Group Member Selection Techniques for Capstone Projects
James E. Richards, Brandon S. Thompson
This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher Program, a two year faculty
professional development program conducted by the Center for Teaching Excellence, United States Military
Academy, West Point, New York, 2012.
ABSTRACT
The concept of team is vital in almost every industry in today’s society. Employers place a great
deal of emphasis on the ability of employees to work within a group to accomplish a task. Therefore, it is
important that students develop the skills necessary to work effectively in groups. Literature shows that
group selection method plays an important role in maximizing the experience students receive from group
work. However, there is a lack of research to identify the most effective group selection method for yearlong capstone projects with a wide range of topics. The objective of this research was to test whether
group selection method affects the level of satisfaction in regards to the assigned capstone project and
group and the groups impact on individual learning. The results indicate student interest in the topic had
a significant effect on the level of satisfaction with the project topic but did not significantly impact the
level of satisfaction with the group or the impact on learning.
Keywords: group selection method; student teams; student satisfaction; capstone project
INTRODUCTION
Group work is ubiquitous in undergraduate education. Students are placed into groups for an
incredible amount of their educational experience. These experiences range from class partners for an inclass example problem to multi-semester senior design projects. There are several reasons that instructors
choose to place students in teams. Since teams are prevalent in the workplace, it is logical for academia
to contain similar team oriented classroom experiences. The ability for students to work in teams is one
of the most highly regarded traits that potential employers seek when looking to hire new talent into their
organizations (Potosky and Duck 2007). In addition to the real-world parallels, team experiences improve
the learning potential and satisfaction (Matta, Luce and Ciavarro 2011).
Though there are many good reasons to place students in teams, there is a significant amount of
administrative overhead that accompanies this effort. The grading of student effort in the team setting is
not always straightforward. Also, the management of group dynamics and the avoidance of social loafing
is no easy task given the creation of dysfunctional student groups. In hindsight, it is easy to see the
impact of a good (or bad) group experience on learning that occurs in a class that is heavily dependent on
a group project. Thus it is paramount that we provide student groups every opportunity for success. The
question then becomes, what factors provide the best group experience?
BACKGROUND
The question of what is the best method to organize engineering students into such groups vexes
many novice instructors. In addition, many instructors lack tools to help facilitate better team selection
and organization. The greater the proportion of the course experience conducted in a group, the greater
the potential impact of the team selection dilemma. There are two general classifications of group
selection methods, student selected teams (self selection) and instructor assigned groups. There are many
variations of instructor assigned groups ranging from random assignments to assignment based on prior
student performance (GPA for example). There are also hybrid techniques that attempt to bring together
the best of student selection and instructor selection through sophisticated surveys or formative in class
exercises (Potosky and Duck 2007) (Matta, Luce and Ciavarro 2011). A survey conducted of instructors
from various academic departments at West Point, shown in Figure 1, confirmed that instructors tend to
use multiple types of selection methods and that no one method has been found to create the best learning
experience.
Types of Group Selection Methods Commonly used by West Point Instructors
Student self-selected
21%
34%
Instructor assigned randomly
Instructor assigned based on seating chart
7%
Instructor assigned based on organization
8%
Instructor assigned grouping like GPA (high with high)
10%
20%
Instructor assigned averaging GPA(high with low)
Figure 1: Types of Group Selection Methods Commonly used by West Point Instructors
Research suggests that heterogeneity in groups is desirable (Nilson 2010). McKeachie (2011)
recommends that because of the advantages of diverse groups, the teacher should be the one to form the
groups, forcing the beneficial diversity, rather than allowing the students to choose their own groups. But
what dimensions of heterogeneity are most important at West Point for team formation? What
percentages of groups are formed in this way today, and what other dominant team selection methods are
in practice? What do cadets think about their team experiences given differing methods of team
formation?
When working to decide how to select cadets for teams in the classroom, it may be helpful to
think about how officers and Soldiers are selected for teams in the Army. Teams in the Army are rarely
formed by self selection. In almost every case a team is assigned by a commander or branch manager.
The availability of the Soldier to be selected for a team is the first requirement. Often times, the second
criteria is matching the skills that the mission requires with the skills of the available Soldiers. Why
should we care about how teams are formed? First, unrealistic team formation methods in the classroom
violate the “train as you fight” principle. Second, students are building skills in academic group
experiences that they will use throughout their professional lives. If artificial group dynamics and
experiences are fostered, such as only working with individuals one is comfortable working with,
unhealthy group habits will be formed which will hamper students as they enter into their first Army
units.
