Pauline Hunt and Liz Beaty

The impact of knowledge about aspects of personal learning style on team effectiveness.

Pauline Hunt and Liz Beaty

Reproduced with permission from Gibbs, G. (ed.) Improving Student Learning - Through Assessment and Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development (1995)

Introduction.

There are a great many different descriptions of individual learning styles, (Mumford, 1986) and individual style of working within groups ( Belbin, 1981). These descriptions are seen primarily as traits of the individual where their particular style will influence their approach to group tasks. Other descriptions refer more to an intentional aspect of study such as Orientation (Beaty, 1983) which is more context-dependent and implies some control by the learner. These differences are also shown to influence the outcome of learning.

This study is concerned with how awareness of these learning constructs impact on teamwork. Firstly, we wanted to test whether an awareness of learning constructs improved teamworking. Secondly, we were interested to discover how far raising students awareness of their own orientations and styles, as identified by inventories etc., would influence their learning about teamwork. Thirdly, we wondered which constructs about learning would be most useful to students in understanding teamwork.

The aim of the case study was therefore twofold; to identify how to create favourable conditions for effective working teams and concurrently to identify the impact of raising awareness of learning constructs on learning about teamworking.

Research Approach

Improving student learning in groups is a complex task and one that does not sit easily with the intention to advance our knowledge about how students learn. Advances in knowledge about how students learn must take account of complex contextual issues. Theoretical descriptions of styles of learning do not in themselves imply a use. How does a teacher use a knowledge of learning differences to enable students to learn most effectively? Should we test for learning styles and then offer carefully tailored teaching events to match? Should we only take students who have similar learning styles and approaches to our own or our preferred ones? Should we offer so much choice in our teaching and learning environment so that students can opt for that which is consistent with their style? This last suggestion is getting closer to our position and yet it assumes students are able to make appropriate choices and that we have the resources to make it available.

Raising student's awareness is, in our view, fundamental to enhanced learning. When students are aware of their own tendencies and their preferred approaches; when they are clear about their needs and wishes for learning, they are likely to make better strategic choices within the opportunities that are offered to them (Boud, 1988).

In relation to teamwork, awareness of different styles may be important in learning about how teams work. In addition, learning about their own individual learning through these constructs may enhance their learning about how they individually work within teams. Reflection is an important part of learning from experience (Boud, et al., 1985; Warner Weil and McGill, 1989) and awareness is key to this reflection. In addition to awareness raising through reflection on what happened is an awareness based on ideas. This conceptual awareness, we argue, enhances effective reflection leading to learning: we need to reflect on what happened and then be able to thematize what happened with the aid of concepts and models. It is possible for concepts and models of learning to be generated by the group, generalizing from their own learning experience. We believe, however, that conceptual frameworks already existing in the literature are useful as catalysts for effective learning.

We have taken an approach to the case study which could be seen as action research. This approach to educational research has been recommended by Gibbs (1992) and Zuber-Skerritt (1992) as a way of improving teaching while generating knowledge about how students learn. As such it is an approach consistent with our needs to focus primarily on these particular students and their learning while learning from it to enhance and improve our future teaching. The results remain tentative rather than clearly conclusive. This report aims at a rich description which allows understanding of the complex situation. Teachers may learn from it in so far as they can empathize with it. Researchers may learn from it as far as it provides a case study of use of concepts within a particular setting. As usual with research this report will raise more questions than it answers.

Background to the Study

In the construction industry many activities are carried out in project teams. Hence, the MSc course in Construction Management, run at the University of Brighton, actively encourages student group learning and team development.

This chapter examines a group of 16 part-time MSc Construction Management students who currently work full time for the same large construction company. They were commencing their first year of study, on a two-year course. In the first two months of the course they attended two five-day residentials, at a local hotel. The first residential was an introduction to study skills and personal development, and their second was concerned with people management. The case study was carried out by one of us (Pauline Hunt) who is a member of the MSc staff course team.

The aim of this part of the course was to create favourable conditions for effective learning teams, so that they would accomplish far more than the sum of the efforts of individuals. I believed that considerable educational benefit could be derived by deliberately making students aware of their own Belbin preferred team roles, and their Kolb preferred approaches to learning and their Orientation to study. I expected that the students heightened awareness of themselves and others would lead to more effective support of one another and create more efficient team process working.

