Integration of Team-Building Skills into Food Chemistry Team Research Projects

Integration of Team-Building
Skills into Food Chemistry
Team Research Projects
T.D. Boylston and T. Wang
Introduction
In the 1992 and 2001 IFT Education Standards, the development of success skills
in conjunction with food science and technology-related courses was emphasized
in recognition of the importance of these skills for food science graduates. Commu-
ABSTRACT: As professionals, food
nication, critical-thinking, problem-solving, interpersonal, and organizational skills
scientists are expected to com-
are among the competencies identified for these success skills. The integration of
municate effectively in interper-
comprehensive term projects, laboratory research, and group project presentations
into food science courses has been suggested as assessment techniques to further
sonal and team contexts. The ob-
develop these technical and success skills (IFT 1992, 2001).
jective of this study was to evalu-
The completion of group research projects by students does not necessarily guar-
ate the impact of structured team-
antee that the students have gained the desired experiences and skills in communi-
cation and teamwork. Without the proper guidance, the group research project
building activities on the develop-
may not be successful. Many students, especially those with unfavorable group ex-
ment of interpersonal and team-
periences, often come to group projects with a negative attitude that must be over-
come. However, it is important for students to understand that individuals can pool
work skills through team research
skills and abilities so that the team result is greater than the individuals working
projects in a food chemistry
separately. A successful team experience relies on collaboration and cooperative
course. Team-building skills and
interactions between team members that are fostered by interpersonal and prob-
lem-solving skills. Interpersonal skills, including effective leadership, decision-
the assessment of team perfor-
making, communication, and conflict-management, must be integrated with disci-
mance were integrated into team
pline-related subject material (Scholtes 1988; Johnson and others 1998).
research projects for a food
Discussions at Iowa State Univ. (ISU) through ISU Comm (2000) support expecta-
tions that students develop competence in all areas of communication through
chemistry course. Through these
communication courses and the integration of communication into courses in the
activities, teams exhibited the
studentТs discipline. During the 2001-2002 academic year, the Dept. of Food Sci-
ence and Human Nutrition (FSHN) at ISU placed an emphasis on improving the
characteristics of effective teams.
oral communication skills of our undergraduate students through a series of work-
Students recognized that the de-
shops entitled “Learning to Communicate Professionally In Interpersonal, Group/
velopment of good teamwork and
Team and Public Contexts” (Vrchota 2001). Three 1-day workshops were held, with
each workshop focused on a specific communication skill; that is, interpersonal
communication skills are impor-
communication, group/team problem solving, and presentation skills. In addition,
tant for their future careers.
communication activities developed as a result of the workshops were shared
among faculty members within the department. As a result, we revised the “group”
research project for the food chemistry course into a “team” research project to en-
hance team-building and communications skills. The focus of this paper will be on
the team activities and team performance assessments that were a critical part of
the research project. An overview of the team research project will be given to pro-
vide the context in which the team-building skills were integrated. Responses from
team performance assessments will be discussed to emphasize the success skills de-
veloped through the research project.
Overview of the food chemistry course
Course description. Food Chemistry (FSHN 311) is a junior-level course focused
on the principles of food chemistry. The course includes 2 h of lecture and a 3-h
laboratory each wk. Approximately 30 to 35 students are enrolled in the course
each year, with 2 lab sections.
Student and team demographics. Students majoring in Food Science and Tech-
18
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION—Vol. 2, 2003
© 2002 Institute of Food Technologists

---

Integration of team-building skills . . .
Table 1—Schedule of activities and skills developed through team research projects
and presentation of their research project.
Time
Activity
Skills developed
3. Students will demonstrate the ability
to perform successfully in all roles of team-
Wk 2
Start-up Tasks
Team-building
work through exhibiting behaviors of an
Wk 5
Oral Progress Report
Communication Skills
Wk 7
Written Proposal
Communication Skills
effective team member (working coopera-
Critical Thinking
tively with others, accountability to team
Team Work
members, encouraging active participation
Wk 7
Mid-Project Assessment of
Team Work
of others, dealing effectively with conflict).
