Mitigating Conflict in Student Online Teams

1. Mitigating Conflict in Student Online Teams Dr. Richard Dool Seton Hall University Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning 2007

2. The Challenge • Online student teams face many of the same challenges on-campus and work teams face • The prime difference is that online team’s conflicts are rarely played out in “real time” • Adds tension • Limits instructor interventions

3. Student Reactions to Teams • 60% of surveyed students “dislike” team assignments • Difficulty in getting everyone on the “same page” • Unclear expectations and instructions • Grade dependence on others

4. Why Teams? • Instructors- • Belief in the value of learning to be an effective team member • Pedagogical rationale • Reducing the grading load

5. The Use of Teams • Organizations with 50+ employees • In the 2000s: 50% of all employees will be working in self-managed or problem solving teams (Boyett & Snyder,1998) • 70% of surveyed students worked on teams in the last 12 months. • CEOs routinely list “teamwork” as a top desired skill (Hart Research Associates, 2006). • Use of virtual teams increasing • By 2008, 41M employees will operate virtually at least one day per week Gartner Group (2006)

6. Online Student Team Projects • Over 200 online student team projects since 2002 • “Conflicts” - identified and tracked • “Conflicts” defined as “issues that have or may negatively effect the expected team outcomes or course learning objectives.”

7. Sources of Conflict • Mirror those of face to face teams • Differences in… • Expected outcomes (grades) • Roles and skills • Styles • Values • Resources (time) • Quality • Personality conflicts • Structural issues • Systems, time zone differences

8. Conflict Personas • “Martyr” • Quick to point out that he/she has more to do than others or that no one else is taking the project “seriously.” • “Excuse-meister” • Lots of creative energy - focused on excuses versus contribution. • Array of last minute illnesses, computer issues or last minute work commitments.

9. Conflict Personas • “Breathless in…” • Calls at the first sign of trouble • Tends to “cry wolf” • Annoying but good “early warning system” • “Silent Partner” • Most problematic • “Going silent” is very disruptive and creates outsized stress • Appears at the end with a “tale of woe”

10. Conflict Rankings • Student surveys, top sources of conflict: • #1 - Teammates “going silent” • #2 - “Quality” issues • Dissonance in the quality of inputs • #3 - Accusations of plagiarism within teams

11. Four Stages of Conflict Mitigation • Setting the Stage and Rules of Engagement • Inspecting What You Expect • Interventions Matrix • The Aftermath

12. Setting the Stage and the Rules of Engagement • The Syllabus • There is no “I” in Team • “On the same page” conference call • Student Pledges • Team Charter • Team Logs • Team Formulation

13. Setting the Stage and the Rules of Engagement • The Syllabus • Critical foundational element • Clearly state the purpose and expectations of the team assignment(s) • Clearly state the grading policy for the group assignment(s) • Significant portion of final grade • 15-30%

14. “There is no “I” in Team” • Positive teaming document posted in addition to the syllabus • Stresses: • Importance of being a productive and positive member of a team • Common pitfalls of teams • Examples of productive and unproductive teaming behaviors • “We are all in it together” grading policy

15. On the Same Page… • If possible, hold a “kick-off” live conference call with the students. • Reiterate the expectations and importance of team assignments. • Discuss the potential pitfalls and how to manage them within the team. • Answer questions. • Review the schedule.

16. Student Pledges • “Excuse elimination” • Require each student send an email to the instructor indicating expressly that the student has read and understands the syllabus, teaming document and expectations on plagiarism. • Instructor “reminder” emails • As a follow-up, 2-3 email reminders of the importance of positive teaming referring to the course documents.

17. Team Charters • Team Charters provide direction, clarify objectives and set limits(Gadiesh & Olivet, 1997). • Element of subconscious “pledging.” • Charters include: role assignments, skills inventory, contact information, meeting information and the conflict management process • First team “deliverable” • Assign points to emphasize importance (5% of team assignment grade)

18. Team Charter Sample

19. Team Charter Sample

20. Team Logs • Documents the team activities and who did what. • Helps create “evidence” for use in conflict interventions. • Team logs are delivered with each team assignment or on a periodic basis, as required by the instructor.

21. Team Log Sample

22. Team Formulation • Instructors form teams in several ways: • Let students decide amongst themselves • Re-use of prior teams • Teams assigned by instructor • Recommendation: Assign teams • Observe students for a few weeks if possible, assess talent and activity level. • Spread out the talent ensuring stronger and weaker students are intermixed and balanced between teams • Time zones - try to assign team members within the same time zone or no more than 1 hour different

23. Inspecting What You Expect • Performing in the “Open” • Creating “Evidence” • Instructor “Hovering”

24. Performing in the “Open” • Instructor role - monitoring and encouraging. • Expect teams to perform in the “open.” • Use of “Team Rooms” • Witness the team in action • “Evidence” of conflict

25. Creating Evidence • Student must create evidence of participation • Obvious presence and activity in the team room • Team Log acknowledgement

26. Instructor “Hovering” • Let the students know you are there. • Periodic postings in team rooms • “How are you doing”? • “Any questions”? • “I noticed…have you thought of this…” • Email reminders with examples or suggestions

27. Interventions Matrix • Soft Interventions • Hard Interventions • “Shock and Awe” Shock & Awe Hard Team Conflict or Tension Soft Impact on Learning Objectives

28. Soft Interventions • Conflicts will happen and interventions may be necessary • Soft interventions are the first line of defense • Essentially - “team heal thyself” • Posted or email reminders • Expectation of positive teaming • “Team first” attitudes are required • Grade interdependence • Advice and food for thought, not direction • Nudge in the right direction without solving problem

29. Hard Interventions • Time for a more direct approach. • Specific recommendations to get the team on track. • Directly speak to a student or • Directly speak to the team • Live conference call • Monitor for the next week or so to ensure the team is back on track. • Increase “hovering”

30. “Shock and Awe” • Other interventions have failed, learning objectives are in jeopardy • Team can no longer operate effectively • Direct intervention • Instructor prescribes specific steps for recovery • Compliance with team expectations is required • Grading risk for the team • Live conference calls with team • Initial and follow-up (1-2)

31. The Aftermath • The prime dilemma: Grading • Methods: • One grade fits all- no distinction between team members • Differentiation methods - means to evaluate individual contributions and adjust individual grades • Team Evaluations • Student assessment of their contribution as well as their teammates.

32. Team Assignments - Worth the Trouble? • Conflict mitigation adds to instructor workload but it works. • Four Stage methodology has reduced identified conflicts in online teams by 70% • Positive team membership is a necessary career competency. • Do we have an obligation to nurture these skills? • Employers value teaming skills