Group projects are often used in the management classroom for assignments such as simulations, presentations, service-learning projects, or research projects. Faculty often rely on student-selected teams or randomly assigned teams, both of which have pros and cons. In some cases, faculty may wish to assign teams based on specific criteria (student availability to meet, prior relevant experience, letting students choose teammates to request/avoid, etc.), but extensive administrative work is often necessary. This article introduces gruepr, a program developed to streamline the assignment of ideal teams based on instructor-selected criteria. Gruepr allows instructors to assign intentional teams with the course goals in mind, with little training required. This article describes potential uses of gruepr, considerations when employing gruepr, and how gruepr compares with other team assignment programs currently available.
AgyareB.MatsumotoA.PatelM.RanadeG. (2023, October18–21). Student feedback on opt-in, inclusive, course-integrated study groups [Conference presentation]. 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), College Station, TX, United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343384
2.
BellS. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
3.
BellS. T.BrownS. G.ColaneriA.OutlandN. (2018). Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork. American Psychologist, 73(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000305
4.
DonelanH.KearK. (2024). Online group projects in higher education: Persistent challenges and implications for practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 36(2), 435–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09360-7
5.
DonovanD. A.ConnellG. L.GrunspanD. Z. (2018). Student learning outcomes and attitudes using three methods of group formation in a nonmajors biology class. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), ar60. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0283
6.
FarlandM. Z.FengX.Behar-HorensteinL. S.BeckD. E. (2019). Impact of team formation method on student team performance across multiple courses incorporating team-based learning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(6), 1220–1225. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7030
7.
GaviolaM. L.AtandaA.HowardM. L.YuetW. C. (2019). A systematic approach to team creation and peer evaluation in a large classroom setting. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 11(12), 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2019.09.008
8.
GoldbergL. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In MervieldeI.DearyI.De FruytF.OstendorfF. (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. Tilburg University Press.
9.
HertzJ. L. (2021). Gruepr, a software tool for optimally partitioning students onto teams. Computers in Education Journal, 12(2), 1–16.
10.
HumphreyS. E.HollenbeckJ. R.MeyerC. J.IlgenD. R. (2011). Personality configurations in self-managed teams: A natural experiment on the effects of maximizing and minimizing variance in traits. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(7), 1701–1732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00778.x
11.
JudgeT. A.RodellJ. B.KlingerR. L.SimonL. S.CrawfordE. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 875–925. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0033901
12.
KarimiA.ManteufelR. D. (2020). Student study group and design team formation based on academic performance metrics. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(15), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i15.3943
13.
MyaskovskyL.UnikelE.DewM. A. (2005). Effects of gender diversity on performance and interpersonal behavior in small work groups. Sex Roles, 52, 645–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3732-8
PostM. L.BarrettA.WilliamsM.ScharffL. (2020). Impact of team formation method on student performance, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 20(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v20i1.24128
16.
PringleT. A.RobinsonM. D. (2024). The diversity advantage: An explanatory framework for personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 38(6), 867–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241228327
17.
RobersonQ. M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015243
18.
RusticusS. A.JustusB. J. (2019). Comparing student-and teacher-formed teams on group dynamics, satisfaction, and performance. Small Group Research, 50(4), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419854520
19.
TumpaR. J.SkaikS.HamM.ChaudhryG. (2022). A holistic overview of studies to improve group-based assessments in higher education: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 14(15), 9638. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159638
20.
WallrichL.OparaV.WesołowskaM.BarnothD.YousefiS. (2024). The relationship between team diversity and team performance: Reconciling promise and reality through a comprehensive meta-analysis registered report. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39(6), 1303–1354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09977-0
21.
WatkinsM. B.SimmonsA.UmphressE. (2019). It’s not black and white: Toward a contingency perspective on the consequences of being a token. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(3), 334–365. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0154
