Exploration of an Integrated Active Learning Strategy to Balance Student Workload in a Mixed Level Research Methods Course

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Team Base Learning (TBL) and Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) are two very distinct active learning and teaching pedagogies, both of which focus on team interactions to facilitate learning. TBL and POGIL literature have both been remiss in addressing their applicability in solving workload imbalance within the team paradigms respective of their individual pedagogy. In this study, we merged integral components of both TBL and POGIL teaching strategies to address perceived imbalance in student workload that were revealed through analysis of initial course evaluations from a mixed level (masters and doctoral level students) Research Methods course. As a result of findings from analyses of initial course evaluations, teams were established based on the integration of TBL and POGIL components in the subsequent course offering.


Introduction
Concerns about America's competitive standing among its international counterparts in training and retention of students for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) disciplines has called for less traditional methods of teaching that will be effective within larger student groups (Wood, 2009).Support for this argument has been based in educational research that has uncovered a need for new methods of knowledge transmission to large student groups where more traditional avenues have failed (Hake, 1998;Wood, 2009).As a result of these two catalysts, several innovative teaching practices that are more student-centered, hands-on and active in their approach have been implemented and proven effective in increasing student learning outcomes (Wood, 2009).
Learning occurs when students actively process the information and less so when they passively receive facts (Lujan and DiCarlo, 2006).Knowledge retention is increased through active learning or by students actively engaging in the curriculum and taking on greater responsibility for their learning by accepting primary roles in the process (Camiel et al., 2016).Learning can be achieved with greater results by increasing the amount of collaborative learning activities available to students, opportunities for inquiry, critical thinking, and scholarly works (Lujan and DiCarlo, 2006).Two approaches to active student learning include Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning and Team Based Learning.
Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning.Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) is a studentcentered teaching and learning pedagogy that is usually employed in science education (Eberlein et al., 2008).POGIL requires students to operate within self-managed teams during in-class time.With their teams, students navigate the three phases of the "guided inquiry" learning cycle: (a) exploration; (b) concept formation; and (c) application (Eberlein et al., 2008;Brown, 2010).During exploration, students examine a model (i.e. graphs, data, text, charts, illustrations, etc.), identify patterns, and glean knowledge from the model through the use of carefully developed questions.At the concept formation stage, students develop a concept based on their inquiry and findings from the model they encountered during the previous phase.In the application stage, students apply their new understanding of concepts to problems and their grasp of the concepts is thereby enhanced (Eberlein et al., 2008;Brown, 2010).
POGIL was borne in the chemistry discipline and was originally designed as a strategy that would replace traditional lectures (Minderhout and Loertscher, 2007;Eberlein et al., 2008;Brown, 2010).Through its implementation, the instructor facilitates the guided inquiry to help students arrive at the correct conclusions.By guiding their inquiry, the instructor also facilitates students' problem solving, critical thinking, communication, human resources management, time management, and self-assessment abilities (Eberlein et al., 2008;Brown, 2010).
Modern researchers of learning recognize that student learning is optimized when students are engaged in meaningful social settings while being challenged to construct understanding of and solve complex problems (Minderhout and Loertscher, 2007).The guided inquiry process, combined with teamwork and mastery of discipline specific content facilitate this process of student learning (Minderhout and Loertscher, 2007).Classrooms that employ the POGIL pedagogy foster an environment where students can actively engage during in-class time.Better understanding of concepts, improved critical thinking, and increased ability to solve complex problems are facilitated by students' active engagement in the learning process (Moon et al., 2016).POGIL takes into account students' prior knowledge, including their misconceptions, and allows them to explore models, data, or illustrations through guided inquiry (Brown, 2010).Students also realize the benefit of developing their teamwork skills by working together to solve complex problems while they fulfill the duties of their assigned team roles (Moon et al., 2016;Roller and Zori, 2017).
To facilitate team management, an instructor adopting POGIL assigns each team member a specific role.Although variations exist among proponents of POGIL in the team roles, the more commonly assigned roles are manager, recorder, reflector, technician, leader and/or presenter (Eberlein et al., 2008;Roller and Zori, 2017).Students' performance of their assigned roles, in concert with the facilitation of the POGIL event, promotes the development of process skills beyond what is expected by the planned activities (Eberlein et al., 2008).
Team Based Learning (TBL).TBL is an active learning strategy that utilizes teams that are formed through a transparent and random process.TBL teams are made up of four to six members that remain together for the duration of a course.Teams follow a four-phase process: Pre-work/reading assignments; Individual Readiness Assurance Test (IRAT); Group Readiness Assurance Test (GRAT); and application exercise.In phase one (preparation), students are assigned prereading materials to review prior to class and are held accountable for the information through discussions with their teammates, the instructor and the Readiness Assurance Test (RATs).The RAT comprises phases two and three of TBL.
During phase two, each student takes a brief quiz, or IRAT, over the pre-reading material, without assistance from their teammates.In phase three, directly following the IRAT, each team engages in discussion to answer GRAT questions, which are identical to the IRAT.Mini-lectures are facilitated by the instructor to bring clarity to unclear points that may have remained from the RATs.
The collaborative learning that transpired during phases two and three are then applied by each team to solve real world problems in the application exercise phase (Michaelsen, Knight and Fink, 2004;Michaelsen et al., 2008).Throughout TBL, discussions and debates occur within groups and between groups with the instructor facilitating and directing the flow.This process is similar to that of POGIL.However, one important difference between TBL and POGIL is that student teams are not permanent for the duration of the course in POGIL pedagogy.Integration of team role assignments from POGIL into TBL learning has not been studied.

