Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education

Volume 1 Number 1
Spring 2003
Printed in the U.S.A.

Structuring the Classroom for Performance:

Cooperative Learning with
Instructor-Assigned Teams
Gary D. Koppenhaver and Charles B. Shrader
Iowa State University, 300 Carver Hall, Ames, IA 50011, e-mail: gkoppy@iastate.edu,
cshrader@iastate.edu

ABSTRACT
The main concern is a longstanding one in classroom instructionthe determinants of ef-
fective team performance. The paper explicitly examines the effect of teacher-controlled
factors on the use and functioning of student teams. From a sample of 500 undergradu-
ate students, data are obtained on aptitude, diversity, instability, motivation, personality
style, size, and performance. The regression results suggest that team motivation and
instability, which are both partly controlled by the instructor, are particularly important
in determining a teams performance. An implication is that instructor decisions about
team make-up and incentives can have a significant impact on student achievement.
Subject Areas: Cooperative Learning, Finance, Instructor-Assigned Teams,
Team Performance, Team Stability, and Teams.

INTRODUCTION
Cooperative learning, as an innovation in the scholarship of teaching, has devel-
oped in business schools over the last two decades (e.g., Bobbitt, Inks, Kemp,
& Mayo, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1985; McCorkle et al., 1999; Michaelsen,
Watson, & Shrader, 1985; Ravenscroft, Buckless, McCombs, & Zuckerman, 1995;
Siciliano, 2001). The growth of interest in cooperative learning coincided with the
introduction and acceptance of Total Quality Management in the business sector.
Among other things, TQM helped employers of business students realize the value
of teams and teamwork. The emphasis on people skill development has affected
the process if not the content of current business school instruction.
Cooperative learning includes a variety of instructional techniques aimed
at student-centered learning and the development of student interpersonal skills
(Siciliano, 2001). Members of a student team, as one example, work cooperatively
together to achieve a common goal and share leadership responsibility and influence
to facilitate learning. Students are responsible for the joint intellectual effort of the
team and are individually accountable for the teams academic achievement. Effec-
tive teams produce high-quality decisions and can provide a rich context for perfor-
mance feedback (Michaelsen et al., 1985; Williams, Beard, & Rymer, 1991). But
The authors express appreciation to Susan P. Ravenscroft of Iowa State University and to the two
anonymous reviewers whose suggestions resulted in substantial improvements in the paper.

1
2 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

teams often also require additional student time to coordinate meetings, increase
the opportunity for interpersonal conflict, and can create a feeling by high achieve-
ment students that they are doing the instructors job (Feichtner & Davis, 1985;
McCorkle et al., 1999). Are there factors an instructor can control to overcome
these disadvantages, making student work teams an effective learning experience?
The primary goal of this paper is to explore the determinants of student
team performance in light of the decisions the instructor can make in setting the
teams. An empirical model of team performance is developed and examined to
understand the relationships between team performance, student aptitude, student
motivation, and factors affecting interpersonal dynamics. The model is estimated
with data that reflect the ability of the students themselves to terminate and hire
members and so change team membership. The research provides evidence for a
theory of team behavior that relies on the absence of team membership change as a
sufficient condition for high performance. The identification of factors associated
with high team performance can help the instructor understand the likely results
from a cooperative learning environment when other conditions for high team
performance are not met.

GROUP PROCESS AND OUTCOMES

The literature has been fairly consistent over the years with respect to the out-
comes of group processes. In general, researchers adopting a broad perspective of
group problem solving conclude that groups generally produce decisions useful
for attacking difficult problems, but also conclude that it takes time for groups to
develop the necessary structure to perform. For example, in what is now perhaps
the best-known model of group development, Tuckman (1965) posits that a group
passes through stages of orienting members toward the task at hand (forming), en-
gaging in intragroup conflict (storming), developing group structure and cohesion
(norming) before it gets to a point where it can perform.
Maiers (1967) classic study of the assets and liabilities of group problem
solving indicates some of the clear advantages of groups. For instance, groups tend
to generate high levels of information and alternative approaches to addressing
the complex problems. Maier notes further that group problem-solving activity
leads to better comprehension and acceptance of the solution on the part of partic-
ipants. However, liabilities of group problem solving can include social pressure
(groupthink) and intragroup politics.
Contemporary authors, such as Fuller and Aldag (2001), build into their
general group problem-solving model the notion of group development and per-
formance by indicating that group-structure variablesincluding stage of group
development, homogeneity, and cohesiveness, are preconditions for group perfor-
mance. Consequently, group work has come to be seen as a viable method of
enhancing human performance in industrial and education settings (Slavin, 1995;
Turner, 2001).

COOPERATIVE LEARNINGTHEORY AND RESEARCH

Cooperative learning is defined in many ways, but most definitions have in com-
mon the notion of the instructional use of small class groups or teams where peer
Koppenhaver and Shrader 3

