See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238325387

Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming

Article  in  Team Performance Management · October 2004

DOI: 10.1108/13527590410569869

CITATIONS READS

76 7,709

2 authors:

Bianey Ruiz Stephanie Adams

Universidad Nacional Experimental del Táchira, UNET Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
11 PUBLICATIONS   143 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   560 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Team training in engineering classrooms View project

Transfer of learning: From the engineering classroom to the workplace View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephanie Adams on 23 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Experiences from organizations using the team
Attitude toward approach for improving performance have pointed
to teamwork as an important tool in business
teamwork and effective success. This finding has prompted organizations
teaming to start looking for teamwork skills in their new
employees. Although employers may be willing to
provide on-the-job training, they expect that their
Bianey C. Ruiz Ulloa and new employees at least possess the basic
understanding of why teamwork skills are
Stephanie G. Adams important to their organization.
Looking for ways of shortening the new
employees learning experience on acquiring
teamwork skills in the workplace, organizations are
suggesting institutions of higher education to
prepare future employees (students) to be effective
team players (Busse, 1992; Alexander and Stone,
1997; McFarland, 1992; Kunkel and Shafer,
1997). For this reason, accreditation organizations
at the collegiate level such as the Accounting
The authors
Education Change Commission (AECC), the joint
Bianey C. Ruiz Ulloa is a Research Associate and Commission for Accreditation of health Care
Stephanie G. Adams is an Associate Professor, both at the Organizations (JCAHO) and the Accreditation
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET),
among others, are requiring higher education
Keywords
institutions to introduce teamwork activities into
Attitudes, Team working their curriculums (Ravenscroft and Buclkess,
1995; ABET, 2002; Richardson et al., 1999).
Abstract In response to this demand, institutions of higher
The business sector has created a need for higher educational education are developing methodologies for
institutions to prepare students to be effective team players. introducing teamwork in their classrooms. They also
Responding to this need, higher educational institutions have want to enhance the process of learning through the
been using different forms of active learning as methods to use of teams knowing that in corporate environments
promote teamwork among students and enhance their learning. teamwork has been a key element to improving
Results from such initiatives have shown that students recognize employee performance and learning (Cohen and
that the teaming experience improves their interpersonal skills,
Bailey, 1997; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Guzzo
yet they still prefer work individually. Attitude originated from
negative team experiences. The purpose of this study was to
and Dickson, 1996; Devine et al., 1999).
determine what relationship exists between individual attitudes Research in educational settings shows that
toward teaming and the presence of characteristics deemed most of the students recognize the necessity of
essential for an effective team. The study suggests that when teamwork for improving interpersonal skills, but
mature communication, accountable interdependence, they still prefer individual work when the goal is
psychological safety, common purpose, role clarity and clear goal achieving good performance (Porter, 1993;
are present during the process of teaming, the experience will McCorkle et al., 1999). Studies also prove that
have a positive effect on individuals’ attitude toward teamwork. there are many elements involved in the process of
introducing teaming into the workplace as well as
Electronic access into the classroom (Venter and Blignaut, 1998;
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is Kunkel and Shafer, 1997; Manzer and Bialik,
available at 1997). When these elements are not very well
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister managed they can provide negative teamwork
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is experiences discouraging individuals from
available at continued participation in teams (Pfaff and
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm Huddleston, 2003). Negative team experiences
create negative attitude toward teamwork that are
transferred to the workplace (Krug, 1997).
These results have compelled educational
researchers to look to the business world to find the
Team Performance Management
elements that make teams effective in
Volume 10 · Number 7/8 · 2004 · pp. 145-151 organizations. They found that it is not just putting
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 1352-7592 individuals together and assigning them a task.
DOI 10.1108/13527590410569869 Individuals in teams need to understand that there
145
 Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming Team Performance Management
Bianey C. Ruiz Ulloa and Stephanie G. Adams Volume 10 · Number 7/8 · 2004 · 145-151

