Investigative Labs in BiologyThe Importance of Attending to Team Dynamics

By Martha Phillips, Lynne H. GUdensoph, Marcella J. Myers, Cynthia G.Nortor), Andrea M. Olson, Kathleen A. Tweeten, and Deborah D. Wygal

Facilitating team interactions is crttciai lo investigative iabx. H-e discuss how lo minimize problems^m the stanaddress problems that typicallv arise. '

start and how to; problems that typically

The use of investigative labs isquite common these days—andrightfully so. As early as 1969the Commission on Under-

graduate Education in the BiologicalSciences claimed that "the best useof the laboratory in undergraduate in-struction is to engage the student in theprocess of active investigation" {Holtet al. 1969, p. 1104). Holt and his col-leagues emphasized the importance ofinvestigative labs in "communicatingthe nature of biology as a branch ofthought" (p. 1105), not just as a collec-tion of facts. This approach not onlyfamiliarizes students with the scientificmethod, but also gives them experiencew ith other aspects ol'the process of sci-ence, such as creativity, critical thinking,troubleshtx)ting, collaborative work, andownership ofthe experience.

At the College of St. Catherinewe began using an investigative ap-

proach in our General Biology labsin the early 1990s {see Norton et al.1997; Tweeten et al. 2006). In thefirst semester, we use semester-longopen-ended inquiry where the prob-lem and method of inquiry are studentdirected (although within the theme ofreproduction). In the second semesterwe use several shorter rounds of morebounded inquiry to work on data-analy-sis skills, followed by an eight-weeklong research project. We turned toinvestigative labs because we wantedstudents to develop an understanding ofthe process of science, and thus a betterunderstanding of the nature of scien-tific knowledge—its strengths and itslimitations. We also wanted to improvethe retention of students in the biologymajor since evidence suggests thatstudents become more interested andmotivated if they are actively involvedin the process of doing science (AAAS

1990; Project Kaleidoscope 1991; To-bias 1991). Helping students developbasic research skills in their very firstbiology courses allows us to incorpo-rate more demanding, developmentallyappropriate learning experiences in oursophomore and upper-level courses(Tweeten et al. 2006). We believe thisincreased eurricular vertical integra-tion is critical in preparing students forcareers in science.

Our pedagogical goals are beingmet by the use of investigative labs,but as lab mentors we have found thatsupervising the science is only halfthe job. The other half is facilitatinginteractions among students workingtogether in teams. Few articles onthe use of investigative labs addressteam-dynamic issues, yet attentionto team process is a critical factorin successfully using an investiga-tive approach in a large class where

November/December 2007 23

projects must be done in teams. Thefact that our research teams mustoperate over a whole semester addsto the likelihood of team difficulties.We have invested a great deal of timeand energy leaming to facilitate thisprocess. Important lessons we havelearned about team dynamics as ourstudents have done investigative proj-ects in teams:

• Teamwork requires active andexplicit management of team pro-cess

• There are always team problems• There are always two sides (at

least) to the story• Problems can be minimized by

adhering to the principles of coop-erative-learning groups (Johnson,Johnson, and Smith 1991)

• Early intervention in team issuescan be critical ("An ounce of pre-vention is worth a pound of cure")

In this article we provide some tipsfor success in facilitating teamwork.Working coilaboratively is common inscience and the functioning of teams hasa lai^e impact on both implementationof a n;search project and student satisfac-tion with the experience. We divide ourstrategies into what can be done to mini-mize problems from the start and how toaddress the problems that do arise.

Setting up research teamsDifficulties can start from day oneif the teams are put together withoutdeliberation. We have found thatcareful attention at this stage helpsminimize subsequent problems. Forone, we have learned to stress fromthe beginning that the lab group is ateam. Whereas a group is a collectionof individuals, a team is a collectionof individuals working together on atask or toward a common goal. Thedifferent connotations of the wordsgimip and team may seem subtle, butthey are important and we are verycareful to refer to the research teamsas Team 1 or 2 and not as Group Ior 2. We talk at the beginning oftheproject about what a team is and whatit means to work in a team. Our explicit

focus on the nature of teams developedafter one ofthe authors, Andrea Olson{whose area is industrial organizationalpsychology) gave a talk to the biologydepartment entitled "Processes. Chal-lenges, and Strategies for Working inLeaming Teams." Based on her workand expertise we have developed apresentation that introduces importantteam concepts and a team evaluationform (Figure 1) that facilitates leamingabout how teams work.