The First Residential

During the first residential I welcomed the students onto the course and ran an informal workshop on student learning expectations. This workshop gave the students an opportunity to discuss with one another the reasons why they had chosen to study for the MSc in Construction Management, and the various hopes they had concerning what they each wanted to get out of the course. During this workshop Beaty's orientation typology (1983) was completed by each student. The results of this typology were not made known to the students at this stage.

During a later seminar session with the students I discussed the various approaches to learning that students could adopt. I asked them to complete a Kolb's learning style inventory (1984). After they had completed the inventory we discussed their results and what implications these may have on their approaches to learning and studying. The students seemed to enjoy discovering what their preferred learning style was and comparing it to their colleagues. It emerged that some of the participants had completed a Kolb's inventory before, on an in-house course, but on that occasion they had not been informed about what each style meant! They had merely been given the label without any discussion about the significance. Those participants were particularly interested to see any shifts in their learning style.

A training manager from the company joined the course team on the third day of the residential. He was writing a PhD on 'Effective Teams in the Construction Industry', and was therefore very keen to lead a seminar and workshop on team-building skills. He encouraged the students to participate in brainstorming sessions to discover what they thought a group and a team was. They were then asked to discuss the differences between groups and teams, and to debate, with reference to their own work experience, what they considered was an effective team. This session worked well, as these students really appreciated the opportunity to participate fully, and in some ways 'drive' the workshop session.

After lunch, we shared the seminar session, which aimed to develop the students' awareness of themselves as team players and also to develop their awareness of others within the team. The seminar focused on team processes and development. After these discussions, students were asked to complete Belbin's self- awareness inventory (1981) to discover their preferred team roles.

The students spent some time analysing the results of their own Belbin preferred team role. Some students seemed to take on board their type description wholeheartedly, others seemed to doubt the reliability of the inventory, and a few seemed disappointed, and would rather have been identified as another type. An example of this was where one student was classified as a Teamworker, but really she wanted to be a Chair, this desired type was her lowest score! This is an interesting phenomenon. It suggests another dimension along which learners can be affected by a raised awareness of concepts about learning.

The students were then asked to arrange themselves into three groups for a fairly simple negotiation exercise. Interestingly, they choose to group themselves according to their Belbin types. Despite a few cynics, the students in general seemed to accept that teams with a balanced diversity of Belbin types would be more effective.

The First Team Exercise

A fairly straightforward negotiation exercise was distributed to the three student groups. Each group ws instructed to have an observer to record the team's process of working on this exercise. they were given one hour and a half to work together, before the full class re-assembled to hear the individual groups comment on their progress, and their observers comments.

The observers' comments on the group processes were quite enlightening. For example, Group 1's observer commented that the whole group was a good mix of people with no one dominant personality. He stressed that everyone chipped in and that they were all very conscious of process and behaviour. The group members commented that the Belbin types were useful for discussion, to get to know team members' strengths and weaknesses. This information was used actively in the negotiation exercise, when one opposing team member address a group one member and said 'What's your offer?' This question was posed very early on in the negotiation exercise, and when the group discovered that the questioner was a Shaper, the group then decided to take a recess and discuss 'What's really the question?'

Group 2's observer commented that the group deliberately considered who was best suited for the negotiation roles. They decided that the Chair should adopt a listener, questioner, non-aggressive role, and the rest of the team should be more aggressive. The team members thought that it was a useful exercise to look at styles, because they then had the benefit of choosing the right person for the lead and for summarizing and for closing the deal at each stage fo the negotiation process.

They concluded that knowing your own role is important - but knowing who you are negotiating with is even more important: if you know your adversary you can match the the best person to meet and negotiate with them. They observed that it is best to select a team member who could respond to the weaknesses of the style of management over the table. For example, 'If you were facing an aggressive shaper, you need to use someone good listening skills, who is patient and will not short fuse and throw petrol over the situation, but at the same time, still stand their ground' (Group 2 team member).

Group 3's observer remarked on the importance of knowing the person you are working with, and suggested that if the relationship was already good it makes all the difference. The team expressed the view that high performing teams do not happen overnight - Belbin and self-awareness more generally can speed up the learning stage, but high-performing teams need maturity.

This last sentiment is interesting, because as well as improving thinking and learning skills, the course team believed that deliberately making students aware of aspects of their learning, and in particular their Belbin preferred team role would increase the effectiveness of team development. If we consider the development of the team process as being composed of the stages of: forming, storming, norming and performing, we believed that the teams may be facilitated into the norming stage almost immediately. This has the effect of reducing the sometimes painful storming phase, and shortens the time necessary to get the teams to perform effectively.