are specific required skills for achieving team terms of quantity, quality, and timeliness
effectiveness. (performance); the group experience improves its
Adams et al. (2002), in their study for members’ ability to work as a group in the future
understanding team effectiveness identified seven (behavior), and the group experience contributes
characteristics as the main elements that need to to individual satisfaction (attitude). This definition
be present in the process of teaming in order for makes team effectiveness a function of
the team to be effective. These characteristics are performance, attitude, and behavior.
productive conflict resolution, mature There are different models available in the
communication, role clarity, accountable literature to measure team effectiveness and each
interdependence, goal clarification, common of them makes reference to specific and necessary
purpose and psychological safety. characteristics for teams to become effective.
The purpose of this study was to determine if Trying to identify the most relevant and common
the presence of these characteristics for effective characteristics among these models, Adams et al.
teaming make a difference in individuals’ attitudes developed a framework to assist in the facilitation
toward teamwork. Is there any relationship and measurement of effective teamwork (Adams
between these elements and the attitudes of et al., 2002). In this model, seven constructs were
individuals toward teamwork? identified as characteristics that need to be present
during the team process for it to be effective. The
seven constructs are productive conflict resolution,
mature communication, accountable
Literature review interdependence, clearly defined goals, common
purpose, role clarity and psychological safety.
Attitude toward teamwork Productive conflict resolution refers to the
There is extensive research about cooperative and procedure and actions taken when a conflict
collaborative learning and the use of groups in the occurs that lead to results such as facilitating the
classroom setting. Research shows that the process solution of the problem, increasing the
of developing teamwork is highly complex and cohesiveness among team members, exploring
when it has not been well managed it has generated alternative positions, increasing the involvements
in individuals a negative attitude toward teamwork of everyone affected by the conflict and enhancing
(Pfaff and Huddleston, 2003; Krug, 1997). the decision-making process (Capozzoli, 1995).
According to Gagne and Medsker (1996) Mature communication refers to the process in
attitude is defined as an internal state that influences which team members are able of articulating ideas
an individual’s choices of personal action, or a clearly and concisely, giving compelling reasons for
response tendency. Therefore, attitude toward their ideas, listening without interrupting,
teamwork is defined as the individual willingness clarifying what others have said and providing
(internal state) to continue working together with constructive feedback.
the same team as well as in other teams (personal Accountable interdependence is defined as the
action) (Gardner and Korth, 1998). mutual dependence that all team members have
There are few studies about students’ attitudes regarding the quality and quantity of each
toward teamwork, and findings from these studies individual’s work within the team.
show contradictory results. For instance, Gardner Clearly defined goals are quantifiable and
and Korth (1998), and Scaraffioti and Klein (1994) commonly agreed upon statements that define the
in their study with graduate students and actions to be taken by the team. Team members
engineering employees respectively found that even need to know and understand what has to be done
though the results were not statistically significant, by the team. The goal has to be tied to specific
individuals’ attitude changed positively after their objectives that lead the team to achieve its goal.
participation in teams. By contrast, Porter (1993), Also, team members should be committed to the
McCorkle et al. (1999) and Buckmaster (1994) goal and should participate in its development
found that students that participated in their studies (Simon, 2001).
were frustrated by the teamwork experiences. Common purpose is related to the knowledge
Although students recognized that the experience and understanding by team members of why the
improved their interpersonal skills, they still team is there and why it was assigned to the specific
preferred to work individually. task. It is the main objective of the team.
Based on Salton’s (2000) definition of roles, role
Team effectiveness clarity is defined as the understanding for team
Team effectiveness is defined as performance and members of what is expected for each one in the
employee satisfaction (Gladstein, 1984). More team. It is to know, understand and respect the
explicitly, Hackman (1990) defines it as the degree authority of each team member in his or her task.
to which a group’s output meets requirements in This role clarity will allow team members to
146
 Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming Team Performance Management
Bianey C. Ruiz Ulloa and Stephanie G. Adams Volume 10 · Number 7/8 · 2004 · 145-151

identify how to complement the skills and efforts teamwork and each of the seven characteristics of
of each other to make the team effective. an effective team were measured.
Psychological safety, introduced by Edmonson The second section – questions 63 to 65 –
(1999), is defined as a shared belief that the team is intended to describe the team and to ask students
safe for interpersonal risk taking. It refers to the about their preference for selecting team members.
individual’s state of feeling confidant that the team Questions 66 through 72 in the third section
will not act against him or her for expressing his or intended to gather information about student
her point of view in the team. Sense of trust and experiences when working with other teams, and
respect are the main elements that support a finally demographic information was collected in
climate of psychological safety. the fourth section, questions 73 through 76.

