JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS

FACILITATING TRANSFER OF SKILLS

BETWEEN GROUP PROJECTS AND
WORK TEAMS

Deborah R. Ettington
Richaurd R. Camp
Eastern Michigan University

What I learned from this group project is that I don’t like to work in groups. I do
better work by myself.
—Student comment on
analysis of final group project

During the 1980s and 1990s, many organizations moved to team-based

work arrangements (e.g., Applebaum & Blatt, 1994). As the use of teams in
organizations increased, the use of group projects in education also appeared
to grow (Bolton, 1999). One objective in using group projects is to help pre-
pare students to be effective team members in organizations. In pursuing this
objective, we assume that students will develop skills by completing these
projects that they will later transfer to work teams in organizations. Yet, such
evidence as the opening student quotation suggests this assumption may be
wrong. Indeed, our own observations as teachers and consultants suggest that
group projects are often not effectively preparing students for work teams

Authors’ Note: We presented an earlier version of this article at the Midwest Academy of Man-
agement meetings, April 1997, Ann Arbor, MI. We are grateful to the journal reviewers for their
helpful suggestions and to our colleague, John Waltman, for his editorial talent. Correspondence
should be addressed to Deborah R. Ettington, Management Department, Eastern Michigan Uni-
versity, Ypsilanti, MI 48197; phone: 734-487-0160; fax: 734-487-4100; e-mail:
deborah.ettington@emich.edu.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 26 No. 4, August 2002 356-379
© 2002 Sage Publications
356
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 357

(see also concerns raised by Bacon, Stewart, & Silver, 1999; Bolton, 1999;
Feichtner & Davis, 1985).
This journal and other sources have offered numerous suggestions for
improving the use of group projects. Our objective here is to set these ideas,
along with a few of our own, in the context of enhancing the likelihood of
transfer of learning. To do this, we review basic principles about transfer of
learning, and findings from the research on work team effectiveness, and
apply them to the educational setting. Finally, we offer recommendations for
facilitating skill transfer through the use of group projects in individual
courses and through taking a program-level perspective.
For our purposes, we are not distinguishing between a work team and a
work group, although others have done so (e.g., Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).
We use the definition of work team from Sundstrom, De Meuse, and Futrell
(1990): “Work teams are defined as interdependent collections of individuals
who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations”
(p. 120).
We define a group project as a graded assignment requiring students to
work collaboratively across multiple class periods and involving some time
outside the normal class meeting. We view the group project as an educa-
tional simulation of a work team.
The appendix contains a list of group process skills that we have compiled
over the past 5 years from numerous sources. This is the checklist one of us
uses to assess and develop skills when assigning group projects (see also
Stevens & Campion, 1994).

Transfer of Learning

To improve our use of group projects for the purpose of skill transfer, we
can apply general transfer principles from the training and development liter-
ature. An important concept for organizational trainers is “transfer of training
(or learning)” (e.g., Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Transfer refers to the conse-
quences or impact that training in one situation has on a new situation. The
usual question is whether employee training conducted away from the work-
place environment will later affect the employee’s behavior on the job.
Extending this question to the classroom, we are interested in whether work-
ing in classroom groups will later affect the student’s behavior on work
teams.
Transfer has three possible outcomes: (a) positive transfer, (b) negative
transfer, or (c) no transfer. Positive transfer occurs when the learner develops
358 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

skills and applies them appropriately in new situations. Negative transfer

occurs when the trainee or student learns inappropriate behaviors and trans-
fers them to the workplace, or fails to use behaviors appropriate to the new
situation. No transfer occurs when the student fails to learn the skills, or fails
to recognize when to apply the new skills in the workplace. Our objective
with group projects is to foster higher degrees of positive transfer and to avoid
negative transfer.
Our premise is that basic principles identified by organizational trainers
can provide some insight into how to more effectively transfer group process
skills from school to work. We chose five transfer principles: perceived rele-
vance, practice and feedback, follow-up, identical elements, and generaliza-
tion. We based our choices on our experience as trainers and selected work
from the training literature (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Berardinelli, Burrow, &
Jones, 1995; Longenecker, Simonetti, & LaHote, 1998; Parry, 1991).
These transfer principles are consistent with both social learning theory
(SLT) (Bandura, 1977) and experiential learning theory (ELT) (Kolb, 1984).
With an ELT approach, practice (concrete experience) occurs first, followed
by reflection, generalization, and transfer to new situations. With an SLT
approach, conceptual learning and modeling precede practice and feedback,
followed by transfer to new situations. McEvoy (1998) demonstrated that an
SLT approach was more effective than an ELT approach for management
skill development in an OB classroom. However, research is lacking on
whether either approach is effective for transfer of learning to the workplace.