In general all the teams reported that the tangible result, i.e. the deal the reached with each other in the final negotiation stage, had been an acceptable one, and the exercise was seen to have been a useful learning experience.

The Second Team Exercise

In the second residential concerning people management, the course team wanted to develop further effective student team working. A rather complex strategic management brief, relating to a large construction company, was distributed to the same three team groupings of students. The students were asked to work together, in their separate teams, during set working periods over three days. Their task was to put together a convincing verbal presentation, to the company's Board of Directors. This presentation was to cover the devising of an appropriate strategic plan for the Directors to consider. All three groups were given identical briefs, and asked not just to concentrate on the project tasks, demanded of the groups, but also to pay attention to the process of team working.

As well as working on the project brief, students were expected to attend some complementary workshops on management theory and team building. During this time they were reminded of their Belbin's preferred team roles, and Kolb's preferred styles of learning. I also asked them all to complete another Beaty's orientation typology. This time I fully discussed what the results of this typology meant, and the students were interested to discover any changes that may have occurred since they last completed the typology, one month previously.

During the time that the three groups were given to work together on their project brief, the course team periodically visited each group. On these facilitating visits, the staff actively encouraged each group to develop their process aims, as distinct from satisfying the brief's content aims. It was noticeable that there was a developing of diverse relationships within every group. Students in all groups tended to be choosing what they wanted out of the learning experience. Some groups were voluntarily putting in a 16-hour working day, often working until after midnight to prepare for the next day.

When asked for assistance by individual groups, I acted as a facilitator, questioning and reflecting back what I observed or heard. I later thought that the students would benefit from actually seeing themselves working together in groups. Following discussions with the students, it was agreed that each group would be videotaped for approximately two hours while working on the brief, and all three final presentations would also be videotaped.

From watching the videotapes and observing groups in action, I could detect that there were critical incidents within each of the groups, which, although they were completely different, seemed to help move the group to the performing stage of their development. For example, Group 1 successfully managed a very aggressive situation, involving two individuals of different workplace rank. Essentially, an aggrieved middle manager was criticizing a senior manager for completely monopolizing the group discussions. This situation was highly emotional, but managed fairly successfully by the group. The group members persuaded the two not to come to physical blows. A lengthy discussion then followed which increased self-awareness and identified new choices of behaviour for the group members concerned. This resolution of conflict meant that the group was moved on to the performing stage.

In this critical event, other individuals within the group took responsibility for helping those two dissenting members to adapt in order to successfully execute the set task, i.e. the management project. Despite obvious difficulties the aggrieved member and the senior manager began to attempt to see the situation through each other's eyes, in order to resolve issues and reach a new understanding. A wonderful throwaway line came from one of the members in the group: 'Goodness John, I did not know you were such an Activist.' This incident did, however, enable the group to undertake the project successfully, and incidentally score the highest mark!

The Debrief

A couple of weeks passed before I was able to give students a debriefing session. This was held at the very beginning of their third residential concerning procurement procedures. My input was to provide feedback from my observations of the videotapes taken of each group working together and giving their presentations.

I made it clear from the outset that my own view of what was happening was just that, an interpretation. I informed the students that I was also interested in their own individual perceptions of what it was like working together in a group. In particular, I was interested in whether they believed that my deliberately increasing their awareness of their Belbin team roles, Kolb's preferred learning styles and Beaty's orientation types, had influenced the way they worked together on the management brief.

Following my very general feedback, I asked the group members to complete individually a detailed questionnaire (see Appendix 2). This questionnaire asked students to comment upon the degree of impact/influence they thought their awareness of each individual learning construct had over their group process.

The groups seemed energized by my feedback and were keen to complete the questionnaire, which formed the basis for subsequent discussions. The responses to the questionnaire questions were very diverse. For example, a member from Group 3 commenting on his awareness of his learning style, stated:

'I do not think I have worked as I should have done, mainly because I had trouble motivating myself during the session. I believe that later on my style was reflected.'

This answer clearly demonstrates the importance of other influences on the learning process, notably lack of motivation. On the other hand, in the same group an individual comments, 'I am a theorist and made a point of studying the text we had to work with - I knew I had to be the role of reader.'

The subsequent discussion with Group 3 revealed far more about the group process. It reinforced my impression that the learning process is also shaped by an array of emotional processes, including anger, frustration, impatience, confusion, anxiety and occasional satisfaction!