Team Performance
4. Students will demonstrate the ability to
Wk 9
Conferences with Instructors
Communication Skills
communicate effectively with peers, faculty
Critical Thinking
Team Work
members, and members of their profession.
Wk 10
Oral Presentation of Proposal
Communication Skills
5. Students will be able to evaluate the
Wk 12-14
Laboratory Research
Critical Thinking
effectiveness of their communication and
Problem Solving
critical thinking skills, as well as those of
Research Skills
others.
Team Work
Three 3-h laboratory periods were pro-
Wk 15
Oral Presentations
Communication Skills
Written Reports
Critical Thinking
vided during weeks 12 to 14 of the semes-
Team Work
ter for the students to conduct their re-
Wk 15
Peer and Self-Evaluations of
Assessment
search. Throughout the semester, activities
Oral Presentations
Communication Skills
were implemented to enable students to
Wk 15
Assessment of Team Performance
Team Work
achieve the objectives defined for the re-
search project and to develop success
skills (Table 1).
The overall team research project was
Table 2—Student-selected topics for food chemistry team research projects
worth 100 of the 700 points for the overall
course. These points were assigned to the
Title of research project
Food chemistry concept
proposal (20 points), oral presentation (20
Enzymatic Browning in Apples and Bananas
Enzymatic browning
points), final written report (40 points), and
Comparison of Gelling Properties of Starch
Starch gelatinization and protein gelation
teamwork (20 points). Input from the team
Effects of Storage Conditions on Lipid Oxidation in Oils
Lipid oxidation
members and instructors were considered
Determination of Chemical Differences Among
Acidity and foaming properties of proteins
Ales and Beers
in awarding the points for teamwork.
Investigation of Protein and Carbohydrate Gel Strengths
Protein and polysaccharide gelation
Selection of research topics. Teams se-
Normal vs. Modified Corn Starch: An Experiment of
Starch gelatinization
lected topics for their research project by
Functionality
the 3rd wk of the semester. The teams were
Effect of Bromelain in Pineapple Juice on Gel Formation
Protein gelation and enzyme activity
required to select topics that integrated the
in Gelatin
concepts of food chemistry discussed in the
Effect of pH on the Color of Fruit Juices
Pigment chemistry
Lipid Oxidation in Refrigerated and Cooked Ground Beef Lipid oxidation
course during the semester. The teams were
Egg White Foam Stability and Foam Expansion
Foaming properties of proteins
encouraged to emphasize the relationship
between the chemistry and function of food
constituents or evaluation of chemical reac-
tions that occur in foods, rather than food
analysis or product development projects.
nology, Food Science and Industry, Con-
project to be completed successfully, yet
Topics selected during the Fall 2001 semes-
sumer Food Science, Nutritional Science,
allow all students to participate equally.
ter are shown in Table 2.
Chemical Engineering, and Agricultural
Heterogeneous teams, with members from
Planning the research project. At Wk 7,
and Biosystems Engineering were enrolled
diverse backgrounds, result in teams with a
the team members submitted a proposal for
in the course. The students’ laboratory ex-
range of abilities and experiences and are
their research project. The purpose of the
perience ranged from laboratory experi-
often more effective in stimulating thinking
proposal was to give the students experi-
ence in the prerequisite science laboratory
and learning than homogeneous or self-se-
ence in identifying a research problem, for-
courses to working in research labs and in-
lected teams. The lab teams worked to-
mulating a hypothesis, and developing a re-
dustry internships. During the initial labo-
gether throughout the semester on their
search plan to prove the hypothesis. The
ratory session, students each completed a
weekly lab assignments and on the team
proposal (2 to 3 p in length) included a de-
questionnaire describing their laboratory
research project.
scription of the research problem and the
experience and expertise in the techniques
experimental design of the proposed re-
to be used in the food chemistry laboratory
The Team Research Project
search. The description of the research in-
during the semester.