Survey procedures and data processing

Methodology The questionnaire was administered in person either
by the investigator or the course professor during class
The research sample session. Having students fill out the questionnaire in
The participants in this study were 188 students class increases the response rate (Simon, 2001). The
from the College of Engineering and Technology class professor contacted those students who were not
at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln registered in class when the questionnaire was administered and
in senior design classes for the spring semester asked them to fill out the questionnaire and return it
2002. This sample was used because of the later. The questionnaire was administered at the end
teamwork requirement in these classes, the of the semester once the students had gone through
availability of the participants and the relatively the team experience.
convenient conditions for contacting them. The data was processed using SPSS 11.0.
The participating senior design classes were from Statistic descriptives on demographics variables
the departments of Agricultural and Biological were calculated in order to define the profile of the
Systems Engineering, Chemical Engineering, sample. Also, considering that the instrument was
Computer Engineering, Construction designed to suit the study, reliability analysis on
Management, Electrical Engineering, Industrial questionnaire scores was done using Cronbach’s
Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. coefficient alpha to estimate consistency of the
scores from the questionnaire. As a way of
Variables and measures evaluating construct validity of the instrument a
For the purpose of this study the seven constructs factor analysis was conducted to identify the items
identified by Adams et al. (2002) were considered more related to the constructs and the fewest
to be the characteristics of effective teams whose possible constructs needed to reproduce original
relationship with individuals’ attitude toward data (Gorsuch, 1997). Correlation and multiple
teamwork were evaluated. All variables – the seven regression analyses were also run to identify the
constructs and attitude toward teamwork – were relationship between variables and identify those
measured using the team effectiveness variables that could allow for the prediction of
questionnaire (TEQ). individuals’ attitudes toward teamwork.

The TEQ questionnaire

After a careful review of instruments measuring Results
attitudes toward teamwork in the Buros Institute
of Mental Measurement and the literature Demographics
available, it was not possible to identify an In the sample (n ¼ 188), 84 percent of the
instrument that allowed the researcher to measure participants were male and 16 percent female.
all the variables involved in this study. Therefore, a This gender breakdown was expected because of
questionnaire was developed using as its the characteristic sample of engineering students.
foundation the team performance questionnaire These statistics reflect that male domination still
designed by Simon (2001) and adding elements exists in the engineering field.
that made it valid for the purpose of this study. The majority of the participants (65 percent)
The designed questionnaire was structured in were between 22 and 24 years-old and most of
four sections. The first section corresponding to them (40 percent) have spent between four and
items 1 to 62 asked about the individual perceptions five years in college. A total of 40 percent of them
of student team experience. These responses were have a GPA between 3.0 and 3.5 and only 32
measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging percent have a GPA greater than 3.5. The majority
from “strongly agree (SA)” to “strongly disagree of the participants in the sample (90 percent) were
(SD)”. In this section the variable attitude toward White/Caucasian.
147
 Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming Team Performance Management
Bianey C. Ruiz Ulloa and Stephanie G. Adams Volume 10 · Number 7/8 · 2004 · 145-151