Study
Rationale.An analysis of the 2015-2016 data from student end-of-course evaluations in a mixed-level (Ph.D. and Masters) graduate student survey research methods course revealed that both levels of students perceived an imbalance in the course workload assigned to their respective learner classification.Further analysis of student response data uncovered needed improvements in clarification of student course expectations and instructor responsibilities to the students.Both Ph.D. and Master's level students described dissatisfaction with the volume of work performed by the other.To assuage students' perceived inequities in workload among Ph.D. and Masters level students in the course, the investigators integrated relevant aspects of the process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) and team based learning (TBL) teaching pedagogies.The intent was to integrate the two pedagogies and employ the new model in the research methods course as a strategy to transparently and adequately distribute work among both groups and increase course structure in the process.The study aimed to examine how integrating components from TBL and POGIL instructional pedagogies would impact (1) perception of imbalance in workload among Ph.D. and Master's level students; and (2) students' overall satisfaction with the course, two elements considered to support the overall learning experience.We hypothesized that the TBL and POGIL-driven changes would reduce course complaints and improve student course ratings.

Procedure
In fall 2015 (Year 1), a graduate-level Survey Research methods course was taught using a traditional lecture format.In fall 2016 (Year 2), the course was modified to include instructional components from POGIL and TBL teaching pedagogies within the context of project-based approach in which students applied learning topics across the semester to the design and execution of their own survey research project.A parallel mixed methods design was employed to evaluate students' experiences in each approach.The collection of quantitative evaluation ratings and qualitative comments from students supports triangulation of our findings (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).All evaluation data were collected at the end of the 16-week course.Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the [Blinded for Review] Institutional Review Board.
Course Redesign.Three major changes were implemented in our course redesign and consisted of: 1. Transparency and Early Communication of Expectations: During the first class of the newly redesigned Survey Research Methods course, the instructor dedicated an entire class period to verbally communicate to the students what they were expected to do to successfully complete the course.The expectations that were addressed included professionalism, contributions to team assignments, class attendance, work submissions, and active participation in the learning process.Students contributed to the articulation of the course expectations and were issued a copy in writing for their reference.The instructor also invited students to contribute to a set of expectations for their instructor.The instructor facilitated discussion around the expectations to ensure understanding by each student (for student and instructor expectations list see Appendix A).The syllabus was also redesigned to highlight dual course numbers.A five-hundred number indicated graduate students (master's level) and a six-hundred number designated Ph.D. students.The instructor built discussion around the implications of both course numbers when reviewing the syllabus to ensure that both graduate and Ph.D. students understood the differences in workload, with additional course rigor attributed to Ph.D. students.

