Valuable Lessons From The Successes And Failures Of Teams Of Engineering Students

Performance of engineering students at regional, national and international competitions is often used as benchmarks for assessment of the quality of the education provided by their undergraduate institution. In such competitions, the potential for success of a small program entering the competition for the first or second time may be significantly different than that of a larger institution which has entered the competition several times previously. The authors, as advisors of two different ongoing projects share their years of experience with those colleagues who are interested in sponsoring engineering students in such challenging competitions. They briefly discuss elements of group dynamics and discuss why the success rate of the projects depends heavily on successful team building. They discuss steps for successful creation of teams that the strength of their members complement each other and propose tested techniques that may significantly enhance the relative potential of such teams. The instrumental role of the advisor is discussed. His/her project management activities must gradually be taken over by one or several members of the team. S/he must clearly establish the goals of the project and the expected performance criteria. The level of such expectations/goals may be significantly different than those set for winning the competition. The teams that achieve these initially set goals of their own environment are considered successful. The most important outcome of such projects is the experience that the students gain by their involvement in a cooperative learning environment through which they enhance their overall knowledge of engineering and improve their group dynamics skills. IINTRODUCTION For the past twenty two years, The College of New Jersey-TCNJ (formerly known as Trenton State College) has developed and prepared many vehicles for competitive events. In 1983 we built our first Mini-Baja vehicle as part of our Senior Design Project activity and since then, new groups of students have been designing and building completely new and distinct vehicles for SAE’s “Mini Baja East”. In 1992 we started a second group building a solar/electric car to participate in NESEA’s “American Tour deSol”. These two groups were working side-by-side when in 1995 we added a third group whose task was to design a Lunar Rover to compete in NASA’s “Great American Moonbuggy Race”. When the advisor for the solar/electric car retired, the faculty felt that the department needed to maintain several opportunities for students to become involved in “group senior design activities.” The department’s history of success in P ge 10443.1 Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education national competitive events encouraged us to initiate yet another project. A group of students was to design and fabricate a solar/electric boat with which to compete in ASME’s 1999 “Solar Splash”. These groups operate within our relatively small program, without funding from the department. We approach each competitive event with several goals in mind. First is to win the event with the best engineered, most finely prepared vehicle possible. The second goal is to finish every event that we enter. The third goal is to bring the vehicle, and driver(s), back in one piece. The common denominator, the basis for any success that we may enjoy, and the reason why all these activities were organized in the first place, is the involvement of students in a cooperative learning environment – a team effort [1]. Edgar Dale relates an “ancient proverb” that states, “Tell me, and I forget; Show me and I remember; Involve me and I understand” [2]. It is this involvement that has led us to formalize the active group learning experience, and equate this team structure with the recognized “Cooperative Learning Experience” [3]. II – STRUCTURE At The College of New Jersey, starting from their first semester, and throughout their sophomore, junior and senior years, students are involved with projects that involve them with group activities. They are assigned to teams of two, three, four or more students depending on the nature of the project/activity at hand. The first discussions of group dynamics, of team development, and the interdependence of team members are held in the first engineering course in the first semester. These concepts are further developed and repeatedly exercised and further polished in future classes [1]. As shown in table (1), students are involved in team work activities in twelve different courses prior to their senior year. Finally, in their two-semester "senior design project" (the capstone engineering design course), students review, reinforce, and synergize all the previously learned concepts of their education (including team work concepts). They use the full two semesters to work on one design project of their choosing. One member of the group is usually from the engineering management concentration and serves as the team manager. This provides structure, organization, and time management of the group’s efforts. In addition to the primary advisor, there may be collaborating advisor(s) providing any necessary technical support. III– ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT According to Carl Smith, "Base groups are long-term, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups with stable membership whose primary responsibility is to provide each student the support, encouragement, and assistance he or she needs to make academic progress" [4]. This is the transformation process that changes a group of individuals into a fully functioning, cohesive group. Table (1) reflects on the evolutionary process of preparing the students for their demanding tasks in their senior year. The remainder of this section briefly discusses the steps taken in forming and developing Senior Project Teams with the specific intention to participate in a national or international collegiate competitive event. P ge 10443.2 Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education Nature of the Design Activity/Project Course Title Year Taken Term Taken Laboratory Experiment. Reverse Engineer. Mini-Design Project(s) Final Design Project TEAM WORK Fund. Eng. Design 1 1 Υ Υ Υ Creative Design 1 2 Υ Υ Manufacture. Process 2 1 Υ Υ Engineering Materials // // Υ Υ Mech. of Materials 2 2 Υ Υ Υ Mech. Lab I // // Υ Υ Υ Society, Ethics & Tech. 3 1 Υ Υ Mech. Design Anal. I // // Υ Υ Υ Thermodynamics. II 3 2 Υ Υ Fluid Mechanics // // Υ Υ Kinematics & Mech. // // Υ Υ Υ Υ Mech. Lab. II // // Υ Υ Heat Transfer 4 1 Υ Υ Control Systems // // Υ Υ Control Sys. Lab. // // Υ Υ Mech. Lab III // // Υ Υ Υ Senior Project I // // Υ Υ Mech. Lab IV 4 2 Υ Υ Υ Mech. Elective // // Υ Υ Senior Project II // // Υ Υ Table 1 Associated Team Work in the Mechanical Engineering Program at TCNJ. First of all, in our team building structure, members are selected from a group of interested applicants. Many of these applicants have volunteered, as underclassmen, to help earlier senior design teams prepare for an event. They know what is involved in participating in such an activity. They have witnessed that the success of the team depends upon the efforts of all the team members. Johnson, Johnson, & Smith [3] call this element “Positive Interdependence”. Secondly, all of our teams have at least one formal meeting scheduled each week. These meetings are structured so that each of the members not only presents the status of their part of the project, but also explains the nature of the concepts and strategies utilized in the process. Again Johnson, Johnson, and Smith characterize this element of team development as “Face-ToFace Promotive Interaction”. P ge 10443.3 Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education One of the outcomes of these weekly meetings is that the group begins to develop an awareness of those members who need help. The group needs to know who needs assistance in accomplishing their part of the project. It is the opportunity for the group to assess the accomplishments of its members, and to assure that each member is held accountable for their part of the project. Johnson, Johnson & Smith call this “Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility.” Each group should have one member with “Engineering Management” background. His/Her role in leadership, decision making, trust building, communication, and conflict management is invaluable. This member should preside over the meetings, and create critical path network scheduling. This should insure that all elements of the project come together in an organized and timely manner. IV – STAGES OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT As the group of individuals come together to begin forming a group, they will pass through several predictable phases as they progress from separate individuals to a cohesive group. In 1965, Bruce Tuckman [5] published his “Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing” team development model. This elegant model has served as the basis for a host of similar models that have been developed in the almost three decades since its original publication. The Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing stages of team development form a basis for understanding the team developmental process. A team must be able to identify which stage they are in, and manage the transition form one stage to another adeptly [1]. To enforce accountability, we decided to create "The Group Activities Evaluation Form." This form is offered in Appendix (1) for potential adaptation or modification. The students are required to responsibly fill and include this form as an integral part of each of their team-oriented activities. Such activities may be laboratory experiments o