interaction plays the key role in learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991;
Ravenscroft, Buckless, & Hassall, 1999). Cooperative learning typically requires
students to be placed in small teams enabling collaborative work on assignments, in
an attempt to maximize each others learning. Accordingly, it reduces the centrality
of the instructor in the classroom.
Slavin (1995) and Ravenscroft et al. (1999) have reviewed the literature pro-
viding a theoretical background for cooperative learning in classroom settings.
Ravenscroft et al., for example, identify motivation, social cohesion, cognitive
elaboration, and opportunity to practice as the four theoretical areas most relevant
to college-aged students. Motivational theory indicates that people are goal-driven,
and that cooperative settings enhance opportunities for both individual and collec-
tive goal attainment. Social cohesion theorists suggest that over time, group mem-
bers develop positive affection for each other, thereby leading to satisfaction with
the group. The cognitive elaboration view is that the interaction fostered in coop-
erative settings is intrinsically rewarding. And the opportunity to practice model
states that talking improves learning more than passive listening. Taken together,
these four approaches seem to coalesce on the notion that discussion and sharing
are productive learning strategies.
As noted by Williams et al. (1991) and Ravenscroft et al. (1995), there are
several potential benefits from using cooperative learning in the classroom. Be-
cause cooperative learning is an active learning method, in contrast to lecturing,
it may enhance information retention. Work teams undoubtedly place greater re-
sponsibility on students to manage their own learning. Cooperative learning helps
motivate student preparation because students may want to avoid disappointing
other team members. Achievement in problem solving may be high because, in
part, an individual may get stuck on a problem and give up, while work teams
are likely to keep seeking a solution to a difficult problem. High-level thinking
skills are developed because members are exposed to alternative problem-solving
strategies. Cooperative learning also exposes students to professional work envi-
ronments. Finally, both interpersonal communication and technical skills may be
improved because students help other team members learn.
There is a considerable amount of research demonstrating that coopera-
tive learning does indeed enhance student performance (Johnson et al., 1991;
Ravenscroft et al., 1999). Cooperative learning has been used to train dentistry
students in clinical exercises (Scannapieco & Herreid, 1994), and to introduce stu-
dents to the concepts of general chemistry (Kogut, 1997). It has also been used
successfully in teaching economics (Maier & Keenan, 1994), the sociology of
race relations (Slavin & Oikle, 1981), and for the teaching of computer skills
(Keeler & Anson, 1995). It appears that cooperative learning is particularly well
suited for addressing nonroutine problems requiring conceptual learning (Cohen,
1994).
Cooperative learning has an equally important history in the business ed-
ucation literature. For example, Batra, Walvoord, and Krishnan (1997), Deeter-
Schmeltz and Ramsey (1998), and Hernandez (2002) all found team learning to
be related to favorable attitudes toward learning and group project performance
in marketing courses. Caldwell, Weishar, and Glezen (1996), Cottell and Millis
(1992), Holter (1994), and Ravenscroft et al. (1995) report similar outcomes for
accounting and auditing students. And in studies involving management courses,
4 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

Bacon, Stewart, & Silver (1999), Hampton and Grudnitski (1996), Robbins (1994),
and Shrader and Henderson (1984) all find that team learning increases student in-
volvement and problem-solving skills.
While the majority of research work seems to conclude that team learning
has positive effects on student outcomes, Kunkel and Shafer (1997) and Lancaster
and Strand (2001) found no significant difference between team and nonteam
class environments. One possible explanation for the findings of these two studies
is that they were both undertaken in undergraduate accounting/auditing courses.
And it is possible that certain rule-governed accounting problems may lend them-
selves to more routine problem solving that can be performed equally well by
individuals.
Moreover, Johnson et al. (1991) note that the effects of cooperative learning
do not automatically appear by placing students in work groups. For cooperative
learning to occur, the instructor must carefully structure the learning experience.
These authors go on to note that almost any academic assignment can be structured
cooperatively, but the instructor needs to make decisions relative to the goals of
the assignment and the size and structure of the group. Students are often unsure
of course goals, according to Jaques (2000), and need the structure provided by the
instructor in order to focus on course goals. Jaques argues that without the structure
provided by the instructor, the group may wander away from the task at hand and
become dissatisfied or unproductive.

CREATING EFFECTIVE WORK TEAMS

Little prior research addresses the problem of effective work-team creation, al-
though the effectiveness of cooperative learning environments has been examined.
For example, Chan, Shum, and Lai (1996) focus on individual, not team, achieve-
ment, correcting for survivorship bias due to withdrawals during the semester, in
an introductory finance course. A student survey of satisfaction with a cooperative
learning methodsmall work teamscomplements the performance data. The
instructor set three-person work teams with diversity in cumulative grade point
average and academic major. The authors find that student achievement is higher
with cooperative learning than with lecturing and that the students have a favorable
attitude toward the small group learning strategy. Grace (1995) compares the effec-
tiveness of group research papers with group decision making in a computerized
simulation as mutually exclusive components of a course on risk management and
insurance. Teams are self-selected by the students. A survey is used to gather de-
mographic, attitudinal, and concept-mastery information. Grace finds support for
simulations as an active learning technique, especially for high grade point average
students.
Note that two different team-assignment approaches are used in these
articlesinstructor assignment and student self-selection. As noted by Bacon et al.
(1999), instructors have little to guide the assignment of students to teams, making
implementation difficult. Although setting teams by student self-selection and by
a third approachrandom assignmentare commonly used, both run the risk of
creating a work team with a skill-set too narrow to address complex problems.
Advantages of student self-selection include high initial cohesion, which tends
Koppenhaver and Shrader 5

to generate quick productivity, and the mitigation of interpersonal conflict. An

advantage of random assignment is that each student has the same chance of
working with every other student in class. The opportunity for a favorable team
experience is equitably distributed.
The contribution of this paper is to relate variables controlled by the instructor
to the creation and administration of teams in a cooperative learning environment.
The value of cooperative learning is taken as given. The results reflect a unique
feature of the cooperative learning environment: membership changes after team
creation, i.e., team instability, are the result of endogenous forces of team dynamics
that help mitigate free rider or social loafing problems. Prescriptions for team
diversity, the weight given to team activity, the use of peer evaluations of team
members, and team size add to our understanding of situations in which cooperative
learning works best.
The research rests squarely on a newly constructed dataset of undergraduate
students enrolled in three different, small-section courses related to the area of
investments in a finance curriculum. An empirical model is developed and estimated
to explore the factors affecting actual team performance during a semester. The
multivariate results indicate that finance student teams respond to (i) the incentives
offered for high team performance, (ii) some but not all types of team member
diversity, and (iii) a change in team membership. A key role is found for team
stability in team performance.

MODELING TEAM PERFORMANCE

Similar to Bacon et al. 1999, the goal here is to provide instructors using co-
operative learning techniques in general and student teams in particular with
empirically supported recommendations on how to create effective active learn-
ing environments. Unlike that study, however, in which graduate business stu-
dent surveys of team experience were used, this research is based on the actual
team performance of undergraduate finance majors. Assume that team perfor-
mance is produced by inputs of team aptitude, student motivation, and fac-
tors affecting interpersonal dynamics. Let the linear relationship be represented
by

Teami = + Team Aptitudei + Motivationi

+ Interpersonal Dynamicsi + i , (1)

where all explanatory variables are further refined below and the dependent variable
is team performance.
The inputs of team aptitude, student motivation, and factors affecting inter-
personal dynamics may be substitutable in the efficient production of team perfor-
mance. For example, highly motivated students working well together in a team
may perform better than a high-aptitude team that lacks motivation or suffers from
intrateam conflict. Holding other things constant, the greater the team aptitude, the
greater the team motivators, or the lower the barriers to smooth functioning of the
team, the greater should be the measured team performance.
6 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