Objectives. The objective of the team
cluded a brief literature review related to
The instructors formed teams of 3 to 4
research project was to provide the stu-
the research problem, a statement of the hy-
students, with diverse backgrounds and ex-
dents the opportunity to research a food
pothesis of the research, and the signifi-
periences, based on the students’ respons-
chemistry concept in a team setting. Ex-
cance of the research. The experimental de-
es to the questionnaire. Each lab section
pected learning outcomes were:
sign included the treatments to be studied,
had 5 teams. According to Johnson and
1. Students will demonstrate the ability
the laboratory methods for the research, the
others (1998), the size and composition of
to present scientific concepts in a credible,
planned statistical analysis, and a work plan
the team have a major influence on the
organized manner.
for the 3 lab periods. The students were re-
success of the team. Teams of 3 to 4 stu-
2. Students will demonstrate critical
quired to include replication in their re-
dents are generally recommended to pro-
thinking, reasoning, analysis, and question-
search plan to facilitate statistical analysis.
vide adequate resources (students) for the
ing skills in the development, interpretation,
Following critical review of the propos-
Available on-line at: www.ift.org
Vol. 2, 2003—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION
19

---

JFSE: Journal of Food Science Education
Table 3—Rubric for assessment of oral presentation
Team research project—Oral presentation—Evaluation criteria
Points
Criteria
100% (Excellent)
75% (Good)
50% (Fair)
25% (Poor)
5
Overall:
Presentation is clear and
Presentation is generally clear.
Listener can follow
Presentation is very
Presentation
logical. Listener can easily follow
A few minor points may be
presentation with effort.
confused and unclear.
Organization
line of reasoning.
confusing.
Organization not well
Listeners cannot follow
thought out.
it.
Style
Level is appropriate for
Level is generally appropriate.
Presentation is too
Presentation is
presentation of scientific
May have some trouble in
informal or unprepared.
consistently at an
results. Not too casual.
hearing or understanding a
Difficult to hear or
inappropriate level.
Speakers are easy to hear and
speaker.
understand speakers.
Information is read.
understand.
Much of information
Speaker can’t be heard
is read.
or understood.
Pace
Presentation is a planned
One speaker’s pacing is
More that one speaker
Presentation is too
conversation, paced for audience
too fast or too slow, repetitive
is too fast or too slow,
long or too short.
understanding.
or skipping important details
repetitive or skipping
Speaker generally is too
important details.
fast or too slow.
Visual Aids
Aids prepared in professional
Aids contribute, but not all
Aids are poorly
No aids are used or
manner. Font is large enough
material supported by aids.
prepared or used
they are so poorly
to be seen by all. Well organized.
Font size is appropriate for
inappropriately.
prepared that they
Main points stand out.
reading
Font is too small.
detract from the
Too much information
presentation
is included.
3
Introduction
Discusses why the study was
Gives general discussion of
Some information on the
Provides little or no
done. Pertinent background
the purpose of the study.
purpose of the study
information on why the
information is presented.
Some relevant information
is given, but no background study was done. No
Hypothesis is clearly presented.
may be missing.
information is provided
background information
information is provided.
Hypothesis is not stated.
given.
3
Summary of
Design of experiment and
Design of experiment and
Methods insufficiently
Methods are not
Methods
methods are clearly stated
methods are well described,
explained. Large gaps in
explained.
but some items may be left
information.
out or insufficiently described.
6
Discussion of Results and conclusions are
Description of results is
Little discussion of what
Discussion of results is
Results and
clearly stated. Implications of
generally clear. Some discussion results mean and
very difficult to follow.
Conclusions
results and ‘where do we go
of what results mean and
implications of results.
No discussion of
from here’ discussed. Information
implications of results.