Team size has a very big effecton team functioning. Our experiencestrongly supports the recommenda-tions by Johnson, Johnson, and Smith(1991): Never, ever have teams of fivefor this kind of project; four is okay,but three is ideal. With two, you runthe risk of a singleton if someonedrops the course. With five teammembers, it is very possible to havea successful project with a lot of datacollected, and one or two people whodid little to nothing—when there is aneasy out, some will take it. With threestudents it is more likely that all threeneed to participate fully to success-fully complete the project, providedthe project is complex enough.

We also pay careful attentionto how those teams are formed. Theliterature on cooperative learningsuggests that it is generally betterto maximize heterogeneity, and thatinstructor-made teams often containthe best mix of students (Johnson,Johnson, and Smith 1991). We found,however, that when we assigned stu-dents to teams (even randomly), it waseasy for them to blame instructors forany problems with team dynamics.When we give the students some sayin team formation, they take moreownership of issues that arise. Weencourage them to form teams basedon their interest in an organism or aresearch question to ensure that theproject engages their interest.

There are several other ways thatteam makeup has an impact on teamfunctioning. Three common issues thatwe see are the problems of mixing resi-dent students with commuter students,mixing students with different levelsof family or job responsibilities, and

the impact of cultural background andtemperament on teamwork. Commuterstudents generally have more schedul-ing constraints than resident students,who are not always willing to workwithin those constraints. At times wehave let students fonn teams of justcommuter students or just residentstudents, however, we value the inte-gration of these two groups of studentsand feel that students need to Ieam tonavigate difilculties. To decrease theprobability that scheduling problemswill have a big effect on team function-ing, we incorporate time for teamworkinto lab or class sessions. For instance,we give teams time during the Fridaylecture period the week before theresearch proposal is due.

Designating class time for team-work also helps to alleviate schedulingissues when team members have var-ied responsibilities outside of school.The student who is not personallypaying for college and is attending fulltime may have difficulty determiningreasonable accommodations fora teammember who cannot make a teammeeting or time for data collectiondue to family or job responsibilities.Developing clear expectations amongteam members from the start worksalso to minimize difficulties (see belowabout developing team norms).

We aiso pay special attentionto the dynamics between studentsfrom cultures that value and expectverbal participation and questioningversus those from cultures thai valuedemonstrating respect via deferenceand that do not expect or encouragestudents to question others in an edu-cation setting. Teaching good teamprocess helps to bridge those culturalgaps. Similarly, variations in tempera-ment—^extroverted and outspokenversus introverted and quiet—canhave an effect on team dynamics.Deferential or introverted studentsare sometimes seen as lazy and non-parti ci pa toiy, when in fact they mayhave the better understanding of theproject. Helping students learn tolisten and give each other the spaceto participate is an important part offacilitating teams. We model such

24 Jaumal d College Science Teaching

behavior in team meetings and set upthe expectation that each person bothtalks in a team meeting and asks forthe input and views ofothers.

Team norms or contracts are use-ful for the functioning of long-termteams. Having student research teamsdevelop norms at the outset gets stu-dents talking about what is acceptablebehavior, how they will work to-gether, strategies for communicationamong team members, and what theconsequences will be for not abidingby the norms. At a minimum thesecan be used to initiate discussion laterwhen problems develop.

Assignments and expectationsmust be set up to enhance cooperationand minimize competition. Accord-ing to Johnson, Johnson, and Smith(1991). the basic elements of coopera-tive leaming groups include

' positive interdependence,• face-to-face promotive interaction,' individual accountability,• interpersonal and small group

skills, and• group processing.