One individual from Group 3 actively took advantage of the debrief session, to speak about his discomfort with the relationship he had with the other individuals in this group. He was very aggressive towards the group members, suggesting that he was made to feel isolated because he was the only 'personal intrinsic' member in the group. In his opinion the other group members orientation - all being 'vocationally extrinsic' - was the major reason why he was prevented from being able to make a successful contribution to the group process. His general remark on his questionnaire read: 'You have observed aggression in the debrief as I have particularly tried to illustrate it.'

The individuals he was criticizing responded to his attack and were clearly quite upset that they had ignored his frustration and annoyance with them throughout the management exercise. They all expressed regret at not listening or paying attention to his contributions, and felt that they had probably all missed out as a group for not doing so. One of these members added that it was only now, at this debrief, that he felt 'real learning' had taken place. The aggrieved member later privately requested to the course team, never to be placed in this grouping again. He added that he felt more at peace following the debrief, and stated that he felt that this was his most powerful learning experience on the course so far.

However, I am clear that some individuals did leave the debrief session with some unresolved issues. For example, in Group 1, a member stated that the debrief session 'made me realise I can be pushy and susceptible to criticism, I did not like it. I always thought I was easy-going, which I suppose I am not. Does that mean I am an actor?'

More positively, a contradiction for another member in Group 1 was resolved. Here the group member was wrongly informed by another (on video!), 'You should be acting like a Plant!' When his Belbin type was actually a Shaper/Chair! This contradiction was evident by his responses on his questionnaire, for example 'I tried to behave as a "Plant" but found it very difficult to restrain myself from being more assertive in my contribution', and again he wrote, 'As a Plant - I think I was restrained forcibly.'

His confusion was lifted when I explained the misunderstanding, and he was able to justify his feelings of frustration and conflict.

In Group 2, there was general dissatisfaction that the group did not score high marks on the presentation. It was revealed by the group members that they had been acting to safeguard members in their group from failing the residential assessment. The situation was that there were three members of that group that had not delivered presentations successfully, and needed to do so if they were to be allowed to remain on the course. As one member responded on his questionnaire, 'all our self-awareness concerning team roles and learning styles went out of the window . . . the over-riding factor was of ensuring three team members were helped to make presentations', and another statement from another group member stated that - for the betterment of the team - 'I decided to withdraw and let others (the three concerned) take on tasks that they did not usually get on with.'

When the assessment evaluation placed this team in second place, they felt cheated. Group 2 felt that they should have been the 'favourites' to score the highest marks on the presentation. They had the most senior manager in their group, and had regularly worked until after midnight on their project. It seemed fairly clear that following this debrief they would modify their behaviour in another team setting. However, working through their frustrations, resolved many issues for the members, particularly the guilt felt by the three presenters who felt they owed their 'stay on the course' due to the sacrifice of the other group member's overall marks. A couple of group members stated that this debrief session had made the sacrifice worthwhile, and on reflection felt that they had gained the most insights into their group processes at this debriefing session. The three presenters offered to buy me a drink!

Discussion

The major observation is that students appear to be able to learn from reviewing and reflecting on their own experiences, particularly through the relative safety of a debriefing session. The MSc students were invited to reflect on their team working experience, prompted by my evaluation of the team work recorded on video. This session encouraged discussion and the completion of a questionnaire, where groups relived parts of their experience in a private supportive environment.

Most students seemed fairly at ease, giving and receiving feedback in an informal discussion setting. It was here where all of them felt they had benefited the most from the group exercises. It was recognized that just to experience team working was not enough, the students were so deeply involved in the experience itself that they were unable to step back and reflect upon what they were doing. The debriefing session gave them the opportunity to do just that. It addressed the fundamental questions of - what happened? How did you feel? How important was your awareness of your learning style etc. In particular the discussion revolved around the 'there and then' and I feel seemed far less risky to the students than would have been the case, if the discussion was focused on the 'here and now'.

The debriefing session seemed more powerful because I was reflecting back from a position of involvement, I felt part of the discovery process. I was not commenting from a position of detachment, or speaking with 'expert judgement'. It seemed very important to allow time for students to be able to integrate their learning experiences. The feedback I was offering was in the service of the learner, each student felt able to accept or reject the information, and this became the basis for subsequent discussion, which was felt to be fruitful for all concerned.