PERCEIVED RELEVANCE

The first transfer principle is that the student must be motivated both to
develop the desired skills and to apply them in new situations. Motivation is
enhanced by the perceived relevance of the learned skills. Trainers in organi-
zations achieve relevance by conducting a needs assessment before design-
ing or delivering training courses. This should assess the needs of individual
employees and of the organization as a whole. Increasingly, trainers must jus-
tify employee development programs in terms of the strategic priorities of the
organization (e.g., Parry, 1991).
In the educational setting, this principle suggests that we should assess our
students’ skill development needs before we attempt to develop their skills
using group projects. We should consider both the developmental needs of
individual students and the strategic needs of the organizations they will join.
We should consider ways of communicating the relevance of group process
skills to students’ career objectives.
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 359

PRACTICE AND FEEDBACK

The second transfer principle is that students require opportunities for

practice and for feedback. An ELT model suggests that practice (direct expe-
rience) should lead to reflection on the experience, followed by conclusions
and insights, which are then tested by practicing in new situations. An SLT
model precedes practice by the learner with a model showing how to apply
conceptual learning.
We can also consider modeling as a vicarious way of practicing through
observing others as they perform the desired skills. As Sims and Manz (1982)
explained, modeling has an advantage over the trial and error method of
direct experience when target behaviors are not specified clearly through
instructions or previous experience. This may well be the situation faced by
students required to work on group projects without a clear idea of how to do
so effectively. In the context of group projects, modeling can consist of pre-
senting examples of effective group behaviors, or public recognition and
reinforcement of exemplary group processes as they occur.
Locke and Latham (1990) noted that feedback can impact learning in at
least three ways. First, feedback tells trainees whether their responses are
correct, allowing for necessary adjustments in their behavior. Second, it
makes the learning more interesting and encourages trainees to continue.
Third, it leads to specific goals for maintaining or improving performance.
Placing students in groups certainly encourages them to practice process
skills, but without feedback, the group participants may not know if they are
practicing effective or ineffective behaviors. If they do not receive formal
feedback from their teachers or their peers until the end of the course, they
lose the opportunity to adjust.

FOLLOW-UP

The third principle is that successful transfer requires follow-up to see that
the trainee is applying learned skills on the job. Too often, organizational
supervisors or subordinates do not reinforce the use of newly learned behav-
iors (e.g., Sims & Manz, 1982). Both the ELT and SLT models recognize that
learners must apply their new skills in other situations to reinforce and con-
tinue their learning.
The way we prepare and debrief students can help them understand the
barriers to using effective group process skills that they will face in the work-
place. We can also encourage students to plan their continued skill develop-
ment. Taking a program-level perspective, we can use our assessment pro-
cesses to determine if skills in one class are applied in later classes and
eventually in the workplace.
360 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

IDENTICAL ELEMENTS

The fourth principle is that transfer is enhanced by similarity between the

learning situation and the context in which the lessons will be applied, the
“identical elements” principle (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). This principle sug-
gests that the group project context should be as similar as possible to the
work team situations in which students will find themselves.
In using group projects to simulate work teams, we must first recognize
that different types of work teams exist. Hackman (1990) identified seven
types: top management teams, task forces, professional support teams, per-
forming groups, human service teams, customer service teams, and produc-
tion teams. Sundstrom et al. (1990) identified four categories: advice and
involvement, production and service, projects and development, and action
and negotiation. It seems reasonable that different group process skills would
be important for different types of teams.
Recognizing different types of work teams, and possibly different skill
requirements for different types, what types of teams are we trying to simu-
late with our group projects? Group projects typically resemble task forces
due to the novelty of the task, temporary membership, and the salience of
time and deadlines. Often they resemble self-managing teams in their need to
make their own decisions about work process and responsibilities. Recog-
nizing what type of work team we are trying to simulate may increase our
ability to target specific skills for development.
We may also be better able to prepare and debrief students by explicitly
comparing their project to a specific work situation and contrasting it to other
situations. Students may learn, for example, that they are uncomfortable with
the skills required for a task force but that they would enjoy being part of a
stable production or customer service team. Without recognizing the differ-
ences that exist among groups, the students may overgeneralize about their
experiences and preferences for teamwork, resulting in negative transfer.
Of course, we are limited in our ability to simulate work teams partly
because the structure of a typical university course creates some differences
between student groups and work teams. In work organizations, managers
have a much greater degree of control over employee selection than we have
as instructors (we do not choose the students in our classes). The life span of
our student groups is limited to the length of the course, so that unlike
employees, students do not face the knowledge that they will have to continue
to work with their teammates on future projects.
Students frequently complain about the difficulty of scheduling group
meetings, given diverse student schedules and geographic locations. In com-
parison, the traditional work organization has a common location and office
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 361

hours. However, this difference may not be as great as students imagine with
the flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and global organizations that
worklife now includes. Our student groups typically are independent entities,
not integrated with each other or with other groups outside of the class,
whereas work teams usually must manage boundaries with other work units.
Student groups typically have few sanctions for poorly performing members,
and even the instructor’s maximum sanction, the course grade (or a portion of
it), may not be as salient as keeping one’s job. These differences between stu-
dent groups and work teams limit our ability to use group projects to simulate
the future work context.

