student team project: gender differences in team project experience and attitudes toward team-based...

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona]On: 18 December 2014, At: 11:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Teaching in Travel & TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20

Student Team Project: GenderDifferences in Team Project Experienceand Attitudes Toward Team-Based WorkHeejung Ro a & Youngsoo Choi aa University of Central Florida , Orlando, Florida, USAPublished online: 25 May 2011.

To cite this article: Heejung Ro & Youngsoo Choi (2011) Student Team Project: Gender Differencesin Team Project Experience and Attitudes Toward Team-Based Work, Journal of Teaching in Travel &Tourism, 11:2, 149-163, DOI: 10.1080/15313220.2011.575022

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2011.575022

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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15313220.2011.575022

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2011.575022

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 11:149–163, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1531-3220 print/1531-3239 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15313220.2011.575022

Student Team Project: Gender Differences inTeam Project Experience and Attitudes Toward

Team-Based Work

HEEJUNG RO and YOUNGSOO CHOIUniversity of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

The development of favorable behaviors and attitudes inteam-based work is crucial in hospitality and tourism education.In this article, the authors examine the gender difference in teamproject experience and attitudes toward team-based work amongstudents majoring in hospitality management. Female studentshave attitudes toward team-based work that are more negativethan male students. Also, gender is a significant moderator in thatfemale students’ perception of a group’s teamwork, in comparisonwith that of male students, is more significant in predicting studentattitudes. Implications of these findings for hospitality and tourismeducators are discussed.

KEYWORDS gender, attitude, team project, team-based work

INTRODUCTION

A student-led team or group project is one of the popular educationaltools in a university setting (Huff, Cooper, & Jones, 2002; Wolfe & Gould,2001). As industry continues to build team-based work environments, theuse of teams has the capacity to create a high-quality learning environ-ment for students and may very well advance the educational practices ofhospitality and tourism educators as well (Susskind & Borchgrevink, 1999;Wolfe & Gould). Previous studies indicate that more than 80% of organiza-tions employ various types of workplace teams (Cohen & Baily, 1997), and

Received March 12, 2010; accepted October 13, 2010Address correspondence to Heejung Ro, PhD, Rosen College of Hospitality Management,

University of Central Florida, 9907 Universal Blvd., Orlando, FL 32819, USA. E-mail:[email protected]

149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

150 H. Ro and Y. Choi

cooperative learning is advocated by prospective employers of college grad-uates, accrediting agencies, and educators (Colbeck, Campbell, & Bjorklund,2000).

Given the fact that the use of group work and other forms of collabora-tive learning is increasing in hospitality education, the growing acceptanceof group work raises the question of how male and female students experi-ence these team projects. Previous studies on the student team project havefocused on the project’s effectiveness, particularly the team dynamics andproject performance (Bartlett, Probber, & Mohammed, 1999; LaLopa, Jacobs,& Countryman, 1999; Susskind & Borchgrevink, 1999). However, there is alack of research on students’ perceptions of a team project, particularly onthe role of gender (Z. Hansen, Owan, & Pan, 2006). As a growing numberof women are pursuing hospitality degrees, female students are often themajority in hospitality classes (Casado, 2009). Since students’ attitudes andbehaviors may be assumed to translate into workplace attitudes and behav-iors, team-based educational experiences viewed from a gender perspectiveare critical for hospitality and tourism educators.

This study examines the gender differences in student perceptions ofteam projects. Specifically, we examine how the students’ overall experi-ence of team projects forms their attitudes toward team-based work andhow gender affects this relation. The findings of this research can provideuseful insights for hospitality and tourism educators in designing and guidingstudent team projects more effectively.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Team Project in Higher Education

Although a team project may take various forms and foci, it is often describedas a graded assignment requiring students to work collaboratively acrossmultiple class periods and involving some time outside the normal classmeeting (Ettington & Camp, 2002). Instructors induce collaborative learn-ing through team projects by encouraging students to work together asthey apply course material to answer questions, solve problems, or cre-ate a product (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Expected learning outcomes caninclude facilitating person-to-person interaction among students, enhancingstudents’ learning from each other in a cordial environment, and improvinglearning outcomes, such as deeper understanding of the material and betterability to apply knowledge (Hwang, Lui, & Tong, 2005). Due to its academicand nonacademic learning elements, collaborative or cooperative learning inthe form of teams has been widely encouraged in U.S. universities (Kaenzig,Hyatt, & Anderson, 2007).