Team Role Assignments:
In the first class period, students were assigned to permanent teams (TBL) which divided students based on their educational level (masters or doctoral) and field of study (e.g., health professions, biostatistics, health policy).Each team was composed of four to five team members (N = 5 groups); doctoral students were assigned a role and remaining team members decided their team role from a defined list based on strengths and interests.The team roles were defined for students in writing (POGIL).Role titles and duties were based on those similar to an actual research team which was in line with the overall concept of the course.The instructor clarified each role and its associated responsibilities to improve students' understanding of their assigned tasks and role requirements.Team roles included: (A) Principal Investigator; (B) Research Associate 1 (Data Collection Focus); (C) Research Associate 2 (Presentation Focus); (D) Research Analyst; and (E) Project Consultant (roles and descriptions found in Appendix B).A Ph.D. student was assigned to each team.As the most senior students on each team, based on their educational level, Ph.D. students were assigned the Principal Investigator's role for each team to give them leadership experience they could take with them into the workforce.To facilitate transparency of team assignments, all team roles were established during the first day of class.Team roles (excluding PI role) were negotiated among the team members.Adjustments were made as necessary by the instructor to facilitate teams' composition.
3. Peer Review: In accordance with TBL pedagogy, the redesigned course included a greater emphasis on structured peer review (Michaelsen et al., 2008).Both courses included a mid-semester PowerPoint presentation of their research plan and an end-of-the-year poster presentation of their findings.Three primary changes were made to improve this process.First, students in the revised course were required to submit their presentations early to the online learning system for peer review.Second, students were asked to come to the presentations prepared with clarifying questions for their classmates.Finally, the quality of the peer review (completed with the instructor's rubric) was the basis for a participation grade for the day.

Participants
All participants in this study were graduate students in a College of Public Health.In fall 2015, 10 were Masters level students and 7 were doctoral students.In fall 2016, 17 were Masters level students and 5 were doctoral students.Students were enrolled in graduate programs in epidemiology, health behavior and health education, health administration, healthy policy and management, and nursing.To ensure anonymity in responses no demographic information was collected for students.

Measures
Departmental Course Evaluation.Each year the College of Public Health distributes student evaluations through the online learning platform for all courses in the department.Students are encouraged to complete the evaluations through emails from department administration, not by the course professor.Students receive email reminders until the evaluations are complete.The departmental evaluation includes both an instructor evaluation and a course evaluation.The instructor evaluation includes an overall rating and ratings in 7 topic areas: organization, clarity, enthusiasm, contributions, rapport, professionalism, and attitude.The course evaluation includes and overall rating and ratings questions in 5 topics: organization, clarity, content, materials, and fairness.All quantitative items were rated on an 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).Each of these evaluations invited open-ended comments and suggestions from students.In total, 82% of Departmental Course Evaluations were completed in fall 2015; 76% were completed in fall 2016.
Professor Course Evaluation.The professor of the course [initials blinded for review] developed a course evaluation more specific to the expectations and objectives of the course for 2016.Students rated the degree to which collaboratively developed course expectations and learning objectives were achieved on a 1 to 4 scale.(1 = Strongly Disagree, 4 = Strongly Agree).Items focused on expectations of peers (e.g., "We listened to one another, N = 9) as well as expectations of the course instructor (e.g.,She was consistent, N = 15).Open-ended questions (N = 5) asked students to describe (1) distribution of work among the team, (2) differences and similarities to other experiences with being on a team in courses, (3) contributions of the team science project to their learning, (4) suggestions for improving their learning on the team science project, and (5) suggestions for the instructor to improve the team science project.All students in the class completed this evaluation (i.e., 100% completion).

Data Analysis
Quantitative Data were imported into SPSS (IBM) for analysis.Means for items on all quantitative questions were computed for each school year for the professor-developed measures and were provided for the departmental evaluation.Scales were created by averaging items in the same topic area.Comparisons between items and scales were made using independent-sample t-tests.

Qualitative
All student comments were imported into Nvivo (2012, Version 10) in Microsoft Word (.doc) format for further analysis according to the textual data preparation guidelines for Nvivo.A single coder [initials blinded for review] completed the qualitative coding process.Initial analysis of student survey response data resulted in 11 categories.The final coding results became the coding scheme for the data.The 11 categories were winnowed into meaningful chunks of data, resulting in two categories and three sub-categories that became the coding scheme for the student data.