Team Aptitude
Variables that measure team aptitude are the number of finance credit hours taken
prior to enrollment in the courses in which team performance is measured, denoted
Prior Courses, and the average cumulative grade point of the students on the team at
the start of the semester, denoted GPA . Prior exposure to the concepts and principles
of the major curriculum is assumed to be an asset for the team in solving course-
related assignments. The variable also captures the difference between required and
elective coursework because the greater the number of prior finance credit hours, the
greater the likelihood that the team performance is measured in an elective finance
course. In addition, the greater the prior credit hours, the greater the likelihood that
members have had previous team experience. Team-related norms may already be
established, which enhances productivity. This variable does not capture how well
the student performed on average in these prior courses, however.
The average cumulative grade point of the teama measure of team
aptitudeis controlled by the instructor in setting the teams at the start of the
semester. That is, the instructor might assign high-aptitude students to different
teams to equalize the average grade point of the teams in the class. The effect of the
teams cumulative grade point average on performance is not clear, a priori. High-
achievement students may prefer active learning (Grace, 1995), but not like sharing
the results of applying their human capital with other students, especially when
individual course grades are set on a curve. If the rewards for team performance
are high enough, preferences for active learning and the desire to perform well by
high-achievement students could dominate. Consequently, it is hypothesized that:

Ho,1a : Team performance improves with the per capita prior major
coursework of the team members.
Ho,1b : Team performance improves with the average GPA of the team
members.

Team Motivation
Variables that measure team motivation are denoted Emphasis and Peer. Emphasis
measures the importance of team performance in final course grades; Peer measures
the importance of evaluations of team contribution by other members of the same
team. Both variables are controlled by the instructor in setting up the course. Perfor-
mance incentives built into the administration of the course are usually necessary
for high achievement in student teams (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Liden, Nagao,
& Parsons, 1986). Ravenscroft et al. (1995), however, extend earlier research re-
sults to show that variations in team grade incentives including peer evaluation
have little effect on individual test performance. While peer evaluation sensitizes a
team member to the benefits of his or her contribution to the teams effort, Bacon
et al. (1999) argue that peer evaluation is negatively related to highly rated team
experiences because it inhibits the resolution of unproductive conflict during the
semester. Students use peer evaluation at the end of the semester to anonymously
hold social loafers accountable instead of resolving conflicts as they occur. Whether
these highly rated team experiences are also associated with high-performing teams
is unknown from the Bacon et al. data, however.
Koppenhaver and Shrader 7

What is known from a broad review of existing research is that peer as-
sessment often leads to numerous student performance-related benefits including
increased engagement on the task, increased understanding, enhanced capacity for
reflection, and improved capacity to generalize to new situations (Topping & Ehly,
1998). If students are motivated by grades, it is expected that the greater the weight
placed on either team activities or peer evaluation in the calculation of course
grades, the greater is team performance. Concomitantly, it is hypothesized that:

Ho,2a : Team performance improves with the relative emphasis placed

on team activities in course grades.
Ho,2b : Team performance improves with the relative emphasis placed
on peer evaluation in course grades.

Factors Affecting Interpersonal Dynamics

Three variables, denoted Team Style, Gender, and GPA , measure aspects that affect
the smooth functioning of student teams. All three variables are controlled by the
instructor in setting teams at the start of the semester and are likely to affect team
performance. If students self-select their teams, commitment to the teams perfor-
mance may be high but so are the risks of groupthink (Janis, 1972). Groupthink is
a team decision-making phenomenon in which considerations of team solidarity
lead members to ignore available information and accept a nonoptimal decision.
For instance, a team entirely comprising assertive, task-oriented individuals may
arrive at a team decision too quickly, when additional analysis might yield a differ-
ent decision. Diversity in decision-making approaches within the team may inhibit
the onset of groupthink and expose students to different problem-solving methods.
Team Style measures the diversity of personality styles on the instructor-assigned
teams. Gender is included to test the usefulness of simply mixing different genders
on a team in lieu of having students take and report the personality style inventory.
The same rationale might support using the standard deviation of team member
cumulative grade point averages as a diversity measure. The greater the standard
deviation, the greater the diversity in aptitude in the team.
Previous research on peer-assisted learning does not indicate a clear set of
findings for gender effects on student performance (Topping & Ehly, 1998). More-
over, research on team gender diversity is also, in general, unclear as to its ef-
fects on work team performance (Bowditch & Buono, 2001). However, Johnson
and Smith (1997), in a study of university students, found females to rank higher
than their male counterparts on group process skills. Joiner, Issroff, and Demiris
(1999), in a review of the gender diversity group literature, conclude that females
perform well in teams assigned complex problems where maintenance issues are
important.
With regard to personality style, it is expected that teams composed of in-
dividuals representing a variety of styles will have difficulty cooperating on all
aspects of assigned tasks (Gardner & Korth, 1998). Teams comprising members
with high GPAs, on the other hand, should create a resource for the group. A study
of finance students indicates that students prior overall grade performance is a
strong predictor of finance course performance (Borde, Byrd, & Modani, 1998).
8 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

Consequently, we pose the following null hypotheses with respect to diversity

effects on team performance:

Ho,3a : Team performance is decreased by the diversity of team mem-

ber personality styles.
Ho,3b : Team performance is increased by the diversity of team member
gender.
Ho,3c : Team performance is increased by the diversity of team member
aptitudes.