Good team projects can provide benefits to both students and fac-ulty. Students can gain a comprehensive understanding of various course

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Gender Differences in Team Project Experience 151

concepts, be exposed to “real-world” applications outside of the class setting(Buckenmeyer, 2000), and learn group dynamics by working with otherpeople (Tideswell, 2004). The group (team) process is considered to be avaluable tool for hospitality and tourism students to learn team building,conflict resolution, decision making, and collaboration (Mahoney, 1999). Italso helps faculty members increase productivity by lowering the gradingburden (Williams, Beard, & Rymer, 1991) and helps them to have moremeaningful and intimate interactions with students by providing tailoredadvice (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008). Although team projects offer benefitsfor students’ learning, there are a number of problems associated with them.Specific problems include student frustration and dissatisfaction, a lack ofleadership, scheduling conflicts, lack of team development, and free ridingor social loafing (R. S. Hansen, 2006). Some researchers even suggest that theuse of teams in an undergraduate class did not improve student performance(Kunkel & Shafer, 1997).

Attitudes Toward Team-Based Work

Many studies offer insight into various aspects of students’ team projectexperiences and their attitudes toward team-based work. Although facul-ties have been using the team project as an educational tool for manyyears, there are mixed results about its effectiveness. Some studies sug-gest that students’ overall attitude toward team projects is positive. Moststudents perceive a team project as a good method of instruction (Gottschall& Garcia-Bayonas, 2008), and the majority of the students indicated positiveperception of collaborative discussion groups (Rau & Heyl, 1990). Similarly,Hagen (1996) found that students in a human service course showed a pos-itive attitude toward cooperative learning, which increased their attentionand provided the opportunity to share heterogeneous viewpoints amongtheir classmates.

On the contrary, other researchers indicated that many students havenegative perceptions of group projects because of dysfunctional group expe-riences (Feichtner & Davis, 1984). Students from four different disciplinesperceived that the use of cooperative learning groups did not increase theirlearning, motivation, or study time (Phipps, Phipps, Kask, & Higgins, 2001).Some research shows that in many classes, students are simply placed intoteam projects with no preparation, resulting in students being ineffectivelyprepared for work teams (Ettington & Camp, 2002), as well as uncleargoals, mismanagement, conflict, and unequal participation (Cox & Bobroski,2000; Rau & Heyl, 1990). Gottschall and Garcia-Bayonas (2008) surveyedundergraduate students from three different majors—education, mathemat-ics, and business administration—to explore the students’ attitude towardgroup work in the classroom. The study found that free riding and schedulecoordination were major obstacles to group work.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


In assessing students’ perceptions of the team project experience, pre-vious studies identified several influencing factors, such as project scope,group size, project time, perceived workload, project grade, peer evalua-tion, and social loafing (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; Brooks & Ammons, 2003;Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003). However, these studies mostly used a particularclass or project by taking a case study approach. We believe that students’overall perception of team project experiences is important to understandtheir dispositional attitude toward team-based work, which will affect theprofessional practices of graduates in the future. Taken together, we focuson three team project experience elements: (1) team project design that hasclear goals and good content and structure, (2) teamwork where membersfunction efficiently and work fairly, and (3) peer evaluation that properlyreflects and detects individual contributions. On the basis of previous stud-ies, we anticipate that students’ attitudes toward team-based work will beformed or influenced by previous team project experiences. Specifically,more favorable student perceptions of team project design, teamwork, andpeer evaluation will create a more positive attitude toward team-based work.Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

● Hypothesis 1: Team project experience (team project design, teamwork,and peer evaluation) will positively influence the students’ attitudes towardteam-based work.

