Fixed, Systematically Formed versus Continuously Changing Random Team Assignments and Outcomes in a Therapeutics Course

Objective: This study examined the association between fixed and randomly changing teams on workshop preparation and learning outcomes. Methods: In this crossover study, third-year therapeutics course students were randomized to complete workshops 1 to 4 in either fixed, systematically developed teams or teams randomly assigned before each session. They then crossed over for workshops 5 to 8. Students provided information on their grade point average, work experience, and leadership tendencies and completed an abbreviated version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. After each workshop, students completed a quiz, reported the time spent preparing, and rated their perceived preparedness of themselves and their peers using a Likert scale from 1 (not at all prepared) to 5 (very well prepared). At the end of the semester, students reported their team formation preferences. Parametric data were compared using paired t tests, while nonparametric data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results: Of the 66 students who participated in the study, 49 (74.2%) preferred working in fixed teams over random teams, and 44 (66.7%) perceived fixed teams as the most effective for their learning. There was no significant difference in mean postworkshop quiz scores (78.7% fixed vs 77.4% random), mean exam scores (77.9% vs 77.6%), or median time spent preparing for a workshop (91.3 vs 95.6 min). Students perceived themselves as more prepared when working in fixed teams, but there was no difference in their perception of peer preparedness. Conclusion: Although students preferred and felt more prepared in fixed teams, there was no difference in learning outcomes or preparation time between the 2 team formation methods.