GENERALIZATION

Rather than attempting to simulate all possible future situations, the gen-
eralization principle (Baldwin & Ford, 1988) holds that if learners are equip-
ped with knowledge about how things work, they will be prepared to face
novel situations. Ausubel (1963) noted that “existing cognitive structures—
an individual’s organization, stability, and clarity of knowledge in a particu-
lar subject-matter field at any given time—is [sic] regarded as the major fac-
tor influencing the learning and retention of meaningful new material in this
same field” (p. 26). Put more simply, what students learn from participating
in groups will be influenced greatly by what they know about groups before
they begin.
Both SLT and ELT approaches recognize that students must generalize
what they learn from the practice situation before they can transfer learning to
new situations. The approaches differ in when the generalization process
takes place. In an SLT approach, students are prepared with conceptual
knowledge before practicing new skills. With an ELT model, generalization
takes place after practice. However, the ELT model is a continuous cycle, rec-
ognizing that prior experience in groups will affect what students learn in the
current situation.
Prepared with knowledge about group functioning, a student participating
in a failed group project might still experience positive skill transfer if the stu-
dent understands the reason for failure and how to modify his or her behavior
in the future. Similarly, without this knowledge, a successful group project
might not lead to positive transfer because the student does not really under-
stand the behaviors that led to success.
Applying the generalization principle to the question of transferring group
process skills, the next section summarizes findings from the research on
effective work teams.
362 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

Learning From Effective Work Teams

Understanding what makes work teams effective should help make group
projects themselves effective. A review of the extensive literature on work
team effectiveness is beyond the scope of this article, so we relied on several
significant review pieces (Bettenhausen, 1991; Campion, Papper, &
Medsker, 1996; Hackman, 1990; Sundstrom et al., 1990). Their findings fall
under six factors: interdependence, group composition, group development,
motivational job design, organizational support, and effective leadership.

INTERDEPENDENCE

Merely assembling several individuals and labeling them a group or a

team doesn’t make it so (Hackman, 1990). To achieve the potential of a group
effort versus an individual effort, group members must perceive themselves
to be interdependent. Campion et al. (1996) recommend interdependence in
the design of jobs, group goals, and feedback to the group.
A major problem with creating interdependent class groups is that this
runs counter to the individualistic norms of student culture (Keleman &
Spich, 1985). In work organizations, change agents need to address cultural
norms before a change in work structure can be expected to take hold. Simi-
larly, students need to be open to the potential of group work before they can
see interdependence as a benefit rather than a burden.
Unfortunately, students often approach a group project by trying to break
it down into individual tasks and reducing their interdependence. Our role is
both to design assignments that benefit from group interaction and to help
students realize that benefit. Otherwise, students may experience the disad-
vantages of group work without the advantages—and ironically reinforce
individualistic norms.

GROUP COMPOSITION

Effective groups must have the necessary skills, knowledge, and ability to
perform the task at hand (Hackman, 1990). At work, managers ideally form
teams by matching member capabilities with task requirements. Although
we do not choose our students, we can consider the distribution of skills
required in the assignment when forming groups.
Beside the level of capabilities, the diversity of the group in skills and per-
spectives ties in with team effectiveness. However, the effects of diversity are
complex. In general, diversity appears to enhance team performance on
nonroutine tasks (indeed the presence of a minority opinion appears to
improve team performance according to Nemeth & Kwan, 1987). However,
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 363

extreme heterogeneity can limit performance through conflict and lack of

communication (e.g., Bettenhausen, 1991).
Another aspect of group composition is the size of the work team. Cam-
pion et al. (1996) found that for professional jobs, teams that participants per-
ceived as being too large were less effective. We affect group size and the
degree of diversity when we form student groups. We can also affect the
impact of diversity through what we teach about valuing differences and
managing conflict.

GROUP DEVELOPMENT

Groups appear to go through stages and develop their norms and processes
over time. Many team facilitators have found the traditional Tuckman (1965)
model of group development (forming, norming, storming, performing) use-
ful in helping groups understand their evolution. However, Tuckman’s model
has faced challenges (Bettenhausen, 1991). Poole (1983) found that groups
develop in multiple sequences. Gersick (1989) found that groups form and
change their approach to creative projects at critical points in time. Her pro-
ject groups were most receptive to intervention and redirection when they
first formed, at the midpoint of the project’s timeline, and close to the dead-
line. Watson, Michaelsen, and Sharp (1991) found that with more experi-
ence, groups were better able to use members’ knowledge to reach consensus
decisions.
In addition, previous experience of group members influences the stages
of development of a particular group. Current group norms are affected by
norms of previous groups in similar situations (Bettenhausen & Murnighan,
1991).
Although we may not be able to predict the stages of group development in
every case, groups appear to need sufficient time to develop. Group members
need to address norms carried over from previous experience. The instructor
can be instrumental in helping groups pace themselves and assisting with
midpoint corrections.