Enough errors are made
meaning of results.
give is consistently accurate.
No significant errors are made.
to be distracting, but
Information is so
some information is
inaccurate that listener
accurate.
cannot depend on the
3
Responsiveness Responds well to questions.
Generally responsive to
Reluctantly interacts
Avoids audience
to Audience
Restates and summarizes
questions.
with audience.
interaction.
when needed.
Responds poorly to
Not responsive to group.
questions.
als by the instructors, individual conferenc-
es were held with each team. For many of
the students, this project was their first op-
portunity to conduct laboratory research.
During the conferences, the teams asked
questions about their research project and
the instructors gave suggestions related to
the development of the research problem
and the design of the experiments. Based
on comments from the students following
the conferences, the conferences provided
the teams with a clearer understanding of
the research process as it related to their
project. The conferences provided the 1-
on-1 interaction that facilitated the devel-
opment and completion of high quality re-
search projects.
Communicating the results. Develop-
ment of good written, oral, and visual
Figure 1—Responses to numerical questions for final team performance evaluation. Responses
of teams are separated based on responses to Question 8 (Table 7) related to equal (4 teams)
communication skills is essential to the
or unequal (6 teams) contributions to the completion of the research project. Responses are
success of educated people and is impor-
normalized to a scale of 1 to 4 for all questions.
tant to prepare our graduates for employ-
20
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION—Vol. 2, 2003
Available on-line at: www.ift.org

---

Integration of team-building skills . . .
Table 4—Rubric for assessment of final written report
Team research project—Written report—Evaluation criteria
Points
Criteria
100% (Excellent)
75% (Good)
50% (Fair)
25% (Poor)
2
Abstract
Summarizes goal of project
Most information is presented,
Insufficient summary of
Abstract is missing or
and results concisely.
but some items may be missing
what was done. Few
contains no specific
Specific information provided.
specific results presented.
information.
6
Introduction
Discusses why the study was
Gives general description of
Some information on the
Provides little or no
done, and clearly states the
the purpose of the study,
purpose of the study is
information on why the
hypothesis tested. Presents
but some relevant background
given, but no background
study was done.
background information, with
information may be missing
or references provided.
No background
references, relevant to study.
information given.
4
Materials
Concisely describes methods
Methods generally are well
Methods insufficiently
Most key pieces of
and Methods
or gives references to sources
described or referenced,
explained, or described in
information are missing.
of methods used. Product
but some items may be
too little detail. Large gaps
References to methods
handling well described.
insufficiently described or
in information.
aren’t provided.
left out.
10
Results
Data are presented in tables or
Data tables or figures are
Insufficient data presented,
Summarized data are
figures, with accompanying
presented, but some
or several errors in
missing. No text to
text to introduce. Figures are
calculations may be in error,
calculations present and
present the results.
used to illustrate key comparisons
some data may be missing,
distract from the results.
No figures or tables
or trends. No calculation errors.
or figures may be insufficient.
Text accompanying tables
are presented.
or figures may be missing.
10
Discussion
Clearly discusses what results
Generally clear discussion of
Limited discussion of results Reader can gain very
mean and what conclusions may
results and conclusions but
and conclusions. Little or
little information about
be drawn from them. Cites
may miss some points.
no reference to published
why the project was
published research to support
Some use of references included. literature
done and what the
results.
results may mean. No
reference to other
studies.
3
References
Includes references to methods
Appropriate references are
Few references are given.
No references provided.
and related studies, all complete
generally present; some may be
Style is incorrect and/or
and in appropriate style.
incomplete or in incorrect style.
incomplete.
5
Style
Writing is free of errors in
Writing is generally error-free.
Writing has some errors
Errors are frequent and
grammar, punctuation,
Sentence flow is generally
but these are not too
distracting, so that it is
capitalization, and spelling.
smooth and logical. Journal paper distracting. Flow is not
hard to determine
Flows smoothly. Logical
style is generally followed.
consistently smooth;
meaning. No logical
connection of points. Follow
Minor errors may be present.
appears disjointed.
connection of ideas of
standard journal paper style.
