Collaborative Learning: Team Size and the Scientific Field as Influencers

Some individuals seem to intuitively collaborate better in teams, and some teams have repetitively superior results. Cooperative work is a growing need in all workplaces, and it has been thoroughly studied. However, literature has not yet clearly identified its predictors, as it does not present consistent results. Some authors report a reluctance in students to collaborate in teams, whereas others describe its huge advantages. This work intends to explore variables that might influence collaborative learning. We hypothesize that the team size and the scientific field of the students might affect team collaboration and team performance. In this study with Pre- and Post-test, team collaboration was measured using the Team Collaboration Evaluator (TCE) and team performance was assessed by the students’ perceived team effectiveness and by the final project grade given by the instructors. Analysis of a sample of 99 students, from both Computer Science and Psychology bachelor programs, indicates that larger teams show lower team collaboration, but higher team performance. Collected data confirm differences in the evolution of the perceived team collaboration, according to the students’ scientific field. Results are discussed considering the Team Collaboration Evaluator framework.

Content

Author and article information

Contributors

Dulce Pacheco

Luísa Soares

Conference

Publication date: July 2018

Publication date (Print): July 2018

Pages: 1-4

Affiliations

[0001]Madeira-ITI

Funchal, Portugal

[0002]Madeira-ITI, University of Madeira

Funchal, Portugal

Article

DOI: 10.14236/ewic/HCI2018.114

SO-VID: e69b0237-ee09-472e-a285-e6e965a5ee83

License:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Conference name: Proceedings of the 32nd International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference

Conference acronym: HCI

Conference number: 32

Conference location: Belfast, UK

Conference date: 4 - 6 July 2018

Conference sponsor: Electronic Workshops in Computing (eWiC)

Conference theme: Human Computer Interaction Conference

History

Product

1477-9358 BCS Learning & Development

Self URI (article page): https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14236/ewic/HCI2018.114

Self URI (journal page): https://ewic.bcs.org/

References

M. E. Burbach G. S. Matkin K. M. Gambrell, & H. E. Harding (2010). The impact of preparing faculty in the effective use of student teams College Student Journal 44(3), 752–761.
W. M. Davies (2009). Group work as a form of assessment: Common problems and recommended solutions Higher Education, vol. 58, pp. 563–584.doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9216-y
C. K. W. De Dreu, & L. R. Weingart (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, pp. 741–749. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
R. Foels J. E. Driskell B. Mullen, & E. Salas (2000). The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction Small Group Research, vol. 31, pp. 676–701. doi:10.1177/104649640003100603
J. Fransen (2012). Teaming up for learning: Team effectiveness in collaborative learning in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, Open University, The Netherlands). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1820/4580
B. Morgan E. Salas, & A. Glickman (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation The Journal of General Psychology, vol. 120, pp. 277–291. doi:10.1080/00221309.1993.9711148
Z.D. PachecoG. (2015). Teamwork in academia: an empirical study (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade da Madeira, Portugal). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10400.13/1109
D. Pacheco & L. Soares (2017). Does the Perception of Team Collaboration Changes with Time? Study with Computer Science Students Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter, vol. 1910, pp. 153–157. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1910/paper0212.pdf
R. S. Peterson, & K. J. Behfar (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 92, pp. 102–112. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00090-6
S. P. Robbins T. A. Judge, & T. T. Campbell (2016). Organizational behaviour New York, US: Pearson.
D. Rollinson A. Broadfield, & D. J. Edwards (2008). Organisational behaviour and analysis: An integrated approach Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
E. Salas D. Sims, & C. Burke (2005). Is there a ‘Big ive’ in teamwork? Small Group Research, vol. 36, pp. 555–599. doi:10.1177/1046496405277134
G. H. Seijts, & G. P. Latham (2000). The effects of goal setting and group size on performance in a social dilemma Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 32, pp. 104–116. doi:10.1037/h0087105
M. E. Shaw (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
L. Soares, & D. Pacheco (2014). Co-work between University Teachers: Is it Possible to Build a Common Language? International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) vol. 7, n. 3 (July 2014), pp. 5–7. doi:10.3991/ijac.v7i3.3983
J. Strijbos-W., R. L. Martens W. M. G. Jochems, & N. J. Broers (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups Small Group Research, vol. 35, pp. 195–229. doi:10.1177/1046496403260843
Van den P. Bossche W. H. Gijselaars M. Segers, & P. A. Kirschner (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments Small Group Research, vol. 37, pp. 490–521. doi:10.1177/1046496406292938

Comments

Comment on this article

[1] M. E. Burbach G. S. Matkin K. M. Gambrell, & H. E. Harding (2010). The impact of preparing faculty in the effective use of student teams College Student Journal 44(3), 752–761.

[2] W. M. Davies (2009). Group work as a form of assessment: Common problems and recommended solutions Higher Education, vol. 58, pp. 563–584.doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9216-y

[3] C. K. W. De Dreu, & L. R. Weingart (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, pp. 741–749. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

[4] R. Foels J. E. Driskell B. Mullen, & E. Salas (2000). The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction Small Group Research, vol. 31, pp. 676–701. doi:10.1177/104649640003100603

[5] J. Fransen (2012). Teaming up for learning: Team effectiveness in collaborative learning in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies, Open University, The Netherlands). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1820/4580

[6] B. Morgan E. Salas, & A. Glickman (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation The Journal of General Psychology, vol. 120, pp. 277–291. doi:10.1080/00221309.1993.9711148

[7] Z.D. PachecoG. (2015). Teamwork in academia: an empirical study (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade da Madeira, Portugal). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10400.13/1109

[8] D. Pacheco & L. Soares (2017). Does the Perception of Team Collaboration Changes with Time? Study with Computer Science Students Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter, vol. 1910, pp. 153–157. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1910/paper0212.pdf

[9] R. S. Peterson, & K. J. Behfar (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 92, pp. 102–112. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00090-6

[10] S. P. Robbins T. A. Judge, & T. T. Campbell (2016). Organizational behaviour New York, US: Pearson.

[11] D. Rollinson A. Broadfield, & D. J. Edwards (2008). Organisational behaviour and analysis: An integrated approach Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

[12] E. Salas D. Sims, & C. Burke (2005). Is there a ‘Big ive’ in teamwork? Small Group Research, vol. 36, pp. 555–599. doi:10.1177/1046496405277134

[13] G. H. Seijts, & G. P. Latham (2000). The effects of goal setting and group size on performance in a social dilemma Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 32, pp. 104–116. doi:10.1037/h0087105

[14] M. E. Shaw (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

[15] L. Soares, & D. Pacheco (2014). Co-work between University Teachers: Is it Possible to Build a Common Language? International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) vol. 7, n. 3 (July 2014), pp. 5–7. doi:10.3991/ijac.v7i3.3983

[16] J. Strijbos-W., R. L. Martens W. M. G. Jochems, & N. J. Broers (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups Small Group Research, vol. 35, pp. 195–229. doi:10.1177/1046496403260843

[17] Van den P. Bossche W. H. Gijselaars M. Segers, & P. A. Kirschner (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments Small Group Research, vol. 37, pp. 490–521. doi:10.1177/1046496406292938

Celebrating 65 years of The Computer Journal - free-to-read perspectives - bcs.org/tcj65