Extreme Frustration with Online MBA Team!!!

Has anyone experienced this?

I attend one of those good, nationally-ranked, AACSB-accredited MBA programs online. Most of the students are excellent: professionals, doctors, people who already hold advanced degrees, most of them B&M, solid, ambitious people.

But, there's a problem, Houston...

My team just completed a big final PPT project, which was posted to the discussion forum for the class, and my contributions--which I honestly thought were on point and cleverly done--were completely excluded, every single slide! Now I understand that sometimes one's contributions are not quite up-to-standards, and the last person to know is the one who contributed them, but in this case, my portion of the assignment--the suggestion of solutions for the problems we had posed vis-a-vis the concepts covered in the course--is exactly what the other students in the class are now savaging our PPT assignment for omitting!

I tried to warn my team, tried nicely, tried persistently, tried my very best to get them to realize that I'm sorry, but our project is sadly lacking in this crucial element, but they ignored me and posted it sans my contribution, without even an explanation, just a "thanks, but no thanks".

Now I'm going to be drug down from an "A", which I worked all semester (with a wife and five kids and a FT job) to build up to, likely to a "B" or worse--our final project is that depressing.

What do you do when you're stuck with a clunker of a team?

I shot out an email to the prof immediately upon realizing that they'd refused to include my stuff and that the other students, after seeing our project posted, were telling them EXACTLY WHAT I'D WARNED THEM ABOUT. But I don't know. The prof was great, best I've had, the class was great, but my team, particularly the self-appointed leader, just completely cut me out!

Thanks for letting me vent.

 

You learn that sometimes majority rule means that the ignorant win out over the intelligent.

 

Re: Re: Extreme Frustration with Online MBA Team!!!

Ted, you're right, dead right. But me suspects you have a little more meaning there than just a reference to my little predicament.

Anyway, touche! That was a good and piercing point, knowing as you must, based on my posts on this forum, that I voted Republican.

I'll get you back, though ; )

 

A perfect example of why I'm not really a fan of the "team project" concept in education.

 

I have some difficulties with it myself, though I must admit, out there in corporateland, many are sold on it, so I suppose this is the MBA way of preparing us for it. I guess that sometimes leads to some unfair results as well, people getting dragged down by their team. Rommel and Robert E. Lee were brilliant generals and by most accounts, reasonably decent human beings, but they were stuck on the wrong teams. They paid a much heavier price than the drop of a letter grade!

 

Tell me about it - I have worked with some Turkey groups. Lucky for me I am the Project Manager type and take charge early (call me an a--hole, but I get things done).

On the other side, the group members in my Finance class saved my butt - I was clueless and without their help, I would have surely failed.

 

After spending time in academia, I don't think "group projects" are given for the student's benefit. I think they are mostly done for the professor's benefit. Take any vague assignment, throw it out to your students and make them figure it out. Little preparation and teaching is necessary. Just sit back, see what is turned into you and criticize it.

As a result, students tend to divide up and do whatever they are best at or feel like doing. If one team member is good a writing, they wind up writing the entire thing, if one is good at presenting, they usually do all the presenting, if one is good at numbers, they usually do all of that, and so on. Doing this all online must be a nightmare. A student in this situation doesn't get a chance to improve on other things they might need to work on.

Also the idea of "this is exactly how it is done in the corporate world" is a myth. If this was the case, nothing would get done. In the real world, you may work in a team, but you still have a boss or team leader that gives you your job and you do it.

 

I share your concern about group work.

As a faculty member I see the value of group learning. Students often learn as much or more from each other then they do from me. Further, group work is a reality in the work place. However, students can be pretty frustrated with groups that don't work well. If group grades are a big part of final grades - I hear about group problems a lot.

My answer includes several parts. First, I try to give groups a chance to form and develop. An easy opening assignment for the group helps folks to get to know each other and work together. Second, I usually give an "opt out" option for folks that don't have time to work with others (due to work schedules, for example) or are so driven personally they can't function well with others. Finally, I make sure that group work is only part of the class. Typically, I don't allow group grades to constitute more than 30% or so of a term grade.

Regards - Andy

 

Re: Re: Re: Extreme Frustration with Online MBA Team!!!

Little Fauss,

No ulterior motives here. Just speaking of the tyranny of the majority. By the way, which of the Federalist Papers speaks to that issue? Also, I've had a few incredible doozies of group projects.

 

I am glad to hear someone else say this. I am highly encouraged if not required to implement some group work into my online classes. I just don't think this type of "group work" is anything like most work situations so forcing my students through it is not the right thing to do in my opinion. I do like giving students the opportunity to have online discussions and with specific direction and guidance, students do learn a lot from each other but when I was in school myself, and when I watched my own high achievers in school, we hated the fact that we "did all the work" as the way to assure we would get an A on the assignment. The situation mentioned by you, Little Fauss, is even worse; the team takes over and won't even let you get the A that I am sure you deserve!

 

That's a good point. I wish in my particular case there'd been a boss to whom I could've complained. It's not quite the same as complaining to the professor before the project is completed and posted; I think it would've made me look like a juvenile loser (though I did state my case once it was all over, perhaps in retrospect I should've done so sooner and risked looking like a whiner, it might have saved the project).

 

I really do not care for group projects or group work either. This semester we had those in the group that did not participate at all, but the instructor gave those students zeros, which I think was suprising to some. Anyway, hopefully it will not drag your grade down.

William

 

Yeah I have a similar problem at GCU. So I learned to email the professor to alert them to the fact that if the groups is unresponsive, I am doing the project on my own. I think the grades for the non-participants reflect such behavior.

