“We're putting together a great team to serve America.”
—President George W. Bush
“You know, politics and public life is a lot like athletics. It's a team
sport. I don't care how good the quarterback is, or the center. If you don't
have a good team, you're no where.”
—President Bill Clinton
Introduction
Many futurists and business leaders underscore the vital importance of
teamwork in the 21st century. Business guru Peter Drucker predicted
that, “Teams [will] become the work unit rather than the individual
himself…. We will have to learn to use different kinds of teams for
different purposes” (Drucker 1994, 68). A l997
survey of CEOs and American Council of Education leaders identified as
the top three skills to succeed in the 21st century workplace:
leadership, teamwork, and problem solving (Business-Higher Education
Forum, 1997). As the above presidential quotes indicate, politics also
depends upon leaders who can attract, motivate, and coordinate teams to
win electoral victories, organize government, and develop public
policies that benefit the nation.
This article describes a semester-long American government project that
assigns students the role of representing actual members of Congress.
Students then serve on House committee teams considering current
bills.1
The approach of this project
differs from that of Ciliotta-Rubery and Levy
(2000), whose congressional committee simulation
relied upon instructor written bills and fictional members
representing different “personalities.” The author has also
utilized that technique, but feels student exploration of the
beliefs and districts of actual representatives, with research
and debate focused on contemporary bills, offers other teaching
advantages.
Such a legislative exercise provides
students with experience in speaking on the House “floor,” as they
debate and vote on controversial legislation in the national news. The
project also addresses some of the misunderstandings about Congress that
former Representative Lee Hamilton pointed out in a recent Pi Sigma
Alpha address (
Hamilton 2000).
2 Former Representative Lee Hamilton expressed
concern over the lack of understanding about Congress among
ordinary Americans, which increased public suspicions and
cynicism. Hamilton suggested 10 things political scientists
should teach about Congress, including five lessons this
simulation addresses: Congress has a major impact on people's
everyday lives; the legislative process is dynamic and complex;
the country needs more politicians; members of Congress behave
better than people think; and, members of Congress do pay
attention to their constituents.
In particular, the
congressional simulation highlights the complexities and challenges
involved in the law-making process, illustrates the importance of
political skills in a democracy, clarifies many public misperceptions of
Congress, and underscores the attentiveness of congresspersons to the
voices of their constituents.
The growing importance of teams in the workplace led the author to add to
the American government syllabus the objective: “Underscore the
importance of collaborative learning and teamwork in the 21st
century.”3
Teams comprise a key component of the general education American
government class, where most students declare majors other than
political science. The Internet becomes—through online syllabus “hot
links,” listservs, and email—a means to involve students in
collaborative projects centering on contemporary “real-world” issues.
Furthermore, web-based asynchronous discussion forums, utilizing
Blackboard software, allows student team members to share their research
findings, exchange sources of information, and plan outside-of-class for
scheduled class presentations and debates on current political
issues.
4 When an instructor lacks
access to Blackboard or Web-CT software, many of the materials
and actions described may be accessed by students through an
online syllabus, library reserve holdings, or class
handouts.
The study analyzes empirical and qualitative data from student team
members enrolled in seven courses from fall 2000 to summer 2002. One
particular problem arose early in the author's integration of teams into
his courses: how to motivate all students to fully participate with
their team, rather than coasting as “free riders.” Free riders represent
a special challenge in creating effective teams for collaborative
learning.
A Congressional Experience
In the American government class, students learned on the first day that
they would be assigned to represent real members of Congress in a class
debate at the end of the semester. Based upon their preference, the
instructor assigned students to serve as a Republican or Democratic
congressperson in that session (e.g., 107th Congress, 2nd Session) of
the House of Representatives. Students also choose to debate on either a
domestic or foreign affairs bill, which had not become law. The
instructor has focused past House floor debates on gun control, the
national defense missile system, oil drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, stem cell research, abortion (Child Custody Protection
Act), and fast-track trade authority for President George W. Bush.
