EXPERTS-IN-TEAM MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROJECT

EXPERTS-IN-TEAM MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROJECT Bjørn Sortland 1 Session 7B3 Abstract Experts-in-Team (EiT) is a new scheme of teaching students engineering. The objective of the scheme is to train students for a future participation in interdisciplinary teams. This is accomplished by project work in teams of four students of which each member has a background in a distinct discipline and where the professor has a role of facilitator instead of lecturer. EiT is mandatory for all fourth year students within the engineering degree programme at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU. EiT was run for the first time in the spring term 2001 with 850 students, and represented the largest pedagogic development project at NTNU ever. Index Terms Group project assignment, multidisiplinary project, team process supervision, teamwork. understanding of the students. Technology should be placed in a social context, and the proportion of non-technological subjects should be increased. Within this framework a multidisciplinary project was proposed in which students should work together in teams across the disciplines. The course was to be organised as a group project assignment with major focus on teamwork, and should be compulsory for all the fourth year students within the engineering degree programme. THE IDEA OF EXPERTS-IN-TEAM By working in multidisciplinary teams where each member initially may have unlike perspectives on the problem at hand as well as be used to different problem solving methods, the students will develop attitudes and skills related to teamwork. By means of a problem that challenges the students discipline skills, they should further their skills and knowledge within their own specialist field, and they should learn to take responsibility in that know-how from their own area of expertise contributes to the mu tual problem solving process. INTRODUCTION In the plan for the new engineering study programme at NTNU that was accomplished in 1993, different issues was pointed out in order to improve the study: The numb er of lectures should be reduced with respect to project work and self study. The project work should be carried through as guided teamwork with practice in cooperation and communication. Applied subjects should be more integrated within the basic subjects in the first part of the study. The study should stimulate creativity and co-operation. Written exams should still constitute the main basis for evaluation of knowledge, but verbal exams and other forms of evaluation should be used more. The study should give substantial technological competence as a basis for life-long learning. Basic subjects within natural science and technology should be emphasised. A strengthened relation between basic and applied subjects should increase motivation for study and overall THE PILOT PROJECT Implementing the new engineering study programme Experts-in-Team was to be run for the first time in spring 2001 including about 1200 students in the fourth year. Experts-in-Team represents multidisciplinary project work in which the team process is to be the focal point and signifies a demanding mode of education with large pedagogic and organisational challenges. The students are supposed to work across the boarders of disciplines within the complete engineering degree programme. Thus a pilot project was arranged to ensure a proper accomplishment of the subject. The aims of this pilot project were: To develop a way of organising Experts-in-Team To obtain experience with different kind of problem fields for the assignments To clarify how teaching staff was to be prepared for the new form of education To develop an appropriate method of examination 1 Bjørn Sortland, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, Faculty of marine technolo gy, N-7491 Trondheim, NORWAY Bjorn.Sortland@marin.ntnu.no 7B3-8

It was decided to perform two test runs in previous years with a limited number of students with the aim to obtain experience and building up competence among the teaching staff. First test run, spring 1999: four student teams Second test run, spring 2000: ten student teams Students who participated in the test runs were enrolled in the old curriculum. This curriculum also comprised a project assignment in the eighth semester. However, these projects carried different workloads and were organised differently within the various disciplines. Therefore, modifications were required to attain an arrangement that allowed project work across these boundaries, but the modifications made it difficult to obtain students for the trials, especially in the second round. In the first test run, four teams of professors were established in which each professor took one student under its guidance. Each team consisted of four students. In the second round, however, one single professor supervised a team of four students. At the first test run, all students started by attending a full-day introduction seminar. The goal was to establish the student teams and to promote the idea of doing a multidisciplinary project. As the students did not know each other from before, it was important that everyone became acquainted with each other. Furthermore, it was of essence to build an understanding of, and involvement in the multidisciplinary principle. The idea of holding an introduction seminar was carried on in the second trial, and now forms part of the Experts-in-Team arrangement. Experts-in-Team aims at both a technical and a personal development of the students To emphasise and stimulate the skill development in the student teams, it was decided to use student assistants with pedagogy management background. The student assistants were to follow the work in the teams, only concentrating on the team process. They should within each team indicate how the team process might be improved upon. To meet the goal of Experts-in-Team, the professors should not only concentrate on the engineering work, but also assist in the team process supervision. This requires a dramatic change in attitude among the professors. The involved subject professors were therefore offered a five-day course in process supervision. The course was based on the principle that the attendees, by participating in a group process themselves, would obtain more insight. The focal point was on learning to observe the dynamics in the group one supervises and on learning how to, directly or indirectly, intervene. The course worked like an alarm clock for many professors, and has been made compulsory for all subject teachers in Experts-in-Team. The students were strongly encouraged to make use of IT as a form of supplementary communication within the teams, and for gathering