This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 19 December 2014, At: 09:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Criminal Justice EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcje20

Promoting Career Developmentthrough Teamwork and MasteryLearning Course Requirements inCriminal Justice Research MethodsCoursesLucy Edwards HochsteinPublished online: 29 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Lucy Edwards Hochstein (2009) Promoting Career Development throughTeamwork and Mastery Learning Course Requirements in Criminal Justice Research MethodsCourses, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20:1, 56-74, DOI: 10.1080/10511250802680357

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511250802680357

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION VOLUME 20 NUMBER 1 (MARCH 2009)

ISSN 1051-1253 print/1745-9117 online/09/010056-19© 2009 Academy of Criminal Justice SciencesDOI: 10.1080/10511250802680357

Promoting Career Development through Teamwork and Mastery Learning Course Requirements in Criminal Justice Research Methods Courses

Lucy Edwards HochsteinTaylor and FrancisRCJE_A_368205.sgm10.1080/10511250802680357Journal of Criminal Justice Education1051-1253 (print)/1745-9117 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis2010000002009Dr LucyHochsteinlhochstei@radford.edu

An innovative semester long small group research project, that required collect-ing and analyzing original data, regular written reports, and an oral presentation,was included in a senior level criminal justice research methods course topromote career development for those close to graduation. Over five yearsapproximately 446 students were surveyed at the end of their classes to assesstheir response to the group project. Results suggest senior level students arecapable of sustained small group participation where they utilize strategies thatreflect practitioner group processes, such as decision-making autonomy, plan-ning, and coordinated activities. Mastery learning techniques resulted in highquality project outcomes and associated competences.

Introduction

Every branch of the criminal justice system has widely adopted managerial prac-tices utilizing work teams, since these strategies have been found to enhanceagency efficiency and effectiveness, promote successful interagency programs,increase jobs satisfaction, and make complex programs more manageable(Berman 2006; Cutler and Daigle 2002; Harmanen 1995; Sanow 2006; Wilson andBrewer 2001). Because agencies increasingly view human relations and commu-nication skills as crucial to these work teams, some require applicants to supplyspecific information about team work experiences and resultant products (Jung2005, Parson 2007, Sanow 2007a, United States Secret Service 2007, Wuestewald2004). Therefore, students who are able to practice group processes where theylearn to plan, coordinate, and be responsible for group decisions within thecontrolled environment of the classroom may be better prepared for the realitiesof a career in today’s criminal justice system.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

CAREER DEVELOPMENT 57

As instructors we know anecdotally that our students are resistant to classprojects requiring collaborative group work. Many students tell us they have hadnegative experiences with group work, founded in the difficulty of motivatingnonparticipating members. Thus, highly motivated students may unfairly end updoing the majority of their group’s work in order to maintain their course gradeand overall GPA. As instructors we find difficulty in assessing individual accom-plishments in a group product, so some group members may be awarded gradesthey did not earn.

To educate students on group processes a teamwork-based semester-longscientific methods based research project was included in a senior level crimi-nal justice research methods course at a midsize public university in southwestVirginia. The assignment was created to allow students to learn and practicegroup processes along with the scientific method. Aspects of mastery learningwere included to promote research and writing skills.

Literature Review

Group Work Management Strategies

Numerous articles in criminal justice system related academic and professionalpublications promote management strategies using teamwork applications(Sanow 2006). These include self-help recommendations for implementingshared leadership (Anonymous 2008; Zenger, Musselwhite, Hurson, and Perrin1992), team building exercises (Berman 2006; Jung 2005), and recommendationsfor creating effective intra- and interagency collaborations (Berman 2006,Sanow 2007b).

Teamwork approaches are endorsed as effective strategies to engage lawenforcement employees in agency decision-making processes (Anonymous2008), improve individual and agency productivity (Wilson and Brewer 2001),and maintain productivity in the face of staffing shortages, limited resources,demands for coordinated collaborative interagency programming, and othercurrent managerial challenges (Sanow 2006). Correctional agencies, also, haveidentified positive teamwork outcomes in many aspects of their activities,including required collaborations between criminal and juvenile justicesystems (Berman 2006), and effective health care in prisons (Hebert and Pula1995).

Many large law firms have adopted team oriented approaches to their cases,because the team approach to management can increase competitiveness andclient satisfaction (Cutler and Daigle 2002). Solo practitioners, however, do nothave management committees or consultants to turn to when making businessand management decisions, but are urged to create discussion oriented confi-dential support groups with other solo practitioners (Chanen 1996). Thesegroups help reduce solo practitioners’ isolation when making business decisions,and promote professional growth without losing competitiveness

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

58 HOCHSTEIN

Private security firms find the teamwork approach particularly beneficial formanaging large and complex projects (Harmanen 1995). This approach also canhelp overcome dilemmas created by downsizing: reducing middle managementpositions and forced retirement, along with associated declining morale, quality,and productivity (Zenger et al. 1992).