Students serve as a member of the House committee that has jurisdiction
over that issue or particular bill. The instructor posts their party and
committee assignments on Blackboard or the online syllabus to ensure
that students begin to rely on the Internet for key class information. A
class of 50 students may comprise up to three committees with majority
and minority party members (a total of six teams). Teaching assistants
would allow an instructor to use more teams, with six to eight the
optimum team size.
The instructor posts on Blackboard a direct link to the legislation, for
students to analyze and debate an actual bill. They may check the
Library of Congress web site (Thomas) or the Project Vote Smart site to
determine the status and legislative history of the bill. Students
utilize the pre-midterm period to begin researching the bill topic,
posting useful web sites, and sharing other sources for teammates to
explore. Teams often divide up the sections of the legislation for
research by particular team members.
The instructor devotes an early class period for an orientation on the
use of the online syllabus and requires students to complete a written
quiz by using answers found while browsing through the syllabus and hot
links to other web sites. Students receive credit for the assignment,
but the main purpose is to bolster confidence in navigating the online
syllabus to discover hot links to political web sites they will later
use for issue and member profile research. The instructor schedules this
class session in a campus computer lab. The orientation also introduces
students to their team's Discussion Board on the Blackboard system.
Another early assignment requires each student to post a
self-introduction on the Republican or Democratic Party Discussion
Board. Students provide their name, year in school, and career
objectives. They answer the National Elections Study survey question:
Generally speaking, do you usually consider yourself a Democrat, a
Republican, an Independent, or what? Then, they must post a short
paragraph about why they chose that party identification.
The author developed a brief PowerPoint class presentation describing the
importance of teamwork in the workplace that students will soon enter.
It quotes well-known athletes and American presidents on the importance
of teamwork to achieve shared goals. The lecture also highlights Bruce
Tuchman's four stages of team development (forming, storming, norming,
and performing), which very often reflects the stages their party and
committee teams encounter as they prepare for the simulated
congressional debate (Tuchman 1965, 396). In
addition, the author introduces students to the possible personal styles
each team member may represent, such as driver, persuader, analyzer, and
organizer, a concept employed in business (Clark
2000). The lecture emphasizes that an effective team requires
all four types of personal styles to achieve their team goals. The
author sometimes uses survival simulations, like Jay Hall's “Lost on the
Moon” exercise, to stress the importance of synergy. Hall defines
synergy as “the ability of a group to outperform even its own best
individual resource” (Hall 1971, 53).
Immediately after completing the midterm exam, students evaluate their
teammates using a World Series peer rating model (Maran and Gresham 1998).5
Players on winning World Series team receive 2 points for an
average performance and 4 points for the Most Valuable Player.
The MVP's 2 bonus points could be divided between two team
members. Thus, a team of 6 players will have a maximum of 14
points to allocate among its members, ranging from 0 to 4, based
upon each member's contributions to the team; the total could
not exceed 14 points for that team.
They also classify
each team member according to the four personal team style
categories—and identify any free riders on their team. Midterm team peer
assessments don't count as part of the course grade, but via email each
team member learns how teammates have judged their participation thus
far in the course. Not surprisingly, returning these scores (translated
into a letter grade), personal style classifications, and peer comments
serves as the proverbial warning “shot across the bow” to free riders
that non-participation will adversely impact their course grade.
Over time, the author has increased the weight of team peer evaluations
and instructor assessments of their substantive team discussion forum
postings. Unless such collaborative activity counts at least 15–20% of
the course grade, some students will ignore the exercise. Even then, the
lack of active participation by some teammates emerges as a complaint
among students, as noted later in the survey data.
After the midterm, students receive the name of the member of Congress
they will represent in the simulated House debates and floor votes. The
author tries to assign students to representatives from all parts of the
country and reflect the students' gender, race, or ethnicity. Often the
students develop attachments to “their” representative; women and
minority students especially express empathy toward the personal
challenges their member faced in the career path to Congress.
When students obtain their congressional assignments, they begin research
on a member profile. The course's online syllabus includes an outline of
a three-page member profile, hot links to the House of Representatives'
listing of members' official web sites, as well as other Internet sites
or library sources (e.g., Congressional Quarterly and The
Almanac of American Politics). These sources provide students
with information about the member's district, voting record, interest
group ratings, party unity, and presidential support scores. The
instructor posts a sample member profile from a previous class on
Blackboard.