Two other variables, denoted Size and Instability, are structural factors that
affect the functioning of student teams. Bacon et al. (1999) cite research on the
interaction costs as team size grows. Not only is it more difficult to coordinate
the efforts of the team as membership grows, but effort may decrease as individ-
ual contributions lose value in team decisions. Reduced effort may go unnoticed
as team size increases, creating an incentive to free-ride on the efforts of others
(Johnson & Johnson, 1985). Additional energy is then required to monitor individ-
ual effort in the team. A lack of cohesion in large teams also may lead to conflict
and dissension (Feichtner & Davis, 1985). Groupthink, however, may be less likely
as team size increases. Extant research with work groups reveals no size effects
on group decision speed, but does indicate that relatively large groups tend to be
slightly more productive and smaller groups tend to be slightly better satisfied with
work outcomes (Thomas & Fink, 1963).
Given team size, a change in team membership is likely to upset the behavioral
norms that the team has already established (Feichtner & Davis, 1985). The variable
Instability measures the occurrence of a change in team membership sometime
during the semester. Depending on the administration of the course, the instructor
may or may not have control over team membership stability. Teams generally
progress through stages of productive interaction, however, and the more stable the
team structure, the higher the team performance (Tuckman, 1965). Membership
change may lead to a reassessment of individual roles on the team and a loss of
cohesiveness. Member interaction costs can then rise as either the size of the team
grows with the addition of a new member or the team loses a member that accepted
established behavioral norms.
A related set of issues concerns both the original assigning of team mem-
bership by the teacher and the membership stability of teams. Few studies, if any,
have examined the impact of either of these two factors on team performance.
Team assignments made by the instructor may be seen by students as informed and
objective (Bacon et al., 1999; Bolton, 1999; Chapman & Van Auken, 2001; Jaques,
2000; Lerner, 1995; McKendall, 2000). Yet, students may desire to choose their
own team members and may resent being forced to work with strangers (Holter,
1994). A team may likewise feel less able to manage the workload if a member
chooses to leave. In contrast, the team may be happy to get rid of a social loafer.
Some have called for research addressing the issues of team assignment and team
stability (Feichtner & Davis, 1985; Bacon et al., 1999), accordingly. Hypotheses
covering these issues can be stated as:
Koppenhaver and Shrader 9

Ho,3d : Team performance is increased by team size.

Ho,3e : Team performance is decreased by team instability.
The linear model of determinants of team performance, which will be used to
support or reject the hypotheses above, is described in equation (2) with substitu-
tions for each of the broadly defined explanatory variables used in equation (1).
Teami = 0 + 1 GPAi + 2 Prior Coursesi + 1 Emphasisi + 2 Peeri
+ 1 Team Stylei + 2 Genderi + 3 GPAi + 4 Sizei
+ 5 Instabilityi + i , (2)
where measures for all variables are defined in the next section.

DATA AND VARIABLES

The data used here are from a sample of 500 undergraduate students enrolled in
semester-long finance courses at a major public university from August 1997 to
January 2001. The sample students formed 130 different cooperative work teams,
all assigned by the same instructor. The courses are: Principles of Investments, a
required course in the finance major; Financial Futures and Options, an elective in
finance with Principles of Investments as the prerequisite; and Security Analysis
and Portfolio Management, an elective in finance with Principles of Investments
as the prerequisite. The latter elective course also requires instructor permission
to enroll. The acceptance rate for students that apply is approximately 70%. The
same procedure for collecting team formation information was used in each of the
different class sections.
On the first day of class for each course, each student is asked to supply infor-
mation that includes gender, cumulative grade point average, prerequisite course
grade, prior number of major courses taken, and personality style. Seven differ-
ent ranges for cumulative grade point average, not exact averages, are used in
collecting student information, to encourage participation. Using the self-reported
information of students, the instructor then determines all teams. A typical team-
assignment heuristic first separates the self-reported information by gender, then
sorts each set from highest to lowest cumulative grade point average. Teams are
set by combining a pair of high and low grade point average males with a pair of
high and low grade point average females. The personality style of the members
of the preliminary team is examined for diversity and when possible, adjustments
are made to include different personality styles on the team. Team size is usually
targeted at four students per team, although withdrawals and late enrollments cause
team size to vary in a range from two to six students.

Personality Style
An important element in setting teams is each members personality style. In gen-
eral, personality style relates to enduring personality characteristics that are re-
flected in individual behavior, which affects how a team of different personalities
performs (Kunce, Cope, & Newton, 1991). The personality characteristics are
10 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

related to two basic dimensions: assertive versus reflective expression of feelings,

and task- versus people-orientation in completing activities. Measurement of these
personality characteristics is important for self-awareness and how to adapt behav-
ior according to team expectations. Knowledge of other team members personality
styles may help avoid conflict and stress within the team. Interpersonal relations
may be facilitated with an understanding of personality similarities and differences.
Once measured, students are encouraged to reflect on their personality style and
share their style information with other team members.
Each individuals personality style is determined by completing a simple
inventory of 16 potential social interactions. The Appendix contains a copy of the
instrument (adapted from Russell, 1986). This instrument is similar to that used
by Gardner and Korth (1998). Students are instructed to complete the inventory in
the context of a prior successful team experience. The two different dimensions
of preferred personal style in the inventory are assertive versus reflective behavior
(the top half of the Appendix) and task- versus people-orientation (the bottom half
of the Appendix). Students are then identified as one of four different personality
styles: assertive/task-oriented, assertive/people-oriented, reflective/task-oriented,
and reflective/people-oriented. In the assignment of cooperative work teams, a mix
of different personality styles is sought, if possible.
A problem in attempting to mix team member personality styles is that
the distribution of styles is not uniform. A clear plurality of finance students
has an assertive/task-oriented personality. Teams vary greatly in the mix of their
members personality styles in any given semester. An evaluation of whether the
distribution of a teams personality styles affects team performance requires a
measure of personality style diversity. The sum of the squared percentages of per-
sonality styles in the team at the end of the semester is calculated to measure
the personality style heterogeneity of a team. That is, let Team Stylei be defined
as
4  
kij 2
TeamStylei = , (3)
j=1
Sizei

where kij is the number of students with personality style j on team i and Sizei is
the total number of students assigned to the team. Note that the measurement is
taken after any team changes during the semester. The measure of personality style
diversity reaches a minimum of 0.25 when an equal number of personality styles
exists on a team and reaches a maximum of 1.00 when all team members have the
same personality style.

Team Performance Measurement and Dynamics

In the administration of each course, credit for a given team activity is earned
equally by all team members. Team points are earned when all team members, for
example, earn more than a predetermined percentage on the same exam, success-
fully complete a team problem-solving assignment given in class, lead or critique
a case discussion, or make a presentation to the class. Unless specifically approved
by the instructor, individually completed team assignments are not accepted for
credit. Still, members of the same team may earn different credit for the same team
Koppenhaver and Shrader 11

Table 1: Summary statistics, by variable.

