Teaming & Collaboration Requirement: Part II: Teaming Experience “Coming together is a beginning; Keeping together is progress; Working together is success.” Henry Ford ©2003, First Year Engineering Program Faculty at Ohio State University

Teaming Experience Reflection Paper To complete the teaming experience part (part II) of the Teaming and Collaboration requirement all guidelines of the paper must be met; The Kolb Learning Style Inventory that was taught in SCI 130 and SCI 210 must be used in your reflection. Failure to study and apply this information will result in failure of the reflection paper. ©2003, First Year Engineering Program Faculty at Ohio State University

Teaming: Reflection Paper Guidelines – CS course NOTE: Please verify with your faculty that this is the paper outline you are to follow. Part of a successful teaming experience is the ability to critically reflect on that experience and articulate it well to others. Although there is no page limit on this paper, it would seem that in order to adequately reflect on your teaming experience an 800—1000 word paper is called for. College-level writing that has been spell-checked and proof read is expected. This paper is to be submitted to your CS faculty. Preparation Spend some time brainstorming: review specific examples and activities of your experiences in teaming in your CS course. DO NOT use your teaming experience in SCI 130 or SCI 210. Take time to think in depth about teaming, your roles and the roles of teammates. IMPORTANT NOTE: Kolb Learning Styles information must be incorporated into your reflection paper as this discussion connects your knowledge of teaming principles with your team experience in your CS course, meeting the intent of the teaming and collaboration requirement. Analysis In your paper reflect on all of the following questions regarding you experience and interactions during your CS course regarding teaming and collaboration. Include comparisons/contrasts within your teaming experience while addressing the following questions: ©2003, First Year Engineering Program Faculty at Ohio State University

Using the KOLB learning style inventory discuss your contributions to your team. Include discussion of the strengths and areas of weakness in regards to your preferred learning style. Discuss the roles you most like to fulfill while teaming and those that you would like to defer to other team members. Further discuss your insights into the learning styles of your team members, focusing on perceived strengths and weaknesses. What trait or traits regarding learning styles did each team member bring to your team that influenced its functioning either positively or negatively?  Give examples of their impact. Who did what on your team?  How were roles determined? Did everyone contribute equally? How was this decided? Describe an instance where a team member(s) created an obstacle that had to be overcome in order to allow your team to perform effectively. What stumbling blocks relating to team cohesiveness did you encounter in working on your project/activity? How did you overcome them? How do you believe learning styles impacted your team’s ability to work collaboratively together and towards team goals? Did you gain skills in conflict resolution while working on the team? Were you able to use these skills effectively to enhance your team’s performance? Illustrate with an example. Did your team struggle with personal agendas? Were you able to work toward a common purpose? How? In your teaming experience, did you gain any insights into how cultural differences have an impact on teamwork? If so, please describe. How might your teaming experience affect your future --- with regard to academic, social, career, and/or personal choices? ©2003, First Year Engineering Program Faculty at Ohio State University

SCI 130/210: Teaming Principles Goals To Provide: a framework for understanding your learning style and how it impacts your participation and success in teams; The opportunity to assess your strengths and areas of development when you team; and The opportunity to identify and respect the strengths and areas of development of teammates. ©2003, First Year Engineering Program Faculty at Ohio State University

Teambuilding – Experiential Approach “INSIDE-OUT” approach Great way to objectively improve team performance (outside) Identify and build upon strengths and experiences of team members (inside) Past experiences, personal and learning preferences, skills working in a team “INSIDE-OUT” approach – we want to take the perspective of discovering what’s on the inside and how this manifests in the way each of us works and learns. If we can discover how people go about learning and moving through a problem-solving process, we can then focus on people’s strengths which encourages personal success as well as team success. We can also discover areas for development and where skill development will be needed for an individual to be successful. We want to challenge ourselves to build skills while as the same time realizing that time should not be spent of becoming great at everything, but rather that we should focus most of our energies on what comes naturally and means the most to us. We want a tool chest to call on when we don’t have team members who can do well the things that we will have to put a great deal of focus and energy to just to be average at them. Always flow with your strengths but be ready to punt if needed!

A Recipe for a Strong Team Trust and Cohesion Clear Goals Productive Communications People who can get along together Clear Roles Clear Agendas Good Decision-making Interesting problems to solve A team that has the requisite experience and expertise Trust and cohesion are the foundation of every successful team. ©2003, First Year Engineering Program Faculty at Ohio State University

Learning Styles: The Kolb Inventory

Learning Styles and Strategies What is measured is PREFERENCE, not competence Better understanding of how you prefer to learn means a higher quotient for success Understanding your preference and that of others improves communication, teamwork and future career success It is important to point out that what is being measured is a preference for the ways we learn. This is not a measure of the competence of a person. Not all people are alike. There is no one “correct” preference for Scientists, for example. There are, however, better matches of learning style to different teaching styles. For example, traditional lecture may favor verbal learners over visual learners. Visual learners may need to ask for more diagrams, flow charts, sketches. Understanding the preferences and strengths of colleagues can help in team project to reduce conflict from variability of approach and to make use of complimentary gifts. ©2003, First Year Engineering Program Faculty at Ohio State University

Factors that Influence LSI Personality type Education, specialization/experience Professional career choice Current job role (we become more skilled at what we do frequently) Current task or issue (context) Because of our hereditary equipment, our particular life experiences, and the demands of our present environment, we develop a preferred way of choosing.

