Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative EducationVolume 11 Number 3July 2013Printed in the U.S.A.

C© 2013 The AuthorsDecision Sciences C© 2013 Decision Sciences Institute

TEACHING BRIEF

Collaborative Teaching and Learningthrough Multi-Institutional IntegratedGroup Projects*

Suzanna K. Long†Engineering Management and Systems Engineering Department, Missouri University ofScience and Technology, Rolla, MO 65409-1060, e-mail: longsuz@mst.edu

Hector J. CarloDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez, Mayaguez, PR00681-9000, e-mail: hector.carlo@upr.edu

ABSTRACT

This teaching brief describes an innovative multi-institutional initiative through whichintegrated student groups from different courses collaborate on a common course project.In this integrated group project, students are asked to design a decentralized manufac-turing organization for a company that will manufacture industrial Proton-ExchangeMembrane fuel cells. The groups include students from supply chain management,production planning and scheduling, and facility layout and design courses. Empiri-cal results from the implementation suggest that students responded positively to theintegrated experience. Lastly, the article presents implementation strategies for multi-institutional group projects based on the experiences gained through the collaborativeexperience.

Subject Areas: Integrated Group Projects, Project-Based Virtual Learning,Supply Chain Management Curriculum Design, and Virtual CollaborativeTeaching.

INTRODUCTION

The quest for efficiencies in the global business environment requires an increasedintegration of global business competencies into supply chain functions as wellas targeted training in relevant professional skills (see, for example, Cronan,Douglas, Alnuaimi, & Schmidt, 2011; Long, Moos, & Bartel-Radic, 2012). Thebulk of current quantitative business and engineering supply chain curricula stress

*We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers, Associate Editor, and Editor for their insights andassistance with significantly improving the quality and usefulness of this manuscript. This material isbased upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under collaborative grant number EEC-0934998/EEC-0935051.

†Corresponding author.

233

234 Integrated SCM Brief

mathematical decision theory as a first priority followed by management process.This does a disservice to students by providing inadequate emphasis on inter-personal communications and leadership contextualized in a global framework.Many of the skills are tacit knowledge that can only be acquired through experi-ence and practice, such as internships, cooperative learning with companies, andprojects using real company data. For an example of a real-world project approachthe reader is referred to Zuckweiler (2011); to explore cooperative learning andbenchmarking, see Grandzol and Grandzol (2011).

This teaching brief discusses a framework to incorporate virtual, cross-functional teamwork training in an integrated group project. The project involvesthree courses taught by three instructors from three institutions across the conti-nental U.S. and Puerto Rico. The project simulates an actual design phase of avirtual engineering project where, in addition to technical skills and knowledge,students have to collaborate with non-co-located functional groups in order toachieve their final goal, i.e., complete the project. The project consists of three dis-tinct knowledge domains in the Industrial Engineering/Engineering Managementdiscipline: supply chain management (SCM), production planning and scheduling(PPS), and facility layout and design (FLD). This project approach merges collab-orative teaching with project-based, virtual learning to identify best practices fordeveloping a multiuniversity collaborative learning.

INTEGRATIVE GROUP PROJECT INVOLVING MULTIPLEINSTITUTIONS

The collaborative projects approach is designed as the equivalent of a multi-institutional capstone course. Pedagogy is developed for global supply chain ed-ucation programs that incorporate global virtual teams as part of a methodologyfor producing global knowledge workers. Research teams consist of students fromall cooperating institutions. This approach provides the basis for experience withglobal, sustainable supply chain issues, and also provides students with real-worldexperience in intercultural communications, time zones, time management, andvirtual teaming. Although project descriptions are provided to the student partici-pants, deliberate ambiguity is created in terms of milestones and project objectivesto more naturally simulate virtual teaming in global organizations (Long et al.,2012).

In this project, students are asked to design a decentralized manufactur-ing organization for a company that will manufacture industrial Proton-ExchangeMembrane (PEM) fuel cells. The decentralized design includes the supply chainnetwork, PPS, and facility design. The project group consists of three subgroups,each responsible for one component of manufacturing organization: SCM, PPS,and FLD. The team is tasked with designing a new manufacturing facility andits corresponding supply chain network. The students present their understand-ing of the problem and the team is evaluated by both the instructor and theteam members. The presentation process is iterative and includes feedback onprogress reports prior to a formal presentation on the project at the end of thesemester.