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Team 0.8039 0.0810 0.4577 0.9830
Team Relative 0.9189 0.0821 0.4958 1.0000
GPA 3.1023 0.1998 2.5900 3.5600
Prior Courses 3.8188 2.1490 0.0000 9.0000
Emphasis 0.3258 0.0430 0.2500 0.4000
Peer 0.0504 0.0602 0.0000 0.1500
Team Style 0.5011 0.1897 0.2500 1.0000
Gender 0.3021 0.2932 0.0000 1.0000
GPA 0.4413 0.1572 0.0000 0.7754
Size 3.8462 0.7094 2.0000 6.0000
Instability 0.2000 0.4015 0.0000 1.0000
Instability Emphasis 0.0658 0.1331 0.0000 0.3500
Instability Team Style 0.1214 0.2728 0.0000 1.0000
Note: The average, dispersion, and range of the variables for the sample of 130 finance
student teams. Team is the raw team-performance score for each team relative to the
maximum possible score in each different class. Team Relative is Team divided by the
top team score for that class. GPA ( GPA ) is the arithmetic average (standard deviation)
of all reported cumulative grade point averages for members of the team at the end of
the semester. Prior Courses is the credit hours per capita of finance courses taken before
the start of the course. Emphasis (Peer) is the weight placed on team activities (peer
evaluation) in final course grade determination. Team Style is the sum of the squared
percentages of personality styles in the team at the end of the semester. Gender is
the percentage of female students on the team. Size is the total number of students on
the team. Instability is an indicator variable that indicates a change from initial team
assignment.

activity and so accumulate different team points at the end of the semester. Mem-
bers of the same team may end the semester with different team points because a
student does not contribute to a group activity or the student changed teams during
the semester according to the instructors, the students, or the teams decision. The
process by which a team changes membership is further discussed below.
The variable the research seeks to explain, team performance, is measured
as the average of all team members team points during the semester relative to
two different absolute standards. In one case, the raw performance score for each
team is measured relative to the maximum possible score for team activities in
each different class (Team). This assumes little pedagogical difference across the
three different classes from which the data comes and that the requirements for
the same course stay constant over time. Unfortunately, the classes represent a
mix of required and elective courses with different enrollment prerequisites and
assignments. To minimize the effect of these differences, dividing each raw team
score by the top team score for that class normalizes team performance (Team
Relative). As seen in Table 1, the normalization shifts the distribution of team
performance to the right with essentially the same variability.
Opportunistic behavior such as social loafing or free-riding on the work of
others is dealt with in at least one of two ways. Students are informed of these
mechanisms on the first day of class. First, for every team in the sample, a student
12 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

team member can resign from the team or be terminated by unanimous vote of the
team after completing the first 25% of the class periods and after contacting the
instructor. The released team member keeps the team points earned up to the release
date but can earn no other team points unless accepted by another team in class.
An unaffiliated student can interview with and be accepted by another team by
unanimous vote of the interviewing team and after contacting the instructor. Once
accepted as a new team member, all team points earned thereafter are added to the
students prior team points and the student cannot change teams again for another
25% of the class periods. The process is designed to mimic an employment contract;
high- and low-performing team members are most likely to change employers
when intrateam conflict is significant.
In addition, team membership may change at the request of the instructor.
Withdrawals from class after the first two weeks of the semester may necessi-
tate re-assignment of students to teams, particularly when the withdrawals coin-
cidentally occur in the same team. Reassignment does change established team
dynamics but is necessary to fairly balance student workloads. Students that with-
draw from or stop attending the class within the first week of team creation are
not considered to have ever been a team member and are ignored in the analysis
below. Given the importance of team membership change in the model of team
performance, Instability is the variable that indicates a change from initial team
assignment. It is defined as a dummy variable equal to one if team membership
changes during the semester due to a member voluntarily resigning, involuntarily
being fired, or being reassigned by the instructor, and equal to zero otherwise. In-
stability captures the event of a membership change regardless of the reason for the
change.
A second method for dealing with social loafing or free-riding on the work
of others, for some teams in the sample, is a requirement that each team member
evaluate how each of the other members of the team performed during the semester.
The written, confidential evaluation asks that each team member separately evaluate
each colleague in terms of his or her effort in contributing to the teams performance,
not the quality of his or her results. All team members could receive the maximum-
effort evaluation score. Low-effort team members could then be held accountable
for their actions at the end of the semester. An average of all peer evaluations is
used in calculating each students final course grades. Because peer evaluation is a
team-related activity, team performance measurement when peer evaluation is part
of the course is taken to be the weighted average of the students team activity
score and the peer evaluation score. The weights depend on the importance of the
team activities, Emphasis, relative to the peer evaluation, Peer, in final course grade
determination.

Summary Statistics
Table 1 summarizes the data and identifies additional explanatory variables. GPA
( GPA ) is the arithmetic average (standard deviation) of reported cumulative grade
point averages for all ending members of the team at the start of the semester.
Prior Courses is the credit hours per capita of major courses taken at the start of
the semester, excluding the three-credit hour prerequisite. The variable does not
include concurrent coursework. Emphasis (Peer) is the percentage weight placed
Koppenhaver and Shrader 13

on team activities (peer evaluation) in the determination of final course grades.

Gender is defined as the percentage of female students on the team. Note again that
the measurements are taken after any team membership changes. The explanatory
variables GPA , GPA , Prior Courses, Team Style, and Gender are based on self-
reported data collected from students at the start of the semester. The instructor
has direct control over Emphasis and Peer in administering the course and over all
other explanatory variables in assigning student teams.
As the summary statistics in Table 1 reveal, team performance averages about
80% of the maximum in each course. Average team size in the sample is just under
four students. The average diversity of personality styles is consistent with an
equal split of just two out of four different personality styles. The predominant
personality styles are assertive/task-oriented (two students per team on average)
and reflective/task-oriented (0.8 students per team on average). One in five teams
experienced a membership change during the semester on average. Team activities
(peer evaluations) make up between 25% and 40% (0% and 15%) of the total course
grade depending on the semester, and average 33% (5%) in the entire sample.
Student teams are also characterized by a 3.10 cumulative grade point average on
a 4.00 scale, having less than four credit hours per capita in prior major courses,
and being 30% female. An observation about the data is that there is a general lack
of diversity in personality styles and gender. If the lack of diversity is a general
characteristic of undergraduate finance majors, perhaps due to self-selection, then
understanding the determinants of team performance is key for team assignment
decisions. This is addressed in the next section.