Results/Analysis
Quantitative Departmental Course Evaluation.
Instructor.Only one of 7 ratings of the instructor was significantly different between semesters; attitude, t(28) = 2.37, p = .03.However, all ratings either stayed the same or increased between the original and revised semester.See Figure 1 for means and t-test comparison results.
Course.Significant differences (p ≤ .05)were observed between ratings for 4 of 5 topic areas and for the overall rating when comparing the lecture-based and POGIL/TBL-based courses.In every case, means were higher for the revised semester reflecting POGIL and TBL changes.Mean increases on the 5-point scale ranged from 0.54 for instructor organization (not significant) to 1.13 for instructor materials (p = .04).See Figure 1 for means with significance of t-test comparisons indicated.
Professor Course Evaluation.For Year 2,all items evaluating peer expectations averaged 3.2 (out of 4) or greater.Still the lowest rated item (M = 3.2) was, "My peers avoid controlling the group activities."The highest rated item (M = 3.6) was, "Were respectful of others and their ideas."For items related to the expectations of the instructor all were at or above an average of 3.3 or greater (out of 4), which was observed for the item "The instructor avoided assignments that were just busy work."The highest means for the instructor expectation (M = 3.9) was "The instructor shared knowledge."Qualitative Year 1. Year 1 produced a primary code of "student grievances" described as students' expressed discontent with the course instructor, class operations and management or teammates' behaviors/performance.Exemplars of student grievances included academic rigor and workload distribution, which emerged as the two dominant sub-codes resulting in seven and six occurrences in the data, respectively (Table 1).Based on the thematic description provided by students' responses, academic rigor was coded as the amount, frequency and complexity of tasks.Students also described concerns with the distribution of work tasks among Ph.D. and Masters students within teams.This descriptor provided the basis for the workload distribution category.
During the first year iteration of the course, students expressed discontent with what they perceived as unrealistic course expectations and over rigorous assignment and grading practices.Despite student grievances, instructor accolades appeared as the second most common theme from the analysis.Year 1 accolades included comments regarding faculty responsiveness, grading practices, feedback, availability and fairness (Table 2).
Year 2. Analysis of year two data resulted in a thematic shift to instructor accolades (Table 4) as the primary occurrence and student grievances (Table 3) as secondary.In the second year iteration of the course, workload distribution did not emerge as a dominant sub-code.Workload distribution was expressed in terms of academic rigor, which was identified in an equal number of references as classroom management and described the instructor's management of activities, behaviors, and classroom processes.Examples of academic rigor included: Instructor accolades, which were described as praises for the teacher's performance and instruction of the course.The main focus of students' grievances was on the subcode of grading practices.Students described the instructor's grading practices as capricious and unnecessarily strict (Table 3).The amount and frequency of quizzes and assignments probably led me to truly comprehend less of the content, and just focus on the quiz questions or specific assignment.
Weekly readings with discussion posts and sporadic assignments on top of the group project assignments was a lot of weekly work for this course.
Too much work for one course.Reading responses were every week, in addition to that, there were assignments sometimes.In addition to the text book, there were more than 1 articles assigned to the each reading.
Even though it is expected that they would have more skillsets to effectively lead, more emphasis should have been placed on including MPH students even more.Year two data materialized an almost even distribution of references towards social loafing and workload distribution, respectively.Unexpectedly, the phenomenon of diligent isolates was observed in the data (Table 4).Diligent isolates were characterized as team leaders who take over in a group and work independently, while deliberately or inadvertently discourage contributions from their team members (Pieterse and Thompson, 2010).References to social loafing could be skewed as a result of the diligent isolate phenomenon (Lam, 2015).