information. Therefore, BSCW (Basic Support for Cooperative Work) was implemented, and the students were instructed in the use of library search systems. In the first test run, it was up to the teaching staff to decide on the form of examination. This was done to obtain experience, and because the professors were divided in their opinion on what competence was required to evaluate the process. All student teams delivered both a technical report and a group-process report, and presented their work in a plenary seminar. Further each team could decide whether they wished to receive a common or an individual assessment. The evaluation of the group-process was performed differently among teams, and in some teams an oral examination was included. THE DEVELOPMENT WORK Through the entire test period, the trying out and exchange of experience was the key issue. A number of full-day and half-day seminars were held for pioneer-teachers and student assistants where development, exchange of ideas, and shared attitudes were the focal points. During these seminars, the foundation of Experts-in-Team was developed on basis of the results of the pilot project, and the experience gained by the participating professors. The process of the development is documented in [1] and [2]. The seminars as well as the courses in process supervision added to an extremely important development among the attending professors: a mutual positive attitude regarding the basic concept of Experts-in-Team. As the goal of the subject implied a radical change in attitude among the professors, and because new, previously unconsidered, teaching skills were required, it took a relatively long time before all became confident with the subject. The objectives was to create a strong motivation among students by positive expectations about Experts-in-Team. A positive attitude amongst the professors was a prerequisite for this. This could, namely, create a positive spiral through which students and teachers could experience that the teaching method was functioning and that learning was achieved. The name Experts-in-Team was first introduced with regard to the team of professors that organised and supervised the first groups of students. Later, also the team of students was called Experts-in-Team as the name expressed the prime goal of the subject: each student had the sole responsibility to make available to the group his or her 7B3-9

expertise and to establish a collaborative endeavour towards a comprehensive solution to the problem. A major question, early in the pilot project, was what the term multidisciplinary was to embrace. This concerned the assembling of student teams as well as the formulation of the assignments. It was decided that each team was to comprise students of different disciplines, and that the assignment was to allow that all students within a team could build an ownership relation to the project. ORGANISING THE SUBJECT To be able to handle a year cluster of about 1200 students, it was decided that the cluster should be divided in smaller units called village. A village is to exist of up to nine student groups, consisting of four students each coming from different study directions. Each village is presented with a broad multidisciplinary problem domain, and is supervised by a village professor. A village professor plays the same role for his village as any other professor running a course, and the village professor carries the responsibility for both the project work and group process in his or her village. Experts-in-Team holds a normal study load of 2.5 credit points, and is catalogued as a practical-based course. Each faculty has the responsibility for organising a given number of villages. The problem domain for each village should constitute a thematic project area, and should represent a contemporary and realistic issue. The problem domain should demand expertise from various disciplines, and it should trigger collaboration and integration of the various disciplines rather than fragmentation. The ownership of the problem domains should be external (outside the university), because it is desirable for the motivation of the students to have a commercial company, industry branch or institute propose the problems. Each student group is supposed to define their own assignment based on the village problem domain. The students are given the opportunity to choose a village by means of a registration system on the Internet. Each villages preferred composition of study directions or disciplines are presented in order to guide the students in their choice. Through this system, the students are divided over the villages according to their own priority as well as the preferred village composition. The system generates a final placement list including group assignment for each village. It also informs each student of his or her village assignment. The complete placement lists for each village are not made available to the students before the introduction day, as they should look forward to their first day in the village with excitement and expectation. At the first day in the semester the villages professor have the responsibility to invite their students to the introduction day in the village. The aim of this day is that all students, student assistants, and village professors are introduced to each other the learning goals of Experts-in-Team are presented the student teams are established the problem domain for the village is revealed. Wednesdays are reserved for village day which means that all fourth year students within the engineering degree programme will not have any lecture that day. This is necessary for the students to be able to meet across study directions. Each Wednesday, a village meeting is held, compulsory to all Experts-in-Team-students. The student themselves carry the responsibility for convening, meeting agenda, and leading the meeting. At the meeting, shared problems are discussed and one comes to an agreement on actions to be taken. Some meetings are reserved for technical presentations by the students in accordance with a milestone plan that the students have worked out themselves at the beginning of the semester. In Experts-in-Team the professor has a role of facilitator instead of lecturer The semester comprises 14 village days, the first two of which are reserved for the introduction day and a broad presentation of the village s problem domain. Taking this as a departure point, each student group must define its own assignment and develop a plan of progress for the work at hand. Quality control of the assignment is the responsibility of the village professor. Each student team shall work on the chosen assignment throughout the semester. The result shall be presented in the form of a technical report and as an oral presentation in a plenary meeting on the last village day. In addition, the students shall write a team-process report on the process dynamics in the group by describing problems, actions taken, and the influence of each individual on the collaboration. A common grade is given to all students in a group, based on the technical report (weighing 50%), presentation (25%) and process report (25%). PROCESS SUPERVISION The biggest challenge in Experts-in-Team is to make the village professors understand their new role as supervisor (facilitator): It is the student group that owns the problem and should own it throughout the entire process. The village professor shall never take over the problem. 7B3-10