Agencies use written applications and interview questions to identify appli-cants who are most likely to be successful in collaborating with others to accom-plish goals. The current preliminary application for entry level United StatesSecret Service special agent positions asks applicants to detail their experiencesin working and dealing effectively with individuals and groups (United StatesSecret Service 2007). Also, applicants are asked to demonstrate their ability andwillingness to accept responsibility, make decisions, and follow directions—allnecessary skills for effective team members. Therefore, students who participatein cooperative learning activities have the opportunity to learn and practice groupprocess skills in their criminal justice coursework, and thus can gain skills thatcan make them more attractive candidates for entry level criminal justice careerpositions, and help them do well once they are employed.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning involves the use of small groups in coursework to maximizelearning individually and collectively (Cooperative Learning n.d.; Stahl 1994).Certain elements must be included to achieve successful cooperative learningoutcomes: clear objectives and directions, student buy-in, heterogeneous groupmembership, equal opportunity for success, member interdependence, face-to-face member interactions, positive social behaviors, learning through coopera-tion, successful completion of internal group tasks, individual accountability,and members’ reflection on with-in group behaviors at the end of the groupassignment (Jones 2006; Stahl 1994).

Cooperative learning assignments that include the above elements reducecompetition, increase achievement and productivity, encourage positive inter-personal relationships, and further psychological health (Cockrell, Caplow, andDonaldson 2000; Jones 2006; Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, and Johnson 2005;Stahl 1994). Problem-based learning, a type of cooperative learning that createsa link between theoretical knowledge and practice, is particularly useful forstudents seeking professional careers (Cockrell et al. 2000). In problem basedcooperative learning models small groups of students decide what they willlearn, and accomplish assignment goals through group decision making andproblem solving. By accomplishing their agreed upon assignment studentscreate a shared understanding of the topic while participating in a workenvironment outcome much like one in the real world. With problem basedcooperative learning students feel greater ownership of their new knowledgethan when they gain it from their instructors’ authority (Cockrell et al. 2000;Jones 2006).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

CAREER DEVELOPMENT 59

Incorporating Cooperative Learning Group Work in Criminal Justice Courses

Cooperative learning group work experiences allow students to gain competen-cies in workplace strategies that enhance their professional lives and chancesfor promotion, whether the instructor or students select group members (Jones2006). Team work incorporates peer learning and teaching and increases socialskills, even when the instructor is not able to see the improvement (Jones 2006;Sims 2006). Additionally, reducing individual competitiveness among students,enhances learning (Jones 2006). Five is considered the optimal size for a studentwork group (Jones 2006). Larger groups require greater group process skills, andsmaller groups do not allow formation of subgroups that might alleviate somegroup conflicts.

Although group work experience is highly valued by employers, a largenumber of students resist group work in their courses (Jones 2006; Monk-Turnerand Payne 2005; Sims 2006). Teamwork assignments increase student stress atthe beginning of the course, but by the end students usually are stronglycommitted to their project and teammates, and have resolved intrateamconflicts (Jones 2006). When faced with a group project assignment studentsare most concerned about: underachieving, nonparticipating group members(Monk-Turner and Payne 2005; Sims 2006); varying skills, abilities, and interestsamong group members; team members’ differing learning styles; gender andracial differences; and students’ views on the importance of the group project.Therefore, in grading group projects instructors must be careful to design theproject so individual accomplishments can be acknowledged so the same gradeis not unfairly given to all group members.

Students benefit the most from team oriented projects when instructorsexplain the importance of collaborative group work, and assist students by actingas “managers” of the work groups (Jones 2006; Monk-Turner and Payne 2005;Sims 2006). Managing student work teams requires instructors to teach groupprocess skills and sometimes facilitate conflict resolution. Course projects thatwork well for the group milieu need to have open-ended tasks, multiple ways toshow competence, intellectually important content, member interdependenceand individual accountability, and clear evaluation criteria (Jones 2006; Sims2006). Projects should be short, or “divided into sequential components, eachinvolving some degree of feedback” (Jones 2006:92).

Utilizing Mastery Learning in Criminal Justice Research Methods Courses

Because research methods coursework is cumulative, mastering each section ofa research project before moving on to the next allows students to become profi-cient on each assignment (Kessler and Swatt 2001). While requiring students tomaster sections before moving on to subsequent sections is more time consumingfor instructors and students, this model promotes high competence levels when

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

60 HOCHSTEIN

students encounter difficult materials for the first time, as they do in researchmethods courses. Using skills mastery techniques that result in a scientificallybased report of original research in this course promotes increased confidenceand career development (Pfeifer and Ferree 2006).

Research Methods Career Development Group Process Model

Criminal justice research methods courses require students to look at researchin a very different way than they have previously. What students usually callresearch—the term paper—is just the beginning of a scientific researchproject—the literature review. This concept is often difficult for students tograsp. Incorporating group processes and mastery learning strategies in a seniorlevel research methods course at a midsize public university allowed studentsto increase their subject matter competence, and gave them the opportunityto conduct “hands on” scientifically based complex research projects theycould not do individually. This model encourages proficiency in the scientificmethod they are encountering for the first time, allows them to learn andpractice team building activities that promote career development, andincreases their understanding of issues currently being addressed by the crimi-nal justice system.