MOTIVATIONAL JOB DESIGN

Work teams are known to be more effective when they perceive their tasks
to be motivating. Motivational characteristics include autonomy or self-
management, broad participation in team decisions, and variety in the tasks
performed by individual members (Campion et al., 1996). For student
groups, we can provide autonomy in some decisions related to the group’s
task and help them achieve participation and task variety in their work.
364 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT

Effective groups need support from the surrounding organization. Sup-

port includes training, rewards, information, and material resources, as well
as encouragement (Hackman, 1990). Even highly skilled work teams often
require adequate training for new tasks in both technical skills and process
skills (Sundstrom et al., 1990).
In educational groups, we need to anticipate the technical skills required
for group assignments (e.g., how to do a case analysis) and the process skills
that will be most important. With class projects, we typically assign a group
grade but may not sufficiently reward effective group process. For student
groups, material resource requirements include physical space appropriate
for group meetings.
If students learn that we expect them to work through problems without
much support from us, this may create negative transfer to the workplace.
They may fail to learn when and how to seek support when they need it, rein-
forcing a norm that it’s better not to bring the boss bad news until the last pos-
sible moment.

EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

Hackman (1990) observed that “a strict hands-off managerial stance can

limit a team’s effectiveness, particularly when members are not already
skilled and experienced in teamwork” (p. 502). Sundstrom et al. (1990) rec-
ommended that managers monitor and encourage positive team processes.
Acting as managers of the student groups in our classes, we can learn from
research on leading self-managing teams. Stewart and Manz (1995) sug-
gested that for employees who have not yet developed their team skills, the
most effective leadership style should be (in their terms) “power building,”
both active and democratic. In contrast, ineffective leaders might use either
an “overpowering” (active, autocratic) or “powerless” (passive, autocratic)
style. As teams become more capable of self-management, an “empowered”
style (passive, democratic) should be more effective.
The powerless style resembles the laissez-faire approach to managing
class projects that we fear is too common (Stewart & Manz, 1995).

[The powerless leader] may initially provide the team with great latitude in
decision making and behavioral choice only to provide sanctions and punish-
ment when results are not congruent with the leader’s expectations . . . .
A “hands off” approach fails to cultivate skills required for team self-
management. (p. 752)
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 365

Instead of a hands-off approach, the effective leader actively helps the

team develop self-management skills. Manz and Sims (1987) observed effec-
tive leaders of self-managing work teams encouraging team members
through questions rather than direct commands. Leaders designed questions
to reinforce self-management, self-observation, and self-evaluation by the
team. For example, one leader was observed helping team members rehearse
approaches to reprimanding a team member for excessive absenteeism.
For the instructor, this line of research suggests that our role should vary
depending on the skill level of the students, reinforcing the call for needs
assessment prior to implementing group projects. Assuming that in most
cases our students have undeveloped group process skills, our role should be
to help actively, rather than passively observing their struggles.

Implications for Using Group Projects

Our most important conclusion is that we, as instructors, need to be mind-

ful in our use of group projects of how our actions (or inaction) affect our
objectives. If developing transferable skills is one of our objectives, we can
increase the likelihood of positive skill transfer by applying transfer princi-
ples. In this section, we discuss how the instructor’s role before, during, and
after groups work on their projects can affect skill transfer. We provide six
recommendations with specific examples either from our own experience or
other published examples. We then provide three additional recommenda-
tions from the program-level perspective. Table 1 shows how the recommen-
dations relate to the transfer principles and effectiveness factors discussed
earlier.

BEFORE: DESIGN AND PREPARATION

1. Design group tasks with explicit consideration of skill development

objectives as well as content learning objectives. Through our design of the
group task, we can affect how closely the group will simulate a work team,
the perceived relevance and motivating potential of the task, the interdepen-
dence of group members, and the opportunity for practice and feedback. Spe-
cific approaches include the following:

• Consider what type of work team the group project will simulate and what pro-
cess skills are most important for that type.

(text continues on p. 370)

366

TABLE 1
Faculty Role in Facilitating Transfer
Transfer Principles Effectiveness Factors

Motivational
Suggested Perceived Practice & Follow- Identical Generali- Interde- Group Group Job Organizational Effective
Action Relevance Feedback Up Elements zation pendence Composition Development Design Support Leadership

Course-level action
Before—1. Design project
Consider type of team
simulated & skills needed X X X X
Develop meaningful
assignments X X X
Determine technical
skills needed X
Allow some choices X X
Assign tasks requiring
interdependence X
Assign multiple group tasks X X X
Reinforce good group process X X X X X
Before—2. Introduce project
Discuss learning objectives X X
Ask students to self-assess
and set goals X X X
Model effective group
behavior X X X
Orient students to process
issues X X X
Discuss past experiences
with groups X X X X
 Explain technical tasks &
instructor’s role X X
Before—3. Form groups
Use skill distribution to
form groups X X
Consider number of students
needed for the task X X X X
Consider nature of task in
assigning groups X X X
Maintain group membership
across projects X
Require students to choose
& rotate roles X X X
During—4. Monitor progress
Help groups speed forming
stage X
Check interim progress &
provide feedback X X X X
Provide mechanisms to
resolve conflict X X X X X
Observe meetings & model
relevant behaviors X X X X X X X X X X
Determine when additional
training is needed X X X
Remove structural barriers X X X
After—5. Evaluate & reward
Assign a significant weight
to the project grade X X X X
Require individual analysis
of process X X X X X
Use peer evaluations X X X X X X
367