By staying in the background, not only will the chance increase that the problem will be solved, but even more important: the group will learn to understand how to solve problems. Thus, they will acquire this new skill and will use it in new situations. The aim is to develop student teams that produce more than any member can do by him- or herself. This creative and productive situation is referred to as flow and is characterised by that all put aside their own agenda all listen appropriately all allow to be influenced by others all contribute with their opinions A feedback system is developed in which all depend on each other, intentionally as well as intuitively, such that all form part of a system and no one is put aside or run their own business. Experts-in-Team represents multidisciplinary project work in which the team process is to be the focal point To initiate a development in this direction, all village professors were invited to a mandatory course on supervision before the commencement of Experts-in-Team. The course was specifically designed for the purpose, and was based on experience from the pilot period. It was held as two seminars of two full days plus one day of recapitulation. The intention was that all attendees would acquire a deeper insight in the group process by experience in the flesh. Based on this understanding, one was to be trained in intervening in and influencing the teamwork in such a way that the team members would consider the contribution as their own. To assist in the process supervision each village professor has to his or her disposal two or three student assistants. These student assistants were not supposed to give engineering supervision, but rather reveal the interpersonal processes, and make the students aware of its significance. The student assistants underwent training that was developed on basis of experience obtained in the pilot period. Furthermore, for their support, a supervision scheme was defined, and was to be run by the student assistants in all student teams during the semester. In total, about 100 student assistants were needed. To meet this demand, student assistants were recruited from the entire NTNU. As Experts-in-Team was a new subject no students were available who had taken it previously, thus many of the student assistants were lower level students than those who actually took the course. Only about two thirds of the group studied technology, and many student assistants were recruited from the psychology department, which was regarded as extremely valuable. The pilot project had shown that it was important that the village professor and students assistants worked together as a team. It was necessary to try to convince the students of the need for the scheme that the student assistants carried out. As the vast majority of the students had long-time experience with working in groups, at first, they saw the strong focus on the team process in Experts-in-Team as something completely unnecessary. Thus, it was essential that the role of the student assistants was clarified on the introduction day, and that the village professor supported them in their work throughout the semester. This way the subject s goal that students should develop their attitudes and skills related to team work could be met. The village professor has the responsibility for technical specialist supervision. Based on the villages problem domain, the village professor were to coordinate a group of supervisors that constituted subject teachers from the students specialisations. EXPERIENCE FROM THE FIRST SEMESTER In the spring term 2001 when Experts-in-Team was run for the first time I had taken on the duty to be village professor in a village at the Faculty of Marine Technology. At that time I had taken part as supervisor and village professor in both test runs in the pilot project, and I also had experience as professor in a multidisciplinary project called Creative Design The Ordeal of Archimedes, see [3]. My village was given the following problem domain: Marine mineral extraction from large ocean depths At the world ocean floors large amounts of minerals are found. Is it possible to exploit such minerals by an economically effective manner? All together, 39 village problem domains were defined at the students enrolment, fall 2000. The number of enrolments was 850 out of about 1200 students, because the rest of the fourth year students showed to be studying abroad or had obtained exemption for other reasons. Therefore, only 34 villages were established. In December 2000, the division of students over the villages was completed, and my village had obtained 20 students from nine different study directions. As the village problem domain had a marine technology character, about half of the students came from the Faculty of Marine Technology. Three student assistants were assigned to the village, one from psychology and two 7B3-11

from civil engineering. All three were in their third year of study, and thus a year lower than the students they were going to supervise. All my students were invited to attend the village introduction day on Wednesday, 17 th January 2001. I had met with the student assistants on beforehand, to involve them in the planning of the introduction day. We decided on the agenda for the introduction day, and to use NTNU s idea-laboratory as meeting place for our village. This room amounts to about 90 square meters with parquet flooring and an extremely flexible furniture arrangement. With intention the room is not designed for normal classroom teaching. The aim of the day was to get acquainted with each other present to basic concept of Experts-in-Team and discuss how to organise the village divide students in teams present the village problem domain work with creative assignments and concept development. On the first day, a strict agenda was followed that was managed by the student assistants and myself. In one of the student team process reports the day was later described as The first day s focus on creativity and getting acquainted allowed the students to get to know each other and loosened up the atmosphere. Many