However, within the feedback session, it became apparent that individual group members had differing perceptions of events, particularly over causes of conflict and progress within the group working experience. It is worth remembering that facilitator and student accounts of what happened are only perceptions of reality, and these have obviously strong subjective dimensions.

Many students were unsure about whether my deliberate attempts to increase their awareness of different aspects of their learning, actually influenced their behaviour or group process, although most stated that the preferred Belbin team role was the most important influence on their group role/behaviour. However, by discussing the outcomes of process, the awareness of different aspects of their learning actually served to engage the students in the process of analysing and evaluating their individual and group learning processes. Many claimed to be thinking about how they learn, in the debriefing session, for the first time in their lives!! My role was therefore transformed into helping students make sense out of their learning experiences.

This case study proved to be a process of experiential learning for me as well as for the students. My interaction with the students was fairly intensive and most felt that the powerful learning experience of the debrief occurred because of the interactions between group members and myself. The students commented that during the debrief, they were able to make more sense of the differences in individual perceptions concerning group processes, among group members. The students stated that they felt they had all realized a common understanding of the learning process, and this was the main source of satisfaction for them all.

Conclusion.

It is inappropriate to suggest prescriptive generalizations from a specific case study experience. However, we feel able to offer a set of suggestions for how to improve student learning awareness about process. They are:

1. It is important to use the constructs in forming groups. It would not be sufficient just to inform participants of the information, they need to be able to see it in action. This is probably why most students reported that the Belbin preferred team role had the most influence on their behaviour.
2. It is advisable to use a rich array of learning constructs, as this gives more self- awareness and peer awareness than just using one at a time. The study shows how individuals chose to focus on one construct rather than another, and this may change over time. Facilitators should impart information in the service of learners, it is then up to them whether they believe, or use it. An array of constructs provides the information that can enhance the learning experience.
3. Feedback from facilitators, and observers in groups, during the group work tasks, seems to be very important. This needs to be given sufficient time slots in the course programme for students. It can become the focus for discussion, and may serve to legitimise group participants own observations in a relatively 'safe environment'. In this case study it promoted healthy debate and discussion among students.
4. An appropriately timed debrief session is an essential learning experience for all participants. It is important for a debrief session to be divorced from the task. It is also useful to debrief students after any assessment has taken place.

Once an assessment has taken place (in this case the residential assessment had already been completed, some two weeks earlier) participants are able to speak more freely, as they feel they have less to lose. Also, by allowing some time to pass before the debrief session, it seems safer for the participants to discuss the 'there and then', and how they may do things differently in the 'here and now'! It also serves to heighten the students' critical awareness and judgement.

The fundamental conclusion about the debrief session is that this session gives the students the opportunity to reflect, discuss and write about their learning experience and, arguably, this is where real learning occurs. Students are able to relive the experience and form their own individual and group understanding that is personal and relevant.

Suggestions 3 and 4 really hinge on the ability of the facilitator to identify and develop the necessary interventions to help individuals learn and change. Facilitators need to have the necessary temperament and intuition to apply feedback and debriefing sessions successfully, and at appropriate times. These sessions may generate controversy, and/or uncertainty, so it is essential that the facilitator plans carefully the nature and frequency of interventions in the learning process.

Research Conclusions

The case study was carried out with the aim of deliberately increasing the awareness of aspects of student learning. The question underlying the case study was asking which aspect would be more useful for the students to learn and understand about group processes. This case study has demonstrated that this is the wrong question to ask. It is not so much the information you make available to the student to increase their awareness, but what they choose to use. Individuals differ as to what they find useful. It is the reflection time and the debrief where many students realize, sometimes for the first time, that they have gained significantly out of being aware of their individual learning constructs and participating in the group exercises. This is because they are using their learning processes as the focus of reflection and critical debate. This is the point at which the students move beyond reflection on what happened to reflection about what it signified; a thematic learning outcome. This could be seen as a 'deep approach' to reflection in Marton and Saljo's terms (1984).

Important research questions are raised by this case study, which merit further investigation. For example, arising from the use of the learning constructs: what is the importance of student acceptance, rejection (or disappointment) of the categories in which they find themselves? In essence, does it matter whether the results of the instruments are accurate? A further concern may be whether the student by continually reflecting on say, the Belbin team role construct, ends up fulfilling the expectations of this team role? If there is a danger of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy', how can we use the learning constructs to mitigate against this occurrence happening? Finally, how far do already existing conceptual frameworks enhance learning from reflection, more than self-generated ones?

