A Discussion and Analysis of Two Methods of Team Selection in an Interdisciplinary Senior Design Program

Rachel Horenstein; Daniel D. Auger

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: July 12, 2024
Conference Session: Design in Engineering Education Division (DEED) - Teamwork in Design Education
Tagged Division: Design in Engineering Education Division (DEED)
Tagged Topic: Diversity
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/46439

Request a correction

Abstract

Senior Design capstone projects provide students an opportunity to develop real working solutions for a customer-provided design challenge. During this project-based learning experience, students work closely together in small teams to address the needs of a customer. Despite a positive team dynamic being well-recognized as a key contributor to the success of a given project, the best method for determining team assignments remains a topic of discussion. While algorithms for optimizing team assignments exist, they are limited by assumptions of uniform team size, single student discipline, or both. As a result, these algorithms are unwieldy for assigning interdisciplinary teams of various sizes based on a given project’s need. Furthermore, outcome measures that quantify the interplay between “project success” and “positive team dynamics” are not well-defined.

While a variety of methods and approaches for assigning interdisciplinary project teams have been used at our institution over the years, we have not previously attempted to identify if a correlation exists between a given project’s success and the method used to assign its student team. The purpose of this study is to compare several proposed outcome measures for success between two consecutive senior-design cohorts in which team assignments were made using different processes.

Cohort 1: Prior to the start of the 2022-23 academic year, our senior design students (n=34) were instructed to complete a Qualtrics survey to indicate their top 3 project preferences, 3 preferred teammates and 3 teammate avoidances. The course instructors reviewed the survey results, endeavored to manually optimize student team assignments, and made informed decisions to finalize team assignments. Students were not allowed to change assignments after the teams were released.

Cohort 2: Prior to the start of the 2023-24 academic year, the course instructor implemented a team assignment process in which students (n=61) had an opportunity to participate in multiple open rounds of project self-selection. This selection process ultimately culminated in the creation of student self-assigned teams. During each open round, students could not only select their preferred project, but also see their peers’ project selections in real-time. Additionally, students could see their peers’ academic majors and study abroad statuses (our program allows for students to student abroad at the beginning of their senior year). Each open round was at least 4 hours in duration and students could change their selections as often as they liked during the open period. In cases where a project was oversubscribed for a discipline after the closure of a round, a random choice (coin toss or dice roll) was made by the instructor to decide which student(s) would be assigned to the project and which student(s) would enter the next open round. This process of random selection for oversubscribed projects was communicated to students in advance. The instructor facilitated successive rounds of open project selection until all students were assigned to a project. Student teams were finalized after a total of three rounds. 61 students, 21 students, and 6 students were engaged in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively and 40 students, 15 students, and 6 students were assigned to a project in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. One student chose not to participate, and they were assigned by the instructor to the remaining project at the end of the student self-selection process.

An initial comparison of Fall midterm CATME peer evaluations between the two cohorts revealed that 71% of instructor-assigned teams (5 out of 7 teams in the first cohort) identified at least one underperforming team member. In comparison, only 14% of the student-assigned teams (2 out of 14 teams in the second cohort) identified one or more underperforming team member(s). In this paper, we will compare additional outcome measures for “student enjoyment”, “project success”, and “high student performance”, such as improvement of underperforming member(s) as the academic year progresses, assignment/course grades, how much fun the students perceive the design process to be, levels of student confidence in project delivery and general student perceptions of Senior Design experience. We hypothesize that students who are given an opportunity to transparently choose their project will experience more enjoyment throughout their capstone experience and more project success than students who are opaquely assigned to a team.

Citation
Format

Horenstein, R., & Auger, D. D. (2024, June), A Discussion and Analysis of Two Methods of Team Selection in an Interdisciplinary Senior Design Program Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/46439

TY - CPAPER
AB - Senior Design capstone projects provide students an opportunity to develop real working solutions for a customer-provided design challenge. During this project-based learning experience, students work closely together in small teams to address the needs of a customer. Despite a positive team dynamic being well-recognized as a key contributor to the success of a given project, the best method for determining team assignments remains a topic of discussion. While algorithms for optimizing team assignments exist, they are limited by assumptions of uniform team size, single student discipline, or both. As a result, these algorithms are unwieldy for assigning interdisciplinary teams of various sizes based on a given project’s need. Furthermore, outcome measures that quantify the interplay between “project success” and “positive team dynamics” are not well-defined.

While a variety of methods and approaches for assigning interdisciplinary project teams have been used at our institution over the years, we have not previously attempted to identify if a correlation exists between a given project’s success and the method used to assign its student team. The purpose of this study is to compare several proposed outcome measures for success between two consecutive senior-design cohorts in which team assignments were made using different processes.

Cohort 1: Prior to the start of the 2022-23 academic year, our senior design students (n=34) were instructed to complete a Qualtrics survey to indicate their top 3 project preferences, 3 preferred teammates and 3 teammate avoidances. The course instructors reviewed the survey results, endeavored to manually optimize student team assignments, and made informed decisions to finalize team assignments. Students were not allowed to change assignments after the teams were released.

Cohort 2: Prior to the start of the 2023-24 academic year, the course instructor implemented a team assignment process in which students (n=61) had an opportunity to participate in multiple open rounds of project self-selection. This selection process ultimately culminated in the creation of student self-assigned teams. During each open round, students could not only select their preferred project, but also see their peers’ project selections in real-time. Additionally, students could see their peers’ academic majors and study abroad statuses (our program allows for students to student abroad at the beginning of their senior year). Each open round was at least 4 hours in duration and students could change their selections as often as they liked during the open period. In cases where a project was oversubscribed for a discipline after the closure of a round, a random choice (coin toss or dice roll) was made by the instructor to decide which student(s) would be assigned to the project and which student(s) would enter the next open round. This process of random selection for oversubscribed projects was communicated to students in advance. The instructor facilitated successive rounds of open project selection until all students were assigned to a project. Student teams were finalized after a total of three rounds. 61 students, 21 students, and 6 students were engaged in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively and 40 students, 15 students, and 6 students were assigned to a project in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. One student chose not to participate, and they were assigned by the instructor to the remaining project at the end of the student self-selection process.

An initial comparison of Fall midterm CATME peer evaluations between the two cohorts revealed that 71% of instructor-assigned teams (5 out of 7 teams in the first cohort) identified at least one underperforming team member. In comparison, only 14% of the student-assigned teams (2 out of 14 teams in the second cohort) identified one or more underperforming team member(s). In this paper, we will compare additional outcome measures for “student enjoyment”, “project success”, and “high student performance”, such as improvement of underperforming member(s) as the academic year progresses, assignment/course grades, how much fun the students perceive the design process to be, levels of student confidence in project delivery and general student perceptions of Senior Design experience. We hypothesize that students who are given an opportunity to transparently choose their project will experience more enjoyment throughout their capstone experience and more project success than students who are opaquely assigned to a team.
AU - Rachel Horenstein
AU - Daniel D. Auger
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - A Discussion and Analysis of Two Methods of Team Selection in an Interdisciplinary Senior Design Program
UR - https://peer.asee.org/46439
ER -

A Discussion and Analysis of Two Methods of Team Selection in an Interdisciplinary Senior Design Program

Paper Authors

Rachel Horenstein University of Denver

Daniel D. Auger University of Denver

Abstract

Citation

APA

APA - LaTeX bibitem

MLA

MLA - LaTeX bibitem

Bibtex

EndNote - RIS