Teaching teamwork in design: a framework for understanding effectiveness in student teams

This chapter proposes an Input-Process-Output framework for understanding what impacts the effectiveness of teamwork when higher education students are collaborating on design assignments. Theframework can help design educators integrate teamwork into their courses and better evaluate learning outcomes, and may also elucidate good practice for professional design teams. Explaining the genesis ofthe framework, the literature is assimilated on team effectiveness and predictors of team performance, including: definitions, dimensions and frameworks of team effectiveness in contexts far wider than designeducation. Informed by the challenges specific to teaching design, a 22-factor framework is proposed. The paper concludes with recommendations for teachers informed by the framework. The viability ofthe 22-factor model of team effectiveness is evidenced by national surveys across Australia, which are reported in summary here.

Conflict resolution in student teams: an exploration in the context of design education

This chapter examines conflict in student design teams. A review of literature is presented to understand conflict within student design teams and explore strategies to manage it. In addition, qualitative data on students’ experiences of team conflict is analysed from two surveys offered to design students in 18 Australian Higher Education Institutions. Analysis of the survey found that “ignoring or avoiding to acknowledge team conflict” is a strategy commonly adopted by students, followed by “trying to resolve team conflict through discussion and improving communication” and “seeking support from teachers.” Drawing upon these findings, the chapter makes recommendations on strategies to prepare students for conflict situations through a number of support models that design instructors might adopt, including both preventive and intervention strategies.

The impact of teaching models, group structures and assessment modes on cooperative learning in the student design studio

As a result of ever diminishing teaching resources, an increasing number of architectural educators are setting group design projects, rather then spreading their time thinly over a large number of individual projects. This allows them to co-ordinate longer and more in-depth review sessions on a smaller number of assignment submissions. However, while the group
model may offer an authentic learning model by reflecting design in practice, the approach is not without its obvious shortcomings as a teaching archetype for the assessment of the knowledge and skill competencies of individual students. Hence, what is clear is the need for a readily adoptable andragogy for the teaching and assessment of group design projects.
The following paper describes the background, methodology and findings of a Strategic Teaching and Learning Grant funded research project carried out in the year 2005 at the School of Architecture and Building at Deakin University. The project aimed to inform a change of classroom/studio practice governing the assemblage, teaching and assessment of student design teams. The development through these changes of cooperative and student centred learning principles focused on effective design collaboration and fair assessment should, it will be argued, lead to an enhanced group-learning experience in studio, which will subsequently and ultimately enhance professional practice.

Establishing best-practice principles for the teaching of group design projects

As student-to-staff ratios escalate, increasing numbers of undergraduate architects are finding the reduction of ‘one-to-one’ studio supervision an impediment to learning. Group design projects are becoming a widespread solution to this problem. However, little analysis has been undertaken as to their effectiveness both in terms of student assessment and as a design teaching methodology.
The two hundred years of apprentice/master tradition that underpins the atelier studio system is still at the core of much present day architectural design education. Yet this tradition today poses uncertainties for a large number of co-ordinating lecturers faced with current changes in the nature of tertiary education and its funding structure. In particular, with reductions in staff/student contact time, in sessional funding sources and in the relative weighting of design-based subjects with respect to other subject areas, many design teachers are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain an atelier system that has shaped both their learning and, more pointedly, their teaching. If these deficiencies remain unchecked and design-based schools are unable to implement strategies that successfully overcome the resource intensive one-to-one teaching program, then architecture may prove to be an untenable course structure for many institutions.
Rather then spreading their time thinly, many co-ordinating lecturers are setting group projects in order to review less assignments but at greater depth. However, while this learning model better reflects design teams in practice, this approach may pose other pedagogical and assessment questions. What is clear is the urgent need for structured research into the teaching and assessment problems experienced by design teachers, and for a readily adoptable pedagogy for group design projects. At Deakin University, research is underway aimed at establishing best-practice principles for group design projects by analysing students’ performance and recording and implementing their feedback to adjustments made to the pedagogical fundamentals of assessment, group configuration, and program structure. There are after two years of preliminary studies already clear indications of what changes can be made to these to encourage more effective team learning. This paper will present the findings of these studies.

Evaluation of an environmental rating tool for commercial building design

This research examined the inclusion of environmental rating tools in the design of commercial buildings. Environmental issues are becoming increasingly important for designers and the results of the study suggest that rating tools can be an asset to design teams, provided they are integrated and reinforced throughout the design process.