When students believe they can-not succeed unless the other membersofthe team succeed (and vice versa)they are more likely to act coopera-tively. In a lab research project, thispositive interdependence eomes, inpart, from limiting team size andhaving a sufllciently complex projectsuch that it requires the participationof all members. If one person can dothe project individually, this decreasesthe likelihood of cooperation. Suchpositive interdependence results in"tace-to-face promotive interaction,"which is defined as "...individuals en-couraging and facilitating each other'sefforts to achieve, complete tasks, andproduce in order to reach the group'sgoal" (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith1991, section 3, p. 7). As lab mentorswe work to develop a cooperative, notcompetitive, culture.

Individual accountability andpersonal responsibility are "key toensuring that all group members arein fact strengthened by leaming co-

operatively" (Johnson, Johnson, andSmith 1991. section 3, p. 8). Mostof our assignments are team assign-ments, but individual accountabilitymust be buill into the project. We havestudents sign each team assignment toindicate that they have read and agreewith everything that is being turned in.We also use project quizzes to serve asa mechanism of individual account-ability. We administer three quizzesduring the project: (1) as they tum intheir proposal (on their hypothesis andrationale); (2) during experimentation(on their methods); and (3) as they tumin a first draft ofthe paper or poster (onwhether or not their hypothesis wassupported, and which results supportand which do not support it). Quizzesare completed individually and areevaluated by considering how wellresponses match the proposal, paper, orposter. Analysis of quiz scores can re-veal potential problems in functioningofthe research teams. Harker (1999)suggests another way to assess indi-vidual contributions and understandingofthe project, which is to randomlyselect different students from the teamto report on their findings and the plansof the team at each meeting w ith labmentors. Our use ofthe team evaluationsurvey described below is another waythat we convey the importance and ex-pectation of individuals" contributionsto their teams; students are asked abouttheir own behaviors in addition to theteam's perfonnance.

We encourage students to workout their differences, however, as alast resort we offer authorship alter-natives when team members havenot contributed their share. A teammember can be demoted to "secondauthorship" (or no authorship) on ateam assignment and thus receivefewer or no points, but this requiresa team meeting with the lab mentorand direct interactions among allteam members.

Facilitating research-teamfunctioningInterpersonal skills and group process-ing are essential to cooperative leaming(Johnson, Johnson, and Smith 1991).

Many students lack the social skillsnecessary to work well cooperativelyand these skills must be taught, just asacademic skills are taught. Johnson,Johnson, and Smith (1991) state:"Groups cannot function effectivelyif students do not have and use theneeded leadership, decision-making,trust-building, communication, andconflict-management skills" (sectionl.p. 19), Team meetings with lab men-tors therefore focus on teamwork skillsand issues along with the scientificissues. Encouraging open communi-cation and evaluation of leadership,trust, and conflict management arejust as important as trouble-shootingexperimental problems.

We have found particular issuestypical to each stage of the investi-gation. One of the first major teamassignments is writing a proposal,which generally requires work outsideof lab. Students who are not fully par-ticipating and team scheduling issuesbecome apparent at this point, andthis is when team members start todevelop (or slip into) roles that mayhelp or hinder the functioning oftheteam. Although the others may notbe frustrated enough to do anythingabout it, this is a good time to assessteamwork and encourage discussion. Itis important to emphasize thai work-ing in teams is often difficult and thatwe expect students will have teamprocesses they want to improve; thishelps to normalize tensions inherentto working in teams. The data-collec-tion stage often runs smoothly, but if itrequires time outside ofthe scheduledlab period (and it oflen does), issuesof equal involvement and responsibil-ity come up. Teams may need helpbringing about accountability. Thiscan also be a time when team membersredeem themselves for lesser involve-ment in the earlier work and wherethe strengths ofthe less vocal and lessassertive members can show through.In our experience, most of the bigbrouhahasoccurduringthe final stagesof data analysis and pulling togetherthe final product (a paper, poster, ororal presentation). The smaller, earlierfrustrations about involvement, taking

November/December 2007 25

Investigative Labs in Biology

over, communication, or disrespectfultreatment of team members coalesceand become big issues under the stressof producing a product for a grade,especially because this occurs towardthe end of the semester. Our goal isto aid the teams in airing difficultiesearly and to encourage the team towork them out. We use the followingstrategies to identify issues and bringabout open communication and con-flict resolution.

