Linda,
I think this is a great suggestion. It certainly brings the question of
ethics to life for the students.
Michael R. Ryan
Stevens Institute of Technology
Babbio Center - Room 4426
Phone: 201-216-8968
Cell: 973-886-9061
mryan@stevens.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
[mailto:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Linda Trevino
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:06 AM
To:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: dealing with student team free riders - an academic integrity
approach
Here is one more approach that I have not seen represented in the ideas
circulated thus far.
In an ethics class, I have told students that it is dishonest to put a team
member's name on the assignment if that student did not contribute to the
product, and that I would consider it an academic integrity violation to do
so. Therefore, if a team member is not contributing, the team should
address the issue in the team, and come to me for assistance early if my
help is needed. This has actually worked well and has multiple beneficial
effects. For one thing, when I mention it, I can quickly see by their
reactions that students have never thought about "carrying" a fellow student
as an academic integrity violation. So, I can use it to help them
understand the importance of moral awareness and the use of moral language
to label a behavior. Second, I have found that students seem more inclined
to address the issue earlier and to be more honest with each other and with
me.
At 03:51 PM 10/17/2007, Stanley Williamson wrote:
>Many, many thanks to you all that responded on the freerider issues.
>Very helpful. It seems that, with variations, the peer evaluation
>remains the primary tool to deal with them.
>Thanks, again.
>stan
>
>Stan Williamson, Ph.D.
>Professor of Management
>Scott Endowed Professor for Teaching Excellence, 1999-2002
>
>Management Program
>College of Business Administration
>University of Louisiana at Monroe
>Monroe, LA 71209-0100
>318.342.1195
>fax: 318.342.1101
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
>[mailto:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Dina Mansour-Cole
>Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:26 PM
>To:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>Subject: Re: dealing with student team freeriders
>
>Sorry I am so late to the conversation. Here are a few points, some
>that echo those of others.
>
>1. When the project course first starts, we discuss the issue of
>self-limiting behavior - not simply social loafing- so that potential
>reasons for holding back participation are surfaced. When students
>understand that it is not necessarily about laziness, they try harder
>to include each other, and the conversation also signals all members
>that social loafing will not be tolerated.
>
>2. Depending on course objectives, I sometimes use the point system
>discussed by others (and I usually have a 'no tie' rule)-- other times
>we go through a more time intensive process of deciding how the team
>will motivate each other (much like a team contract). We talk about
>the importance of fairness in peer evaluation, and the probability that
>there will be uneven performance by individual members. Why? If all
>are using their skills and abilities to the fullest, and all are taking
>responsibility for leading the team to a high quality project, their
>contributions will be greater in some areas (e.g., idea generation,
>facilitation) than others (e.g., writing, boundary spanning). Coming
>up with a custom instrument for that group of people makes sense-
>trying to force fit equality doesn't.
>
>3. When I make peer evaluation a substantial portion of the grade
>(more than 5%), I make sure I insert a line into the syllabus that
>mentions I reserve the right to raise or lower a peer evaluation grade
>by one letter grade if I believe there has been under or over-inflation
>based on my observations, capriciousness or discrimination.
>
>4. This conversation also puts more pressure on me as the
>instructor/course designer to make sure the tasks are appropriate
>collaborative tasks (requiring more than simple cooperation) and to
>keep clarifying the link between projects and course objectives.
>
>4. Like Bill, I recognize that sometimes a 'work around' cannot be
>found for an unproductive member. When that student begins to hinder
>the progress of the team, I reserve the right to remove the student
>from the team rather than let the team fire them. Of course, the team
>must give a clear warning, talk with me, etc. The Loafer must then
>work out the consequences with me-- sometimes that means an alternative
>task set, sometimes they elect the retake the course another semester.
>Again, this is protection for all: the team does not determine the
>changes in graded assignments- I do.
>
>Dina
>
>Dina Mansour-Cole, Ph.D.
>Division of Organizational Leadership and Supervision Indiana
>University Purdue University Fort Wayne
mansour@ipfw.edu
>
> >>> "Snavely, William B. Dr." <
snavelwb@MUOHIO.EDU> 10/15/07 7:47 PM
> >>> >>>
>While I do a lot of the same sort of things as have been suggested, I
>would add 2 comments...
>
>1. I allow teams to "fire" a team member, in which case I find
>something else for them to do. There is a procedure involved (i.e.
>they have to prove that they tried to fix the problem first, they have
>to give a clear warning, etc.) - This has only been used a couple of
>times, but in both cases it worked as it should. I think in most
>cases, the existence of the option helps motivate social loafers.
>
>2. In a much different vein, I recommend being very careful how much
>adjusting you do on their grades. As associate dean I came across a
>number of student grievances where the faculty member just could not
>prove that there was not just a personality problem or discrimination
>that led to the lower rating instead of real performance differences.
>I think it is problematic to just rely on the student feedback to "grade"
>a student, especially if a hefty percentage is attached. Many students
>are not all that mature about performance appraisal...
>
>Bill
>
>
>Dr. William B. Snavely
>Director and Professor
>School of Communication
>San Diego State University
>5500 Campanile Drive
>San Diego, CA 92182-4560
>
>Tel: 619 594-0895
>Fax: 619 594-0704
>Mobile: 513-461-1450
>E-mail:
wsnavely@mail.sdsu.edu
Linda K. Trevino
Professor of Organizational Behavior, Cook Fellow in Business Ethics Smeal
College of Business
402 Business Building
Smeal College of Business
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Phone: 814-865-2194 Fax: 814-863-7261
Email:
ltrevino@psu.edu