Within the Department of Systems Engineering, the preeminent group experience is the two
semester senior capstone project. The capstone project is a special case within the group work category.
There are no individual assignments, and though cadets need not receive the same grade for each of the
two semesters of the project, essentially every point assigned comes from a group effort. The capstone
projects within the Systems Engineering Department couple four cadet team members, a faculty advisor,
and a client from an external Department of Defense agency or from industry.
Several years ago Dr. Roger Burk, Associate Professor in the Department of Systems Engineering
at West Point, developed and implemented an optimization program in order to assign cadets to the
capstone teams. In the spring of the junior year, cadets rank order their top five most desired capstone
projects using a survey tool. The cadets are provided with a short description of the project in the survey,
and many cadets either talk to upperclassmen that worked on similar projects, or attend the capstone day
presentations in order to gain a better understanding of the capstone details. These rankings are combined
with the individual cadet GPA into a spreadsheet. An assignment linear program is formulated in order to
uniquely place each cadet into a capstone subject to a series of constraints. This “optimal” solution is
massaged with additional external (non-modeled) constraints including “hand selection” requests from a
small number of capstone advisors as well as scheduling constrains from the registrar. Following this, a
final slate of capstone team assignments is published to both the cadets and advisors.
In the summer of 2011, Dr. Burk approached the authors to investigate the validity of the
capstone team selection algorithm and process to include a survey of the literature surrounding similar
efforts in the literature. This research project represents the culmination of that effort.
METHODS
Design and Settings
The research was conducted on cadets in their senior year from the Department of Systems
Engineering at the United States Military Academy. Cadets participating were majoring in either Systems
Engineering (SE) or Engineering Management (EM). The courses selected for participation were the two
semester senior capstone classes. There were 32 unique capstone projects consisting primarily of four
members per group. All projects required the cadet groups to research, analyze, and present, both written
and oral, findings to clients on topics ranging from development of third-world countries to integrating
new technologies in combat operations. There were two selection methods used to determine the
composition of each group. The first method consisted of instructors’ hand selecting cadets to participate
in specific capstone projects based on several factors. Cadets were hand selected based on their interest in
a project, previous experience dealing with the problem through summer internships, or special
qualifications relating to the projects such as lean six sigma training. A total of 13 groups consisted of
hand selected cadets. The remaining 19 groups were formed using the optimization algorithm to
maximize cadet interest and level the average grade point average (GPA) per group.
The optimization model has two objectives which must be taken one at a time. First the model
seeks to maximize the sum of student satisfaction based upon the ranking of capstone topics. Each cadet
rates the capstone topics in a survey in the spring of their junior year. The inverse of the ranking of the
topic of assignment is summed. This means if a student receives their first choice, the objective function
would increase by one, if a student receives their second choice, the objective function would increase by
one half, and so on. The second dimension of interest is the spread of average Academic Performance
Scores (APS.) The average performance score for the cadets assigned to each team is calculated, and the
lowest team average is subtracted from the highest team average. The optimization program seeks to
minimize this spread. There are a set of constraints required to make the model function properly, which
include that each team must have exactly four cadets and each cadet must be assigned to exactly one
capstone group. There are other experience parameters that may be beneficial, but are not fully
considered in the model, such as electives that each cadet has taken, demographic data, or cadet team
member preferences.
Figure 2: Example of Setup of Linear Program to Optimize Group Selection
The two objectives can be optimized in either order creating an optimal frontier of optimal team
selection arrangements. If the satisfaction is optimized first than a greater spread in team APS must be
accepted. If the team spread is minimized first, than there will not be quite as high overall satisfaction.
The frontier is visible on in Figure 3 below, the direction model attempts to push the solution to the
bottom right of the graph, minimizing spread of APS and maximizing the sum of individual satisfactions.
Random assignment
produces significantly
less satisfaction and
greater spread of GPA
The teams selected
are off the optimal
frontier due to
scheduling
difficulties
Direction of
“improvement”
Figure 3: Optimization of 2012 DSE Capstone Team Selection
At the end of the course, surveys were administered to every cadet in a capstone group. Surveys
were collected from 70 respondents. There were 11 respondents in the hand selected groups and 59 in the
algorithm assigned groups. A total of 29 cadets received their first choice in capstone preference and the
remaining 41 cadets were assigned to their second, third, or fourth choice. The majority of cadets were
male (93.4%).