Instructor as Manager

At the beginning of the semester students are given written and oral informa-tion about the required semester long team research project, are told of theimportance criminal justice agencies place on group work, and that resultantincreased group process skills could enhance their employment chances (Jones2006; Monk-Turner and Payne 2005). In the first several class periods studentssuggest possible research topics, reveal their work and class schedules, andtheir availability for team meetings outside of the classroom. The instructoraddresses work styles and work ethics, and potential conflicts that could arise intheir teams due to differing work styles and work ethics. Additionally, thesesenior level students are told of the many individual activities involved in theirgroup project that can be included on their resumes: ethical treatment ofhuman subjects training; individual and focus group interviews training; creat-ing and distributing a survey instrument, and the semester-long group workexperience that resulted in a written report and oral presentation. Throughoutthe semester the instructor gives assignments that enhance needed teamprocess skills: advance planning, work load distribution, written and oralcommunication skills, among others.

Students are told to see the course and the team project as an opportunity topractice necessary criminal justice practitioner skills: responsibility, reliability,accuracy, ethical treatment of humans. Although there is no attendance policy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

CAREER DEVELOPMENT 61

per se role is taken every day, and points are allocated based on percentage ofdays missed. Class is also a time that all team members are available, andteams use the time before and after class to enhance time management andcommunication between members.

Group Management

In the second week of the semester students chose their own team membersand their criminal justice related research topics, contingent on the instructor’sapproval. Although student groups are allowed to select any criminal justicerelated topic of great interest to them, certain topics surface every semester:alcohol and student achievement, police-student relations, domestic violence,campus safety, prison overcrowding, juvenile gangs, police use of nonlethalforce, and police corruption. Group membership is limited to three to fivestudents due to the complexity of processes in larger groups and the length ofthe project. The limited group size allows students to increase their social andplanning skills without making scheduling too complicated (Jones 2006).

Students were allowed to fire team members through the eighth week of thesemester, in consultation with the instructor, to alleviate students’ fears thatthey would be negatively impacted by nonparticipating team members (Monk-Turner and Payne 2005). If a group is unreasonably protecting a nonparticipatingmember the instructor may fire members through the end of the semester, inconsultation with all group members. Fired students are responsible for choos-ing in consultation with the instructor and conducting a new research projectalone beginning at the point when they were fired.

Students are expected to choose a weekly meeting time and place agreeableto all members outside of class time. Throughout the semester the instructormeets with each team regularly to monitor their progress. These meetings occurduring class meeting in the classroom or instructor’s office. The instructor indi-vidually and collectively counsels team members when necessary as a means ofresolving conflicts and challenges.

Written Assignments

This is a writing intensive course. Written group assignments are due throughoutthe semester, usually every two to three weeks. Papers together include allcomponents of a report of scientific research: literature review, methodssection, individual interview data and analysis, focus group data and analysis,survey data and analysis. A final report at the end of the semester includes allprevious papers rearranged to meet scientific reporting standards.

As the scientific method and format for reporting results of original researchare new to most students they find assignments very stressful. Allowingrewrites reduces stress and improves writing skills, so team papers can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

62 HOCHSTEIN

rewritten once in response to the instructor’s comments to improve grades upto the maximum possible points. Limiting the number of rewrites gives theinstructor time to give comprehensive feedback on all first drafts (Kessler andSwatt 2001; Pfeifer and Ferree 2006). Every team member receives the samegrade for each paper and rewrite. Late papers’ grades are reduced by fivepercent of the total possible pointer per day late. Losing points for being lateencourages students to meet assignment deadlines, and cannot be regained inrewrites.

Group Participation

Groups are allowed to be as autonomous as possible to provide a group processexperience close to that found in criminal justice workplaces: choosing teammembers and topics, designating meeting times, selecting human subjects, andso forth. Decisions are monitored by the instructor.

Each team is expected to meet outside of class as often as they chose toaccomplish assignments, however there is a once a week minimum. All teammembers are expected to participate in group decisions and equally participatein the group’s work. Each student is required to conduct one individual interview,participate in a focus group interview as a facilitator or recorder, collaborativelywrite and distribute a survey instrument, assist in analyzing each kind of data,and participate in writing each assignment and the final paper.

Oral Presentation

At the end of the semester each team member is required to participate in thegroup oral presentation of their entire project to the class. Team members areexpected to have complete knowledge of their entire project, no matter whichpart they present to the class. During a question and answer period at the endof each presentation students are asked questions about parts of the projectthey did not present in order to assess their familiarity with the project overall.Group members receive individual grades for their oral presentations andresponse to questions.

