There is no need to make the argument to me that I and my fellow students will need to be capable of working in teams in "the real world" because I have been living in it for many years now. I have had many different jobs in the last 10-12 years and all of them have a variable amount of team work required. I have been successful in every job that I have had and have never left a job because I could not work cooperatively and productively in a team.
This being said, there is a tremendous difference between team work in a job place and team work in academia. In a work place when a team member fails to preform that person is removed from the team and often from their position within the organization. The simulations presented in academia do not offer this level of motivation and therefore fail to meet their intended goals. The goals of the simulations are to teach students to compromise, to be flexible, considerate, manage time and learn to fulfill commitments. Instead team projects teach students that they can not rely on their peers, they must be prepared to produce the results of the team themselves and accept the fact that the team will all take credit for the product of the individual. In the end the quality of product represented by the team is of a poorer grade than what would have been produced by the individual had that individual started off the project knowing that they would be solely responsible for the project.
Academia needs to reformulate the way in which it attempts to simulate the expectations of the professional world.
3 comments:
I support your ideas on the problems with teamwork in academics. In my experience in which presentation has been split up and there is no paper. I find myself only doing my part of the work and removing myself from group because the standards do not meet mine. I guess this is selfish of me but my contribution to the team is non the less there.
Hmm, I can't agree more, that's a large part of why I introduced the peer evals to institute individual accountability for this pandemic problem in student team projects in academia.
But it seemed like a number of students just didn't take it seriously that I meant what I said and actually would act on it, till after the fact. I think its obvious to all of us from the presentations that the teams, consisting of individuals that made explicit efforts to work together - produced far superior products than otherwise.
The team make-up were randomized. I'd say the key difference between cohesive and not-so cohesive teams were often one or two individuals that kept up constant efforts in attempts to communicate, even when it seemed to be just one way and hopeless at the time. These people received bonus points if their team recognized their efforts.
The lesson here is that you have to put effort into getting the team to work for it to actually work. Grounding one's self in the "I'm doing this part" and then expecting everyone else's parts to magically fall in place when the time comes, is wishful thinking. If you're not communicating while performing the work for a grp product, the cracks will be very visible when the time comes. The same lack of comm. also breeds contempt and resentment, and results in poorer performance all around.
in terms of im doing my part if everyone is doing their part and their is communication it works out. in my experience you can never depend on others because they will just reap your benefits.
Post a Comment