Discussion
This study investigated the perceptions of workload imbalance held by both masters and Ph.D. students in a mixed level, graduate research methods course.Components from both TBL (Michaelsen et al., 2008) and POGIL (Roller and Zori, 2017) active learning pedagogies were introduced into the curriculum to mitigate the perceptions of workload imbalance among the two learner groups.Three salient themes emerged during the study: (1) diligent isolates; (2) student efficacy with the new curriculum; and (3) increased student satisfaction due to enhanced clarity of expectations and improved distribution of work assignments among team members.
Analysis of students' narrative survey responses for both Years 1 and 2 discovered two divergent themes.Academic Year 1 course data revealed a perception of social loafing attributed to the masters level students, primarily by their Ph.D. counterparts.However, academic Year 2 course data uncovered a common thread in the masters students' description of Ph.D. students' in-group and leadership behaviors.Ph.D. students were characterized by their masters level team members as "lone wolves" (Barr, Dixon and Gassenheimer, 2005), indicative of taking control of and completing assignments alone and without accepting or soliciting feedback or input from their teams.The diligent isolate behaviors were described by the masters level students as a hindrance to team cohesion, productivity, and overall morale among the teams.
A review of the course ratings for Year 1 and Year 2 revealed significant changes in the overall course ratings.However, the instructor ratings remained essentially the same.Although our study did not include a control group, this suggests that improvements in course ratings were not confounded with instructor ratings.That is, it does not seem probable that the course rating differences were attributable to different student perceptions of the instructor.Course ratings have been questioned as an important predictor of student learning (Uttl, White and Gonzalez, 2017); however, course ratings have also been associated with positive student outcomes such as autonomy, competence, and feelings of relatedness to the course rated (Filak and Sheldon, 2003).Further, courses heavy in quantitative components (like research methods) have been associated with lower student evaluations and thus lower career achievement for professors who taught those courses (Uttl and Smibert, 2017).Thus, it behooves both students and professors to identify classroom strategies to improve students' experiences and engagement in courses perceived to be difficult.In our study, improvements across the two years and consistently strong evaluations in the second year (all ratings > 3 out of 4) suggest that providing clear structures to course projects may be important to this end.
Our findings suggest a primary reason for improved student satisfaction with the course was improved clarity in expectations and greater transparency with the duties assigned in distribution of the workload.This is consistent with previous studies which describe how instructors' failure to clearly communicate student expectations compounds the effects of social loafing in groups and leads to greater student dissatisfaction (Hall and Buzwell, 2013;Lam, 2015).A review and analysis of prior year survey data and qualitative comments for the course revealed student grievances with and lack of understanding surrounding what was expected of them.As a result, transparency and early communication of course expectations was addressed with greater attention to detail during the first class.This is a strategy supported by POGIL pedagogy (Eberlein et al., 2008;Soltis et al., 2015).To our hypothesis, adoption of team role assignments for each team member seemed to increase the clarity and transparency of individual and group expectations and contribute to students' overall satisfaction.In accordance with our POGIL-driven strategy (Brown, 2010;Roller and Zori, 2017), grievances regarding miscommunications of expectations and lack of understanding with course requirements were reduced significantly from the previous years' courses survey responses.

Conclusion
The qualitative and quantitative results of this study converge to support improved students' satisfaction with the distribution of work assignments between masters and Ph.D. students during the second iteration of the course, over prior year.Although these two pedagogical teaching approaches are very similar in their processes, very distinct components of each were integrated as a strategy to enhance course structure and reduce the perceptions of workload imbalance among Ph.D. and Masters level learners in our research methods course.The new teaching and learning paradigm proposes that students be involved in their learning to internalize it (Bluestone, 2007;Schultz, Wilson and Hess, 2010).Several strategies to achieve this within a classroom include deliberate seat arrangement, group breakout sessions, class discussions, etc. (Pepper and Pathak, 2008).Assigning students roles within their assigned teams and requiring them to exact the written duties of those roles based on the content and objectives of the course would fit within the new educational paradigm of active classroom learning, especially the POGIL paradigm (Eberlein et al., 2008).Students' descriptions of unrealistic faculty expectations of their course performance and overly complicated assignments disappeared in the second course iteration.Contributions to the student efficacy could be attributed to the improved efforts by the course faculty to communicate course expectations and assign each student to a specific and "real world" team role that was attached to equally specific team member duties.
Although this study revealed important themes that can be acted on to improve future iterations of the course, there were several limitations to the study.Conclusions described in this study are based on only one iteration of the research methods course where the intervention was applied in a small sample of students.There is a lack of historical data and literature that addresses comparison of these two groups of learners in a similar setting.Although the study was a mixed methods approach, randomization of participants to their respective groups did not take place.This study did not address any relationships between the early communications of course expectations and student outcomes in comparison to prior year.Future research can examine the unique and interactive effect of two key changes we incorporated into our study but were unable to study apart from other changes: (1) early, explicit communication of course expectations and (2) diligent isolate phenomena within student teams.
The Project Consultant provides content expertise in the survey topic area.Thus, the team should agree to conduct their survey in a research topic area about which the project consultant has some existing knowledge and interest.The project consultant will lead the team in identifying seminal and recent articles related to the chosen topic as well as identifying potential existing measures to inform the survey design.The consultant will contribute to other team tasks and writing assignments.