Individual Team Members’ Assessment

During the final class meeting of the semester each student fills out two forms,a group project assessment and a form to grade each member of their team,including themselves, on their team participation. Everyone who fills out thesetwo forms is given the same number of points. Assessment results are used aspart of the instructor’s assessment of students’ individual participation in theirteams, along with class attendance and meetings with teams.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

CAREER DEVELOPMENT 63

Predictions

1. Most students will have participated actively in their groups.2. Most students will believe the group work assignment is important.3. Most students will have worked collaboratively to set and achieve their

group’s goals.4. Most students will find the opportunity to rewrite assignments beneficial for

their project report and their writing skills.5. Overall, most students will be satisfied with this group work experience.

Methods

Students in a senior level criminal justice research methods course wererequired to participate in the semester long scientific methods based groupresearch project described above. Each semester for five years each researchmethods student was required to fill out a group project assessment consistingof open ended questions during the final class meeting. Responses were notanonymous, as they were part of the assessment strategy to gauge individualparticipation grades for group members. However, students filled out formsprivately so other team members could not read their answers. Answers werenot graded, so all those completing the questionnaire received the samenumber of points.

Over five years 446 group project assessments were completed andreturned. The assessment addresses: individuals’ participation in their groups,group decision making styles, ability of student group members to regularlywork collaboratively to reach their goals, group cohesiveness, students’satisfaction with the opportunity to rewrite assignments, and their overallsatisfaction with the group process experience. These factors identify skillsstudents practice during the research methods course that are important tothe teamwork management model widely used in criminal justice relatedagencies.

Data Collection

Criminal justice research methods students were required to fill out a groupproject assessment as part of their final grade. As this assessment was used asone means of measuring students’ participation in their semester long researchteams it was a required assignment, and respondents received the same grade,since they were graded for turning in the assignment, not their answers.Responses do not sum up to 100 percent due to multiple answers by somerespondents. Direct quotes included below were selected because they arerepresentative of respondents’ opinions and attitudes overall. Except as notesresponse rates were 100 percent for each question.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

64 HOCHSTEIN

Knowledge of Other Team Members

Students were first asked to list the first and last names of all their teammatesto gauge how well the student had gotten to know their other team members.Of 446 questionnaires returned 444 students (99.55 percent) were able to listthe first and last names of all their team members.

Group Leadership and Decision Making

Asked if one person had become the leader of their group, 232 students (52.0percent) responded that one person had become their team’s leader (Table 1).When asked about members’ participation in decision making, 370 (83.0percent) responded that all members participated in decision making, sixty-seven (15.0 percent) said in their teams not everyone participated in decisionmaking, and seven (1.6 percent) felt sometimes all members participated inteam decision making.

Three hundred and eighty-two students (85.6 percent) thought their teamused collaborative decision making (Table 2). “We just talked it out and madethe decision as a group.” “To decide who had to do something we would playthe “nose game.” “Whoever didn’t touch their nose had to do it. For importantstuff, we decided collaboratively.”

Twenty-four (5.4 percent) said a leader made all their team’s decisions. “Iusually came up with the ideas and reminder and we connected through emailor text message.” Forty (8.96 percent) said decision making was a combinationof leader made decisions and collaborative decisions or moving leadership. “Atany group meeting someone would have an idea and if everyone else liked it

Table 1 Leadership styles

Leadership stylesNumber of students

Percentage of students

One leader 232 52All participated in decision making 370 83Not all participated in decision making 67 15Sometimes all participated in decision making 7 1.6

Table 2 Group decision making

Decision making style Number of students Percentage of students

Collaborative decision making 382 85.6Leader made decisions 24 5.4Combined decision making style 40 8.96

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

CAREER DEVELOPMENT 65

then that’s what we did. But everyone in the group at one time or anotherdid that.”

Positives and Negatives of Group Participation

When asked to list the positive things about their research team responsesfell into one of three areas that were identified through coding (see Table 3).The three categories were: members worked well together, the team wasable to complete the project, or there were no good things about their teamexperience.

Four hundred and twenty-four students (95.0 percent) said the good thingabout their team was that all worked well together. “We all (except one)agreed on mostly everything and listened to one another. Also, the workloadwas distributed evenly.” “We had fun, we communicate well, we all wanted tocontribute to the project, we made decisions together.” Thirteen ((2.9 percent)said the only good thing about their team was that they got the project finished.Six (1.3 percent) said there were no good things about their team. Of the nega-tive aspects associated with the students’ team experiences, procrastination,irresponsible group members, schedule conflicts, communication issues, andinternal conflict within the group appeared to be the most significant issues(Table 4). Less often identified were fatigue, group size, data issues, andgender issues.

