Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 330

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 154 of the 154 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Team Effectiveness Theory from Industrial and Organizational Psychology Applied to Engineering Student Project Teams: A Research Review

Borrego, Maura, Karlin, Jennifer, McNair, Lisa D., Beddoes, Kacey·2013·Journal of Engineering Education
DOI 10.1002/jee.20023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Engineering student team projects are frequently used to meet professional learning outcomes. Industrial and organizational psychologists study teams in the industry settings for which we prepare students, yet this research does not effectively inform engineering education. Purpose: This research review sought to demonstrate the relevance of literature on teams literature from industrial and organizational psychology to engineering education and to identify implications for practice and future directions for research. Scope/Method: Phase 1 systematically reviewed 104 articles published from 2007 to 2012 describing engineering and computer science student team projects and sought to answer the following questions: What professional learning outcomes have been met by team projects? What negative student team behaviors have faculty sought to minimize? What literature has been used to inform development of teamwork outcomes? Phase 2 reviewed five team effectiveness constructs selected according to the results of Phase 1: social loafing, interdependence, conflict, trust, and shared mental models. Examples from Phase 1 articles and our own work explain how this research informs facilitation and assessment of engineering student teams. Conclusions: Engineering faculty sought to achieve a variety of outcomes through team projects, including teamwork, communication, sustainability, and consideration of global/societal design context. They sought to avoid social loafing and conflict while building trust to ensure equal team effort. That few Phase 1 articles engaged the literature about team effectiveness indicates there is great opportunity to apply industrial and organizational psychology research to engineering education.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jee.20023

Cites

154 of 154 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 330

Metadata

Authors
Borrego, M., Karlin, J., McNair, L. D., & Beddoes, K.
Venue
Journal of Engineering Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-10
Volume
102
Issue
4
Pages
472-512
ISSN
  • 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-9830
DOI
10.1002/jee.20023
OpenAlex
W1961622147
Cited by
330
References
154
FWCI
65.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.