The required use of a lab notebookhelps us know what is happening andencourages participation by ail team

membei-s. Each team has one lab note-book that is kept in the lab. Studentsmust write down everything, includingmiscellaneous notes about checking on,feeding, or watering organisms. Theyare asked to document their activities inchronological order, and to date and ini-tial each entry. This often helps to settlequestions about how tasks are beingshared or divided and is an incentive tothose who might otherwise skip organ-ism maintenance or data collection. Aslab mentors, we check the lab notebookregularly and ask questions or makeremarks about what is contained in the

notebook and what is missing.To monitor team functioning

and to facilitate team communica-tion we also use a team evaluationform (Figure I). Team evaluationsare used, in part, to teach studentsabout collaborative work by introduc-ing them to various behaviors thata team member may demonstrate{e.g., solving problems, coordinatingtasks, helping others). This form asksstudents to think about what they, asindividuals, arc specifically doing tofacilitate the team's work and whatthey could specifically do to make

FIGURE 1

Lab team performance evaluation.

The purpose of thisexerciseis to takesome time to (1) reflect onwhat you are doing as a team member, (2) reflect on how your labteam is functioning, and (3) collaborate with your lab partner(s)to develop strategies for your continued work together. Seriouslyconsider your strengths and the strengths of your lab partners inthis exercise!

What am I doing as an individual team member?

The nine categories below* are various behaviors individual teammembers demonstrate. People tend to be more proficient in someareas and less proficient in others. This is normal! Each of thesecategories is based on skills we learn and practice. Each team experi-ence you have is an opportunity to continue building your skills.Think about what you have been doing in your biology lab team.

Initiating StructureWorkload Distribution/CoordinationFulfillingTask ResponsibilitiesSituation AwarenessProblem SolvingMonitoring PerformanceTraining Team Members/Sharing InformationHelping/Backup ReliefConsideration

What are 2-3 specffic things you do that contribute to your lab team?Consider the nine categories above as a starting place.

I am contributing to this team by...

How are we doing as a team?

What are 2-3 spec/fic things yourteam is doing well? {Considerteamprocesses such as communication, coordination, fulfilling tasks,fulfilling goals, meeting deadlines, monitoring,etc.)

What are 2-3 specific things your team could change, build, orimprove upon?

I think it would be helpful for our team if we....

COtiAPLETE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS DURING DISCUSSION WITHYOUR LAB PARTNERS.

As a team, come up with one list of 2-3 specific things your teamis doing well, things you want to be sure to continue doing thesecond half of the semester.

We will continue...

What are 2-3 specific things you could build upon, change, or doto further contribute to your team?

I think it would be helpful for our team i f l . . . .

Asa team,come up with a list of 2-3 specfftc things your team wants tobuild upon, change, or try during the second half of the semester.

We will...

'This taxonomy is based on Olson, A.M. 2000.^ fheory and tawnomy of/ndiwdua/reammemfeerpefformcifice. PhD diss., University of Minnesota,Minneapolis.Please direct questions or comments about this taxonomyto andreamolson@stkate.edu.

26 Journal ot College Science Teaching

further contributions. They are alsoasked to reflect on the effectiveness ofthe team as a whole, and to decide to-gether what they will continue doingand what they will change. The formencourages students to think aboutways of distributing work accordingto the strengths of team members.Team evaluations also help lab men-tors identify team process issues. Stu-dents are often reluctant to confrontone another but we have found theywill describe, in the written evalua-tions, specific problems or issues thatthey would refrain from bringing upin front of their team members. Weuse these evaluations to jump-startdiscussions within the team and helpteam members sort out conflicts at anearlier stage than they might choosewithout our facilitation.