Table 3 Positive things about research groups

Positive team experience Number of students Percentage of students

Members worked well together 424 95Team was able to complete project 13 2.9No positive experiences 6 1.3

Table 4 Negative things about research groups

Negative issues Number of students Percentage of students

Procrastination 34 7.6Irresponsible team members 113 25.3Schedule conflicts 165 37Communication issues 44 9.9Internal conflict 77 17.3Fatigue 3 6.7Group size—too small 6 1.3Group size—too large 12 2.7Data issues 1 0.22Gender issues 1 0.22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

66 HOCHSTEIN

Thirty-four students (7.6 percent) listed procrastination as a negative expe-rience. “Some waited til the last minute to do various parts of the papers andhard to get others to come to meeting on time.” “We waited too long to getwork done.” Twenty-five percent (113) found irresponsible group members tobe the most negative aspect of their team. “___ and ____ relied on me to doeverything. They never paid much attention in meetings. Sometimes nevershowed up/or called and cancelled.” “… always having to redo _____’s sloppywork.” Schedule conflicts were also challenging as 165 (37 percent) found.“Hard to find meeting times, group members worked and had many otherobligations.”

For forty-four (9.9 percent) communication issues resulted in a negativeexperience. “Email confusion.” “The calling system.” Internal conflict waslisted by seventy-seven respondents (17.3 percent) as a negative aspect of thegroup. “All had strong viewpoints and argued a bit.” Three (6.7 percent) foundfatigue a significant issue. 2.7 percent (12) felt their group was too large, butsix (1.3 percent) felt their group was too small. Data collection was an issue forone person (.22 percent). One student (.22 percent) felt being the only femalein her group was a negative aspect of the experience, but no one respondedthat being the only male was a negative aspect, although a few teams over theyears had only one male member. When asked specifically for negative experi-ences three (.7 percent) students found their group experiences so rewardingthey could find nothing negative to say. “NA. Great group: best one I’ve workedwith in college.” “Absolutely nothing! I had a blast with these guys and will missall of them very much.”

Optimal Group Size

The size of the work groups appears to affect the ability of students to worktogether (Jones 2006). Therefore, students were asked for their opinion of theoptimum group size for this semester long research project. The greatestnumber of students, 299 (67 percent) believed four to five was the best possiblesize. However, 74 (16.6 percent) felt three to four was the optimum team size;and 50 (11.2 percent) thought two to three was the best size. Ten (2 percent)thought six or more team members would work best, but one respondent (.22percent) was not sure what the best size would be. Table 5 shows the breakdown of optimal team sizes suggested.

Suggestions for Future Teams

Students were asked to give suggestions for those taking research methodscourse the following semester. The instructor promised to read their commentsto students the next semester, and did. After coding, responses fell into 13categories (Table 5).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

CAREER DEVELOPMENT 67

Eighty-two (18.4 percent) recommended choosing group members with simi-lar work habits. “Really get with people who complete work as same as you.”“Don’t just pick friends for your group.” Nineteen (4.3 percent) said choosingteam members with compatible schedules was the message they wanted to sendto the next students. Sixty-three (14.3 percent) wanted future students to knowthat holding regular group meetings was important. “To try and all meet at onetime so the group can collaborate and all be on the same page.” For nine (2percent) getting to know all the team members was important for success.Forty-five (10.1 percent) felt it was crucial for there to be good communicationbetween team members. “Communicate. Don’t slack, contribute to yourproject.” Six (1.3 percent) urged those who followed to be patient with theirteam mates. “Choose group members wisely, and be willing to get out of it whatyou put in it.”

Table 5 Suggestions for posterity

Suggestions for posterity Number of students Percentage of students

Team members with similar work habits 82 18.4Compatible schedules 19 4.3Hold regular group meetings 63 14.3Get to know all team members 9 2Good communication 45 10.1Patience with teammates 6 1.3Have fun with the project 7 1.6Narrow research topic 3 0.67Good time management 223 50Good data management 23 5.2Smaller groups 14 3.1Larger groups 1 0.22No response 10 2.2

Table 6 Suggestions for the instructor

Suggestions for instructor Number of students Percentage of students

Required group size 34 7.6More information on assignments 78 17.5More directions on how groups should work 64 14.3Keep project divided into stages 166 37.2Continue to allow rewrites 151 33.8Make firing deadline later in semester 7 1.6Reduced number of quizzes 9 2More in-class time for group meetings 27 6.1Easier grading on assignments and quizzes 6 1.3Change group member selection process 16 3.6Provide more time between assignments 50 11.2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

68 HOCHSTEIN

Seven (1.6 percent) said to have fun with the project. “Find a topic thatinterests you. Enjoy it.” “Make sure to pick a topic you really feel strongly aboutlike we did so it’s interesting.” Three (.67 percent) urged future students tonarrow their research topic so it would be manageable. Good time management(223 or 50 percent), and good data management (23 or 5.2 percent) were essen-tial information team members wanted rising students to know. “Give your-selves time to get assignments done.” “Try to have fun with it and be sure notto procrastinate too much, even though the project doesn’t allow it.” Fourteen(3.1 percent) suggested that smaller groups were better, but one (.22 percent)suggested larger groups. Ten respondents (2.2 percent) chose not to makerecommendations for future students.