Gender and Team-Based Work

Gender has been researched substantially in terms of learning style (Gallos,1993, 1995; Kaenzig et al., 2007), and the difference in the thinking pro-cess and behavior between males and females in the workplace is widelyacknowledged (Fenwick & Neal, 2001). Studies on gender difference inlearning styles suggest that women and men do not have parallel learn-ing experience (Gallos, 1995). Women in formal learning situations tend tobelieve that they perform less well in class and learn less than they actu-ally do, and they feel less confident than men in their abilities to succeedat related future endeavors (Scheuneman, 1997). In a marketing simulationgame study, female students felt more distressed by the uncertainty andambiguity of the simulation experience, whereas men tended to view thesimulation experience as a competitive exercise for them to win (Garber &Clopton, 2002). Similarly, Anderson and Coffey (2004) found that male stu-dents evaluated their teams’ dynamics more positively than female students.As in the description of gender-role stereotypes, women are often portrayedas more communal and concerned with the welfare of others, while men aregenerally described as more assertive and competitive than women (Fenwick& Neal; Kaenzig et al., 2007). Also, previous studies indicate that female stu-dents tend to prefer self-selection of their group members, compared withmale students (Alexander & Stone, 1997).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Several researchers have examined the relationship between genderand the overall performance of teams (Z. Hansen et al., 2006; Ivanova-Stenzel & Kübler, 2005). Findings indicate that groups may be moreeffective when women outnumber or equal men, especially in complexmanagement activities requiring extensive information management andprocessing, planning, and decision making over protracted periods (Fenwick& Neal, 2001). Similarly, male-dominant groups performed worse in groupwork compared with female-dominant groups and equally mixed gendergroups (Z. Hansen et al.). Interestingly, however, women performed bestwhen competing in pure female teams against male teams, whereas menperformed best when women were present (Ivanova-Stenzel & Kübler).

According to the literature review, most existing studies examined teamperformance based on individual gender or group composition (i.e., puremale, pure female, or mixed gender). However, very few studies haveexamined the gender differences in students’ perceptions of team projectexperience and their attitudes toward team-based work. Although previousstudies suggest that female students may perform better in team projects,they tend to be more stressed than male students while they conduct theprojects. We believe that these female students’ relatively less favorableperceptions in comparison with male students will be reflected in teamexperience perceptions, attitudes toward team-based work, and the rela-tionship between the two variables. Therefore, we propose the followinghypotheses:

● Hypothesis 2: Female students will have less positive team project expe-rience perceptions and attitudes toward team-based work than malestudents.

● Hypothesis 3: The relationship between team project experience and atti-tudes toward team-based work will be moderated by gender.

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection and Sample

The self-instructed paper-and-pencil-based questionnaires were used. Aconvenient sample of undergraduate hospitality and tourism managementstudents at a major university in Orlando, FL, was collected from six classesduring August through October 2009. Participants were instructed to answerthe questions based on “all” team projects that they have had during theircoursework in college. By asking students’ perceptions based on their over-all experience during their tenure with the program as of the time of thesurvey, the study results are expected to be less subject to biases that mightcome from a particular project, team members, or an instructor. The datacollection from six classes yielded a total of 247 participants. Seven of them

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


were graduate students, 10 were from other majors outside of hospitalitytourism management, 1 student participated in the survey in two differentclasses, and 1 respondent left an excessive amount of questions unanswered.Excluding these 19 participants resulted in the total of 228 suitable samplesfor analyses.

Seventy-nine percent of the respondents were female and 21% weremale students. The mean age of the respondents was 22.5 years (median= 21.0), with a range from 18 to 48 years. The majority of respondents(57.7%) were juniors, 36.0% of respondents were seniors, and 7.0% weresophomores or freshmen. For ethnicity, 78.1% of the respondents wereCaucasian, 12.6% were Hispanic, 3.7% were African American, 2.8% wereAsian, and 2.8% were other. The average hospitality work experience was3.3 years. Approximately 73.3% of the participants were working (averageof 26.6 hours per week), and 26.3% were not working at the time of thesurvey. Students indicated they have had approximately three team projectsper semester (mean = 3.3, median = 3.0).