(continued)
368

TABLE 1 Continued

Transfer Principles Effectiveness Factors

Motivational
Suggested Perceived Practice & Follow- Identical Generali- Interde- Group Group Job Organizational Effective
Action Relevance Feedback Up Elements zation pendence Composition Development Design Support Leadership

After—6. Debrief
Help students share &
generalize X X X X X
Encourage group review &
parting rituals X X X X
Ask for action plans for
future development X X X X
Reinforce with other
assignments X X
Program-level action
7. Design the curriculum
Assess skills students will
need & simulate different
types of teams across
courses X X X
Ensure early training &
reinforcement X X X X
Consider the number of
projects across courses X
Set skill development
objectives by course X X X
 Assess skill transfer to later
classes & workplace X
8. Share ideas & support
colleagues
Identify where group
projects are used X X
Share knowledge and
materials X X X X
Provide process
consultant X
9. Recognize & reward
group performance
Offer a “Best Group”
award X X X X
Showcase effective
group work X X X X X
369
370 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

• Develop assignments that are meaningful for the content learning objectives for
the course, rather than tasks that students may perceive as “busy work”
(Feichtner & Davis, 1985). This effort should increase the perceived relevance
of the group task and student motivation.
• Determine the technical skills that students will need to complete the
assignment.
• Allow the group to make choices about their task, output, membership, or evalu-
ation procedures to increase autonomy and motivation (insofar as this is
practicable).
• Assign tasks that are unlikely to be completed effectively by individuals work-
ing independently, either due to the scope of the project or the requirement for
multiple perspectives and creative problem solving (Feichtner & Davis, 1985;
Lyons, 1991).
• Assign multiple group tasks so that groups can develop their process, receive
feedback, and improve (Feichtner & Davis, 1985).
• Design project requirements that reinforce good group processes. For example,
request a minority opinion section in the final group report if the group’s recom-
mendation is not unanimous (Bednarz & Wood, 1991).

2. Introduce group projects with careful attention to skill development

objectives as well as content learning objectives. The way we prepare stu-
dents when introducing the group assignment affects significantly the poten-
tial for positive transfer of learning. With proper preparation we can increase
motivation, model effective behavior, and show how theoretical principles
can be applied to new group situations. Some specific ideas for doing this
include the following:

• Discuss explicitly with the class the objective of developing group process
skills, as well as the content learning objectives of the group project. To enhance
student motivation, explain why the learning objectives are important for future
career success.
• Ask students to self-assess their current skill levels and set learning objectives
for themselves (see our example in the appendix). Bolton (1999) asked students
to commit to behaviors they wish to increase (or decrease) during the semester.
• Model effective group behavior by discussing a short case about a real group
experience (e.g., Fisher, Shaw, & Ryder, 1994), showing a videotape illustrating
group process, or sharing helpful hints from former students who successfully
completed the project.
• Use a realistic course preview (Barry, 1989), handbook (Gardner & Larson,
1988), lecture, or handout on tips (Bolton, 1999) to orient students to process
issues. Explain the limits of a group project as a simulation of a work team.
• Use an exercise or project designed to encourage students to discuss past experi-
ence with groups. This can help to elicit past group norms and unresolved issues
(Keleman & Spich, 1985).
• Explain technical tasks that students will need to perform and the role of the
instructor in supporting both technical and process challenges.
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 371

3. Form groups based on skill requirements for the task. We should con-
sider the nature of the task and skill level of students when forming groups.
We suggest the following steps:

• Identify the technical skill requirements for the group task and determine the
distribution of these skills in the class. For example, we have surveyed students
with regard to their proficiency in conducting Internet searches, setting up soft-
ware programs, performing financial analyses, editing other people’s work, and
designing Powerpoint presentations. Use information about the distribution of
skills as the instructor to form groups, or provide the same information to stu-
dents to aid them in forming their own groups (e.g., Bacon et al., 1999; Gardner
& Larson, 1988).
• When deciding group size, consider the number of students needed to perform
the required tasks (Bacon et al., 1999). For example, groups of only two or three
may be sufficient to share ideas in writing a case analysis, whereas a larger
group may be needed for a simulation to fill all the required roles. Similar to
work teams, student groups that are too large for their tasks incur coordination
and social loafing problems (e.g., Comer, 1995).
• Consider how the nature of the task affects group composition. For example, a
creative problem-solving task suggests a diverse group, whereas a homoge-
neous group might more efficiently complete a data-gathering task. Assign stu-
dents to groups rather than allowing them to form their own groups if diversity
of gender and cultural background are helpful for completing the group task.
Allow students to form their own groups if they need to become cohesive
quickly. An advantage of student-formed groups for an advanced level course is
that students may be able to accelerate the group development process by work-
ing with students with whom they have worked previously (Bacon et al., 1999).
• Maintain the same group membership throughout the semester if multiple pro-
jects are assigned in one class, so that students have time to develop their group
process (Bacon et al., 1999; Feichtner & Davis, 1985).
• Require students to choose specific roles and rotate the roles if possible. This
approach increases task variety and motivation as well as allowing more stu-
dents to learn how to perform more tasks or roles.