Teambuilding with the LSI Learning Modes (4) Learning Styles (4) Problem Solving Cycle

Learning Modes: What do my scores mean? Your scores indicate how much you rely on each of the 4 learning modes: Concrete Experience Reflective Observation Abstract Conceptualization Active Experimentation There are four learning modes that when combined create learning styles. Two modes come together to create a learning style.

Modes of Learning Concrete Experience – learning by EXPERIENCING Abstract Conceptualization – learning by THINKING Active Experimentation – learning by DOING Reflective Observation – learning by REFLECTING

Learning Modes – CE and RO Concrete experience: where learning from feelings or reactions to experience influence your learning. 2. Reflective observation: where learning from watching and listening influence your learning. Kolb theory, 1995

Learning Modes – AC and AE 3. Active conceptualization: where learning from thinking or analyzing problems in a systematic method influence your learning. 4. Active Experimentation: where learning by doing or being results driven influences your learning. Kolb theory, 1995

Combining Learning Modes The four learning modes come together in two distinct continuums which help us to understand how we: Perceive & Process information when problem-solving.

LSI: Two Main Dimensions How we Perceive or experience new information: Concrete (CE) – Abstract (AC) How we Process or transform what we perceive: Active (AE) – Reflective (RO) Concrete-Abstract Dimension In new situations some people prefer to sense and feel their way, while others prefer to think their way through. Those who sense and feel tend to rely on Concrete Experience - the tangible, felt qualities of the world. These people perceive through their senses, immersing themselves in concrete reality, and rely heavily on intuition, rather than stepping back and thinking through elements of the situation analytically. Others tend to grasp new information through symbolic representation or Abstract Conceptualization - thinking about, analyzing, or systematically planning, rather than using intuitions or sensation as a guide. One can think of this as a continuum, both modes are equally valuable, both have their strengths and weaknesses. Active-Reflective Dimension. In processing new information, some of us would rather jump right in and try our hand, while others would choose to carefully watch others who are involved in the experience and reflect on what happens. The doers favor Active Experimentation, the reflectors favor Reflective Observation. Again, we fall somewhere on the continuum, both modes have strengths and weaknesses. Each dimension presents us with a choice. Since it is virtually impossible, for example, to simultaneously drive a car (Concrete Experience) and analyze a driver’s manual about the car’s functioning (Abstract Conceptualization), we resolve the conflict by choosing which is the most appropriate mode for the present set of circumstances.

Combining Learning Modes * We bring together the four learning modes in a way that makes sense to us to help us fully understand the elements of a situation, problem-solve and to select the best plan for success. * The importance, and time and focus, spent in each learning mode is determined by each individual

Effective Learners Utilize all 4 Modes: Concrete Experience (CE): Involve themselves fully, openly, and without bias in new experiences

And… Reflective Observation (RO): Reflect on and observe these experiences from many perspectives.

And… Abstract Conceptualization (AC): Create concepts that integrate their observations into logically sound theories.

And… Active Experimentation (AC): Use these theories to make decisions and solve problems.

Combining Learning Modes The four learning modes come together in pairs to create four distinct learning styles.

Learning Style: DIVERGING Concrete Experience + Reflective Observation “Facilitator/Motivator” Generates ideas Works well with people Shares ideas Very involved with learning Asks: “Why?” or “Why not?”

Diverging (Creating) Dominant learning modes: CE and RO Learners view concrete situations from many points of view. They perform better in “brainstorming” sessions, or situations that call for looking at things from many angles. Approach is to observe rather than take action Prefer to work in teams to gather information. Listen with an open mind and receive feedback.

Learning Style: ASSIMILATING Reflective Observation + Abstract Conceptualization “Theoretical/basic scientist” Theoretical interests Combine diverse ideas Create models Analytical/Inductive Asks: “What do I have here?”

Assimilating (Planning) Dominant learning modes: RO and AC Use inductive reasoning and assimilating disparate observations into an integrated explanation. Theories need to be more logically sound and precise than of practical value. If theory doesn’t fit the “facts” they might disregard or reexamine the facts. Prefer lectures, reading, exploring analytical models. Need time to think things through.

Learning Style: CONVERGING Abstract Conceptualization + Active Experimentation “Applied Scientist” Want concrete answers Prefer to work with things vs. people Like hands-on experiences Want answers quickly Asks: “How does this work?”

Converging (Deciding) Dominant learning modes: AC and AE Knowledge is organized through hypothetical- deductive reasoning, focus on a problem and converge on an answer. Best at finding practical uses for ideas and theories. Rather deal with technical tasks/problems than interpersonal issues. Prefer experimenting with ideas, simulations, lab assignments and practical applications.

Learning Style: ACCOMODATING Active Experimentation + Concrete Experience “Practitioner” Take risks Focus on doing Adapt well to change Like new experiences Integrate application with experience Asks: ”What will this become?”

Accommodating (Acting) Dominant learning modes: AE and CE Interested in doing things, in carrying out plans, and involving themselves in new plans. Risk takers, excel often where one must adapt or accommodate. If the plan doesn’t fit the facts, often will disregard the facts. Rely heavily on others for information than on own technical analysis. Prefer to work with others to get assignments done, set goals and test different approaches.

Where will you jump in? Kolb LSI Learning Cycle Diverging Converging Choose a model or goal Concrete Experience Compare it with reality Execute a solution Identify problems Accommodating Diverging Active Experimentation Reflective Observation Converging Assimilating Select a solution Select a problem Evaluate consequences of solutions Consider alternative solutions Abstract Conceptualization Where will you jump in?