ESTIMATION RESULTS
In general, the results show that the greater the team aptitude, the greater the team
motivation, or the lower the barriers to smooth functioning of the team, the greater
the team performance. High team performance is associated with a high team
average cumulative grade point, independent of other influences. High-aptitude
students make teams work better. Additionally, a high weight placed on peer eval-
uations in calculating course grades improves performance. Students are motivated
by the rewards from contributing to the team effort. The primary determinant of
high team performance, however, is the lack of team membership change during
the semester. The disruption of individual roles and established behavioral norms
caused by a membership change hurts the achievement of student team goals. When
a high weight is placed on team activities in calculating course grades, the negative
effects of a team membership change are exacerbated. Given a team membership
change, a precondition can still result in high team performance. The precondi-
tion is diversity in the personality styles within the team after the change. A team
with diverse personalities is hurt less or recovers more quickly when membership
changes than a team lacking such diversity. To the extent the team has a mixture
of personality styles, a variable controlled by the instructor, a team can offset the
disruptive effects of a membership change.
Table 2 shows the ordinary least squares estimation of equation (2) when
the dependent variable is Team. The results are corrected for significant first-order
serial correlation. Table 3 shows the estimations when the dependent variable is
14 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

Table 2: Determinants of finance student team performance.

Independent Model
Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Constant 0.4149 0.4014 0.4105 0.4009 0.4380 0.4360 0.4558
(3.71) (3.64) (3.83) (3.86) (4.36) (4.35) (4.50)
GPA 0.0526 0.0623 0.0586 0.0568 0.0611 0.0600 0.0594
(1.84) (2.29) (2.08) (2.08) (2.28) (2.24) (2.19)
Prior Courses 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010
(0.40) (0.37) (0.41) (0.36)
Emphasis 0.3796 0.4078 0.3983 0.3941 0.4746 0.4926 0.4284
(2.02) (2.17) (2.14) (2.10) (2.51) (2.61) (2.28)
Peer 0.6519 0.6378 0.6403 0.6595 0.5967 0.5952 0.6083
(4.54) (4.41) (4.47) (4.49) (4.10) (4.09) (4.21)
Team Style 0.0020 0.0045
(0.06) (0.15)
Gender 0.0104 0.0098
(0.54) (0.52)
GPA 0.0413 0.0418
(1.23) (1.27)
Size 0.0133 0.0132 0.0132 0.0135
(1.57) (1.56) (1.60) (1.66)
Instability 0.0403 0.0382 0.0390 0.0400 0.0406
(2.93) (2.82) (2.98) (3.08) (3.14)
Instability 0.1257
Emphasis (3.20)
Instability 0.0507
Team Style (2.66)

R2 0.4744 0.4671 0.4677 0.4742 0.4564 0.4577 0.4450

No. of 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
Observations

Note: The t-ratio value for coefficients significantly different from zero at the 5% (1%) level
is 1.66 (2.36) for a one-tailed test.
Dependent variable: Team.
Ordinary least squares estimates explaining finance team-performance for the sample of
130 teams. t-ratios for the estimate is in parentheses. Team is the raw team-performance
score for each team relative to the maximum possible score in each different class. The
independent variables are described in Table 1.

Team Relative, also corrected for first-order serial correlation. Recall Team Relative
adjusts team performance for course content and team grading differences across
different courses. Variations in the basic linear model with each dependent variable
are reported because multiple measures of the impact of team aptitude (the
coefficients), motivation (the coefficients), and barriers to smooth team operations
(the coefficients) are assumed in equation (2). In addition, there may be important
interactions between explanatory variables. The results reported in Tables 2 and 3
represent the best-fit models with the data.
In particular, column (1) in Table 2 estimates the complete model as described
in equation (2). The variables significantly different from zero at the 10% level or
better are GPA , Emphasis, Peer, and Instability. The greater the team cumulative
grade point average and grade weights placed on either team activities or peer
Koppenhaver and Shrader 15

Table 3: Determinants of finance student team performance.

Model
Independent
Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Constant 0.6198 0.6121 0.5976 0.5874 0.5843 0.5820 0.6025
(4.95) (4.93) (4.95) (5.03) (5.24) (5.23) (5.31)
GPA 0.0491 0.0602 0.0582 0.0538 0.0635 0.0618 0.0617
(1.52) (1.94) (1.81) (1.75) (2.08) (2.03) (1.98)
Prior Courses 0.0028 0.0027 0.0026 0.0025
(0.92) (0.90) (0.86) (0.85)
Emphasis 0.3425 0.3733 0.3800 0.3593 0.4089 0.4335 0.3591
(1.65) (1.81) (1.86) (1.72) (2.02) (2.15) (1.77)
Peer 0.3190 0.2995 0.3042 0.3211 0.3153 0.3134 0.3298
(2.02) (1.90) (1.95) (1.99) (2.05) (2.04) (2.15)
Team Style 0.0160 0.0235
(0.46) (0.69)
Gender 0.0061 0.0083
(0.28) (0.38)
GPA 0.0659 0.0683
(1.72) (1.84)
Size 0.0008 0.0011 0.0002 0.0008
(0.08) (0.12) (0.02) (0.09)
Instability 0.0550 0.0521 0.0554 0.0567 0.0555
(3.54) (3.37) (3.71) (3.88) (3.77)
Instability 0.1728
Emphasis (3.87)
Instability 0.0667
Team Style (3.05)

R2 0.3527 0.3359 0.3335 0.3521 0.3298 0.3332 0.3047

No. of 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
Observations

Note: The t-ratio value for coefficients significantly different from zero at the 5% (1%)
level is 1.66 (2.36) for a one-tailed test.
Dependent variable: Team Relative.
Ordinary least squares estimates explaining finance team performance for the sample
of 130 teams. t-ratios for the estimates are in parentheses. Team Relative is the raw
team-performance score for each team relative to the top team score for that class. The
independent variables are described in Table 1.