DURING: MONITORING PROGRESS

4. Monitor group progress; do not simply assume that skill development is

taking place. At this stage, we have the opportunity to maintain motivation,
ensure that practice and feedback are occurring, promote group develop-
ment, provide needed organizational support, and demonstrate effective
leadership. Some ways of doing this include the following:

• Help groups engage in activities designed to speed up their forming stage (Wat-
son et al., 1991). For example, encourage student groups to sit together, to name
their groups, or to meet outside of class socially (Feichtner & Davis, 1985).
372 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

• Require interim reports from the group on their progress on both content and
process objectives. An alternative is to meet informally with each group to
review progress and obstacles.
• Provide mechanisms for the group to surface and resolve unproductive con-
flicts, for example, grievance procedures and firing group members (Gardner &
Larson, 1988). Another approach is to allocate a class session to reviewing
approaches to understanding and resolving conflicts.
• Observe group meetings and provide process feedback on the spot (Barry, 1989;
Feichtner & Davis, 1985). Coach students to realize the benefits of interdepen-
dence and diversity as issues arise.
• Determine when the students need additional support. For example, students
may need instruction in holding effective meetings, work planning, or conflict
resolution. They may also need more training in technical skills needed for the
task, such as conducting a literature search or running a software program.
• Remove structural barriers to the extent possible. For example, require students
to commit to a meeting time during group formation to limit scheduling con-
flicts, provide in-class time for groups to meet, or help schedule appropriate
meeting rooms.

AFTER: EVALUATION AND DEBRIEFING

5. Evaluate and reward development of group process skills. Anticipating

the evaluation and reward process affects student motivation and perceived
interdependence. When instructors evaluate process learning, they reinforce
its importance and model effective feedback. Specific suggestions include
the following:

• Assign a significant weight to the group project (e.g., at least 20%) in determin-
ing the final course grade. This increases motivation and interdependence
(Feichtner & Davis, 1985).
• Require individual analysis of the group process as part of the final graded pro-
ject (e.g., Kolb, 1999). This can help reduce slacking as well as help develop the
skill of self-assessment. One approach is the individual learning log or journal
(Barry, 1989).
• Use peer evaluations to provide feedback to the students on their skill develop-
ment. Commonly used peer rating instruments tend to result in equal evalua-
tions due to student norms of mutual support (Bacon et al., 1999; Feichtner &
Davis, 1985). As a supplement to a traditional peer rating system, one of the
authors developed thought starters to help students generate written feedback
for their teammates (e.g., “It really helped me when you . . . ”). This approach
helps students develop the important skill of giving good feedback, while pro-
viding the instructor insight into their group dynamics.

6. Debrief students on skill development objectives, as well as content

learning objectives. The actions we take after the completion of group projects
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 373

affect the feedback students receive and their preparation for follow-up on the
job. Some ideas for doing this include the following:

• Help students in class to share insights and generalize lessons. Possible tech-
niques include conducting survey feedback (Gardner & Larson, 1988) or shar-
ing excerpts from their learning logs.
• Encourage students to meet in their groups to discuss their process. Include
parting rituals (Barry, 1989; Wagenheim & Gemmill, 1994).
• Ask students to develop action plans for further developing their group process
skills in future course work or on the job (see appendix). Discuss ways they can
learn more about specific skills (e.g., by taking a negotiation course).
• Reinforce skill development objectives in other assignments. For example, in
an Introduction to Business course, we have students interview people in a field
of interest, asking about the skills required for the job and the degree of interac-
tion with coworkers, among other questions. Discussing the results of these
interviews in class reinforces the relevance of learning to work effectively as a
member of a team.

PROGRAM-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE

As full-time faculty, we are part of a work team that delivers the curricu-
lum for an entire program of study. To practice what we preach, we should
also consider this broader perspective in our efforts to enhance skill transfer.
Accordingly, we offer three additional recommendations for faculty to con-
sider as part of a program team.

7. Design the curriculum to develop group process skills. The objective of

developing students’ group process skills should be achieved more effec-
tively by considering effects of the curriculum as a whole. We offer a few
suggestions:

• Use an assessment process (e.g., alumni survey) to identify the types of work
teams students are most likely to join and the group process skills that they will
need. Consider ways to simulate different types of work teams in different
courses.
• Ensure that all students receive some instruction in group dynamics early in
their course of study and reinforce this training in subsequent courses. For
example, our required Introduction to Business course for 1st- and 2nd-year stu-
dents establishes the groundwork for skill development that continues into later
courses.
• Consider the number of group projects with which students are involved at the
same time across their course load—it may be that more is not better.
• Set skill development objectives by course. For example, it may be appropriate
for seniors or graduate students to practice the skill of selecting group members
374 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

to match task requirements, whereas 1st- or 2nd-year students may need to first
experience diverse groups assigned by the instructor. One approach is to assign
students in an advanced class to help groups in introductory classes, and evalu-
ate the senior students on their coaching skills (Graf & Couch, 1985). Bolton
(1999) provided an example of a curricular revision process that resulted in
emphasizing group process skill development in some classes and discontinu-
ing group projects in other classes.
• Assess how well skills are transferred from earlier to later classes and into the
work environment.