Long and Carlo 235

Table 1: Institutions involved in the project.

Institution Location Time Course Name

PPS University Colorado Mountain Time Production Planning and Scheduling(UTC–7:00)

SCM University Missouri Central Time Supply Chain Management(UTC–6:00)

FLD University Puerto Rico Atlantic Time Facility Layout and Design(UTC–4:00)

Before the semester begins the participating instructors create the overallscenario for the project. This includes defining the scope of the project, theexpected outcomes, the deliverables for the project, the interdependent compo-nents among the three subgroups, and the due dates for interim and final reports.Each individual instructor then designs the portion of the project correspondingto his/her class, includes the interdependent components for the entire project,and determines the additional deliverables for his/her class. The three instructors(and students) are from three universities located in different time zones (for moreinformation regarding the project statement and deliverables, see the project Website at: http://web.mst.edu/∼longsuz/Sustainable_SCM.html#OnLoadVariable=&CSUM=1. Table 1 presents the three institutions, location, time zone, and the cor-responding functional areas.

Team project presentations are required and must include input from allteammates. This further emphasizes the demands of asynchronous work in a globalworkforce. The structure of the class projects includes goal setting behavior forthe projects and intercultural relations. Research has shown that goal setting be-havior significantly enhances the participant’s performance (Shunk, 2000) andplays an instrumental role in improving the student’s self-efficacy and intrin-sic interest in the task. In addition, the course design allows for the creation ofspecific tasks, roles, and learning goals. Specifically, each student is assignedtasks and is part of a team-directed management structure, including the elec-tion of leaders for each subteam and the team at large. In addition, tasks aredivided into smaller focused subtasks with frequent reporting requirements andspecific questions that explore intercultural relations, communications, and learn-ing styles. This specific task, role and learning goal focus has been identified asa necessary component for a successful intercultural learning environment (Gabb,2006).

Given a desired location for the new manufacturing facility (in Puerto Rico)and the location of the principal supplier (in Spain), the supply chain system sub-group (in Missouri) designs the company’s supply chain network. The desiredsupply chain network must consider the existing infrastructure and inbound sup-plier logistics as well as the physical and demographic characteristics of the newfacility’s site. This exposes the students to diversity and multicultural issues thatare important in a global corporate environment. The supply chain students alsostudy the existing PEM fuel cell market to provide an estimate of current and futurefuel cell demand.

236 Integrated SCM Brief

Table 2: Interdependencies among the three courses.

SCM Provides (to):• Supply chain network design (FLD)• Demand for fuel cells (PPS, FLD)

Requires (from):• Raw materials required (PPS)• Production (supply) capability (FLD)

PPS Provides (to):• Raw materials required (SCM, FLD)• Estimated costs for parts (FLD)• Subassembly production schedule (SCM, FLD)

Requires (from):• Demand for fuel cells (SCM)• Facility layout plan (FLD)

FLD Provides (to):• Facility layout plan (SCM)• Cost analysis on the layout (SCM)• Production (supply) capability (SCM, PPS)

Requires (from):• Demand for fuel cells (SCM)• Costs for parts (SCM, PPS)• Subassembly production schedule (PPS)

The PPS students (in Colorado) determine the production requirements andschedule one of the main manufacturing departments in the new facility given ademand level. The department must be arranged according to the processes thatare performed by the different machines (i.e., a job shop).

The FLD students (in Puerto Rico) determine the size, shape, and layout ofthe new facility based on the expected demand. These students are also responsiblefor designing the main assembly department in the facility. As part of this task,students determine the number of machines required, the production layout, andestimate the expected average throughput of the assembly department. The designfor the assembly department must be flexible as the demand is unknown.

Because the identification of interdependencies is a learning goal, the infor-mation on interdependencies is not provided to the students. Table 2 presents theinterdependent components in this project. The information in parenthesis on thesecond column identifies which course provides or requires the information.