Students were also asked to make suggestions for the instructor who wouldbe assigning the project the next semester. Coded responses fell into elevencategories (Table 6). Thirty-four (7.6 percent) suggested changes to therequired group size. “Make sure groups are no smaller than 5 people. It is a lotof work!” “No more than four people in a group.”

Seventy-eight (17.5 percent) felt they needed more information on therequirements for each assignment. “Show examples of what it will look like.”Sixty-four (14.3 percent) wanted more directions on how the groups shouldwork. 166 (37.2 percent) liked that the project was broken into stages through-out the semester. “I love how you broke the project up into parts, it made itvery easy in the end.” 151 (33.8 percent) suggested continuing to allowrewrites. “I like the idea of rewrites it lets the group members know whatmistakes they made and how to correct them.”

Seven (1.6 percent) suggested moving the last date to fire team memberscloser to the end of the semester. (After the first year the model was changedto allow the instructor to fire group members after the students’ firingdeadline.) Nine (2 percent) wanted fewer or no quizzes. Twenty-seven (6.1percent) thought more in-class time for groups to work on assignments wouldbe beneficial, and six (1.3 percent) thought written assignments and quizzesshould be easier. Sixteen (3.6 percent) thought the way group members wereselected should be changed, but did not provide suggestions on how to change

Table 7 Suggested assignment changes

Suggested changes Number of students Percentage of students

Lighter work load 14 3.1Less focus on quizzes 7 1.6Better member selection method 16 3.6Narrow research topics 6 1.3Assigned research topics 24 5.4No change 216 48.4More time for each assignment 77 17.3Enjoyed the class 9 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

CAREER DEVELOPMENT 69

the process. Fifty (11.2 percent) thought there should be more time betweenassignments.

Suggested Assignment Changes

When asked how they would change the assignment the following semester,coding revealed seven responses overall (Table 7). Fourteen (3.1 percent)wanted a lighter work load. Eight (1.6 percent) said to focus less on quizzes.Sixteen (3.6 percent) wanted a better way to select group members. Six (1.3percent) wanted more narrow research topics. Twenty-four (5.4 percent)wanted the instructor to assign research topics. Two hundred and sixteen (48.4percent) said not to change the assignment. “I like how the assignment isorganized.” “I like doing it throughout the semester.” “Went pretty smoothly asis.” Seventy-seven (17.3 percent) wished they had had more time for eachassignment. Some (9 or 2 percent) enjoyed the class.

Data Analysis

To analyze data assessing the results of this criminal justice research methodsgroup process model, student responses were compared to the assessment withthe following predicted findings:

1. Most students will actively participation in their research teams.2. Most students will believe the group assignment was important.3. Most students will work collaboratively to set and achieve their group’s

goals.4. Most students will find the opportunity to rewrite assignments beneficial to

their project report and their writing skills.5. Overall, most students will be satisfied with the group process model.

Students Will Actively Participate in Their Teams

Ninety-five percent (444) of respondents were able to accurately list the firstand last names of all their team members, suggesting they participated at leastenough to get to know their team members names. Ninety-five percent (424)also said their team’s members worked well together. Just 1.3 percent (6) saidthere were few or no good things about their team experience.

Eighty-six percent (382) said their teams made decisions collaboratively, and83 percent (370) said they all participated in decision making. However, 52percent (232) said one person became their team’s leader. 8.9 percent (40) saiddecision making was a combination of leader made decisions and collaborativedecision making. Only 5.4 percent (24) said their team’s leader made all

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

70 HOCHSTEIN

decisions. These findings suggest that even when a strong personality becamethe dominant person in a team that person and the other members continued toparticipate in decision making, so overall each member was an active decisionmaking participant, at least before the leader made the final decision. Addition-ally, most seemed satisfied with their level of participation in the decisionmaking process.

Students Will Believe the Group Assignment Is Important

Two percent said they enjoyed the class, and 1.1 percent thought it was a greatsemester. Otherwise, there is no direct evidence that students thought theproject was important. However, indirect evidence exists that suggests studentsdid see the project as important. Asked to give suggestions to research methodsstudents who would follow them the next semester respondents recommendways to keep motivated to do the project, suggesting they were interested inthe project.

When asked about their positive group experiences 95 percent (424) saidmembers worked well together, suggesting they thought the assignment wasimportant enough to participate. Asked about negative aspects of their group norespondent said the project was meaningless or in and of itself a negative expe-rience. These findings must be considered cautiously, however, becausestudents were instructed to put their names on the assessment in order toreceive the promised points, so they may have been reluctant to stronglydenounce the project. Additionally, students were not specifically asked if theproject was important to them, but they were allowed to choose their owntopics-suggesting the topics had importance for them.

In suggestions to the instructor no respondent suggested abandoning theproject, or even making very many changes. Most strongly supported two crucialaspects of the project: component divisions (37.2 percent), that fostered timemanagement skills, and rewrites, that promoted mastery learning of eachcomponent (33.8 percent).

