Introduction
The goal of this study is to explore the differences, if
any, on the perception of team effectiveness in teams of
STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, and
Mathematics) students, considering the moment when
that evaluation is made. Teams are becoming critical in
the way work is organized [
1
] and, consequently,
teamwork skills have become essential in staff [
2
].
Teams were found to be more flexible and responsive to
shifting events than the traditional departmental
configuration, as teams have the capability to rapidly
assemble, deploy, refocus, and disband [
3
].
Nevertheless, massive problems can still be found in
individuals working in teams [
4
].
A team includes two or more individuals, with certain
roles, who perform co-dependent tasks, are flexible, and
share a common goal [
5
]. To function as a collective, a
team needs to have some key attributes like common
perception, shared aims, interdependence, social
organization, interaction, cohesiveness, and
membership [
1, 6
]. Businesses, especially those related
to technology, increasingly rely on teams to enhance
productivity. Therefore, they expect colleges to prepare
graduates to effectively operate in teams [
7, 8, 9
].
Higher Education Institutions (HEI) and employers both
agree that academia plays a major role in improving the
personal proficiency competence cluster [
9
]. There are
reports on the lack of support from the HEI in preparing
their students to build effective teamwork skills
throughout their studies [
2, 9
]. Students agree that
teamwork is a highly desirable skill [
7, 8, 9
]. Personal
proficiency competence cluster includes teamwork, not
only concerning its extensive features, but also
leadership, time management, and the ability to work
effectively with others [
9
].
According to Fransen [
10
], the Team Evolution and
Maturation (TEAM) model is appropriate for application
in the educational context, as it acknowledges that
adhoc learning-teams have to develop by proceeding
through stages. Moreover, it also recognizes the effect
of deadlines on learning team development, the
emergence of a transition phase (i.e. the re-norming
stage), and the influence of past experiences with
teamwork on the pattern of team development [
11
].
The TEAM model offers a framework for discussing the
variables mediating learning-team effectiveness. It
assumes that the impact of these variables may differ
according to the stage of development in the learning
team and may have a specific influence on learning
team evolution and maturation [
11
]. Accordingly, this
paradigm is the theoretical guide of this study.
Learning collaboratively is considered a critical
pedagogical approach [
12
] that arises in so-called
communities of inquiry that facilitate the construction of
personally meaningful and socially valid knowledge [
12
].
This is based on the constructivist paradigm that
students must be involved in the process of knowledge
construction through discussion, debate or argument if
they are to establish deep learning and understanding
[
13
]. Although, some authors report a reluctance in
students to work in teams’ due to negative experiences
in past collaborative team experiences [1, 14). Team
effectiveness includes the quality of the team’s
performance and the perceived satisfaction of individual
team members’ needs [
10
].
Shimazoe and Aldrich [
15
] have found several benefits
of teamwork such as advancement of deep learning,
earning higher grades, campaign of social skills/civic
values, increasing level of thinking skills, encouraging
personal growth, and positive attitudes toward
independent learning. Furthermore, it facilitates active
exchange of thoughts, rises motivation among
participants, and develops a better understanding of
plain cultural backgrounds [
6
]. This might be
remarkably important in economic sectors that are
highly competitive and diverse, like the technology, for
instance. Despite the significant number of benefits,
Davies [
1
] has also shown that some problems that may
arise with teamwork, such as motivational issues, the
ethnic mixes, the complexity of the task, the recognition
of individual effort, the group size, encouragements, and
penalties, or even the free-rider effect.
Most researchers agree that teams must cultivate
shared mental models to set team goals, define
strategies, allocate subtasks to team members, monitor
team processes and effectively communicate [
10, 16
].
Furthermore, to be called teamwork, individuals should
possess specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes, such as
the ability to monitor each other’s performance and a
positive approach toward teamwork [
10, 16
]. This
suggests that the team develops over time, and this
might influence team dynamics and the interaction
among all members. Some scientists argue that
teamwork is influenced by the social skills of its
members [
17
]. Still, there is little consensus about its
effects [
17
]. Teams, especially ad-hoc learning teams,
are often initially ineffective because team members
lack necessary information about each other’s
competencies and do not exhibit mutual trust, having
not experienced each other’s behavior in a team
situation [
18
].