The setup for this semester-long project mimics a real-world project, whereall three functional subgroups are interdependent in order to complete the project.Students from all three locations are introduced simultaneously to each otherand to the instructors from other locations through an Internet video conference.After the initial meeting the students are required to establish communicationprotocols as well as define roles and responsibilities. The scope and purpose of theproject, and the expectations from the students are discussed in detail in the videoconference. The instructors clearly state that interdependencies exist, should bemapped out by the students, and a timeline developed to match learning modulestaught in the respective classes. Student teams submit their final report at the end

Long and Carlo 237

of the semester, but are expected to deliver results according to their timelines ofinterdependencies.

Each subgroup has its own group leader who coordinates the meetings andprovides updates to the instructors. Communication among the subgroups is con-ducted through videoconferences (e.g., Skype) and email. Communication tasksinclude setting up the meeting time, coordinating among themselves to get thenecessary information from other groups to complete their part of the project, andpreparing the final presentation. Student subgroups are required to submit regularproject updates to their respective instructors. The instructors are only involved inclarifying the expectations for the final outcomes and do not provide input on howto establish and maintain communication.

EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS

A study to evaluate the effectiveness of this project method was conducted by anexternal evaluator during Spring 2011. The students were split into two groups: theexperimental group (N = 18) and the control group (N = 12). The experimentalgroup participated in the multi-institutional integrative project, whereas the con-trol group completed a traditional group project and did not directly collaboratewith students outside of their own classroom/school. Twenty-nine (N = 29) of the30 students voluntarily participated in the survey. The student who did not partic-ipate belonged to the experimental group.

Retrospective pretest (RPT) was used to collect data from students. RPTis preferred over the traditional pretest-posttest design as the latter assumes thatstudents are using the same internal standard to judge attitudes, behaviors, or per-ceptions before and after the course. Considerable empirical evidence suggeststhat program effects based on pre-posttest self-reports are masked because peopleeither overestimate or underestimate their pre-program knowledge, skill, or per-ceptions (see, for example, Hill & Betz, 2005; Klatt & Taylor-Powell, 2005; Moore& Tananis, 2009; Nimon, Zigarmi, & Allen, 2011). In RPT, participants use onepostsurvey to reflect on their knowledge before and after their experience. RPTactivities are said to reduce bias through the use of reflective response regarding in-creases in personal knowledge and are considered valid measures of programmaticchange (Klatt & Taylor-Powell, 2005).

Students received RPT online surveys based on a five-point Likert Scale(i.e., Not Applicable, Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree)with categorical values of 0–4, respectively. The survey measured perceptionsbefore and after the project on course experiences, skills, self-confidence, andcareer professionalism, among other aspects. Table 3 summarizes the mean andstandard deviation (in parenthesis) of the responses for some of the perceptionsassessed and the results of a paired t-test statistical analysis for the integratedversus traditional groups. The student project perceptions reported in Table 3 are:

P1. Integrated groups simulates real-life situationsP2. Integrated groups provides the student a chance to share in the responsibility

for learningP3. Integrated groups help create discussion networks to facilitate learning

238 Integrated SCM Brief

Table 3: Mean and standard deviation (in parenthesis) of experimental results.

Integrated Traditional TotalProject Perceptions Project Project Participants

P1a Before 3.29 (.47) 3.33 (.65) 3.31 (.54)After 3.47 (.87) 3.67 (.49) 3.55 (.74)

P2 Before 3.29 (.59) 3.25 (.62) 3.28 (.59)After 3.18 (.73) 3.42 (.67) 3.28 (.70)

P3b Before 3.24 (.56) 3.33 (.65) 3.28 (.59)After 3.24 (.56) 3.67 (.49) 3.41 (.57)

P4c Before 3.35 (.61) 3.50 (.67) 3.41 (.63)After 3.71 (.47) 3.50 (.52) 3.62 (.49)

P5d Before 3.24 (.44) 3.25 (.62) 3.24 (.51)After 3.59 (.51) 3.50 (.52) 3.55 (.51)

P6a Before 3.41 (.51) 3.25 (.62) 3.34 (.55)After 3.65 (.49) 3.58 (.51) 3.62 (.49)

aSignificant differences (p < .05) Before/After for Traditional Project.bSignificant differences (p < .05) between Integrated and Traditional project groups inAfter (post).cSignificant differences (p < .05) Before/After for Integrated Project.dSignificant differences (p < .05) Before/After for Total column.