 

Update:

I received word from the prof in response to my email that I was going to be graded on the basis of my contribution. Evidently, the prof looked through our intragroup discussion forum and saw that I'd persistenly warned them for a period of about five days that they were making a big mistake, but that my warnings had gone unheeded. The prof also stated that the slides I'd contributed that were cut out before final posting were right on and would've benefitted the project. I feel vindicated and much better, this is an eminently fair way to deal with it: to grade the project for me as if it had included my slides.

By the way, this is one of the best profs I've ever had in my life, online or in person. The work load that this prof takes on is extraordinary; it's very apparent that the prof goes over every single contribution on the forums (thousands all together) and really spends time analyzing your HW. This prof spends a LOT more time on this class than I spend on the class I teach!

 

The hagiographical writings of Douglas Southall Freeman and his school notwithstanding, Bobby Lee is hardly an example of a great general hampered only by weakling subordinates. In order to be a truly great commander, you need to be able to compare the theory you were taught at West Point with the situation as it is now. Lee fails on two points.

The West Point theory taught to Bobby Lee emphasized the superiority of the offensive over the defensive and that was true when Lee graduated West Point in 1829 and it was even true when Lee and many other future Civil War generals were junior officers in the Mexican War. However ...

Changes in weaponry call for changes in tactics. The firearms available to the U. S. Army during the Mexican War differed little from those available in the Revolutionary War. There is a reason why George Washington told his men not to shoot until you can see the whites of their eyes. It is because the smoothbore muskets of the time were so horribly inaccurate that at any distance beyond the ability to see the whites of their eyes you could shoot all day and not hit a thing. Hence, the superiority of the offensive at the time.

Enter, however, the rifled musket. For those of you not knowledgeable in matters of military technology, a rifle is a groove in a gunbarrel that puts a spin on the bullet, which spin causes said bullet to travel farther and remain accurate longer. Hence, the change in military technology meant that by the time of the Civil War offensive tactics required a 3 to 1 manpower superiority over the defender.

Also, notwithstanding the example of his step-great-grandfather-in-law George Washington, Robert Edward Lee failed to notice that the Confederacy did not need to engage in offensive tactics at all. Lee could have lost every battle and still won the war had he only the good sense to run, run, run away and live to fight another day. And continuing to do so long enough to convince Bluebelly to go home. Instead he continued to waste men on the offensive and thereby bled the Confederacy dry.

 

The hagiographical writings of Douglas Southall Freeman and his school notwithstanding, Bobby Lee is hardly an example of a great general hampered only by weakling subordinates. In order to be a truly great commander, you need to be able to compare the theory you were taught at West Point with the situation as it is now. Lee fails on two points.

The West Point theory taught to Bobby Lee emphasized the superiority of the offensive over the defensive and that was true when Lee graduated West Point in 1829 and it was even true when Lee and many other future Civil War generals were junior officers in the Mexican War. However ...

Changes in weaponry call for changes in tactics. The firearms available to the U. S. Army during the Mexican War differed little from those available in the Revolutionary War. There is a reason why George Washington told his men not to shoot until you can see the whites of their eyes. It is because the smoothbore muskets of the time were so horribly inaccurate that at any distance beyond the ability to see the whites of their eyes you could shoot all day and not hit a thing. Hence, the superiority of the offensive at the time.

Enter, however, the rifled musket. For those of you not knowledgeable in matters of military technology, a rifle is a groove in a gunbarrel that puts a spin on the bullet, which spin causes said bullet to travel farther and remain accurate longer. Hence, the change in military technology meant that by the time of the Civil War offensive tactics required a 3 to 1 manpower superiority over the defender.

Also, notwithstanding the example of his step-great-grandfather-in-law George Washington, Robert Edward Lee failed to notice that the Confederacy did not need to engage in offensive tactics at all. Lee could have lost every battle and still won the war had he only the good sense to run, run, run away and live to fight another day. And continuing to do so long enough to convince Bluebelly to go home. Instead he continued to waste men on the offensive and thereby bled the Confederacy dry.

 

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge here. So Picket's Charge could've been called "Picket's Charge as Directed by Lee"? Anyway, interesting stuff. Too bad for Lee--but not for the slaves and the rest of us--that he didn't learn from his step-great grandfather. You're quite right about Geo Washington, I know a little something about his life and military strategies, and that's essentially how he won the Revolutionary War, by letting the Brits chase him all over the eastern U.S., picking off a few red coats and Hessians as he ran. Of course, the arrival of the French Fleet with boat fulls of fresh soldiers didn't exactly hurt, either.

 

If you're looking for evidence of intelligent life amongst military commanders, the Pickett-Pettigrew Charge-Longstreet Assault as Ordered by Lee compares only to the Charge of the Light Brigade or the Battle of Gallipoli.

I wasn't necessarily passing judgement on slavery (which, by the way, I think is a bad thing), but what I am saying is that if Lee had seriously wanted to win he could have either (a) pursued a defensive strategy as the commander of the Southern armies or else (b) he could have taken command of the Northern armies when same was offered him by Winfield Scott and then he would have had the manpower superiority to pursue his beloved offensive.

 

What great timing for this post.....

Today was the first day of class for the summer semester. The professor hands out the syllabus and says..."100% of the course grade will be based on completion of a group project ......"

A feeling of dread started to come over me....

 

Well, when you meet your group, size them up and, if need be, sieze power as group leader. On the other hand, maybe yours won't be so bad as some of the nightmare groups from sheol/hades/gehenna that we've heard about on this board.