Reliability allowed for item rewording and questionnaire

As mentioned before in the methodology section, a restructuring. Content validity was addressed
questionnaire was developed to measure the through literature review and construct validity
variables of the study. For assessing the internal was assessed using factor analysis.
consistency of the questionnaire, it was necessary Factor analysis is a technique that allows for
evaluate the instrument for reliability. As a selecting items in an instrument that are most
measurement of reliability, Cronbach’s coefficient related to a specific construct and identifying the
alpha was calculated for each of the eight factors fewest possible constructs needed to reproduce the
considered in the study. As Table I shows, all of the original data (Gorsuch, 1997). In other words,
factors produced alpha values greater than 0.5 with this technique items related to a specific
indicating a high internal consistency. In other construct and the number of constructs measured
words, items assigned to each construct are by the instrument is identified. This allows for
measuring the same characteristic making the evaluating if the number of constructs intended to
instrument reliable. measure is actually being measured by the
questionnaire, and if the items assigned to each
construct are actually related to that construct.
Factor analysis
Factor analysis uses principal component
As the questionnaire used to measure the variables
of the study was applied for the first time, it was analysis with varimax and oblique rotation to
also necessary assess its validity. Validity minimize the number of items that load on a
determines if the instrument is actually measuring construct and to minimize the number of
the desired variables. constructs both loading the same items (Gorsuch,
Validity is measured in four different 1997). This means that the ideal item loads on
components. First, face validity that refers to the only one construct. Thus, this analysis gives the
relevance that the measurement instrument has to opportunity for looking at the loading structure of
those subjects to be surveyed. This is evaluated by the data.
asking individuals similar to those participating in For this study, using principal component
the study if they think the instrument adequately analysis with varimax and oblique rotation, ten
and completely measures what is intended. factors were identified as the fewest possible
Second, content validity refers to the relevance constructs needed to reproduce the original data,
that the instrument has to those expert subjects in explaining 67.7 percent of the variation.
the field. Third, criterion validity indicates that the Unfortunately the loading distribution was not as
measuring instrument has the ability to predict or expected. The expectation was to obtain seven
agree with constructs external to that which we are factors (constructs of the study) with items loading
measuring. Finally, construct validity refers to on each factor. The analysis showed that five
having the results from the instrument being able factors accounted for a significant part of the items
to correlate with other related constructs or loading. Question 29 did not load on any factor
variables that are similar (The Royal Windsor that was a concern. Therefore, a new analysis was
Society for Nursing Research, 2002). run excluding question 29 and forcing the analysis
In order to address the issue of validity for the to use seven factors in order to evaluate the
designed questionnaire only face, content and instrument on the original conditions
construct validity were assessed. Face validity was (measurement of the seven constructs). The
evaluated by asking 15 engineering students to fill variance explained by the seven factors was 61.5
out the questionnaire and give feedback about percent and once again the loading was not as
their thinking of the questionnaire before it was expected. However, there was an improvement as
administered to the entire sample. The feedback the items distribution showed a better loading.

Table I Questionnaire internal reliability

Variable Number of cases Reliability coefficients Alphaa Standardized item alpha
Attitude 188 15 0.9142 0.9181
Conflict 188 8 0.7238 0.7342
Communication 184 8 0.8136 0.8174
Goal 188 6 0.7958 0.7932
Purpose 188 7 0.8745 0.8774
Psychological safety 187 7 0.7547 0.7647
Role 186 5 0.7920 0.7955
Accountable interdependence 187 8 0.8451 0.8436
Note: aCronbach’s coefficient alpha

148
 Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming Team Performance Management
Bianey C. Ruiz Ulloa and Stephanie G. Adams Volume 10 · Number 7/8 · 2004 · 145-151