P4. Integrated group elements help to develop skills and competencies neededby professionals

P5. Integrated group elements add to student professional developmentP6. Integrated groups add to student preparation to compete in the global work-

place

From the data summarized in Table 3, both groups on average Agree orStrongly Agree that integrated groups:

� simulate real-life situations;� provide a chance to share in the responsibility for learning;� help create discussion networks to facilitate learning;� help to develop skills and competencies needed by professionals;� add to student preparation to compete in the global workplace.

Table 3 provides empirical evidence of the effectiveness of integratedprojects. It is important to emphasize that students from the control group wereaware of the progress and challenges faced by the experimental group. Hence, thetwo groups may be considered as one that was immersed in the multi-institutionalexperience and another that was aware of the innovative experience, but did notparticipate in it.

Examining student perception P1 in Table 3, both experimental and controlgroups improved their perceptions of how closely integrated groups simulate real-life situations. Interestingly, the before/after responses were statistically significantat the 95% confidence level for the control group. From student perception P2 in

Long and Carlo 239

Table 3, the mean perception of experimental groups with respect to sharing theresponsibility for learning decreased, but increased for control group. Personalinterviews with students in the experimental group conducted by an external eval-uator revealed that these students felt uncomfortable with the level of responsibilityrequired in the project. Their previous experiences in traditional classrooms did notprepare them for the level of ambiguity and requirements for global learning. Theirnegative responses were based on fear and change resistance rather than genuineconcerns that they did not share fully in learning opportunities. On a similar result,student perception P3 in Table 3 reveals that the perception for how integratedgroups create discussion networks to facilitate learning remained the same for theexperimental group, while it increased for the control group. Again, interviews withan external evaluator demonstrated significant change resistance and showcasedthe need for enhanced change management modules in future projects.

Student perception P4 in Table 3 shows that the perception on how integratedgroups help develop skills and competencies needed by professionals increasedsignificantly (95% confidence) for the experimental group, while it remained thesame for the control group. Clearly, the experimental group demonstrated abilityto develop the necessary (typically soft) skills required to succeed in the project.On the other hand, the control group, who was only briefed on the project, did notrecognize those skills. Student perception P5 in Table 3 presents the perception ofhow integrated groups add to the students’ professional development. Results showthat the perception of both experimental and control groups increased. This increasewas statistically significant at the 95% confidence level for the experimental group.Student perception P6 in Table 3 presents the results on how experimental groupsadd to the students’ preparation to compete in a global workplace. The meanperception for both groups increased. In this case, the increase was statisticallysignificant at the 95% confidence level for the control group.

For many of the student participants, this was the first time that they had beenrequired to communicate with other functional groups. Many students stated aspart of the RPT interview process that they were fearful of the level of complexityand the challenges of working beyond traditional classroom barriers. They felt thatthey had little direct experience to use in judging whether the simulated experiencewas equivalent to real-world challenges so were uncertain whether the projectwas harder than average and instead believed that they had no comfort level withthe experience from previous coursework. Students also noted in their RPT thatreading about cultural differences are very different from actually experiencingand managing it.

IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS/PRESCRIPTION FORTEACHING

Integrated projects can be used in many of the courses in business and engineeringschools. However, interdependencies among the different courses must be deter-mined prior to the beginning of the term. The role and boundary of the instructorsmust be determined and the amount of help the instructors will provide must beconsistent among all instructors involved.

240 Integrated SCM Brief

The differences in course timelines and schedules create complexities aswell. Partner schools should create a completion schedule to adjust for differencesin course lengths (quarter, semester, etc.). A shortened window of collaborationrequires flexibility on the part of all faculty and student team members and createsa real-world opportunity to experience asynchronous communication issues, alongwith cross-organizational planning. Moreover, those moving forward should beaware that the “multiple bosses” reality of the virtual teaming presents challengesfor both students and collaborating professors to maintain consistent messages andproject outcomes.