Journal paper style is not
flow of sentences.
followed consistently.
Journal paper style is not
followed.
ment in academic and industry settings
Table 5—Formal roles and responsibilities of team membersa
(ISUComm 2000). Opportunities to devel-
Team Leader
Recorder
Team Member
op these skills were integrated into the
team projects. During the semester, repre-
Coordinate logistics
Record meeting summary
Attend meetings
sentatives from each team reported to the
for each meeting
Primary sharer of info
Distribute copies of meeting
Participate fully in meetings
class a brief synopsis of the progress of
between team and instructor
summary to members
their research. The final oral presentation
Plan and conduct team
Maintain documents
Come prepared to meetings
was a 20-min presentation involving con-
meetings
tributions from all team members. A rubric
Delegate responsibilities
Make decisions based
developed for assessment of the oral pre-
to team members
on fact and data
sentation evaluated the overall presenta-
Support the team
Learn and use new ideas
Insist decisions be based
Stand up for what
tion with respect to organization, style and
on fact and data
you believe, but be
pace, introduction, summary of methods,
open to compromise
discussion of results and conclusions, and
Uphold team ground rules
responsiveness to the audience (Table 3).
aVrchota (2001).
Students completed peer- and self-assess-
ments for each presentation. Using the ru-
bric, points were assigned on a continuum,
these elements was included in the rubric
learning groups, which require students to
with guidance from the criteria designated
for the assessment of the written report, with
be actively involved in the acquisition and
under each of the categories.
points assigned on a continuum (Table 4).
integration of knowledge. The principles of
The written report followed the format of
cooperative learning, positive interdepen-
a scientific article and included an intro-
Activities to improve team
dence, individual and group accountabili-
duction, methodology, results and discus-
performance
ty, promotive interaction, development of
sion, conclusions, and references. Each of
The teams functioned as cooperative
interpersonal and small group skills, and
Available on-line at: www.ift.org
Vol. 2, 2003—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION
21

---

JFSE: Journal of Food Science Education
group processing, are integral for the de-
Table 6—Results of the mid-project assessment using the Team Development Scalea
velopment of successful and effective
Scoreb
teams (Johnson and others 1998).
Question
Meanc
Ranged
During the second week of class, the
newly formed teams completed initial
1. To what extent do I feel a real part of the team?
4.61
4.25 to 5.00
team-building activities and start-up tasks.
1 = On the outside, not really apart of the team
5 = Completely a part all the time
The initial team-building activity was the
2. How safe is it in this team to be at ease, relaxed, and myself?
4.63
4.00 to 5.00
completion of “Start-Up Tasks” to initiate
1 = A person would be a fool to be himself or herself in this team
the development of small group and inter-
5 = I feel perfectly safe to be myself; they won’t hold mistakes against me
personal skills. The major tasks for the
3. To what extent do I feel “under wraps”?
4.20
3.33 to 4.67
team were to agree on the charge of the
1 = Almost completely under wraps
team, to define the desired working cul-
5 = Almost completely free and expressive
4. How effective are we, in our team, in getting out and using the ideas,
ture, and to generate ground rules that
opinions, and information of all team members in making decisions?
4.33
3.67 to 5.00
would allow the team to attain the desired
1 = We don’t really encourage everyone to share ideas, opinions, and
working culture (Vrchota 2001). Through
information with the team in making decisions
these start-up tasks, the team members
5 = Everyone feels his or her ideas and opinions and information are
were encouraged to discuss previous ex-
given a fair hearing before the decisions are made
periences from teamwork activities and
5. To what extent are the goals the team is working toward understood
and to what extent do they have meaning for you?
4.47
4.00 to 5.00
define characteristics of successful teams.