According to Gorsuch (1997) item factor inflation of the variance of the b (Pedhazur, 1997).
analysis face some problems. Among them are the Then, in order to evaluate for collinearity in the
sample size and the type of respondents. Any data, the VIF values were analyzed. Table III
analysis is enhanced if the sample has a wide shows the results of this estimator.
variety of people. This study lacked of said variety According to Pedhazur (1997), there is an
because of the condition of having a convenient indication of collinearity when the value of VIF is
sample of senior engineering students. grater than ten. It seems that in this study there is
Furthermore, the sample size required for a stable no presence of significant collinearity between
factor analysis is usually given as a function of the independent variables. In other words, variables in
number of items. For most item analysis of some way are measuring different effects.
previously untested items, a sample size of 300 is A regression analysis was run using the enter
recommended. (Gorsuch, 1997). In this case, a method in order to identify the variation in the
minimum of 300 subjects would be required for a variable attitude due to the seven independent
stable factor loading. Therefore, further testing of variables. In the enter method, all variables are
the questionnaire in a larger and more varied included in the analysis one by one. The first
sample is required in order to validate the variables entered were those thought, according to
questionnaire. the literature, to contribute the most to the
variation of the dependent variable. Said entering
Correlation and regression order was as follows: communication, accountable
Correlation between variables was evaluated interdependence, psychological safety, purpose,
running 28 correlation analyses. This situation in role, goal and at last conflict.
which a high number of correlations are required Before analyzing results from the regression
increases the probability of making type I error. In procedure, assumptions on regression analysis
order to control this error, the Bonferroni were checked in order to ensure valid
approach was used and a p-value of less than interpretation of the results. In this context,
0.0018 (0:05=28 ¼ 0:0018) was required for normality, homoscedasticity and linearity were
significance. Table II shows the correlation values evaluated finding that these assumptions were not
between the variables of the study. The results violated. Therefore, the results from the regression
show high values with significant statistical procedure allow for evaluating explanation and
correlation between variables. prediction of the variables.
High correlation between independent variables It was observed that the six first variables
could indicate the presence of collinearity between entered were statistically significant and accounted
them. It means the possibility of different for 72.4 percent (r ¼ 0:85) of the variance as
independent variables measuring the same effect
and producing imprecise estimates of regression Table III Collinearity statistics
coefficients, therefore misleading the results of the
Variables VIF
study (Pedhazur, 1997).
Among the procedures used for evaluating Psychological safety 4.758
collinearity the variance inflation factor (VIF) is Accountable interdependence 4.343
commonly used. The VIF indicates the inflation of Productive conflict resolution 3.486
the variance of the coefficient of regression (b) as a Mature communication 4.625
consequence of the correlation between Role clarity 2.487
independent variables. The higher the correlation Common purpose 5.749
Clear goal 3.731
between the independent variables the greater the

Table II Correlation between variables

Psychological Accountable
Variables Attitude safety interdependence Conflict Communication Role Purpose
Attitude
Psychological safety 0.790*
Accountable interdependence 0.782* 0.807*
Conflict 0.726* 0.790* 0.778*
Communication 0.751* 0.833* 0.762* 0.788*
Role 0.543* 0.694* 0.579* 0.625* 0.683*
Purpose 0.800* 0.797* 0.830* 0.754* 0.793* 0.726*
Goal 0.726* 0.708* 0.735* 0.680* 0.762* 0.696* 0.839*
Note:*p , 0.001

149
 Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming Team Performance Management
Bianey C. Ruiz Ulloa and Stephanie G. Adams Volume 10 · Number 7/8 · 2004 · 145-151

