(250) Fixed Versus Random Team Assignments and Student Outcomes in a Therapeutics Course

Objective : To examine the association between fixed, systematically developed teams versus randomly formed teams on workshop preparation and learning outcomes.

Methods: In this crossover study, students in a third-year therapeutics course were randomized to complete workshop sessions 1-4 in fixed, systematically developed teams or teams randomly assigned before each session before crossing over for workshops 5-8. Students provided information on grade point average, work experience, and leadership tendencies, and completed an abbreviated version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire for team formation. After each workshop, students completed a learning outcomes quiz, reported time spent preparing for workshop, and rated their perceived preparedness of self and peers on a scale of 1 (not at all prepared) to 5 (very well prepared). At the end of the semester, students reported team formation preferences. Parametric data were compared using paired t-tests, while Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for non-parametric data.

Results: Of the 66 students, the median number of weekly work hours and semester credit hours were 14.5[IQR 10-19] and 16[IQR15-17], respectively. Forty-nine students (74.2%) preferred working in fixed teams, and 44 (66.7%) perceived fixed teams to be best for learning. There was no difference in mean post-workshop quiz scores (78.7% fixed vs 77.4% random, p=.21), mean exam scores (77.9% vs 77.6%, p=.79), or median time preparing for workshop (91.3 vs 95.6 minutes, p=.48) between groups. Although students perceived themselves to be more prepared for workshop when working in fixed teams (4 vs 3.75, p=.014), there was no difference in perception of peer preparedness.

Conclusions: While students preferred and felt more prepared working in fixed teams, there was no difference in learning outcomes or preparation between groups.