Fixed, Systematically Formed versus Continuously Changing Random Team Assignments and Outcomes in a Therapeutics Course

Abstract

Objective

This study examined the association between fixed and randomly changing teams on workshop preparation and learning outcomes.

Methods

In this crossover study, third-year therapeutics course students were randomized to complete workshops 1 to 4 in either fixed, systematically developed teams or teams randomly assigned before each session. They then crossed over for workshops 5 to 8. Students provided information on their grade point average, work experience, and leadership tendencies and completed an abbreviated version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. After each workshop, students completed a quiz, reported the time spent preparing, and rated their perceived preparedness of themselves and their peers using a Likert scale from 1 (not at all prepared) to 5 (very well prepared). At the end of the semester, students reported their team formation preferences. Parametric data were compared using paired t tests, while nonparametric data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Results

Of the 66 students who participated in the study, 49 (74.2%) preferred working in fixed teams over random teams, and 44 (66.7%) perceived fixed teams as the most effective for their learning. There was no significant difference in mean postworkshop quiz scores (78.7% fixed vs 77.4% random), mean exam scores (77.9% vs 77.6%), or median time spent preparing for a workshop (91.3 vs 95.6 min). Students perceived themselves as more prepared when working in fixed teams, but there was no difference in their perception of peer preparedness.

Conclusion

Although students preferred and felt more prepared in fixed teams, there was no difference in learning outcomes or preparation time between the 2 team formation methods.