Planning efforts should develop learning goals and outcomes prior to theformation of student groups. Acceptable cases, study formats, and other projectteam elements should be developed that incorporate the learning styles and programstrengths of each partner school. Each course should contribute a unique facet tothe project structure and clear measurement systems should be in place. Commongrading rubrics are useful means of communicating goals linked to teaming, subjectmatter expertise, and critical thinking elements.

If possible, group project reports should be evaluated by the entire facultyteam rather than scored individually by each professor. This adds a layer of com-plexity, but does convey the importance of the projects to the students. Joint controlsfacilitate teaming efforts that focus on performance and the sustainable elementsof relationship building rather than on individual results that may or may not beshared.

Partnerships of this type will be dependent on virtual communication thatwill be subject to time zone and cultural differences. It is important to scheduleregular conversations regarding the student teaming efforts. These conversationswill be most productive if a mix of email and voice communication is scheduled.

Throughout the duration of the project, the uncertainties of the project will in-duce frustrations, discouragement, and at times, finger-pointing among the groups.At times, it might be necessary to remind the students that the uncertainties andinterdependencies are normal in real life project, coping and resolving the issuesis part of their assignment. However, the integrated project provides a unique op-portunity for students to experience the real collaborative environment in a globalenterprise while in the safe environment of their classrooms.

REFERENCES

Cronan, T. P., Douglas, D. E., Alnuaimi, O., & Schmidt, P. J. (2011). Decision mak-ing in an integrated business process context: Learning using ERP simulationgame. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9(2), 227–234.

Gabb, D. (2006). Transcultural Dynamics in the Classroom. Journal of Studies inInternational Education, 10(4), 357–368.

Grandzol, J. R., & Grandzol, C. J. (2011). An experimental approach to bench-marking curriculum. Decision Science Journal of Innovative Education, 9(3),401–409.

Hill, L. G., & Betz, D. L. (2005). Revisiting the retrospective pretest. AmericanJournal of Evaluation, 26, 501–517.

Long and Carlo 241

Klatt, J., & Taylor-Powell, E. (2005). Synthesis of literature relative to the retro-spective pretest design, joint conference of the CES/AEA, Toronto, Ontario.

Long, S. K., Moos, C., & Bartel-Radic, A. (2012). The role of multi-institutionalpartnerships in supply chain management course design and improvement.Journal of Education for Business, 87, 129–135.

Moore, D., & Tananis, C. A. (2009). Measuring change in a short-term educa-tional program using a retrospective pretest design. American Journal ofEvaluation. 30(2), 189–202.

Nimon, K., Zigarmi, D., & Allen, J. (2011). Measures of program effectivenessbased on retrospective pre-test data: Are all created equal? American Journalof Evaluation, 32(1), 8–28.

Shunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational Perspective (3rd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zuckweiler, K. M. (2011). Teaching six sigma to undergrads: A simplified realproject approach. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9(1),137–142.

Suzanna K. Long is an assistant professor of engineering management and systemsengineering at Missouri University of Science and Technology. Long’s researchfocuses on sustainable infrastructure systems, including sustainability in globalsupply chains and transportation systems. Dr. Long has published in journals suchas Energy Policy, Transport Policy, the Engineering Management Journal, andthe Journal of Education for Business. She is a recognized international expertin sociotechnical systems design and has led large-scale projects focused on “bigdata” management strategies, 21st century workforce development and trainingfor global engineers and scientists.

Hector Carlo is an associate professor of industrial engineering at University ofPuerto Rico-Mayaguez. Dr. Carlo’s articles have appeared or are accepted to ap-pear in scientific journals such as ASME Journal of Manufacturing Science andEngineering, Computers & Industrial Engineering, and IIE Transactions, Inter-national Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, International Journalof Production Research, and Transportation Science. Dr. Carlo is the director ofthe DHS-sponsored Lean Logistics Lab at UPRM to study the impact of seaportsin the supply chain network. His research interests include Material Handling &Logistics, supply chain sustainability, and Operations Research applications tonontraditional environments such as National Security and Emergency Planningand Management.