Measures

The team project experience was assessed via three aspects: (1) team projectdesign, (2) teamwork, and (3) peer evaluation. A well-designed team projectis described as having clear goals, meaningfulness and relevance to thecourse, and reasonable workload (four items adopted from Z. Hansenet al. [2006]). Teamwork is described as team members working togetherwell, the team functioning efficiently, teamwork improving as the semesterprogresses, and everyone contributing equally by doing a fair share of thework (six items adopted from Aggarwal & O’Brien [2008]; Friedman, Cox,& Maher [2008]). Peer evaluation is described as an evaluation procedureby team members to assess each member’s contribution or lack of it andother monitoring procedures used to prevent and warn of undesirable teambehaviors (three items adopted from Chen & Lou [2004]; Friedman et al.;Z. Hansen et al.). All team project experience items are measured by a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = in some classes, 4 = in most classes,and 5 = in every class).

Thirteen items were subject to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for dis-criminant validity of the constructs. Three factors were identified and 69.8%of the total variance was explained. The reliability coefficient values are.84 for project design, .88 for teamwork, and .88 for peer evaluation. Also,the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (.879) andBartlett’s test of sphericity (p = .000) indicate that a factor analysis is appro-priate. The EFA results are provided in Table 1. Attitude toward team-basedwork is described as an individual’s disposition toward team projects and isnot specific to a certain team project. The seven items (e.g., I enjoy work-ing in teams) were adopted from Friedman et al. (2008). These items are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 1 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Team Project Experience

TeamworkPeer

evaluationProjectdesign

Everyone contributed equally. .852Everyone on my team did his or her fair share

of the work..842

Members on my team worked well together. .785Some members did not contribute at all. .752My team functioned efficiently. .663Teamwork improved on my team as the

semester progressed..580

Peer evaluation was useful to determine eachgroup member’s contribution or lack of it.

.925

Peer evaluation was specifically used indetermining each team member’s grade.

.889

Peer evaluations are a fair way of distributingmarks in a team project assessment.

.845

The project was relevant to the course. .921The project was meaningful to the course. .870The project had a reasonable workload. .751The project had clear goals. .684

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

measured by a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree,3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat agree, and 5 = strongly agree). The reliabilitycoefficient of the construct was .84.

RESULTS

First, an independent t-test was used to examine the gender differences inteam project experience perceptions and the attitudes toward team-basedwork (see Table 2). Teamwork and attitudes toward team-based work werefound to be significant at the p = .05 level, indicating that male studentsperceived better teamwork in group projects and developed a more posi-tive attitude toward team-based work than female students. However, therewas no significant gender difference in project design and peer-evaluationperceptions. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is partially supported.

Next, a moderated multiple regression (MMR) was used to examine thefactors that influence the attitude toward team-based work, with a particularfocus on the role of gender as a moderator. The MMR is an inferential proce-dure to test for the presence of a moderator variable, which consists of twodifferent least-squares regression equations (Aguinis, 2004). Previous studiesin social sciences used the MMR method for the last few decades, which indi-cates that MMR is an appropriate method for estimating moderating effectsof categorical variables (Aguinis et al., 2003, as cited in Aguinis).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 2 Independent t-test Results of Team Project Experience and Attitudes toward Team-Based Work

Female Male Total

Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. t Sig.

Project Design 3.73 0.69 3.79 0.66 0.539 .590Teamwork 2.92 0.77 3.20 0.79 2.253 .025Peer Evaluation 3.58 1.02 3.60 0.76 0.136 .892Attitudes Toward Team-Based Work 2.90 0.83 3.18 0.93 2.001 .047

To examine the moderating effect of student gender, an ordinary leastsquare (OLS) model was estimated using three team project variables—project design, teamwork, and peer evaluation—and gender as the inde-pendent variables (Model 1). Second, the OLS model was compared withthe MMR model, which included three interaction variables (i.e., three prod-uct variables created between the gender and three individual team projectvariables) to determine the presence of moderating effect from the gendervariable (Model 2). The gender variable is a binary grouping moderator,which was coded using dummy coding (male = 0 and female = 1) becauseof its simplicity and ease of interpretation of results (Aguinis, 2004, as cited inSazali, Haslinda, Jegak, & Raduan, 2009). The test results of interaction vari-ables are expected to determine whether the linear relationship betweenthe student attitude and three team project variables is moderated by adichotomous gender variable. In other words, the MMR method statisticallyverifies whether the characteristics of the relationships between the depen-dent variable and independent variables differ between male and femalestudents.