Collaboration for Goals Achievement

Thirty-seven percent (165) found schedule conflicts the greatest barrier totheir collaborative work. Twenty-five percent (113) found their teams includedirresponsible members. Less frequent barriers were also listed. Internalconflicts plagued 17.3 percent (77), 9.9 percent (44) had communicationissues, and 7.6 percent (34) had team members who adopted a procrastinationwork style.

Ninety percent (399) of respondents identified three to five as the optimalteam size. This size range suggests that there would be enough people in theteams to divide the work load equitably but still maintain close contact.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

CAREER DEVELOPMENT 71

Fifty percent (223) stressed time management as crucial for a successfulproject. Eighteen percent (82) recommended similar work habits among teammembers, 14.3 percent (66) suggested regular group meetings, and 10.1 percent(45) urged good communication among members. Other issues identified wereimportant to only a few respondents, suggesting they represent very few groupmembers’ beliefs.

The assessment results suggest team members tried to work collaboratively,but several important barriers emerged: schedule conflicts, irresponsible orprocrastinating team members, time management issues, and communicationchallenges. These issues would mostly be resolved if this project had takenplace in a criminal justice agency. Team members would have been assignedsimilar work schedules; irresponsible or otherwise noncompliant team memberswould be sanctioned by supervisors; maturity would increase time managementskills as would similar schedules. Similar schedules would help alleviate mostcommunication challenges, but especially with interagency team communica-tion would probably remain an ongoing challenge.

Mastery Learning-Assignment Rewrites

Few students addressed rewrites in their comments. However, there is someevidence that respondents recognized the benefits of this aspect of masterylearning. Thirty-four percent (151) recommended the instructor continue tooffer rewrites for every component of the project. Students were not askeddirectly about their reaction to mastery learning for each component, but ingeneral, comments suggest they recognize it was an important aspect of theirsuccessful accomplishment of the project. This is especially true since theproject components were new to most students in the course.

Overall Satisfaction with Group Process Model

Forty-eight percent (210) recommended that no changes be made in the assign-ment the next semester, and 37.2 percent (166) of students recommended theinstructor keep the project assignment unchanged for the following semester.Three recommendations for changes in the assignment the following semesterinvolved component assignments. Eighteen percent (78) wanted the instructor toprovide more information about the assignments, even though each assignmentwas detailed in the syllabus and discussed in class well before the due date.These students appear to want to know the parameters of their assignments atthe earliest possible time to aid their planning and time management, and seemto be high achieving students. Fourteen percent (64) wanted more directions onhow the groups should work, suggesting they were uncomfortable with thenumerous freedoms and decision making opportunities provided to individualsand groups. Six percent (27) wanted more in-class time for groups to work on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

72 HOCHSTEIN

assignments and 17.3 percent (77) wanted more time between assignments,probably reflecting time management and schedule challenges.

Suggestions for Posterity and Instructor

Results from student reactions to this semester long group research projectsuggest, overall, that students practiced fundamental skills necessary for success-ful participation in criminal justice related agencies’ work teams. Participationgives these students more chances to be hired in their desired positions, and morelikely to advance within their agencies. Therefore, a semester long groupresearch project that includes mastery learning should be considered for inclusionin senior level criminal justice courses as a means of to promoting students’career development while maintaining high academic research standards.

Conclusion

There are at least three primary instructor related caveats if this groupprocess-mastery learning model is considered for adoption. First, applyinggroup processes using this model is more time consuming than traditionallecture courses and in less complex group process models. Thus this modelinvolves a greater risk of frustration for the instructor and students. Severalcourse meetings early in the semester must be used to orient students to thisgroup process model, including factors that have a critical impact on partici-pants’ positive experiences: work ethic, work style, and research projecttopic. In-class time also must be allocated to assist students in choosing groupmembers and research topics. Managing the teams is a vital task of instruc-tors, and a prime factor in ameliorating intragroup conflict. The instructormust be prepared to assist students to resolve conflicts, and to make the verydifficult decision to fire a group member, who is often also a friend of groupmembers. Fired members must be counseled and encouraged since they mustbegin a new project alone well into the semester if they are to finish thecourse.

Second, team members frustrated by a nonperforming member will conveythese negative feelings through negative instructor evaluations. Not all studentsare satisfied with firing a group member. They will be unhappy that the instruc-tor didn’t further “punish” the fired student, and disagree with the instructor’sdecision on the fired student’s new individual research project. It is imperativethat the instructor have the support of their department chair and other facultywhen using this group process model. The chair must realize the value of thisgroup process model for student career development, and understand thatstudent evaluations will reflect new challenges students face in this groupprocess model. While adoption of this group process model provides studentswith greatly enhanced group process and career development experiences it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

CAREER DEVELOPMENT 73

requires strong commitment and understanding on the part of the instructor,the department chair, and other department faculty.