The last section of the member profile requires students to decide how
they will vote on the bills coming before the House and why their member
would vote that way. The instructor purposely includes some freshmen
members, marginal districts, and controversial issues that require
students to carefully reflect on Speaker Sam Rayburn's dictum: “Vote
your district first.” Congressman Hamilton acknowledged that for all
members of Congress, “Their number one objective is to get reelected”
(Hamilton 2000, 761). Students must submit
the written member profiles 10 days prior to the beginning of the class
debates, with a copy of the member profile posted under a group team
forum as an attachment. Thus, their elected party leaders have an early
indication of why a representative may not support the party's position
on a bill.
In the first half of the course, students rotate the roles of moderator
and recorder for their team, so that everyone can assess the leadership
abilities, commitment, and knowledge of their peers. Recorders must post
attendance at meetings, key assignments, and decisions on their team's
discussion board.
Several weeks before the scheduled class debates, a Democratic Caucus and
Republican Conference of all party members elect their party leadership.
When using three committees, the majority party selects a Speaker,
majority leader, and majority whip. The opposing party chooses a
minority leader, minority whip, and minority deputy whip. One of the
party leaders must come from each committee team, as they serve as
majority or minority floor leaders when their bill reaches the House
floor for debate and vote. The Speaker yields the gavel to the majority
leader when his or her House committee seeks to pass their
legislation.
The instructor posts the rules for the debates, acting under a Rules
Committee limitation that no amendments are permitted to the proposed
bills. The Rules Committee allocates 40 minutes to debate each bill,
with the majority and minority leaders determining the order of
presentations based upon their strategies. Individual members may speak
only two minutes on their bill, with any remaining time allocated for
one minute rebuttals or comments by other class members.6
Former Representative Lee Hamilton criticized the
increasingly restrictive House rules that “sharply curtail
debate, restrict the opportunity for the average member to
participate, and limit the amendments and policy options that
can be considered” (Hamilton 2000,
763).
Students dress appropriately for this maiden congressional speech, since
simulated C-Span coverage televises their speech to their district.
During the debate and roll call votes, the House clerk and party leaders
identify students by their member's name. Some teams make name badges
and wear American flag pins on their dark suits, navy blazers, or
business attire. The instructor provides name plates (tents) with their
member names that they place on desks and on the podium when addressing
the House chamber.
Post-Team Surveys
The author developed and administered a post-team survey instrument in
seven political science classes between fall 2000 and summer 2002
(N=142). Most of the respondents (n=101) were enrolled in the
introductory American government course, while others participated on
teams in classes on Congress, the presidency, American foreign policy,
and international relations. Students completed the questionnaire after
finishing their final exams; the survey had no impact on their course
grade.
Students appear increasingly aware that after college or graduate school
they may serve as a member of a legal team, a managerial team, a
creative team, or a teachers' team. When asked whether they expected to
work sometime on a team with fellow workers in their chosen career
field, virtually all the students (97%) said “yes.” Over two-thirds
(69%) of the respondents indicated they had received peer grades for
team participation in other classes. Based upon discussions, this
appeared most common among education and business majors. When asked
about how comfortable they were working with fellow students on a team,
61% declared they felt very comfortable and 39% stated they were
somewhat comfortable working with class teammates.
All seven classes used asynchronous team forum postings on discussion
boards using online course delivery software. A majority (52%) of the
students found the class discussion forum postings very helpful in
understanding class materials, sharing information with teammates, and
preparing for the class presentations, while 44% found the forum
postings somewhat helpful and only 3% said not at all helpful. A strong
majority of students (55%) chose the statement: “I prefer posting my
ideas on the class web discussion forum, since I don't have much
available time for out of class meetings.” The alternate statement was
selected by 44% of the student respondents: “I prefer to meet outside of
class with my team, rather than post my ideas on the web discussion
forum.”
In assessing the overall effectiveness of their teams, 39% of students
rated their teams' effectiveness as excellent, 49% as good, 11% as only
fair, and just 1% as poor. The problem of free riders, students who
didn't post information on the team's forum, provide research on issues,
or regularly participate in team meetings, emerged as a critical factor
in student evaluations of their team's effectiveness. Almost half (49%)
of the students asserted that their team experienced a slight problem
with free riders and another 7% described it as a major problem; 44% of
the students said free riders were not a problem on their team.