evaluation, the greater the team performance. Consequently, the hypotheses that
team performance is affected by the aptitude and the motivations of the teams
members to perform are supported. Prior major coursework and the social diversity
of the team do not independently affect team performance. Possible explanations for
the lack of significance of Prior Courses is that the subject matter of investments-
related courses may be different from other courses or that the behavioral norms
established in a prior major class may be nontransferable to other classes. Team
member interaction costs, especially caused by instability in team membership,
negatively impact performance, supporting our hypothesis H o,3e .
In columns (2), (3), and (4), the insignificant influences of the diversity mea-
sures are further explored. If all three measures capture the same team character-
istics then this may create a multicollinearity problem in estimation. Each of the
16 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

three variables is introduced separately as a check. None of the variables, however,

are significant when entered separately. The implication is that mixing finance
teams by personality style, gender, or aptitude has no separate, significant effect
on team performance. The hypotheses that team performance in finance is affected
by personality style, gender, and aptitude diversity of the team members cannot be
supported on the basis of the estimates in columns (1)(4) of Table 2.
In columns (5), (6), and (7), the insignificant variables in the previous models
are assumed to have zero coefficients. The difference between the three estimated
models relates to how Instability affects team performance. The model in column
(5) is a parsimonious version of the model in column (1) and is included for
robustness purposes. Omitting the variables makes little difference in the estimated
coefficients. The models in columns (6) and (7) assume that the influence of a team
membership change is more complicated than just lowering team performance by
four percentage points. In column (6) the estimated effect of a membership change
depends on the weight placed on team activities in calculating course grades. A
greater weight means greater motivation to perform as a team but also a greater
penalty should the team decide to change membership. In column (7) the estimated
effect of a membership change depends on the diversity of personality styles in the
team. At the extreme, a team made up of one personality style (Team Styles = 1)
experiences a loss of five, not four, percentage points in team performance as a
result of a team membership change. To the extent that this indirect, interactive
influence is a reflection of team diversity, the hypothesis that team performance is
affected by the diversity of personality styles of the team members is supported.
Table 3, which assumes a different measure of team performance, leads to
the same conclusions about the significant determinants of team performance as
discussed above. One additional observation is that the models lose explanatory
power overall when Team Relative rather than Team is the dependent variable.
Instead of explaining about 46% of the variance in team performance, the mod-
els explain about 33% of performance variation. Another observation is that the
estimates in columns (1) and (3) of Table 3 offer weak support for diversity in
team grade point averages when assigning student teams. In both models, greater
diversity in member cumulative grade point average is associated with higher team
performance.

CONCLUSION
The goal of this paper is to provide guidance to instructors in creating a cooperative
learning environment for students. Team approaches to cooperative learning can
be applied to a variety of disciplines and courses and improve both student learning
and instructor effectiveness. A structured approach to setting teams, as exemplified
by the techniques examined in this paper, has the potential to benefit everyone
involved in the educational process.
Instructors seeking a successful cooperative learning experience are advised
to assign small work teams by average cumulative grade point average and to
emphasize the importance of teamwork in administering course grades. To mo-
tivate team performance, the weight for team activities should be significant and
peer evaluations should be used and graded. If teams are assigned for diversity in
Koppenhaver and Shrader 17

individual personality style, unexpected changes in team membership are less likely
to interfere with team performance. Overall, instructors should try to keep team
membership as stable as possible. By structuring teams accordingly, the instructors
should be able to overcome student resistance to cooperation.
This research has implications for students and instructors alike. First, the
empirical findings reveal that stable teams and structured emphasis on teamwork
benefit students, regardless of team gender or personality characteristics. Stability
enhances the teams ability to reach and maintain the performing phase of team
development (Tuckman, 1965). Clearly structured performance-evaluation criteria
also help a team attain academic goals. It seems very likely that both stability and
emphasis on team performance act to create an atmosphere of mutual benefit within
the team.
The results of this study also have implications for business schools. Many
business schools have adopted team-based teaching approaches in attempts to in-
tegrate core curricula and to enhance overall student learning. These team-based
approaches occur at both the undergraduate and MBA levels. For example, many
MBA programs assign students to ongoing work teams that are intended to last
throughout the core curriculum. Our results suggest that program administra-
tors should make every attempt to keep these teams intact as a work or study
unit.
Future research should examine team stability effects over time. The results
here indicate that instability decreases performance. Yet questions remain as to
how long it takes a group to recover from a change in membership. Does loss of a
member move a team back to an earlier phase of development? Or does membership
change involve more significant transaction costs to team members? In any case,
instructors can have a powerful influence on the learning and performance of student
teams. Future research should delve into how best to harness this power. [Received:
September 2001. Accepted: August 2002.]

REFERENCES
Bacon, D., Stewart K., & Silver, W. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst
student team experiences: How a teacher can make a difference. Journal of
Management Education, 23, 467488.
Batra, M., Walvoord, B., & Krishnan, K. (1997). Effective pedagogy for student-
team projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 19(Summer), 2642.
Bobbitt, L., Inks, S., Kemp, K., & Mayo, D. (2000). Integrating marketing courses to
enhance team-based experiential learning. Journal of Marketing Education,
22, 1524.
Bolton, M. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A just-in-time approach
to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23(3), 233250.
Borde, S., Byrd, A., & Modani, N. (1998). Determinants of student performance in
introductory finance courses. Journal of Financial Education, (Fall), 2330.
Bowditch, J., & Buono, A. (2001). A primer on organizational behavior. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
18 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