We are left with further questions about the nature of the link between experiential learning, reflection and knowledge about learning. In particular, this case study (in its current stage) cannot answer the question about the longevity or transferability of the students' learning. The students worked very intensively throughout the residentials. Our concern is whether the speed at which their learning takes place lessens its potential lasting effect. In addition, the artificial conditions present in the residential environment raise doubts about whether the students will be able to transfer their learning to their workplace.

It would be interesting to follow the individuals and the group into further activities involving teams to find out more about what they have learnt about teamwork, about themselves as learners and about themselves within teams and how this affects their development of skill within teams. It would also be interesting to examine whether the students feel that they have been able to use their learning in their day-to-day working environment.

References

Beaty, E. (1983). Orientations to Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Surrey.
Belbin, M. (1981). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. Heinemann.
Boud, D. (ed.) (1988). Developing Student Autonomy in Learning. Kogan Page.
Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (eds.) (1985). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. Kogan Page.
Bligh, D. (ed.) (1986). Teach Thinking by Discussion. SRHE and NFER, Nelson.
Clark, N. (1991). Managing Personal Learning and Change. McGraw-Hill.
Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the Quality of Student Learning. TES.
Jacques, D. (1984). Learning in Groups. Croom Helm.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches to Learning. In Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (eds.) The Experience of Learning. Scottish Academic Press.
Morgan, A. (1993). Improving your Students' Learning, Reflections of the Experience of Study. Kogan Page.
Mumford, A. (ed.) (1986). Handbook of Management Development. Gower.
Warner Weil, S. and McGill, I. (ed.) (1989). Making Sense of Experiential Learning; Diversity in Theory and Practice. SRHE and OUP.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action Research in Higher Education - Examples and Reflections. Kogan Page.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

STUDENT ORIENTATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE

Please allocate a TOTAL of 10 points across the Aims displayed in the table below.

STUDENT ORIENTATIONS EXPLANATORY TABLE

This table represents a very simplified version of the categorisation of orientational types which was originally developed from a longitudinal interview study over three years. The most reliable to gain an understanding of a students orientation is, in our view through an in-depth individual interview. In this case however a number of different ideas were being used with students to raise their awareness of aspects of their learning. This version of the description of types of orientations was therefore developed for this particular context.

While orientation types themselves may seem fairly obvious, the distinction between intrinsic interest and extrinsic interest variants of the orientation is crucial. This distinction refers to whether the course content is directly involved in the students gaining what they want from study or not. So that for students who are vocationally orientated some are interested in the content of the course (intrinsic interest) while others mainly interested in the outcome qualification (extrinsic interest). In this latter case their interest in the content is spurious or coincidental. The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic interest therefore greatly affects their wish to engage with the subjects of study and alters the nature of their concerns in giving feedback on their experience of learning.

APPENDIX 2

INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE

Name: ...........................
Learning Style: ........................
Belbin: .......................
Orientation: .......................

Please answer the questions below relating to the Group project experience, try to answer each question as fully as possible:

1. General Introductory Question

Reflecting back on Group xxx group process; what impact/influence do you think the seminars concerning effective groups and teams had upon Group xxx decision- making processes?

2. Learning Style Question

What effect do you think that your awareness of your own learning style affected the way in which YOU worked in the group?

3. Learning Style Question

What effect do you think that your awareness of your own learning style affected the working of the group as a whole?

4. Belbin Group Role Question

Reflecting on the group processes again, what effect do you think that your awareness of your Belbin team type role affected the way YOU worked in the Group?

5. Belbin Group Role Question

What effect do you think that your awareness of your Belbin team type role affected the working of the group as a whole?

6. Student Orientations Question

On reflection, what impact did the knowledge of your own learning orentation have on the way YOU worked in the group?

7. Student Orientation Question

What impact did the knowledge of your own learning orientation affect the working of the group as a whole?

8. Priority Question

Out of the three aspects of learning you are aware of - Learning Style, Belbin Team Type Role and Learning Orientations - which do you think had the most impact on the group process?

9. Evaluation Question

Did these three aspects of learning - Learning Style, Belbin Team Type Role and Learning Orientation - reinforce one another, or were there contradictions?

Was your learning style interfering with the team role prescribed by the Belbin test?

Was your learning orientation at odds with your Belbin team role?

Please write any other comments about your group working experience which you consider to be important.