Third, as faculty we often discuss college grade inflation over the pastseveral decades. The outcomes of using this group process model are that moststudents will earn an A or B in the course. Rarely does a student receive a C orD. Some students fail the course, but only because they refuse to participateadequately in their team and rarely attend class. Most students work hard,achieve a great deal, and earn their relatively high grades. For some studentsthis is the only class where they have earned an A or B. Therefore, higher gradeoutcomes using this model demonstrate mastery learning of research methodscomponents and group process skills gained. Quizzes can be used to furtherprovide individual assessment and encourage students to read assigned materi-als, but should be used cautiously as they increase the already high work loadstudents face in the team project.

Fourth, lower level students usually are not mature enough for this complexgroup process model. However, lower division courses can include group processmodels that utilize smaller groups, less complex projects, and shorter termprojects. By incorporating group processes in these lower division coursesstudents will be better prepared to work in larger groups on more complex longterm projects in senior level courses, and better prepared for their criminaljustice careers.

Adoption of the above group process model will enhance students’ prepara-tion for criminal justice related careers, making them more likely to be hired intheir desired agency and selected for advancement later. Senior level studentshave the maturity and self discipline needed to maintain their commitment to asemester long original research project using this group model, and willcomplete the project successfully. In doing so they will gain and practice appro-priate group process skills.

From kindergarten on students are told specifically how to do every aspect ofevery assignment, and have few opportunities before beginning their careers tomake important decisions regarding their assignments. When first introduced tothis group process model students feel very uncomfortable with the many deci-sions they must make: research topic, team composition, selection of researchsubjects, and setting internal team deadlines. With the instructor’s encourage-ment and determination not to make decisions for the students, most soon growto appreciate their freedom, live up to their responsibilities, and reveal theirmaturity and abilities. Now they are ready to take their places as criminal justicepractitioners.

References

Anonymous. 2008. How to implement shared leadership. The Police Chief 73 (4): 34.Berman, J. 2006. Working toward the future: Why and how to collaborate effectively.

Corrections Today 68 (5): 44–49.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14

74 HOCHSTEIN

Chanen, J. S. 1996. Sharing decision-making. ABA Journal June 82: 99.Cockrell, K., J. Caplow, and J. Donaldson. 2000. A context for learning: Collaborative

groups in the problem-based learning environment. The Review of Higher Education23 (3): 347–63.

Cooperative Learning? n.d. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl.html

Cutler, S., and D. Daigle. 2002. Using business methods in the law: The value of team-work among lawyers. Thomas Jefferson Law Review 25 (1): 195–221.

Harmanen, P. 1995. Reaping the rewards of teamwork. Security Management 39 (8): 25–27.Hebert, K., and G. Pula. 1995. The team approach to effective correctional health care.

Corrections Today 57 (6): 88.Jones, P. 2006. Using groups in criminal justice courses: Some new twists on a traditional

pedagogical tool. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 17 (1): 87–102.Jung, R. A. 2005. Staff teambuilding: From theory to technique. Corrections Today 67

(7): 76–79.Kessler, D., and M. Swatt. 2001. Mastery learning, rewriting assignments and student

learning of criminal justice research methods. Journal of Criminal Justice Education12 (1): 127–43.

Monk-Turner, E., and B. Payne. 2005. Addressing issues in group work in the classroom.Journal of Criminal Justice Education 16 (1): 166–79.

Parson, M. 2007. Efficient and effective: Guidelines for meeting the mission of thefuture. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 76 (10): 6–11.

Pfeifer, H., and C. Ferree. 2006. Tired of “reeding” bad papers? Teaching research andwriting skills to criminal justice students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 17(1): 121–42.

Sanow, E. 2006. Team leaders and multi-agency teams. Tactical Response 4 (12): 111.———. 2007a. A big change is coming. Law and Order 55 (1): 6.———. 2007b. Egos and multi-agency operators. Tactical Response 5 (2): 111.Sims, B. 2006. Creating a teaching and learning environment in criminal justice courses

that promotes higher order thinking. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 17 (2):336–53.

Smith, K., S. Sheppard, D. Johnson, and R. Johnson. 2005. Pedagogies of engagement:Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education. 94 (1): 87–101.

Stahl, R. 1994. The essential elements of cooperative learning in the classroom. Educa-tional Resources Information Center. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov

United States Secret Service. 2007. Preliminary Application Package for Special AgentPositions. November.

Wilson, C., and N. Brewer. 2001. Working in Teams: Negative effects on organizationalperformance in policing. Policing 24 (1): 115–28.

Withrow, B. 2002. A pragmatic method for teaching and assessing research methods.Journal of Criminal Justice Education 13 (1): 143–54.

Wuestewald, T. 2004. The x-factor in policing. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 73 (6):22–23.

Zenger, J., E. Musselwhite, K. Hurson, and C. Perrin. 1992. Managing: Leadership in ateam environment. Security Management 36 (9): 28–33.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:05

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14