Model summary for both regressions is provided in Table 3, and thecoefficients of all the variables for the two models are presented in Table 4.Model 1 includes three team project experience variables and gender as theindependent variables. The regression results show that the first model issignificant (F = 123.6, p = .000, Adjusted R2 = .684), which implies that thefour independent variables explained a significant amount of the variation instudent attitudes toward team-based work (see Table 3). As shown in Table4, teamwork (p = .000) is the most important and statistically significantpredictor of student attitudes toward team-based work. Project design (p =.070) is a marginally significant predictor. Both variables positively increasedthe attitude toward team-based work, whereas peer evaluation was statisti-cally insignificant (Table 4). Hence, Hypothesis 1 is partially supported.

Model 2 shows the results after three product terms between the threeproject experience-related variables and gender variable were added to theOLS equation of Model 1. The inclusion of three product (interaction) terms

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 3 Summary of MMR Models

Models R-square R-square change Sig. F change

Model 1a .689 .689 .000Model 2b .698 .009 .091

aPredictors: (Constant), Peer evaluation, Project design, Teamwork,and Gender.bPredictors: (Constant), Peer evaluation, Project design, Teamwork,Gender, Peer∗Gender, Design∗Gender, and Teamwork∗Gender.

TABLE 4 Coefficient Estimates From MMR

Models Unstandardized coefficients Std. Error t Sig.

1 (Constant) 0.119 .197 0.604 .547Peer evaluation −0.046 .036 −1.284 .200Project design 0.108 .059 1.821 .070Teamwork 0.878 .053 16.418 .000Gender −0.023 .079 −0.285 .776

2 (Constant) 0.092 .411 0.224 .823Peer evaluation −0.133 .083 −1.605 .110Project design −0.026 .136 −0.188 .851Teamwork 1.142 .116 9.804 .000Gender −0.004 .459 −0.008 .993Peer∗Gender 0.103 .092 1.130 .260Design∗Gender 0.173 .151 1.150 .251Teamwork∗Gender −0.332 .131 −2.539 .012

Note. Dependent Variable = Attitudes toward team-based work.

resulted in an R2 change of .09, F(3,220) = 2.182, p < .10, which marginallysupports the presence of a significant moderating effect from the gendervariable (see Table 3). While teamwork was found to be most important andstatistically significant (unstandardized coefficient B value = 1.142; p < .01),a product term between gender and teamwork (Teamwork∗Gender) wasalso a significant explanatory variable (unstandardized coefficient B value= −0.332; p < .05; Table 4). The study focused on unstandardized coeffi-cients because using standardized coefficient Beta in MMR research may bemisleading due to the fact that the product terms are not necessarily stan-dardized (Aguinis, 2004). This result reveals the presence of a significantmoderating effect of a gender variable via teamwork predictor. The coeffi-cient estimate of Teamwork∗Gender variable implies that there was a −0.332difference in the slopes-of-attitude (toward team-based works) change onteamwork evaluation between male and female students. In other words,the slope-regressing attitude on teamwork is much steeper for female stu-dents in comparison with that of the male students. This moderating effectof gender indicated that the relationship between student attitude and team-work appeared to be stronger for female respondents in comparison withmale respondents. Hypothesis 3, therefore, is supported.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION

A good teamwork experience leads to a positive attitude toward team-basedwork, which is an important factor in the success of group projects in hospi-tality and tourism management classes. This research focuses on how maleand female students perceive team project experience differently and howthis difference influences their attitudes toward team-based work. Althoughthe results from this research indicate that experience in and perceptiontoward the group work was generally positive, female students rated theirperceptions of teamwork and attitude toward team-based work lower thanmale students. Also, gender is a significant moderator in that a female stu-dent’s perception of a group’s teamwork, in comparison with that of a malestudent, is more significant in predicting the student’s attitude.