of the students became more comfortable with the Experts-in-Team concept during that day, and thus got their shoulders lowered. It was an enjoyable and different introduction to a new course that only a few students previously had experienced. The second village day started with a technical presentation. Afterwards, I let the management of the village over to the students. One of the main principles of Expertsin-Team was that the villages were to be organised and run by the students, but such a changeover was too abrupt for them. One student team wrote at the end of the semester: He (the village professor) had decided to let the village take the important decisions itself, and let it steer itself towards the final goal. This caused the first three village meetings to end in chaos and uncertainty about what was to happen. The village was in that period poorly organised as not one of the students automatically took the leadership. At the same time, the discussion about what the village was supposed to do jumped back and forward." This introduction was carefully planned according to the intentions of Experts-in-Team, but still it was perceived as chaotic by the students. It affected their motivation and engagement throughout the project. Through four years of study, the students had become used to follow an extremely structured outline, in which all is determined by the teaching staff. Therefore, they had tremendous difficulties adjusting to something new. The same problem also emerged during dealing with the technical problem domain, when students had great difficulties getting in terms with something that was not in their field (i.e., something they were used to). A computer science student in the village wondered if she should apply for exemption of the course, as she had learned nothing she could use within the village s problem domain. To improve on this, one should, in my opinion, next time Experts-in-Team is run implement a minimal structure indicating a few milestones, such that the students have something to clinch onto. Working with problem domains also rises a fundamental issue in the university education system. Professors usually are of the opinion that students cannot do something meaningful before they have studied all subjects, whereas most subjects have a mono-disciplinary approach. That is why the confusion among the students becomes enormous when large mu ltidisciplinary problems have to be analysed. The aim of Experts-in-Team is to develop student teams that produce more than any member can do by him- or herself Many of the students had difficulties to understand the role the student assistants played in the teams, and many of the student teams divided the technical work at hand amongst themselves that they subsequently worked on separately. That was the way they were used to operate, and thus, the village days were used to coordinate this procedure. Therefore, little attention was paid in these groups on the team process. The student assistants, on the other hand, become frustrated to meet such low engagement related to the intention of Experts-in-Team. The students in my village had chosen to include the work of all groups in a total-concept for the village. This way, the need was created for coordination at two levels, within and among the teams. Because of this, after a while, the village had pointed out a team to coordinate the work among the teams and to guide the progress in the village. This allowed an improvement of the structure of the village meetings towards the end of semester. The idea that all teams in the village takes part in a common project, puts more focus on the intention of the subject. Even though the teams in my village were not able to reasonably affect each other s work, the work model employed has, in my opinion, a big potential to realise the basic concept of Experts-in- Team. To make this work, the students must follow this line from the very start. Furthermore, with the smart use of milestones and technical presentations prepared by the students along the way, the need for coordination among the teams in the village may be enhanced. 7B3-12

The final presentations and reports made by the students have strengthened to great extent the same vision that was obtained during the semester. The technical reports were reasonable, neither poor nor excellent. In contrast, the process reports showed a large spread, form good selfreflections to some students showing not having understood at all the point to focus on the team process. The students lack of understanding of the importance of the team process apparently reflects the general attitude among the professors on the matter, and indicates a need for changes in the university culture. [2] Fuglem, M., Report on introduction of Experts-in-Team interdisciplinary project in the 8 th semester of the civil engineering education at NTNU. Second test run Experts-in-Team 2 1999/2000, section for University Pedagogy, PLU, NTNU 2000 (in Norwegian). [3] Sortland, B; The Ordeal of Archimedes, Proceedings of the, ICEE 97, Chicago, August 14 15, 1997 Experts-in-Team webpage: http://www.ntnu.no/eksperter_i_team/ CONCLUSION NTNU has, through the introduction of Experts-in-Team, accomplished the largest pedagogic development project in the history of the university. Experts-in-Team is a new scheme of teaching students engineering represented by a multidisiplinary project work in which the team process is the focal point. Experts-in- Team is a demanding mode of education with large pedagogic and organisational challenges, and the development has been a large teamwork with a number of people attending. Among the professors this teamwork has contributed to a pedagogic discussions panel across the boarders of the disciplines which earlier was completely non existing. If Experts-in-Team is to contribute to a high quality study according to its intentions, all actors must embrace its philosophy, and revisions must be performed with cooperation of all involved and the continuos will to provide feedback on experiences. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The development of Experts-in-Team has been a team work involving a number of people. The contribution of each individual has been the major success factor. A major source of encouragement and stimulation was the steering committee which had as its members throughout the pilot period: Professor Christian Thaulow, assistant professor Margrete Fuglem and student Lillian Uthus. I also acknowledge Gertjan Ettema who has contributed to the translation of the paper. REFERENCES [1] Fuglem, M., Report on introduction of interdisciplinary project work in the 8 th semester of the civil engineering education at NTNU. First test run Experts-in-Team 1998-99, section for UNIPED, NTNU 1999 (in Norwegian). 7B3-13