In addition to the primary research effort, we surveyed instructors at West Point in order to
identify trends in group selection methods and emphasis of group work in non-Systems Engineering
courses. Surveys were collected from 31 instructors from nine different academic departments.
Subjects
The Department of Systems Engineering at West Point consists of a two year program. Cadets
majoring in both Systems Engineering and Engineering Management all participate in two semester
capstone course during their senior year. During their junior year, SE and EM majors take many of the
same courses. Several courses are only offered one semester per year, fall or spring, which limits the
diversity in course scheduling. As a result, cadets typically are enrolled in the same classes during the
same semester causing many cadets to become familiar with their peers within their major. Classes are
limited to no more than 19 cadets per section to facilitate group discussion and teamwork in each class.
The small classes allow instructors to incorporate more group assignments in each course. Results from
the instructor survey indicated that 60% of the courses place more than 20% of the total grade on group
assignments.
In addition to small classrooms and courses that emphasize group work, West Point cadets are
inundated with opportunities to work in groups. Each summer the cadets conduct military training in
small size teams made up of their peers. Each graduating class consists of approximately 1150 cadets
with a total student population of 4600. Cadets all live on campus, are required to participate in
extracurricular activities such as intramurals and drill and ceremony, and attend meals together on a daily
basis. Teamwork is an essential skill throughout all four years at West Point that is taught and tested in
every mission. This unique, close-knit environment coupled with small classes that emphasize group
work create a situation where cadets entering their senior year are familiar with or have worked in a group
with most of their peers. This means typical group dynamics associated with randomly selected groups
do not always apply at the West Point.
Surveys
Data from the cadet surveys addressed group selection method, level of satisfaction, and outcome
measures. Cadets were asked to identify the most common and most effective group selection methods as
well as their primary selection criteria when choosing their own group. Satisfaction levels toward their
group and projects, and the impact their group played on learning were assessed with a semantic
differential scale. Three questions used a bipolar 5-point itemized scale to identify the level of
satisfaction with the group and project and the impact on learning. The same scale and questions were
used to assess instructor attitude toward group selection method and outcome measures.
Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis was performed using parametric methods. Two sets of populations were
analyzed, hand selected groups versus systems algorithm assigned groups and those cadets who received
their first choice in capstone assignment and those that did not. The difference in means was calculated
using the Welch’s t test in both sets of populations for level of satisfaction with group and project and the
impact that groups have on learning experience. The Pearson product-moment correlation was tested to
identify linear dependence between the two population sets and the level of satisfaction with the group,
project, and the impact that groups have on learning.
RESULTS
The primary objective of this research was to investigate the validity of the Systems Engineering
Department’s capstone team selection algorithm and process and identify whether the method was the
most conducive to enhancing group dynamics, individual satisfaction, and increasing the impact of
learning. We believed that groups that were hand selected and cadets who received their first choice in
capstone project would have a higher level of satisfaction with their group and project. In addition we
believed that these cadets would see a greater impact on learning due to better group dynamics. The data
presented in Table 1 suggests that the group selection method had a statistically significant impact on the
level of satisfaction with the capstone project (t =2.75, p = .015).
Table 1. Comparison of Means for Group Selection Method and Capstone Preference Choice.
Total
Population
sample size n =
Capstone Preference Choice
Group Selection Method
Hand
Algorithm
Selected
Assigned p Value
First
Choice
Not Frist
Choice
29
41
p Value
70
11
59
Project Satisfaction
3.26
4.18
3.10
0.015
3.72
2.95
0.018
Group Satisfaction
3.98
4.09
3.97
0.719
4.21
3.83
0.119
Impact of Learning
3.86
4.09
3.81
0.487
4.07
3.71
0.129
Ratings are based on a 5-point scale. Project and Group satisfaction 1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied. Imapct on learning 1 =
extremely detracted and 5 = highly facilitated.
Table 1: Comparison of Means for Group Selection Method and Capstone Preference Choice
Figures 4 and 5 show the percentage of cadets who indicated that they were very satisfied with
the project from the hand selected groups was 55% compared to only 17% of the cadets from the
algorithm assigned groups. Likewise, zero cadets from the hand selected groups were very dissatisfied
with the project contrasted with 17% of the cadets from the algorithm assigned groups.