Our findings indicate that there were no significant gender differencesin regard to procedural aspects, such as project design and peer evaluation.However, a gender difference exists in perceived teamwork and attitudetoward team-based work. Female students had a significantly lower per-ception of teamwork than male students, indicating that they might haveexperienced effective teamwork less often than male students. Also, femalestudents’ attitude toward team-based work was significantly less positivethan that of the male students. In fact, female students were found to have asomewhat negative attitude toward team-based work. Some interpersonal orgroup dynamics occur in the teams that may cause problems particularly forfemale students. By experiencing these teamwork problems more often orbeing sensitive to them, the female students tend to form a negative attitudetoward team-based work. While it is suggested to conduct further researchinto the power perception, traditional gender role, and interpersonal dynam-ics between male and female students to have a better understanding ofthis particular phenomenon, one of the plausible reasons to explain thisdifference may be the gender difference in learning style (Gallos, 1995;Kaenzig et al., 2007). Gallos (1995) argued that female students in com-parison with male students have stronger needs for support, confirmation,and faculty interest to minimize fear, self-doubt, and loss of confidence.Consequently, male and female students develop different learning stylesthat are not equally supported by a particular type of group projects oractivities.

These findings call into question the value of team project learningexperiences, especially for female students. Previous studies suggest thatstudents’ team project performances may not be different by gender, whileothers suggest that female students may perform better than male stu-dents with project and time management skills. Yet, instructors should beaware of the fact that male and female students perceive their team projectexperiences differently and form their attitudes toward team-based workaccordingly. Although teamwork would depend on who is on the team and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


how motivated or collaborative team members are, the study’s findings ofgender differences in student team projects and the significance of teamworkwarrant particular attention from hospitality and tourism educators becausemany hospitality and tourism jobs require a great amount of teamworkeffort and because of the growing number of female students in the majors.The development of behaviors and attitudes, which will affect the profes-sional practices of graduates, is important in the education of hospitalityand tourism majors. Faculty efforts toward group project management haveimportant influence on student perception and experience. Implementationof effective teaching practices along with students’ characteristics may helpstudents gain confidence, motivation, and intention to achieve team projectgoals (Colbeck, Cabrera, & Terenzini, 2000). Based on this study’s findings,we make the following suggestions for hospitality and tourism instructors toassist students during their team projects.

First, instructors may help students build better teamwork and reducetheir stress by addressing the importance of teamwork in both school andworkplace. A teamwork-building module including a guidance and groupexercise can be implemented at the beginning stage of the course so thatstudents can have a realistic experience and understanding of the signifi-cance of teamwork. The necessity of implementing this module is higher forfemale students who otherwise may deal with tremendous levels of stressand anxiety during the team project.

Second, group composition method can be a critical factor of teamworkbuilding. Existing studies have discussed how important the peer effect isand how it positively affects individual group member’s motivation, per-ceived pressure, altruism, or loyalty among group members (Z. Hansenet al., 2006; Ivanova-Stenzel & Kübler, 2005). Instead of assigning studentgroups based on a convenience factor, such as alphabetical order of stu-dents’ last names, we recommend an alternative way of forming studentgroups to enhance positive peer effects from the initial stage. Instructorsmay provide students with an opportunity to self-select their own groups sothat they can have a perception of more control and accountability in termsof a group’s teamwork and performance. Kaenzig et al. (2007) suggests thata relationship between group composition and group interaction may begender based. Considering the fact that the majority of the students in hos-pitality and tourism programs are female and are relatively more sensitiveto this issue, implementing a self-selection scheme is a rational choice topotentially increase the level of overall group teamwork in class.

Third, Gottschall and Garcia-Bayonas’s (2008) concern of limited controlover outside-of-class group project activities can be minimized if instructorsuse modern instructional technologies such as online course functions. Forexample, to motivate and enhance student group members’ participationin group works, instructors may assign particular roles to individual group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


members. Using online discussion tools, such as wikis or blogs, instruc-tors can effectively monitor and objectively evaluate a student’s overallcontribution to the project. These types of arrangements can help hospi-tality and tourism management students see the educational value of teamprojects as learning opportunities for future teamwork in the workplace.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES

Although this study offers important insights for hospitality and tourisminstructors and researchers who are interested in the issues with student teamprojects, it has some limitations. First, most of our sample was at the juniorand senior level and the majority was female. Although female students aredominant and increasing in most hospitality and tourism programs, our sam-ple may not represent the general demographics of hospitality and tourismmanagement programs in the United States. Also, the study sample is fromone institution located at a major tourism destination in the SoutheasternUnited States. Due to the proximity to the hospitality and tourism industry,the majority of the participants are working while they are enrolled at school.These students may have been limited in their time and flexibility to conductteam projects, which in turn may affect their team project experience andattitude toward team-based work.

