Cargando…

4160 Evaluating Student Team Dynamics

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We aimed to explore the students’ assessments of workload distribution by comparing personal reflective commentaries and team documents defining division of labor in a team science setting. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Interprofessional Research Design course models the team scien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chao, Celia, Tumilty, Emma, Aronson, Judith, Hommel, Jonathan D., Hellmich, Mark R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8823262/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.210
_version_ 1784646766407188480
author Chao, Celia
Tumilty, Emma
Chao, Celia
Aronson, Judith
Hommel, Jonathan D.
Hellmich, Mark R.
author_facet Chao, Celia
Tumilty, Emma
Chao, Celia
Aronson, Judith
Hommel, Jonathan D.
Hellmich, Mark R.
author_sort Chao, Celia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We aimed to explore the students’ assessments of workload distribution by comparing personal reflective commentaries and team documents defining division of labor in a team science setting. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Interprofessional Research Design course models the team science experience by bringing together MD and PhD students to write a research grant. Four teams of 13 students were tasked with both individual and team-based assignments: 1) Each week, each student reported their perception of their own and their team members’ effort over the week (totalling 100%). 2) Iterative work contracts for each team were submitted at four time-points; assigned work toward project completion totalled 100%. 3) Lastly, each student submitted a short commentary reflecting on the prior week’s team dynamics and teamwork. We retrospectively performed a mixed-methods analysis of the workload data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Group-reporting in the team contracts remained static throughout the course, often stating equal distribution of workload, whereas individual reporting was more dynamic. Of 13 students, 8 rated more than 50% of the weeks as balanced. Among some students, there was a discordance of workload distribution when comparing the group document to the individual perceptions of work performed by their teammates. Reflective writing mapped more closely to individual quantitative reports. The data also revealed within team variations, where one student may report a higher proportion of their contributions, while the rest of the team attributed that student a lower percentage of the total work. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: An important aspect of team function is workload distribution. Group-based workload discussions may be a useful framework, but does not provide insight into team dynamics, whereas individually reported workload distributions and short reflections seem to more accurately inform us on team function.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8823262
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88232622022-02-18 4160 Evaluating Student Team Dynamics Chao, Celia Tumilty, Emma Chao, Celia Aronson, Judith Hommel, Jonathan D. Hellmich, Mark R. J Clin Transl Sci Education/Mentoring/Professional and Career Development OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We aimed to explore the students’ assessments of workload distribution by comparing personal reflective commentaries and team documents defining division of labor in a team science setting. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Interprofessional Research Design course models the team science experience by bringing together MD and PhD students to write a research grant. Four teams of 13 students were tasked with both individual and team-based assignments: 1) Each week, each student reported their perception of their own and their team members’ effort over the week (totalling 100%). 2) Iterative work contracts for each team were submitted at four time-points; assigned work toward project completion totalled 100%. 3) Lastly, each student submitted a short commentary reflecting on the prior week’s team dynamics and teamwork. We retrospectively performed a mixed-methods analysis of the workload data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Group-reporting in the team contracts remained static throughout the course, often stating equal distribution of workload, whereas individual reporting was more dynamic. Of 13 students, 8 rated more than 50% of the weeks as balanced. Among some students, there was a discordance of workload distribution when comparing the group document to the individual perceptions of work performed by their teammates. Reflective writing mapped more closely to individual quantitative reports. The data also revealed within team variations, where one student may report a higher proportion of their contributions, while the rest of the team attributed that student a lower percentage of the total work. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: An important aspect of team function is workload distribution. Group-based workload discussions may be a useful framework, but does not provide insight into team dynamics, whereas individually reported workload distributions and short reflections seem to more accurately inform us on team function. Cambridge University Press 2020-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8823262/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.210 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Education/Mentoring/Professional and Career Development
Chao, Celia
Tumilty, Emma
Chao, Celia
Aronson, Judith
Hommel, Jonathan D.
Hellmich, Mark R.
4160 Evaluating Student Team Dynamics
title 4160 Evaluating Student Team Dynamics
title_full 4160 Evaluating Student Team Dynamics
title_fullStr 4160 Evaluating Student Team Dynamics
title_full_unstemmed 4160 Evaluating Student Team Dynamics
title_short 4160 Evaluating Student Team Dynamics
title_sort 4160 evaluating student team dynamics
topic Education/Mentoring/Professional and Career Development
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8823262/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.210
work_keys_str_mv AT chaocelia 4160evaluatingstudentteamdynamics
AT tumiltyemma 4160evaluatingstudentteamdynamics
AT chaocelia 4160evaluatingstudentteamdynamics
AT aronsonjudith 4160evaluatingstudentteamdynamics
AT hommeljonathand 4160evaluatingstudentteamdynamics
AT hellmichmarkr 4160evaluatingstudentteamdynamics