Table IV shows. Conflict was not statistically Table VI Regression analysis summary
significant (p ¼ 0:38).
Model R R2 R 2 change F change Sig. F change
In testing whether the presence of the seven
characteristics of team effectiveness could predict 1 0.750 0.563 0.563 230.762 0.000*
attitude toward team work, the B coefficients for 2 0.811 0.658 0.095 49.255 0.000*
the regression were analyzed. Table V shows the B 3 0.828 0.686 0.028 15.852 0.000*
4 0.839 0.704 0.018 10.805 0.001*
coefficient values.
5 0.847 0.717 0.013 8.067 0.005*
According to the results, the variables conflict
(p ¼ 0:38), interdependence (p ¼ 0:11) and Notes: *p , 0.01; variables were entered for each model according to the following
order: communication, interdependence, psychological safety, purpose, role;
communication (p ¼ 0:21) are not statistically
dependent variable: attitude
significant for predicting attitude toward teamwork.
This result was not expected because according to
the literature, communication and interdependence
are factors that have significant impact on team Table VII Multiple regression coefficients
effectiveness (Jehn, 1998; Devine et al., 1999; Variable B coefficient t Sig.
Gladstein, 1984). However, in reviewing the results Constant 2.917 2.137 0.034*
from the regression analysis it was observed that Communication 0.319 2.088 0.038*
conflict does not contribute to the variance Interdependence 0.242 2.070 0.040*
explained (R2 change ¼ 0:001, p ¼ 0:38) and goal Psychological safety 0.688 4.035 0.000**
clarity, even though its contribution was statistical Purpose 0.691 4.187 0.000**
significant, did not overly contribute to the Role 2 0.454 2 2.840 0.005**
explained variance (R2 change ¼ 0:006, Notes: *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01
p ¼ 0:047). Taking these results into account, this
researcher decided to analyze a new model
excluding the goal clarity and conflict variables. clarity can be predictors of attitude. The resultant
Tables VI and VII show the results. model is represented by the following expression.
Tables VI and VII show that this model accounts Attitude ¼ 2.917 þ 0.319 £ Communication
for 71.7 percent (r ¼ 0.84, F(1,175) ¼ 8.06,
p , 0.01) for the explained variance and mature þ 0.242 £ Interdependence þ 0.688
communication, accountable interdependence, £ Psychological safety þ 0.691 Purpose
psychological safety, common purpose and role
2 0.454 £ Role
Table IV Regression analysis summary The model shows that psychological safety and
Model R R2 R2 change F change Sig. F change common purpose contribute the most for
predicting attitude toward teamwork.
1 0.750 0.563 0.563 230.762 0.000**
2 0.811 0.658 0.095 49.255 0.000**
3 0.828 0.686 0.028 15.852 0.000** Discussion
4 0.839 0.704 0.018 10.805 0.001**
5 0.847 0.717 0.013 8.067 0.005** As expected the results showed that attitude
6 0.851 0.724 0.006 3.989 0.047* toward teamwork is highly related to each of the
7 0.851 0.725 0.001 0.766 0.383 seven characteristics considered essential for a
Notes: *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; variables were entered for each model according to team to become effective. However, all of them did
the following order: communication, interdependence, psychological safety, purpose, not account for the explained variance in attitude.
role, goal, and conflict; dependent variable: attitude In fact, only six of these characteristics, mature
communication, accountable interdependence,
psychological safety, common purpose, role clarity
Table V Multiple regression coefficients and clear goal, were shown to contribute to the
Variable B coefficient t Sig. explanation of the variance on attitude toward
teamwork. The explained variance accounted for
Constant 1.691 1.073 0.285
by the variables was of 72.4 percent.
Communication 0.203 1.248 0.214
Interdependence 0.194 1.619 0.107
This situation could be because collinearity was
Psychological safety 0.696 4.011 0.000** not assumed based upon the VIF criteria, but it is
Purpose 0.528 2.909 0.004** possible that some degree of collinearity was
Role 2 0.524 2 3.237 0.001** present causing the effect of conflict to be
Goal 0.373 2.004 0.047* measured trough other variables. This researcher
Conflict 0.119 0.875 0.383 feels that productive conflict resolution in some
way is embedded in the other variables, thus it
Notes: *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01
could have been measured through them.
150
 Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming Team Performance Management
Bianey C. Ruiz Ulloa and Stephanie G. Adams Volume 10 · Number 7/8 · 2004 · 145-151