8. Share ideas with colleagues and offer support in developing group pro-
cess skills. If group projects are used widely, faculty development opportuni-
ties need to be available for instructors to learn effective group leadership.
The following are some possible approaches:

• Identify classes where group projects are being used. Recognize that students
transfer learning about groups from class to class, whether negative or positive.
• Hold workshops; develop and share handouts and bibliographies; and offer
assistance in designing, introducing, and debriefing group projects. The “Writ-
ing Across the Curriculum” movement (Sensenbaugh, 1989) may provide a
good model for disseminating ideas about “Group Skills Across the
Curriculum.”
• Provide a process consultant for students in any course to consult as they
encounter process issues on group projects.

9. Recognize and reward group performance. Part of the modeling process

is reinforcing effective group performance through recognition and reward.
The following are some ideas:

• Offer a “Best Group” award to counter the tendency for all student awards to be
individual.
• Showcase effective group work. For example, we have sponsored student
groups to present their projects at our undergraduate research symposium that
typically features individual research projects.

Discussion

The premise for our recommendations is that we should apply general

principles about transfer of learning when using group projects to increase
the likelihood that students will positively transfer skills to the workplace.
We reviewed five transfer principles and six findings from work team
research and provided examples of how to apply them to group projects. Our
recommendations are consistent with either an SLT or ELT model of learn-
ing. The SLT model suggests more attention to the “before” (preparation)
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 375

stage, whereas the ELT model places more importance on the “after”
(debriefing) stage. We argue that either approach should result in better trans-
fer than merely assigning group work, hoping that students will pick up some
skills in doing it.
However, we recognize some limitations to our premise. Developing
group process skills is only one objective for using group projects. Other
objectives include content learning, socialization, and development of tech-
nical skills (e.g., research, writing, and presentation). Maximizing skill trans-
fer may conflict with these other objectives. In contrast, work organizations
usually have task accomplishment as the primary objective. Extended to a
Business Policy course, accomplishing the task of completing a group case
analysis might suggest distributing students with strong financial analysis
skills across all groups. However, this approach tends to result in these stu-
dents practicing their strong skills, while other students are failing to practice
and develop their financial skills. In this case, forming groups to facilitate
task accomplishment may conflict with the objective of developing each stu-
dent’s technical skills. As instructors, we need to balance our objectives.
Another limitation is that taking the training perspective implies prepar-
ing students for organizations as they are now. As educators, we may be more
interested in preparing students for organizations as they will become in the
future or even preparing students to help organizations develop into what
they might be. This may suggest more attention to the generalization princi-
ple than the identical elements principle so that students are more flexible. It
also suggests that as instructors we need to be open to new research findings,
for example, related to the effectiveness of virtual work teams.
A third limitation is the assumption that our general transfer principles
and findings about work team effectiveness apply to group projects. What
makes work teams effective may be different from what makes student
groups effective due to the structural differences discussed earlier. The pro-
cess of transfer of learning from school to work may differ from transfer of
training in an employee development context.
McEvoy’s (1998) study supported the application of social learning the-
ory to the educational setting, but there is a need for more research in this
area. Most published research on effective group projects uses project out-
come (assigned grade) and student satisfaction as effectiveness criteria.
Researchers need to use positive skill transfer as an effectiveness criterion in
future studies. When we know more about positive skill transfer in this con-
text, we will know better which specific approaches are useful.
We contend that lack of attention to how group projects affect skill transfer
may be resulting in the unintended consequence of negative transfer. If nega-
tive transfer is prevalent, students will need extensive retraining and coaching
376 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

to be effective work team members. This may reinforce some employers’per-

ceptions that management education is not relevant to their needs. Consistent
with increased attention to outcomes assessment, we should be mindful of
the outcomes of our use of group projects.
Our perspective is that group projects are not a neutral pedagogical tool. If
we use them simply to reduce our workload without paying attention to stu-
dent outcomes, we are not behaving responsibly. Using group projects
responsibly requires instructors to be skilled in preparing, coaching, and
debriefing students. As part of a faculty team, we are partly responsible for
helping colleagues develop these skills. We suggest that educators who are
interested in using group projects to develop process skills in their students
may need to rethink the roles they play and reassess their curriculum to maxi-
mize the chances of positive transfer.

Appendix
Developing Students’ Group Process Skills
Self-Assessment and Goal-Setting Instrument

One of the authors developed the following six-step approach for a senior-level man-
agement class where most students had experienced group projects in previous
classes.