Project Satisfaction - Hand Selected
Project Satisfaction - Algorithm Selected
0%
18%
55%
Very Dissatisfied
0%
Dissatisfied
Indifferent
27%
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
17%
17%
16%
24%
26%
Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Indifferent
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Figure 4 & 5: Project Satisfaction. "Hand Selected" and “Algorithm Assigned” Group Members
Table 1 illustrates there was also a statistically significant difference in the level of satisfaction with
the capstone project between the cadets who received their first choice and cadets who did not receive
their first choice of capstone project (t =2.44, p = .018). Figures 6 and 7, shows 38% of cadets who
received their first choice of capstone project indicated that they were very satisfied with the project
compared to only 13% of the cadets who did not receive their first choice. Likewise, only 3% of the
cadets who received their first choice in capstone project answered very dissatisfied with the project as
opposed to 22% of the cadets who did not receive their first choice and selected very dissatisfied.
Project Satisfaction - Recieied First
Choice
Project Satisfaction - Did Not Receive
First Choice
3%
Very Dissatisfied
21%
38%
14%
24%
13%
Dissatisfied
Indifferent
Very Dissatisfied
22%
25%
12%
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
28%
Dissatisfied
Indifferent
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Figure 6 and 7: Project Satisfaction. Received and Did Not Receive First Choice Group Members
The group selection method and the capstone assigned regardless of preference did not have a
significant impact on the level of satisfaction in regards to the assigned group or the impact the group had
on affecting the learning experience.
These results are supported in the findings of the Pearson product-method correlation test. The
correlation test shows that only the level of satisfaction with regards to the project is correlated with the
group selection method, hand selected versus algorithm selected, (r = .29, p = .015) and the preference
received, first choice or not first choice, (r = .28, p = .018). Overall, these results suggest that the cadets’
level of satisfaction with their respective group and their impact on learning is not influenced by the
group selection method or the preference received. However, to maximize the level of satisfaction with
the capstone project, cadets should be hand selected to match their skills with the project and assigned
their first choice in order to capitalize on their interests.
DISCUSSION
Under the current method, capstone teams within the Department of Systems Engineering at West
Point are selected based upon a combination of hand selected teams (by capstone advisors) and the output
of the optimization algorithm. The assignment program yields a series of optimal solutions along the
“efficient frontier” which stretches between maximizing the sum of individual satisfactions and
minimizing the spread of team academic performance . The final solution for the 2012 capstone slate did
not lie along this efficient tradeoff because of limitations due to scheduling sections with the registrar’s
office.
Spread of Average GPAs
Capstone Selection Options
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Leveling Optimized First
As Requested
Satisfaction Optimized First
As Taught
30
32
34
36
38
40
Sum of Individual Satisfaction
Figure 8: Trade space for Capstone Team Selection Based on Optimization Algorithm
The method of creating teams by using a linear program which maximizes individual satisfaction
while minimizing the spread of team average of prior academic performance (as measured by GPA) has
been shown to have some benefit over truly random selection. Figure 3 showed that random assignment
will produce teams with significantly lower individual satisfaction, and significantly less students
receiving their first choice of capstone project. The results of this research confirm that this lowers the
level of project satisfaction. The leveling of the spread in team academic performance is secondary to the
benefit of maximizing individual preferences, but may still be beneficial to providing more academically
diverse groups. Therefore, in the special case in which there are many different topics for students to
choose from, team selection is even more important to the effectiveness of the academic experience. The
issue of different topics adds complexity to the selection process.
Further research is required to test if these results are a uniquely West Point phenomenon. One
could make the logical progression, that since cadets know each other better than students at other
universities, it is less important to consider student preferences for fellow team members. One reason that
group satisfaction result is not statistically significant may be due to the West Point experience. Cadets
are very familiar with each other within the department and have overcome any inabilities to function in
an instructor assigned group environment.
From a cadet’s Reception Day at West Point, throughout the entire cadet experience, cadets are
placed into groups and expected to excel as contributing members. Each cadet is simultaneously in a
myriad of groups, from academic project teams, to sports teams and military platoons and companies.
Cadets are evaluated by instructors and peers on their performance within the group and are forced to
assume different roles with every assignment (i.e., cadets will serve as leaders and team members within
the same groups during military training). Unlike the findings from Zeff (2006) that indicated
undergraduate students lacked the leadership skills and attitudinal modifications necessary for team
development, cadets are experienced with handling group dynamics by their senior year. This inundation
of team experiences has several effects. First, it teaches cadets to adapt to group experiences fluidly.
Also, it means that many of the cadets within an academic program have already worked together in other
areas or have some shared experience that bridges the gap of early team formation to quickly enable high
group performance. Given these uniquely West Point conditions, the negative results of group
satisfaction among the group selection method and capstone preference received is not surprising as
cadets will find a way to accomplish a task regardless of the group they are given.