1 = I really do not understand or feel involved in the goals of the team
A sound foundation of teamwork and
5 = I feel extremely good about the goals of our team
communication skills enables a team to
6. How well does the team work at its tasks?
4.09
3.00 to 4.67
function effectively and enhances disci-
1 = Coasts, loafs; makes no progress
pline-related accomplishments (Scholtes
5 = Works well; achieves definite progress
1988; Johnson and others 1998). Addi-
7. How many members influence our planning and the way we operate
as a team?
4.59
4.00 to 5.00
tional information compiled in the start-up
1 = one or two members
tasks included identification of the team
5 = shared by all members of the team
leader and recorder, collection of contact
8. What is the level of responsibility for work in our team?
4.67
4.00 to 5.00
information, selection of a team name,
1 = Nobody (except perhaps one) really assumes responsibility for
and development of a GANTT chart for
getting work done
the research project (Vrchota 2001).
5 = Each person assumes personal responsibility for getting work done
9. How are differences or conflicts handled in our team?
4.34
3.67 to 5.00
During the course of the research
1 = Differences or conflicts are denied, suppressed, or avoided at all costs
project, students fulfilled roles of team
5 = Differences of conflicts are recognized and the team usually is
leader, recorder, and team member. The
working them through satisfactorily
students rotated roles through the 3 phases
10. How do people relate to the team leader, chair, or “boss”?
4.43
3.50 to 5.00
of the research project: proposal develop-
1 = The leader dominates the team and people are often fearful or
ment, laboratory research, and preparation
passive
5 = Team members respect the leader, but they work together as a unified
of oral and written presentations. The re-
team with everyone participating and no one dominant
sponsibilities of each of these roles were
a
defined and discussed in conjunction with
Adapted from DeWine (2001)
bEvaluated on a 1 to 5 scale; 5 = characteristic of an effective team
the initial team-building activities (Table 5;
cOverall mean scores, based on scores from 32 students
d
Vrchota 2001).
Team range scores, based on mean scores for 10 teams
As the teams worked on their research
project during the semester, the recorder
completed a meeting summary. The sum-
Table 7—Questionnaire for final assessment of team performancea
mary included the meeting date, atten-
1.Overall, how effectively did your team work together on the team project (1 = poorly, 4 = ex-
dance, summary of activities completed at
tremely
the meeting, and agenda for the next
well.
meeting (Vrchota 2001). The intent of the
2. For your team, how many people participated actively most of the time? (1-3 or 1-4, depending
meeting summary was to help the teams
on team size)
3. For your team, how many people were prepared for team meetings and lab research? (1-3 or 1-
recognize progress toward completing the
4, depending on team size)
tasks and set goals for achievements for
4. Give one specific example of something you learned from the group that you probably wouldn’t
the next meeting. Productive meetings that
have learned working alone.
recognize achievements increase the
5. Give one specific example of something the other group members learned from you that they
chances of a successful project (Scholtes
probably wouldn’t have learned otherwise.
1988). Copies of the meeting summaries
6. Give an example of something that you learned about working in a team this semester in FSHN
311. Describe how this will be useful in your further academic studies and career.
were distributed to each team member and
7. Suggest one change the team could make to improve its performance.
were also available for collection by the
8. Evaluate the contributions of yourself and your team members to the completion of your research
instructors.
project by assigning points to each team member. The points assigned should average 10 for
your team.
Student assessment of team
aAdapted from Angelo and Cross (1993)
performance
Group processing, the opportunity to re-
flect on team performance, is integral to
project. The mid-project (Wk 7) and final
project assessment included a team devel-
the success of a team (Johnson and others
project (Wk 15) assessments were complet-
opment scale, in which questions related
1998). Students completed two assess-
ed in conjunction with the proposal and fi-
to team development were evaluated on a
ments of team performance during the
nal written report, respectively. The mid-
1 to 5 scale, with 5 = characteristic of an
22
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION—Vol. 2, 2003
Available on-line at: www.ift.org

---

Integration of team-building skills . . .