We hypothesize that there is no difference in the perception of the team effectiveness considering the moment when the evaluation takes place.
Method
In this exploratory study, with a Pre- (deployed in week
4) and Post-test (deployed in week 9), a convenience
sample was chosen, comprised of a class of the third
year of the Computer Science bachelor program (CS),
from a University in Southern Europe. The experiment
was done as part of a team project in class, to keep the
subjects as close as possible to the natural context of
team collaboration. Students had ten weeks to work
with the same team and complete a team project, where
they had to design, program, and build a robot that
would perform a specific task.
The Team Collaboration Evaluator (TCE; [
10
]) was
selected to weigh team collaboration. It allows to collect
data about the perceived quality of team collaboration at
various stages and has the potential to be a team tester
to predict the emergence of learning team effectiveness
during early collaboration stages [
10
]. Scores in the
factors Shared Mental Models, Mutual Trust, Mutual
Performance Monitoring, and Perceived Team
Effectiveness (each one with three items) were rated
using a 1 to 10 scale (1=Low/Almost Never True to
10=High/Almost Always True). All the elements
consisted of statements covering aspects of team
collaboration. Internal consistency of this instrument
was high (Cronbach α=.90).
This study involved a total of 59 students enrolled in the
Computer Science program (CS). However, just 49
students replied to the questionnaire, as the remaining
students (n=10) dropped out of the course for reasons
not connected to the experiment. Students were
informed previously about the goals of this experiment
and agreed to take part. Of the 49 respondents, 7 were
female students (14.3%) and 42 males (85.7%).
Findings and Discussion
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to explore the
difference in the students’ perception of their team
collaboration according to the moment it was assessed
(Pre- or Post-test). The subscale shared mental models
showed significant differences [Pre-test: M=7.81,
SD=1.16, Post-test: M=8.54, SD=1.05, t(34)=-3.89,
p=.00, η2=.31]. Previous studies show that shared
mental models facilitate the processes of setting goals,
establishing strategies, monitoring team processes, and
communicating effectively [
1, 16
], leading to stronger
team collaboration scores [
1, 10, 16
]. This goes in line
with the fact that the perceived shared mental models
have grown over the semester. The results in this
subscale confirm that these teams can assemble and
deploy in less than eight weeks, confirming previous
findings [
3
]. CS teams present no significant differences
to research done in other areas.
Findings also show that students changed their
perception over the mutual performance monitoring
[Pre-test: M=7.67, SD=1.44, Post-test: M=8.27,
SD=1.32, t(38)=-3.35, p=.00, η2=.23] and the
perceived team effectiveness [Pre-test: M=8.13,
SD=1.41, Post-test: M=8.68, SD=1.06, t(38)=-2.73,
p=.01, η2=.16]. As participants tend to consider their
teams more effective at the end of the semester, it
might indicate that the students were involved in the
process of knowledge construction [
13
], not confirming
the studies that report a reluctance in students to work
in teams’ due to negative past experiences [
6
]. This
study illustrates that CS students recognize on
themselves the ability to monitor each other’s
performance, confirming previous work in other areas
[
10, 16
]. Considering the results of this study, the
framework of the TEAM model seems to be appropriate
for application also in the teams of CS students, as it
deems the variables mediating learning-team
effectiveness. However, this model still needs further
research, namely its application to interdisciplinary
groups.
The small size of the sample presents a limitation of the
study. Student academic records may also be
considered in future research, so correlations between
past performances and teamwork result can be
conducted. Our research is only a first step towards
understanding team collaboration mechanisms in groups
of CS students. Additional research is necessary to
increase our understanding of the mechanisms through
which teams collaborate, and more specifically the
reciprocal causation of team collaboration with team
performance in teams of STEAM students and
interdisciplinary teams.