Caldwell, M., Weishar, J., & Glezen, G. (1996). The effect of cooperative learning
on student perceptions of accounting in the principles courses. Journal of
Accounting Education, 14(1), 1736.
Chan, K., Shum, C., & Lai, P. (1996). An empirical study of cooperative instruc-
tional environment on student achievement in principles of finance. Journal
of Financial Education, 22(Fall), 2128.
Chapman, K., & Van Auken, S. (2001). Creating positive group project experiences:
An examination of the role of the instructor on students perceptions of group
projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(2), 117127.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small
groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 135.
Cottell, P., & Millis, B. (1992). Cooperative education in accounting. Journal of
Accounting Education, 10, 95111.
Deeter-Schmeltz, D., & Ramsey, R. (1998) Student team performance: A method
for classroom assessment. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(2), 85
93.
Feichtner, S., & Davis, E. (1985). Why some groups fail: A survey of students
experiences with learning groups. The Organizational Behavior Teaching
Review, 9, 5873.
Fuller S., & Aldag, R. (2001). The GGPS model: Broadening the perspective on
group problem solving. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 324.
Gardner, B., & Korth, S. (1998). A framework for learning to work with teams.
Journal of Education for Business, 74(September/October), 2833.
Grace, E. (1995). Corporate risk management: Results of different teaching tech-
niques. Journal of Financial Education, 21(Fall), 3643.
Hampton, D., & Grudnitski, G. (1996). Does cooperative learning mean equal
learning? Journal of Education for Business, 72(September/October), 57.
Hernandez, S. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: Cooperative
structures that facilitate active learning and higher level thinking. Journal of
Marketing Education, 24(1), 7385.
Holter, N. (1994). Team assignments can be effective cooperative learning tech-
niques. Journal of Education for Business, 70(November/December), 7376.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jaques, D. (2000). Learning in groups. Glasgow: Kogan Page Publishing.
Johnson, C., & Smith, F. (1997). Assessment of a complex peer evaluation in-
strument for team learning and group processes. Accounting Education: A
Journal of Theory, Practice, and Research, 2(1), 2140.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1985). Structuring groups for cooperative learning.
The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9, 817.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increas-
ing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Koppenhaver and Shrader 19

Report no. 4. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School

of Education and Human Development.
Joiner, R., Issroff, K., & Demiris, J. (1999). Comparing humanhuman and
robotrobot interactions. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learn-
ing: Cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon
Press.
Keeler, C., & Anson, R. (1995). An assessment of cooperative learning used for
basic computer skills instruction in the college classroom. Journal of Educa-
tional Computing Research, 12(4), 379393.
Kogut, L. (1997). Using cooperative learning to enhance performance in general
chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(June), 720722.
Kunce, J., Cope, C., & Newton, R. (1991). Personal styles inventory. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 70, 334341.
Kunkel, J., & Shafer, W. (1997). Effects of student team learning in undergraduate
auditing courses. Journal of Education for Business, 72(March/April), 197
200.
Lancaster, K., & Strand, C. (2001). Using the team-learning model in a managerial
accounting class: An experiment in cooperative learning. Issues in Accounting
Education, 16(4), 549567.
Lerner, L. (1995). Making student groups work. Journal of Management Education,
19(1), 123125.
Liden, R., Nagao, D., & C. Parsons, C. (1986). Student and faculty attitudes con-
cerning the use of group projects. The Organizational Behavior Teaching
Review, 10, 3238.
Maier, M., & Keenan, D. (1994). Teaching tools: Cooperative learning in eco-
nomics. Economic Inquiry, 32(2), 358361.
Maier, N. (1967). Assets and liabilities in group problem-solving: The need for an
integrative function. Psychological Review, 74, 239249.
McCorkle, D., Reardon, J., Alexander, J., Kling, N., Harris, R., & Iyer, R. (1999).
Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good,
the bad, and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 21(August), 106
117.
McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to become teams. Journal of Education
for Business, 75(May/June), 277282.
Michaelsen, L., Watson, W., & Shrader, C. (1985). Informative testing: A practical
approach for tutoring with groups. The Organizational Behavior Teaching
Review, 9, 1833.
Ravenscroft, S., Buckless, F., & Hassall, T. (1999). Cooperative learning: A liter-
ature guide. Accounting Education, 8(2), 163176.
Ravenscroft, S., Buckless, F., McCombs, G., & Zuckerman, G. (1995). Incentives
in student team learning: An experiment in cooperative group learning. Issues
in Accounting Education, 10(Spring), 97109.
20 Cooperative Learning with Instructor-Assigned Teams

Robbins, T. (1994). Meaningfulness and community in the classroom: The role

of teamwork in business education. Journal of Education for Business,
69(July/August), 312316.
Russell, R. (1986). Personal style inventory. Unpublished manuscript.
Scannapieco, F., & Herreid, C. (1994). An application of team learning in dental
education. Journal of Dental Education, 35(4), 843848.
Shrader, C., & Henderson, D. (1984). A strategy for using group examinations to
teach OB principles. Proceedings, Southwest Division, Academy of Manage-
ment, San Antonio, 7073.
Siciliano, J. (2001). How to incorporate cooperative learning principles in the class-
room: Its more than just putting students in teams. Journal of Management
Education, 25(February), 820.
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R., & Oikle, E. (1981). Effects of cooperative learning teams on student
achievement and race relations: Treatment by race interactions. Sociology of
Education, 54(3), 174180.
Thomas, E., & Fink, C. (1963). Effects of group size. Psychological Bulletin, 60,
371384.
Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological
Bulletin, 63, 384399.
Turner, M. (2001). Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Williams, D., Beard, J., & Rymer, J. (1991). Team projects: Achieving their full
potential. Journal of Marketing Education, 13(Summer), 4553.
Koppenhaver and Shrader 21

APPENDIX: PERSONALITY STYLE INVENTORY

Each line below lists two attributes of the same trait. Allocate seven (7) points
between the two statements on each line to reflect how each describes you. The
context for making the allocation is a situation in which you have worked in a
group. Do not use fractions in making the allocation. Give a high allocation to the
attribute that describes you well; give a low allocation to the other attribute. The
score allocated to both sides must sum to seven.

A B
Prefers energetic involvement in activities or Prefers relaxed involvement in
activities
Takes initiative in solving problems or Lets problems work themselves
out
Likes a fast pace or Likes a slow pace
Likes to influence people or Accepts people as they are
Likes competition or Likes cooperation
Tends to be impatient with others or Shows patience toward others
Emphasizes action or Emphasizes planning
Expresses opinions freely or Keeps opinions to self
Total for Column A Total for Column B

1 2
Expects a lot of self and others or Easy going on self and others
Concerned about getting facts or Concerned about peoples feelings
Controls expression of emotions or Expresses emotions openly
Prefers social events with few guests or Prefers social events with many guests
Conversations focus on work to do or Conversations focus on people
Likes to take independent actions or Likes to work with others
Prefers making rational decisions or Prefers making instinctive decisions
Concerned about accomplishments or Concerned about emotional satisfaction
Total for Column 1 Total for Column 2
Which total is larger, the total for column A or the total for column B?
Which total is larger, the total for column 1 or the total for column 2?
Source: Adapted from Russell (1986).