The study explored this issue in greater depth, since the problem of free
riders appeared essential to a team's effectiveness and student
satisfaction with their team experience. Indeed, cross tabulations of
the variables team effectiveness by free rider problem yielded a
statistically significant relationship. Of the students who stated that
free riders were not a problem on their team, 58% rated their team's
effectiveness as excellent, 37% as good, and only 5% as only fair or
poor. On the other hand, among students viewing free riders as a slight
or major problem, only 24% assessed their team's effectiveness as
excellent; instead, about three-fifths (59%) felt their team's
performance was good, while 17% said only fair or poor.
A variety of other factors correlated highly with very positive
evaluations of team effectiveness. Many of these variables reflect ideal
team member behavior—in direct contrast to free riders. Students
assigning excellent scores for their teams' effectiveness appeared very
satisfied with their team members' motivation to achieve team success
(59%), preparations and contributions (59%), shared leadership on the
team (58%), and fairly shared team responsibilities (58%). Similarly,
students rating their team's effectiveness as excellent also declared
they were very satisfied with the sense of team unity (57%), regular
communications among team members (57%), and regular forum postings
(55%). In other words, on a perceived effective team, all team members
participated, contributed, and shared the tasks necessary to achieve the
team's goals.
Several other interesting findings revealed that, regardless of their
complaints about free riders, students appreciated the opportunity
afforded teams to voice and hear divergent viewpoints. Overall, 78% of
the students stated they were very satisfied that their team members
respected one another's opinions and ideas and 74% felt teammates
expressed different ways of thinking, valuing, and seeing during team
meetings.
When asked for one recommendation that would have improved their team's
performance, 37% of the students enrolled in American government courses
mentioned the need for more time (both inside and outside of class) for
their team meetings, followed by 21% calling for more participation by
all team members (criticism of free riders), and 10% recommending a
greater use of the team forum postings. Students also felt they needed a
greater understanding of team goals and the legislative project's
process (8%), while 7% felt their congressional speeches should have
been practiced with their teammates.
Conclusions
Classroom teams increased student involvement in a class. Collaborating
with teammates on a project helped students become more acquainted and
comfortable with other students in a large course. Students worked
together and often helped one another with assignments. For example, 46%
of the American government students stated that they used their
teammates as a resource for notes, information, or as a pre-test study
group.
Students also gained insights about teamwork. Some comments included: “We
all felt like equals, a shared sense of pride;” “Helped me get to know
others and feel more comfortable to talk in class;” “I learned more
about ‘people;’” The teams helped a lot if I had questions about an
assignment or exam;” “It divided the workload to get more accomplished;”
“Helped to keep me informed and involved;” and, “I liked how we were
able to get everyone's view on different subjects.”
In addition, the semester-long team project provided students with a
greater understanding of the legislative role of a congressperson, a
better recognition of the conflicts between district and party
pressures, and a deeper appreciation of the duties of a congressperson.
Modern technology offered new ways to encourage student research, share
ideas, and collaborate outside of class, despite schedule conflicts
among team members. The culminating floor debates allowed students to
bolster their confidence in speaking before an audience. One student
commented in his course evaluation, “Why do I get only one grade for
this class? I want a grade for American Government, English, Computer
Science and Public Speaking!”
Course evaluations and individual comments by students reflected the
positive aspects of their “congressional” experience. For example: “It
made members of Congress more real to me. Finding out about my member
helped me to see her ideologies, which made me almost feel like I was
her;” “I learned what a tough job they have. They are torn between their
constituents and Congress;” “It made me realize that there was someone
out there who was concerned about minorities;” “They're not as evil as I
thought;” and, “Many members really try hard to be effective, genuine
leaders.” A number of students echoed the following view, “I respect
their job a lot more!”
The author began this project while serving as a 2000–2001 Teaching,
Learning, and Technology Faculty Fellow at the University of Tennessee
at Chattanooga, under the direction of Dr. Karen Adsit.