Table 8—Examples of “something that you or your team members learned by working in a
the final assessment is shown in Table 7. In
team”—Student responses from final assessment of team performancea
response to the students’ evaluation of the
They learned sharing ideas was ok
contributions of each team member (Ques-
Use of analytical equipment, software applications, laboratory procedures
tion 8, Table 7), 4 teams indicated all team
Being a team player when delegating responsibility because everyone has to do an equal amount of
members contributed equally (each mem-
work in the whole project. Also to learn how to delegate specific tasks according to the
ber awarded 10 points to all members). Six
individual’s capability
teams indicated contributions by team
Commitment
members were unequal, with the allocation
Attempting to distribute work to appeal to everyone’s strengths can be very difficult
Learn how to deal and socialize with other—we should treat everybody with respect
of points for the team members ranging
Getting different views about how to solve a problem
from 7.7 to 12.25. The element of positive
I improved my communication skills while working with others
interdependence, which is crucial for effec-
aResponses to questions 4 and 5 (Table 7) of final assessment of team performance. Selected from responses of 32
tive teams, recognizes that the team does
students.
not succeed unless each member succeeds.
This principle is exemplified when all team
members contribute equally (Johnson and
others 1998). The responses to the questions
Table 9—Examples of “something you learned by working in a team that will be useful in your
regarding the effectiveness of the team
career”— Student responses from final assessment of team performancea
(Question 1), participation of team mem-
I learned how to delegate tasks, make suggestions to further our tasks. I need to learn how to
bers (Question 2), and preparation of team
delegate more, instead of doing everything myself.
members (Question 3) are summarized
Working with people with different educational emphases. It made me communicate ideas precisely
based on the teams’ evaluations of equal or
using familiar terms. This situation is common in the work place where all educational levels are
mixed.
unequal contribution to the research (Figure
I learned that sometimes you have to be flexible and ready to do more than your share.
1). The scores for these questions were high-
Although sometimes we have different opinions, we still respect each other
er for all attributes by the teams in which
Communication and teamwork. This will be very important when working in the food industry
there was an equal contribution by all team
because there will be projects that involve people form the marketing department, R & D, and
members. In general, all teams felt that all
processing department to work together on a food product.
or all but one member participated actively
I had never really worked with students from other countries. I learned the value of communica tion
through this project.
and was prepared for team meetings and
I don’t have to be in charge all the time. Other people know different things than I do. This will
lab research most of the time. However, the
challenge me to learn more academically; it will help me work better in teams for my career.
scores for the evaluation of how effectively
Often people less knowledgeable in an area can contribute to the decision making process by
the team worked together on the project
thinking outside the box that the more knowledgeable people are often put in.
was measurably higher for the teams in
Everyone needs to have a “job” and complete it for the team to be effective.
which all members contributed equally.
Everyone has different personalities and when working in a team, you need to use these as an
advantage, not a disadvantage.
Therefore, although participation and prep-
You need to compromise on ideas to get things done.
aration in activities is important to the effec-
Communication is a must. It will be and is important in everything we do!
tiveness of the teams, the most effective
Comradeship is an important element to enjoying the work you do. I felt there were times I was
teams are those in which team members
frustrated with the project, but I could really count on my partners—that made a difference.
feel all members contribute equally.
aResponses to question 6 (Table 7) of final assessment of team performance. Selected from responses of 32
The students’ responses to the open-end-
students.
ed questions for the final assessment of
team performance provided valuable in-
sight to the experiences learned by the stu-
Table 10—Examples of “suggestions to improve team performance”—Student responses from
dents through the team-building and com-
final assessment of team performancea
munication skills integrated into the food
chemistry research project. These re-
Everyone contribute equally
Make sure everyone understands all of the concepts
sponses are presented in Table 8 to 10. The
Not be so rigid in who is performing the roles (leader, recorder, etc.)
students felt that they not only learned
Each person worked too much on a specific part of the project, therefore did not get the bigger
communication and teamwork skills, but
picture of the project
also technical skills, through working to-
Better preparation and general understanding of food science would have allowed for everyone to
gether as a team. These responses reflect
participate more fully.
the characteristics of a successful team in
More planning and thinking ahead.