We examined the overall team project experience via three elements:project design, teamwork, and peer evaluation. Other instructional variables,such as project grade and instructors’ feedback, can be further examined infuture studies. Also, we only focused on gender differences in this study.Other individual variables, such as ethnicity, motivation level, and majoringtrack (e.g., lodging, food and beverage, event management) may account fordifferences in students’ team project perceptions and attitudes. Thus, furtherstudies of other potentially moderating variables are suggested.

This analysis provokes future research into the conditions under whichthese gender differences are likely to be observed. Provided that the studyfindings were supported by a more plausible explanation, this study recog-nized the criticality of avoiding a gender-specific stereotype or prejudice interms of students’ perceptions and attitudes toward group-based work.

It is recommended to investigate how the variations in students’ per-ceptions and gender affect their overall performance in group-based works.Furthermore, this study’s findings can be complemented by exploring therelationship between the students’ gender and their actual performance ingroup projects. A future study is desired to empirically investigate how thegroup formation method or gender composition may affect the group’s team-work and performance. In addition, it has been well documented in existingstudies that some students prefer to work alone regardless of their abilityto work as a team (Gottschall & Garcia-Bayonas, 2008; Rau & Heyl, 1990).Further research to examine how this preference differs by student gender

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


and to measure those “work-alone” students’ performance in a project willhelp instructors decide whether to allow an option of working alone.

Finally, our study focused on gender differences in team projects byexamining one hospitality and tourism program in the United States. Thus,the scope and generalization of the findings are limited. Although studentgroup work is a widely used practice in hospitality and tourism educa-tion in the United States, by no means is this practice universal in othercountries and cultures. As the needs and popularity of hospitality andtourism programs increase worldwide, educators need to be aware of inter-national diversity in the students’ expectations and experiences of groupwork (Barron, Baum, & Conway, 2007). Hence, a future study on nationalvariations in this topic may provide significant implications for researchersand educators, particularly those who deal with highly multinational studentgroups.

REFERENCES

Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structuralantecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education,30(3), 255–264.

Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression analysis for categorical moderators. New York, NY:The Gilford Press.

Alexander, M. W., & Stone, S. F. (1997). Student perceptions of teamwork in theclassroom: An analysis by gender. Business Education Forum, 51, 7–10.

Anderson, S. E., & Coffey, B. S. (2004). The student’s view of a business simulation:Perceived value of the learning experience. Unpublished manuscript.

Barron, P., Baum, T., & Conway, F. (2007). Learning, living, and working:Experiences of international postgraduate students at a Scottish university.Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14(2), 85–101.

Bartlett, L. B., Probber, J., & Mohammed, S. (1999). The effect of team buildingon team process and performance. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,23(3), 299–311.

Brooks, C. M., & Ammons, J. L. (2003). Free riding in group projects and the effectsof timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer assessments. Journal ofEducation for Business, 78(5), 268–272.

Buckenmeyer, J. A. (2000). Using teams for class activities: Making courses/classroom teamwork. Journal of Education for Business, 76(2), 98–107.

Casado, M. (2009, July/August). Cultural diversity in higher education hospital-ity programs. Paper presented at the International CHRIE Conference, SanFrancisco, CA—Refereed Track. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=refereed

Chen, Y., & Lou, H. (2004). Students’ perceptions of peer evaluation: An expectancyperspective. The Journal of Education for Business, 79(5), 275–282.

Cohen, S. G., & Baily, D. E. (1997). What makes teamwork: Group effectivenessresearch from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management,23(3), 239–290.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Terenzini, P. T. (2000). Learning professional con-fidence: Linking teaching practices, students’ self-perceptions, and gender. TheReview of Higher Education, 24(2), 173–191.

Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the dark:What college students learn from group projects. Journal of Higher Education,71(1), 60–83.

Cox, P. L., & Bobroski, P. E. (2000). The importance of invasiveness of student teamselection criteria. Journal of Management Education, 25, 471–494.