Another reason for the lack of difference in group satisfaction among population sets may be a
result of the duration of the two-semester capstone experience. Literature shows team longevity was
linked to best experiences and better team processes (Bacon, Stewart and Silver 1999) (Zeff, Higby and
Bossman Jr. 2006). In addition, research found that peer evaluations among permanent or long term
groups (defined as lasting a semester or longer) may be more lenient due to the group development
associated with working together for an extended period of time (Zeff, Higby and Bossman Jr. 2006)
(Bacon, Stewart and Silver 1999) (Scott 2006). A more effective technique of capturing the true level of
satisfaction within a group would require surveying the cadets at various stages of the project.
Finally, the authors believe there is a need to focus the current selection program on maximizing
the project topic selection as the highest priority. Any benefit made in the sum of individual satisfaction
is well worth any increase in the spread of the team academic performance. In fact, the department
should embark on an effort to increase the validity of the student preference selections. Currently these
rankings are obtained by a simple survey sent to the juniors in the department who will be taking part in
the capstone next year. Their ranking of topics is based primarily on a brief description of the project,
and perhaps some anecdotal evidence from prior years experience with similar topics. This is certainly
underachieving since this ranking has such a strong impact on the outcome of the capstone experience for
that cadet. More time and energy must be applied to properly educating the incoming class of capstone
students on the importance of the capstone experience and proper ranking of project topics. In addition,
the academic skills of cadets, currently captured solely by academic performance score, should be
expanded to include other skills such as elective courses taken, or unique skills and experiences such as
computer programming or introductory project management experiences. Finally, if any additional
dimension of selection is used, one should use preference of project partners as opposed to balancing of
GPA. This dimension of self selection, secondary to topic preference, would provide beneficial
information to the model (Bacon, Stewart and Silver 1999) (Chapman, et al. 2006) (Matta, Luce and
Ciavarro 2011).
Annotated Bibliography
Bacon, Donald R, Kim A Stewart, and William S Silver. "Lessons from the Best and Worst Student Team
Experiences: How a Teacher can make the Difference." Journal of Management Education, 1999: 467488.
This article evaluates how teacher-controlled factors affect the student team experience. The research
focused on teacher controls in administering teams including method of assignment, team longevity,
weight of grade given to teamwork, team size, peer evaluations, and quality of instructions given by the
teacher. The subjects included students enrolled in a MBA program. The strongest outcome confirmed
that student teams given more guidance on outcomes and processes of the task were associated with best
team experience. Another result showed that team longevity was linked to best experience and better
processes. Research showed that self-selected teams were more likely to complete their work on time due
to higher cooperativeness. The authors warned against peer evaluations as their results indicated that peer
evaluation was negatively associated with good team experiences.
Chapman, Kenneth J, Matthew Meuter, Dan Toy, and Lauren Wright. "Can't We Pick Out Own Groups?
The Influence of Group Selection Method on Group Dynamics and Outcomes." Journal of Management
Education 30, no. 4 (August 2006): 557-569.
This article tests whether group selection method affects the nature of group dynamics and outcomes, and
students’ attitudes toward the group experience. The research was conducted on marketing students
enrolled in a semester long project at a business school. Students were placed in two treatment
conditions, random or self-selected assignment to groups. Surveys at the end of the semester indicated
that group selection method had a significant influence on group dynamics. Specifically, groups that
were self-selected by students had better communication and resolved conflict more effectively.
However, randomly assigned groups used time in group meeting more efficiently. Overall, the research
found that self-selected groups consistently rated higher on dimensions of teamwork and had better group
attitude and outcome measures.
Decker, Ronald. "Management Team Formation for Large Scale Simulations." Developments In Business
Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 1995: 128-129.
This article examines the methods that instructors use to assign students to groups. The study focused on
the business school setting in which a large scale simulation represented most, if not all of the course
grade. Decker reports that the majority of group experiences used four to five students with student
choice being the most common selection technique. The most common rationale for this technique is so
that the students may not complain about their group members to the instructor. Other methods
discussed are instructor choice based on assigning diverse (culturally) groups, ensuring unique skills are
present, and grouping geographically (by zip code if commuter students.) Finally, there were two
variations on student selection reported, one in which students submitted resumes and “applied” for a
group selection, and the second is to assign a student “personnel director” to choose the groups.
