. J.

Willi

(2007). Team-based activities to promote engaged learning. College Teaching, 55, 5-18.

33.

Mundell

Pennarola

(1999). Shifting paradigms in management education: What happens when we take groups seriously? Journal of Management Education, 23, 663-683.

34.

Murray

M. H.

Lonne

(2006). An innovative use of the web to build graduate team skills. Teaching in Higher Education, 1(11), 63-77.

35.

Nesheim

B. E.

Guentzel

M. J.

Gansemer-Topf

A. M.

Ross

L. E.

Turrentine

C. G.

(2006, Fall). If you want to know, ask: Assessing the needs and experiences of graduate students. New Directions for Student Services, 115, 5-19.

36.

O’Connor

Yballe

(2007). Team leadership: Critical steps to great projects. Journal of Management Education, 31, 292-312.

37.

Payne

B. K.

Monk-Turner

(2006). Students’ perceptions of group projects: The role of race, age, and slacking. College Student Journal, 40, 132-139.

38.

Payne

B. K.

Monk-Turner

Smith

Sumter

(2006). Improving group work: Voices of students. Education, 126, 441-448.

39.

Sharp

(2006). Deriving individual student marks from a tutor’s assessment of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 329-343.

40.

Slavin

R. E.

(1988). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Educational Leadership, 46, 31-33.

41.

Snyder

L. G.

(2009). Teaching teams about teamwork: Preparation, practice, and performance review. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 74-79.

42.

Springer

Stanne

M. E.

Donovan

(1999). Effects of small group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21-51.

43.

St. Clair

Tschirhart

(2002). When and where? Facilitating group work beyond the borders of the classroom. Journal of Management Education, 26, 449-461.

44.

Stake

R. E.

(2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Stashevsky

Koslowsky

(2006). Leadership team cohesiveness and team performance. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 63-74.

46.

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.

47.

Swaffield

(2008). Critical friendship, dialogue and learning, in the context of Leadership for Learning. School Leadership and Management, 28, 323-336.

48.

Summers

J. J.

Beretvas

S. N.

Svinicki

M. D.

Gorin

J. S.

(2005). Evaluating collaborative learning and community. Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 165-188.

49.

Sweet

Svinicki

(2007). Why a special issue on collaborative learning in postsecondary and professional settings? Educational Psychology Review, 19, 13-14.

50.

Tonn

J. C.

Milledge

(2002). Team building in an MBA “Gateway” course: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 26, 415-428.

51.

Tuckman

B. W.

(1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.

52.

Tuckman

B. W.

Jensen

M. A.

(1977, December). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2, 419-421.

53.

Waters-Hasler

Napier

(2002). Building and supporting student team collaboration in the virtual classroom. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 345-352.

54.

Wecker

(2012, March 14). Three reasons to choose a part-time MBA. US News & World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2012/03/14/three-reasons-to-choose-a-part-time-mba

55.

Wheelan

S. A.

(1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

56.

Whetten

D. A.

(2007). Principles of effective course design: What I wish I had known about about learning-centered teaching 30 years ago. Journal of Management Education, 31, 339-357.

57.

Winter

Neal

J. C.

Waner

K. K.

(2005). Student teams learning to cope with conflict. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 47(2), 67-74.

58.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research design methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.