Delegate jobs more effectively.
that they helped each other learn and suc-
a
cessfully completed the project through
Responses to question 7 (Table 7) of final assessment of team performance. Selected from responses of 32
students.
collaboration and cooperative interactions
(Johnson and others 1998). The students
also indicated that team projects can be a
worthwhile activity and provide valuable
effective team (DeWine 2001). The ques-
work. Concerns regarding the team perfor-
experiences that will be beneficial to stu-
tions, mean responses for the class, and
mance, based on mean responses for their
dents as they prepare for their careers in
ranges of responses for the 10 teams for the
team, were shared with the teams during
the food industry.
team development scale are summarized
the conferences.
in Table 6. The mid-project assessment of
The final assessment included questions
team performance was important to identi-
regarding the participation and contribution
Conclusions
fy strengths and weaknesses of the teams
by all members, open-ended questions, and
In general, students exhibited the traits
and to help teams make changes as neces-
peer evaluation of contributions of each
characteristic of an effective team. Students
sary to improve the quality of the team-
team member. The questionnaire used as
recognized that teamwork and communica-
Available on-line at: www.ift.org
Vol. 2, 2003—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION
23

---

JFSE: Journal of Food Science Education
tion skills were essential for success in their
DeWine S. 2001. The consultant’s craft: improving
Joiner Associates. 256 p.
careers. With students’ suggestions, the in-
organizational communication. 2nd ed. Boston,
Vrchota D. 2001. Learning to communicate profes-
Mass.: Bedford-St. Martin. 496 p.
sionally in interpersonal, group/team, and public
structors will be able to structure team-
Institute of Food Technologists, Committee on Edu-
contexts. Greenlee School of Journalism and
building activities to further improve these
cation. 1992. IFT undergraduate curriculum min-
Communication, Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa.
skills in the future. Through the integration
imum standards for degree in food science (1992
134 p.
revision). Food Technol. 46(10):156-7.
MS 20020589 Submitted 10/16/02, Revised
of team-building and communication skills
Institute of Food Technologists, IFT Task Force on
12/7/02, Accepted 1/11/03, Received 1/16/03
into a food chemistry research project, the
Evaluating Outcome-Based Measures of Learn-
The authors thank Dr. Denise Vrchota for her guidance in the
students will be better prepared to meet the
ing. 2001. IFT undergraduate education stan-
development of the team-building skills for the team research
dards for degrees in food science (2001 revision).
challenges of the food industry.
projects. Special thanks are also extended to the students in the
Food Technol 55(10):56, 58-9.
Fall 2001 Food Chemistry class, Iowa State Univ., Ames, for their
[Iowa State University]. ISUComm. 2000. ISU-
input and contributions to this project.
Comm: learning to communicate/communicating
References
to learn. Teaching at ISU 12(3):1-3.
Authors Boylston and Wang are affiliated with the
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. 1998. Active
Food Science Dept., 2312 Food Sciences Bldg., Iowa
Angelo TA, Cross KP. 1993. Classroom assessment
learning: cooperation in the college classroom.
State Univ., Ames, IA 50011-1061. Direct inquiries
techniques: a handbook for college teachers.
Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Company. 332 p.
to author Boylston (E-mail: tboylsto@ iastate.edu)
2nd ed. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass Pub-
Scholtes PR. 1988. The team handbook: how to
lishers. 427 p.
use teams to improve quality. Madison, Wis.:
24
JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION—Vol. 2, 2003
Available on-line at: www.ift.org

---