Team Decision-Making with Individual → Discussion → Consensus Phases
Environmental Science - Climate Adaptation Policy
Scenario: Coastal City Climate Adaptation Planning
A coastal city with a population of 500,000 is developing climate adaptation policies for expected 2050 conditions.
Climate projections indicate 1.5°C warming and 0.5m sea level rise. The city has 25km of coastline,
critical infrastructure including a port and airport, low-lying residential areas, and limited budget
($500 million over 10 years). Your team of 3 environmental policy students must identify the MOST
appropriate adaptation strategies to prioritize.
Which adaptation strategies should the city prioritize? (Select ALL that apply)
1
Individual Selection Phase
3 minutes
Each team member independently selects options without consulting others. This phase captures
individual understanding before collaboration influences decisions.
Student 1 - Maya (Engineering focus)
Selected: A (Coastal infrastructure reinforcement), B (Relocate city inland),
D (Update building codes), F (Managed retreat)
Student 2 - James (Environmental science focus)
Selected: A (Coastal infrastructure), C (Green infrastructure),
D (Building codes), E (Early warning systems)
Student 3 - Aisha (Policy focus)
Selected: B (Relocate city), D (Building codes),
E (Early warning), F (Managed retreat)
A.
Coastal infrastructure reinforcement and sea walls
B.
Relocate entire city inland (unrealistic for large city)
C.
Green infrastructure for stormwater management (rain gardens, wetlands)
D.
Update building codes for flood resilience
E.
Early warning systems for extreme weather events
F.
Managed retreat for most vulnerable low-lying areas
G.
Air conditioning subsidies only (incomplete strategy)
H.
Ban all coastal development immediately (too extreme)
2
Discussion Phase
5 minutes
Team members discuss their selections. The system displays areas of disagreement and tracks
the quality of argumentation. AI analyzes discussion for evidence-based reasoning, respectful
disagreement, and willingness to change positions based on evidence.
Areas of Disagreement:
Option B (Relocate city): 2 selected, 1 did not
Option C (Green infrastructure): 1 selected, 2 did not
Option F (Managed retreat): 2 selected, 1 did not
Team Discussion Transcript
Maya:
I selected B (relocate city) but I'm reconsidering. For a city of 500,000 people,
complete relocation is economically and socially unrealistic. We only have $500M budget.
That wouldn't even cover 1% of relocation costs.
Aisha:
I agree. I also selected B initially, but Maya's budget analysis is convincing.
We should focus on F (managed retreat) for MOST vulnerable areas only, not the whole city.
That's more realistic.
James:
Good point. I didn't select F, but you've convinced me that targeted retreat is necessary
for safety. I did select C (green infrastructure) - it's cost-effective and provides
co-benefits like biodiversity and recreation. Nature-based solutions are proven effective.
Maya:
You're right, James. Green infrastructure should be included. The IPCC reports show
nature-based solutions are 50% cheaper than gray infrastructure for flood management.
I'm adding C to my selections.
Aisha:
Consensus emerging: We all agree on A, C, D, E, F. Let's drop B - full relocation
is unrealistic. Final answer: A, C, D, E, F.
AI Collaboration Quality Analysis (Real-time):
Evidence-based arguments5/5 pts
Respectful disagreement3/3 pts
Willingness to change mind4/4 pts
Equal participation3/3 pts
Explanation quality4/5 pts
Collaboration Quality Score19/20 pts (95%)
3
Consensus Phase
2 minutes
Team submits final consensus answer. This can be achieved through simple majority or unanimous
agreement depending on instructor settings.
Team Consensus Answer
A, C, D, E, F
(5 out of 8 options selected)
Correct Answer:
A (Coastal infrastructure), C (Green infrastructure), D (Building codes),
E (Early warning), F (Managed retreat)
Team Result: 5/5 correct = 100%
Scoring Breakdown (3 Components)
Component 1: Individual Score (30%)
Maya: Selected A, B, D, F = 3/5 correct (A, D, F) = 60% James: Selected A, C, D, E = 4/5 correct = 80% Aisha: Selected B, D, E, F = 3/5 correct (D, E, F) = 60%
Component 2: Group Consensus Score (50%)
Team final answer: A, C, D, E, F = 5/5 correct = 100%
Component 3: Collaboration Quality (20%)
AI-assessed discussion quality = 19/20 pts = 95%
Team demonstrated excellent evidence-based reasoning, respectful discourse,
and willingness to change positions based on data.
Engagement: Social interaction increases motivation and retention
Key Implementation Notes
Team Size: 2-5 students optimal (3-4 ideal for balanced discussion) Time Allocation: Individual (3min) + Discussion (5min) + Consensus (2min) = 10min total AI Role: Analyzes discussion transcript for quality metrics (no human grading needed) Conflict Resolution: Simple majority OR unanimous (instructor choice) Anti-cheating: Individual phase uses separate views (no screen sharing) Accessibility: Text chat + voice options, transcript provided for review
Psychometric Properties
Reliability: Higher than individual SATA (group stabilization effect) Validity: Assesses 21st century skills (teamwork) + domain knowledge IRT Model: Group IRT with nested structure (individual within team) Comparison: Individual scores show knowledge, delta with group shows collaboration skill Bonus Insight: Students who improve from individual to group show good learning agility