Fixed, Systematically Formed versus Continuously Changing Random Team Assignments and Outcomes in a Therapeutics Course.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the association between fixed versus randomly changing teams on workshop preparation and learning outcomes.

Methods: In this crossover study, students in a third-year therapeutics course were randomized to either complete workshops 1-4 in fixed, systematically developed teams or teams randomly assigned before each session before crossing over for workshops 5-8. Students provided information on grade point average, work experience, leadership tendencies, and completed an abbreviated version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. After each workshop, students completed a quiz, reported time spent preparing, and rated their perceived preparedness of self and peers using a Likert scale of 1 (not at all prepared) to 5 (very well prepared). At the end of the semester, students reported team formation preferences. Parametric data were compared using paired t-tests, while non-parametric data were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Results: Of the 66 students who participated in the study, 49 students (74.2%) preferred working in fixed over random teams, but 44 (66.7%) perceived fixed teams as the most effective for their learning. There was no difference in mean post-workshop quiz scores (78.7% fixed vs 77.4% random), mean exam scores (77.9% vs 77.6%), or median time spent preparing for a workshop (91.3 vs 95.6minutes). Students perceived themselves as more prepared when working in fixed teams, but there was no difference in perception of peer-preparedness.

Conclusions: While students preferred and felt more prepared working in fixed teams, there was no difference in learning outcomes or preparation between the two team formation methods.