The Relationship Between Team Functioning and Solutions in Open-Ended Problem Solving Activities

1. The Quality of Solutions to Open-Ended Problem Solving Activities and its Relation to First-Year Student Team Effectiveness Tamara J. Moore Heidi A. Diefes-Dux P.K. Imbrie

2. What are Model-Eliciting Activities? • MEAs are authentic assessment activities that are open-ended with a fictitious client • Connect mathematical modeling to other fields • Elicit students thinking in the process of solving • Require teams of problem solvers

3. Research Question What relationship exists between student team functioning (as measured by interdependency, goal setting, and potency) and performance on Model-Eliciting Activities?

4. Setting • ENGR 106: Engineering Problem Solving and Computer Tools • First-year required introductory course in engineering (Approx. 1400 students) • Problem Solving – Mathematical Modeling • Teaming • Engineering Fundamentals – statistics/economics/logic development • Computer Tools – Excel/MATLAB

5. Factory Layout MEA • Client: The general manager of a metal fabrication company • Provide results for 122,500 ft2 square layout • Placement of departments: extrusion, heat-treat, shipping/receiving, and office space • Total distance and order of material travel for each product • Final department dimensions • Propose a reusable procedure to determine any square plant layout that takes spatial concerns and material travel into account

6. Teaming • What are teams? • Task-oriented • Interdependent social entities • Individual accountability to team • Why encourage teaming? • Research indicates student participation in collaborative work increases learning and engagement • Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) • Demand from industry

7. Team Effectiveness Scale • Student-reported questionnaire to measure team functionality • 26-item Likert scale • Given immediately following MEA • Internal reliability measured • Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.95 (N ~ 1400) • Subscales • Interdependency, Potency, Goal Setting, and Learning

8. Researcher Observations • Observation of one group per lab visited • Based on teaming literature • Interdependency – 3 items • Potency – 2 items • Goal Setting – 2 items • Teams received 1-5 score for 7 items • Detailed field notes also taken

9. Quality Assurance Guide Does the product meet the client’s needs?

10. Results • 11 student teams observed • Correlation of rankings of: • 11 teams self-reporting ranking • 11 observation score ranking • Aggregate score ranking With the MEA Quality Score

11. Results • MEA Quality Score vs.11 teams self-reporting ranking • Kendall’s Beta-Tau coefficient is -0.410 • Not statistically significant at a 0.05 level (2-tailed correlation) (p=0.108) • Moderate degree of correlation

12. Results

13. Results • MEA Quality Score vs.11 teams observed ranking • Kendall’s Beta-Tau coefficient is -0.572 • Statistically significant at a 0.05 level (2-tailed correlation) • Moderate degree of correlation

14. Results

15. Results • MEA Quality Score vs. Aggregate Team score ranking • Kendall’s Beta-Tau coefficient is -0.733 • Statistically significant at a 0.01 level (2-tailed correlation) • Marked degree of correlation

16. Results

17. Findings • Data suggests that • More work is needed in having students understand how to self-assess their teaming abilities • Research is needed to understand which of the team functioning categories are most important – especially in the observer rankings

18. Significance of the Study • Provides insight to the fundamental question: • Does team functionality affect team performance? • Leads to other research questions • Which characteristics of teaming are more likely to create better solutions? • How are these team attributes best fostered in the classroom? • Contributes to the discussion on ABET and the role of teaming and problem solving in undergraduate engineeringeducation

19. Questions? • To contact me: Tamara Moore tamara@umn.edu