Declarations
The author has declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethics Statement
The

University of Otago
This review has been migrated.The reviewer awarded 2 stars out of 5 Thank you for writing this research article about examining how learning can be enhanced for postgraduate research students in health professional education.While the title and abstract uses language that suggests a constructivist framework for the study, the first paragraph contains terminology that suggests a positivist approach, specifically, the phrase, "uncovered a need for new methods of knowledge transmission".Please describe the traditional methods of teaching that are problematic and how they have failed so the warrant for using innovative teaching practices that have been proven to be effective in student learning is well established.Please provide examples of how collaborative learning has resulted in greater learning from the literature that may be applicable to your teaching area.To enhance the explanations of the POGIL and TBL pedagogical approaches, please give an example in the context of the study to help the reader appreciate the potential applicability of those methods to your learners and subject matter.Please provide references for the explanation of TBL and please consider revising the explanation of the four phase process because there are several abbreviations used and the phases are not described in a linear order.In the paragraph about the study's rationale, data from 2015-2016 are discussed.Please clarify if these data are the same or not as the data analysed in the study.It appears that the findings of the first year of the study have been used to justify the warrant of the study.Please consider if it is appropriate to justify the study with findings and/or data that have not yet been reported in the same article you are writing.Pleases consider including a statement that provides evidence that POGIL and TBL may be appropriate to address the concerns raised in the evaluation data.Please remove replace the phrases 'Blinded for Review' with the missing information.In the methods section, please consider revising the paragraph about the team role assignments to remove the repeated information.Please move the numbers of participants and response rates to the results section.Please note that demographic information reported in aggregate (gender, ethnicity, age or work experience) can be collected with ensuring anonymity without revealing a participant's identity.In the quantitative data analysis paragraph, please state the construct that was used to provide the rationale to justify combining items to form a scale.Please report the means and standard deviations for each item and scale in a Table instead of the Figure used to show complete results.In the qualitative data analysis paragraph, please describe and reference the data analysis methods used that results in the frequency of codes being reported as results.Please either give the participants pseudonyms or random alphanumerical identity codes (such as P1Doctoral, P2Masters) so the reader can see that the quotations do not all come one participant.In the discussion section, please include a paragraph about the methodological limitations of this study.I would be very happy to read and review a revised version of this article.
Competing Interests: No conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Anita Samuel
This review has been migrated.The reviewer awarded 3 stars out of 5 Group/collaborative work is always challenging, and the common grievance is workload distribution.You provide an interesting approach to addressing this issue.Thank you for providing your resources in the appendices.That is very helpful for others who might want to replicate this approach.Currently, the abstract seems incomplete.Your abstract mentions the intervention but does not include any information about the findings from this study.A couple of sentences about this would provide a more comprehensive description of the paper.The reporting of the qualitative data does not align with the key focus of this paper -workload distribution between team members.In Table 1, the quotations under Workload Distribution address overall course workload distribution rather than the team dynamics.None of the data presented from Year 1 substantiate the rationale for the study.Interestingly, the data in Table 4 for Year 2 suggest the team workload imbalance.Since you provide instructor ratings, it would be helpful to clearly state if the same instructor taught both Year 1 and Year 2 offerings of the course.Given the feedback you have received from Year 2 participants, are you planning any changes to the next iteration of this course?The Professor Course Evaluation includes a question about suggestions for the instructor to improve the team project.It would be helpful to know how participants responded to this question since improving the team project experience is the focus of this paper.Combining POGIL and TBL is an innovative approach which has application implications beyond medical and health education.This would be a stronger paper if the above-mentioned issues were clarified.

Table 1 .
Year 1 Primary Code: Student Grievances

Table 2 .
Secondary Code for Year 1 and 2: Instructor Accolades Dr. [name removed] is the best.She kept us all engaged during classes.Students might say she is strict, but I think she is fair and a person with principles.She is very knowledgeable, humble and down to earth.She takes her job as an instructor very seriously, and she cares about her students.She treated all of us as family.I would take her class a million times :) I enjoyed my experience, but I would honestly prefer to have a group with only Mph students.While [team member 1] and [team member 2] taught us a lot, they have more expertise and left [team member 3] and I out.I think our PHD students should have been better at being open to others schedules, and distributing tasks was a problem because the PHD students would complete the work w/o other member's feedback.
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences did not deem this Human Subjects Research.Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the [Blinded for Review] Institutional Review Board, Reference #206683.Exploring the "Lone Wolf" phenomenon in student teams.Journal of Marketing Education.This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Bibliography/ReferencesBarr, T. F.,Dixon, A. L. and Gassenheimer, J. B. (2005) This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.