The multiple regression analysis shows that only Gladstein, D. (1984), “Groups in context: a model of task group
five of the seven constructs (mature effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29
communication, accountable interdependence, No. 4, pp. 499-517.
Gorsuch, R. (1997), “Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item
psychological safety, common purpose and role
analysis”, Personality Assessment, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 532-60.
clarity) contribute to predicting attitudes toward Guzzo, R. and Dickson, M. (1996), “Teams in organizations:
teamwork. This was reflected in a regression model recent research on performance and effectiveness”,
that accounts for 71.7 percent of the variation. Annual review of Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 30, pp. 307-38.
Therefore, these results allow claiming that as Hackman, J.R. (1990), Groups that Work (and Those That Don’t),
minimum requirement for predicting attitude Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
toward teamwork it is necessary take into account Jehn, K. (1998), “Qualitative analysis of conflict types and
mature communication, accountable dimensions in organizational groups”, Administrative
interdependence, psychological safety, common Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 530-57.
Katzenbach, J. and Smith, D. (1993), “The discipline of teams”,
purpose and role clarity as predictor variables.
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 111-20.
In summary, there is a positive relationship Krug, J. (1997), “Teamwork: why some people don’t like it”,
between the characteristics for effective teams and Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 13 No. 2,
students’ attitude toward teamwork. The presence pp. 15-16.
of the characteristics for effective teams makes a Kunkel, J.G. and Shafer, W.E. (1997), “Effects of student team
difference in the attitudes of students toward learning in undergraduate auditing courses”, Journal of
teamwork. When students are able to develop and Education for Business, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 197-200.
show mature communication, accountable McCorkle, D., Reardon, J., Alexander, J., Kling, N., Harris, R. and
interdependence, psychological safety, have a Iyer, V. (1999), “Undergraduate marketing students, group
common purpose and have a clear understanding of projects, and teamwork: the good, the bad, and the ugly”,
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 106-17.
what their role is when working in teams, their team
McFarland, W.P. (1992), “Meeting of the minds: Recognizing
experience will contribute and support a better styles of conflict management helps students develop
attitude toward working in teams in the future. ‘people skills’”, Vocational education Journal, Vol. 67
No. 5, pp. 26-7.
Manzer, J. and Bialik, D. (1997), “Team and group learning
strategies for business and economics classes”, Business
References Education Forum, Vol. 151 No. 4, pp. 32-5.
Pfaff, E. and Huddleston, P. (2003), “Does it matter if I hate
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward
(2002), Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, teamwork”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 25 No. 1,
ABET, Baltimore, MD. pp. 37-45.
Adams, S., Simon, L. and Ruiz, B. (2002), “A pilot study of the Pedhazur, E. (1997), Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research,
performance of student teams in engineering education”, Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, TX.
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Porter, G. (1993), “Are we teaching people not to work in teams:
Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Montreal, June. reflections on the team based assignments in the college
Alexander, M.W. and Stone, S.F. (1997), “Student perceptions of classroom”, CSWT Proceedings, available at:
teamwork in the classroom: an analysis by gender”, www.workteams.unt.edu/proceed/porter.htm
Business Education Forum, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 7-10. Ravenscroft, S.P. and Buclkess, F.A. (1995), “Incentives in student
Buckmaster, L. (1994), “Effects of activities that promote
team learning: an experiment in cooperative group learning”,
cooperation among seventh graders in a future problem-
Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 97-110.
solving classroom”, Elementary School Journal, Vol. 95
Richardson, J., Montemuro, M., Mohide, E., Cripps, D. and
No. 1, pp. 49-62.
Macpherson, A. (1999), “Training for interprofessional
Busse, R. (1992), “The new basics: today’s employers want the
teamwork: evaluation of an undergraduate experience”,
‘three Rs’ and so much more”, Vocational Education
Educational Gerontology, Vol. 25, pp. 411-34.
Journal, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 24-5.
Capozzoli, T.K. (1995), “Resolving conflicts within teams”, The (The) Royal Windsor Society for Nursing Research (2002),
Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 28-31. “Components of validity”, available at: www.kelcom.
Cohen, S. and Bailey, D. (1997), “What makes teams work: group igs.net/ , nhodgins/instrument_validity.html
effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive Salton, G.J. (2000), “Getting a grip on group behavior”,
suite”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-90. Industrial Management, November-December, pp. 26-33.
Devine, D., Clayton, L., Philips, J., Dunford, B. and Melner, S. Scaraffioti, J. and Klein, J. (1994), “Effects of cooperative learning
(1999), “Teams in organizations: prevalence, strategies on performance, attitude and group behaviors in
characteristics, and effectiveness”, Small Group Research, a technical environment”, paper presented at the Annual
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 678-711. Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
Edmonson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378 192).
behavior in work teams”, Administrative Science Simon, L.C. (2001), “Study of the performance of student teams
Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 359-83. in engineering education”, unpublished master’s thesis,
Gagne, R.M. and Medsker, K.L. (1996), Conditions of Learning: University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB.
Training Applications, Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, TX. Venter, I. and Blignaut, R.J. (1998), “Teamwork: can it equip
Gardner, B. and Korth, S. (1998), “A framework for learning to university science students with more rigid subject
work in teams”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 74 knowledge?”, Computers and Education, Vol. 31 No. 3,
No. 1, pp. 28-33. pp. 265-79.

151

View publication stats