Weekly meetings with lab men-tors that explicitly focus on bothteamwork and the science are es-sential. We facilitate processing howwell the team is achieving its goalsand maintaining effective working re-lationships. We have to fight our ownurge to avoid conflict—confrontationis essential and conflict must be ad-dressed explicitly because it doesn'tjust go away. Because students needto leam to communicate openly witheach other in respectful ways, we askteams to periodically answer ques-tions such as "What did each teammember do that was helpful to theteam?" and "What is something thateach team member can do to make theteam function better?" We have alsofound that it is important that we, asfacilitators, don't jump to conclusionsabout particular students., as we havefound, over and over, that behind theapparent lack of involvement of oneteam member is the controlling teammember who doesn't allow involve-ment by not listening or rejectingwhat is offered. It is also importantto discuss the value ofthe ditTerentcontributions that team membersmake, in order for students to thinkabout variations in how work can bedone in a team, and to look at theirown strengths and weaknesses. Notevery task needs to be divided equally

among all team members. The keyis to help them be intentional aboutdividing work, using each others'strengths, and managing conflict.

ConclusionAs we have gotten better at facili-tating effective teamwork, we havegotten better science from studentresearch teams. We have had ourshare of team issues over the yearsas students have designed and con-ducted semester-long research proj-ects, and have seen friendships tornapart by the difYlculties of workingwith a small number of others ona demanding task. Despite the factthat our students typically haveexperienced group work in previ-ous schooling or coursework, theyoften come to us lacking the skillsneeded for productive teamworkover a semester. We have learnedthat the skills of collaborative workmust be taught and that unless we doso intentionally team problems canand do derail the academic goals ofinvestigative labs.

Implementing these strategies hasdecreased the number of end-of-the-semester blow-ups. Our focus as labmentors has been to help students teamhow to work in teams and to figure outwhat the teamwork issues are so theycan propose and implement changes.A college-wide goal at the College ofSt. Catherine is that students developskills in collaboration—"the ability towork well with others, especially injoint intellectual effort."(College ofSt. Catherine 2005). By intentionallyaddressing team dynamics and teach-ing, and modeling and facilitatingteamwork skills, we help our studentshone lifelong skills for effective col-laboration. •

References

American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science (AAAS).1990. The liberal art of science.AAAS Publication 90-12S. Wash-ington, DC: AAAS.

College of St. Catherine. 2005. Thegoals ofa liberal arts education atthe College of St. Catherine. Avail-

able at: http://minen'a.stkate.edu/ahoutus.nsf/pages/liberal_arts

Harker, A.R. 1999. Full applicationofthe scientific method in an un-dergraduate teaching laboratory.Journal of College Science Teach-ing 29 (2): 91-\00.

Holt, C.E., P. AbramofT, L.V. Wilcox,Jr., and D.L. Abell. 1969. Inves-tigative laboratory programs inbiology: A position paper of thecommission on undergraduate edu-cation in the biological sciences.BioScience 19(12): 1104-07.

Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, andK.A. Smith. 1991. Active learn-ing: Cooperation in the collegeclassroom. Edina, MN: InteractionBook.

Norton, C.G., L.H. Gildcnsoph, M.M.Phillips, D.D. Wygal, K.H. Olson,J.J. Pellegrini, and K.A. Tweeten.1997. Reinvigorating introductorybiology: A theme-based, investiga-tive approach to teaching biologymajors. Journal of College ScienceTeachings (2): ]2\-26.

Olson, A.M. 2000. A theory' and tax-onomy of individual team memberperformance. PhDdiss., Universityof Minnesota. Minneapolis.

Project Kaleidoscope. 1991. iVhatworks: Building natural sciencecommunities. Vol. I. Washington,DC: The Independent CollegesOffice.

Tobias. S. 1991. They're not dumb,they 're dijfcrent: Stalking thesecond tier. Tucson, AZ: ResearchCorporation.

Tweeten, K.A., M.J. Myei s, C.G. Nor-ton, L.H. Gildensoph, M.M. Phillips,D.D. Wygal. J.J. Pellegrini, and J.R.Welter 2006. Animating a biologycurriculum with research. Coimcil onUndergraduate Research Quarterly26(3): 122-27.

Martha Phillips (mmphiiiips@stkate.edu)is a professor, Lynne H. Gildensoph is anassociate professor, tVlarcella J. Myers is anassociate professor, Cynthia G. Norton is aprofessor, Andrea M. Olson is an assistantprofessor, Kathleen A. Tweeten is a profes-sor, and Deborah D. Wygal is a professorat the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul,Minnesota.

November/December 2007 27