1. Students rate their skill level on a list of skills (see below), using a 5-point scale
(1 = very strong, “I typically contribute a lot in this area”; 2 = strong, “I do this
well”; 3 = average, “I’m okay at doing this”; 4 = needs improvement, “I could be
better at this”; and 5 = needs major improvement, “This is a real problem area for
me”).
2. Students ask two people with whom they have previously worked in a group (at
school or work) to rate them on these skills using the same scale. Students discuss
the ratings with these raters and ask for specific examples.
3. Students set personal goals for the course by choosing three skills they would most
like to work on during the term.
4. The instructor tallies the number of times each skill on the list was chosen as a per-
sonal goal by a student and reports the results to the class.
5. The class discusses ways of improving the skills that were the most commonly
chosen as personal goals.
6. At the end of the term, students rate their degree of skill improvement and write
new goals, including actions they plan to take to further develop their skills.
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 377

List of Group Process Skills

Organizational

Work planning
Dividing up work
Setting priorities and deadlines
Monitoring completion
Managing meetings
Using agendas and minutes
Using time effectively
Combining individual contributions

Interpersonal

Building trust
Making others feel at ease
Involving others
Predicting and preparing for others’ reactions to one’s actions
Understanding cultural differences
Managing personality conflicts
Working with people with different motivations
Maintaining motivation and morale
Analyzing group functioning

Problem Solving

Sharing information, knowledge, and skills

Brainstorming
Eliciting minority views
Active listening
Being responsive to others’ ideas and not defensive about one’s own
Clarifying different values and positions
Appreciating and using positive conflict
Resolving conflict—finding common ground
Negotiating differences
Identifying compromises
Avoiding groupthink (premature closure)
Reaching closure and consensus

Managerial

Helping others—teaching, coaching

Giving and receiving feedback
Managing power struggles
378 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / August 2002

References
Applebaum, E., & Blatt, R. (1994). The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to school
learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Silver, W. S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student
team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Educa-
tion, 23(5), 467-488.
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and direction for future
research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barry, D. (1989). Twincorp: Extensions of the classroom-as-organization model. The Organiza-
tional Behavior Teaching Review, 14(1), 1-15.
Bednarz, D., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Research in teams: A practical guide to group policy analy-
sis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berardinelli, P. K., Burrow, J. L., & Jones, L.S.D. (1995). Management training: An impact the-
ory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(1), 79-90.
Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs
to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345-381.
Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development and stability of norms in
groups facing interpersonal and structural challenge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36,
20-35.
Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A “just-in-time” approach to learn-
ing. Journal of Management Education, 23(3), 233-250.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team charac-
teristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452.
Comer, D. R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups. Human Relations, 48(6),
647-667.
Feichtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1985). Why some groups fail: A survey of student learning
experiences with learning groups. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9(4), 58-
71.
Fisher, C. D., Shaw, J. B., & Ryder, P. (1994). Problems in project groups: An anticipatory case
study. Journal of Management Education, 18(3), 351-355.
Gardner, W. L., & Larson, L. L. (1988). Practicing management in the classroom: Experience is
the best teacher. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 12(3), 12-23.
Gersick, C. J. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 32, 274-309.
Graf, L. A., & Couch, P. D. (1985). A program for managing student groups: An applied organi-
zational behavior experience. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9(4), 34-40.
Hackman, J. R. (Ed.). (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71,
111-120.
Keleman, K. S., & Spich, R. S. (1985). Development of a procedure to increase course related
task group efficiency: Explicit norm structuring. The Organizational Behavior Teaching
Review, 9(4), 86-93.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 Ettington, Camp / GROUP PROJECTS AND WORK TEAMS 379

Kolb, J. A. (1999). A project in small-group decision making. Journal of Management Educa-

tion, 23(1), 71-79.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Longenecker, C. O., Simonetti, J. L., & LaHote, D. (1998). Increasing the ROI on management
education efforts. Career Development International, 3(4), 154-160.
Lyons, P. R. (1991). Accelerating team interdependence with a cooperative learning paradigm.
Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 265-267.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leader-
ship of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.
McEvoy, G. M. (1998). Answering the challenge: Developing the management action skills of
business students. Journal of Management Education, 22(5), 655-670.
Nemeth, C., & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of cor-
rect solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 788-799.
Parry, S. B. (1991). Linking training to the business plan. Training and Development Journal,
45(5), 32-36.
Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups: A multiple sequence model of
group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341.
Sensenbaugh, R. (1989). Writing across the curriculum: Evolving reform. Journal of Reading,
32(5), 462-465.
Sims, H. P., Jr., & Manz, C. C. (1982). Modeling influences on employee behavior. Personnel
Journal, 58-65.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements of
teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503-
530.
Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-managing work teams: A typology and
integrative model. Human Relations, 48(7), 747-770.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990, February). Work teams. American Psychol-
ogist, 120-133.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
384-389.
Wagenheim, G., & Gemmill, G. (1994). Feedback exchange: Managing group closure. Journal
of Management Education, 18, 265-269.
Watson, W. E., Michaelsen, L. K., & Sharp, W. (1991). Member competence, group interaction,
and group decision making: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6),
803-809.