Matta, Vic, Thom Luce, and Gina Ciavarro. "Exploring Impact of Self-selected Student Teams and
Academic Potential on Satisfaction." Information Systems Education Journal, 2011: 14-23.
After a brief review of applicable litterature, the authors seek to answer three team selection test
hypothesis and develop a model relating compliance with student preference for peers and prior academic
performance with the ability to predict student satisfaction. The study found that there is a correlation
between both academic performance and student peer preference with student satisfaction. The authors
suggest that using the technique of combining student selection of peers with academic heterogeneity, or
groups with balanced academic performance, yields the largest benefit of team selection.
Potosky, Denise, and Janet Duck. "Forming Teams for Classroom Projects." Developments in Business
Simulation and Experiential Learning, 2007: 144-148.
This article foucses on the assembly of teams in the business classroom. A general coverage of common
approaches to group formation is discussed with references to fundamental team selection literature. The
authors conclude this with four clear suggestions about group formation drawn from the literature.
Finnally, Postosky and Duck develop an experimental activity used to factilate goal-directed selfselection into teams.
Redmond, Michael A. "A Computer Program to Aid Assignment of Student Project Groups."
Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education. New
York: ACM, 2001. 134-138.
This article is one of the few that provides a practical algorithm (or optimization approach) to assigning
students to teams. The paper describes a computer program (coded in Pascal) that uses a greedy search
technique. The program groups students that have similar available time to work on the group
assignments based upon a survey each student fills out. The survey also captures the experience level of
the student (on a scale of one to ten) and modifications to the program solution based on time availability
balance the teams to relatively equal experiences. The focus on this method is to achieve greater diversity
than self selection, particularly in mixed groups with part-time and full-time students.
Scott, Elsje. "Systems Development Group Project: A Real-World Exper." Information Systems
Education Journal 4, no. 23 (2006): 1-10.
This article describes a course in Information Systems that seeks to integrate the knowledge obtained in
other undergraduate classes into a practical real world project. One focus of the paper is on the
administrative process of managing a real-world project course. The author notes team selection as a
critical issue within this unique classroom environment.
Zeff, Lawrence E., Mary A. Higby, and Larry J. Bossman Jr. "Permanent or Temporary Classroom
Groups: A Field Study." Journal of Management Education 30, no. 4 (2006): 528-541.
This article discusses the differences in satisfaction and performance with respect to temporary and
permanent groups. Interviews were conducted of graduate and undergraduate students and faculty
members at several universities during a three year period. The article discusses advantages of classroom
groups to include expanding the learning environment beyond classroom and the instructor. It also
discusses disadvantages of “free-riding” and “self-censorship” where some students do not participate but
receive credit for group work. The results show that any project longer than a semester requires more
details when selecting a team. Group members of permanent groups indicated that more learning took
place than within temporary groups. However, peer evaluation in permanent groups tended to be more
lenient. The article also states that under graduate students lack the leadership skills for team
development.
Bibliography
Bacon, Donald R, Kim A Stewart, and William S Silver. "Lessons from the Best and Worst Student Team
Experiences: How a Teacher can make the Difference." Journal of Management Education, 1999: 467488.
Chapman, Kenneth J, Matthew Meuter, Dan Toy, and Lauren Wright. "Can't We Pick Out Own Groups?
The Influence of Group Selection Method on Group Dynamics and Outcomes." Journal of Management
Education 30, no. 4 (August 2006): 557-569.
Decker, Ronald. "Management Team Formation for Large Scale Simulations." Developments In Business
Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 1995: 128-129.
Matta, Vic, Thom Luce, and Gina Ciavarro. "Exploring Impact of Self-selected Student Teams and
Academic Potential on Satisfaction." Information Systems Education Journal, 2011: 14-23.
McKeachie, Wilbert J, and Marilla Svinicki. Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College
and University Teachers. Thirteenth. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2001.
Nilson, Linda B. Teaching At Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors. Third. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
Potosky, Denise, and Janet Duck. "Forming Teams for Classroom Projects." Developments in Business
Simulation and Experiential Learning, 2007: 144-148.
Redmond, Michael A. "A Computer Program to Aid Assignment of Student Project Groups."
Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education. New
York: ACM, 2001. 134-138.
Scott, Elsje. "Systems Development Group Project: A Real-World Experience." Information Systems
Education Journal 4, no. 23 (2006): 1-10.
Zeff, Lawrence E., Mary A. Higby, and Larry J. Bossman Jr. "Permanent or Temporary Classroom
Groups: A Field Study." Journal of Management Education 30, no. 4 (2006): 528-541.