Ettington, D., & Camp, R. (2002). Facilitating transfer of skills between group projectsand work teams. Journal of Management Education, 26 , 356–379.

Feichtner, S. B., & Davis, B. A. (1984). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’experience with learning groups. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9,75–88.

Fenwick, G. D., & Neal, D. J. (2001). Effect of gender composition on groupperformance. Gender, Work, and Organization, 8(2), 205–225.

Friedman, B. A., Cox, P. L., & Maher, L. E. (2008). An expectancy theory motiva-tion approach to peer assessment. Journal of Management Education, 32(5),580–612.

Gallos, J. V. (1993). Women’s experiences and ways of knowing: Implications forteaching and learning in the organizational behavior classroom. Journal ofManagement Education, 17 , 7–26.

Gallos, J. V. (1995). On management education for women: Faulty assumptions, newpossibilities. Selections, 11(2), 24–33.

Garber, L. L., & Clopton, S. (2002). The effects of gender on attitude toward learningby participation in games. Teaching & Learning at Appalachian, 6 , 35–39.

Gottschall, H., & Garcia-Bayonas, M. (2008). Student attitudes towards group workamong undergraduates in business administration, education, and mathematics.Education Research Quarterly, 32(1), 3–28.

Hagen, J. W. (1996). Student perceptions of cooperative learning in human serviceeducation. Human Service Education, 16(1), 47–56.

Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions forimproving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 11–19.

Hansen, Z., Owan, H., & Pan, J. (2006). The impact of group diversity onperformance and knowledge spillover—An experiment in a college class-room (NBER Working Paper No. 12251). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12251

Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences oftrust in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 24–34.

Hwang, N. R., Lui, G., & Tong, M. (2005). An empirical test of cooperative learning ina passive learning environment. Issues in Accounting Education, 20, 151–166.

Ivanova-Stenzel, R., & Kübler, D. (2005). Courtesy and idleness: Gender differencesin teamwork and team competition (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1768). Retrievedfrom http://ssrn.com/abstract/=825686

Kaenzig, R., Hyatt, E., & Anderson, S. (2007). Gender differences in College ofBusiness Educational Experiences. Journal of Education for Business, 83(2),95–100.

Kunkel, J. G., & Shafer, W. F. (1997). Effects of student team learning in undergrad-uate auditing courses. Journal of Education for Business, 72, 197–200.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14


LaLopa, J. M., Jacobs, J. W., & Countryman, C. (1999). The effects of student teams onquiz score performance given a performance-based incentive package. Journalof Hospitality and Tourism Education, 11(2/3), 25–30.

Mahoney, J. F. (1999). Teaching management skills using team building in quantityfood. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 11(1), 12–17.

Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impactsstudent attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1),37–45.

Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., & Higgins, S. (2001). University students’ perceptionof cooperative learning: Implications for administrators and instructors. TheJournal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 14–21.

Rau, W., & Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom: Collaborativelearning and social organization among students. Teaching Sociology, 18,141–155.

Sazali, A. W., Haslinda, A., Jegak, U., & Raduan, C. R. (2009). Moderating effectsof MNCs’ country of origin in the relationship between technology recipientcharacteristics and degree of interfirm technology transfer. European Journal ofScientific Research, 37(2), 337–350.

Scheuneman, J. D. (1997, March). An evaluation of gender differences in computer-based case simulations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalCouncil on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.

Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A.Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. T. MacGregor (Eds.), Colla-borative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (Section A, pp. 10–30).University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, &Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.

Susskind, A. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (1999). Team-based interaction in the foodservice instructional laboratory: An exploratory model of team composition,team-member interaction, and performance. Journal of Hospitality & TourismEducation, 10(4), 22–29.

Tideswell, C. (2004). A student perspective on the use of team-based assessment toachieve the requirement to be created: A study of entrepreneurship students.Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 4(4), 1–22.

Williams, D. L., Beard, J. D., & Rymer, J. (1991). Team projects: Achieving their fullpotential. Journal of Marketing Education, 13, 45–53.

Wolfe, K., & Gould, R. (2001). Insights on team-based learning. Journal of Hospitality& Tourism Education, 13(3/4), 87–96.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 1

1:34

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

student team project: gender differences in team project experience and attitudes toward team-based...

Documents