Conceptualizing teamwork and group-work in architecture and related design disciplines

This paper reports on the early findings of an Australian Learning Teaching Council (ALTC/OLT) funded project – “Enhancing and Assessing Group and Team Learning in Architecture and Related Design Contexts.” This is a two-year project investigating good practice in Australian higher education for the teaching of teamwork in the design disciplines, with a focus on architecture. Drawing upon a review of the literature and discussions with teachers and practitioners, the paper considers how teamwork is conceived in the context of the design disciplines. The paper explores notions of team and group design activities in the literature, identifying the key elements and characteristics of effective teams and groups. While a great deal of research exists on effective teamwork in organizational, management and general education literature, this research found a clear gap in knowledge relating to teaching teamwork in architecture and related design contexts. Suggestions are made about the ways in which theories on effective teamwork in organisations might elucidate teaching and assessment of effectively functioning student design teams. The literature review prompted five key questions, outlined here, around the conceptualisation of teamwork in design education that were subsequently discussed with educators and practitioners, thus allowing the identification of issues, problems and solutions common to all fields of design.

Enhancing and assessing group and team learning in architecture and related design contexts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTeamwork skills are essential in the design industry where practitioners negotiate often-conflicting design options in multi-disciplinary teams. Indeed, many of the bodies that accredit design courses explicitly list teamwork skills as essential attributes of design graduates e.g., the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA), Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) of the United States and the Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust). In addition to the need to meet the demands of the accrediting bodies, there are many reasons for the ubiquitous use of teamwork assignments in design schools. For instance, teamwork learning is seen as being representative of work in practice where design is nearly always a collaborative activity. Learning and teaching in teamwork contexts in design education are not without particular challenges. In particular, two broad issues have been identified: first, many students leave academia without having been taught the knowledge and skills of how to design in teams; second, teaching, assessment and assignment design need to be better informed by a clear understanding of what leads to effective teamwork and the learning of teamwork skills. In recognition of the lack of a structured approach to integrating teamwork learning into the curricula of design programs, this project set out to answer three primary research questions: • How do we teach teamwork skills in the context of design? • How do we assess teamwork skills?• How do design students best learn teamwork skills?In addition, four more specific questions were investigated:1. Is there a common range of learning objectives for group-and-team-work in architecture and related design disciplines that will enable the teaching of consistent and measurable outcomes?2. Do group and team formation methods, learning styles and team-role preferences impact students’ academic and course satisfaction outcomes?3. What combinations of group-and-team formation methods, teaching and assessment models significantly improve learning outcomes?4. For design students across different disciplines with different learning styles and cultural origins, are there significant differences in performance, student satisfaction (as measured through questionnaires and unit evaluations), group-and-team working abilities and student participation?To elucidate these questions, a design-based research methodology was followed comprising an iterative series of enquiries: (a) A literature review was completed to investigate: what constitutes effective teamwork, what contributes to effectiveness in teams, what leads to positive design outcomes for teams, and what leads to effective learning in teams. The review encompassed a range of contexts: from work-teams in corporate settings, to professional design teams, to education outside of and within the design disciplines. The review informed a theoretical framework for understanding what factors impact the effectiveness of student design teams. (b) The validity of this multi-factorial Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams was tested via surveys of educators’ teaching practices and attitudes, and of students’ learning experiences. 638 students and 68 teachers completed surveys: two pilot surveys for participants at the four partner institutions, which then informed two national surveys completed by participants from the majority of design schools across Australia. (c) The data collected provided evidence for 22 teamwork factors impacting team effectiveness in student design teams. Pedagogic responses and strategies to these 22 teamwork factors were devised, tested and refined via case studies, focus groups and workshops. (d) In addition, 35 educators from a wide range of design schools and disciplines across Australia attended two National Teaching Symposiums. The first symposium investigated the wider conceptualisation of teamwork within the design disciplines, and the second focused on curriculum level approaches to structuring the teaching of teamwork skills identified in the Framework.The Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams identifies 22 factors impacting effective teamwork, along with teaching responses and strategies that design educators might use to better support student learning. The teamwork factors and teaching strategies are categorised according to three groups of input (Task Characteristics, Individual Level Factors and Team Level Factors), two groups of processes (Teaching Practice & Support Structures and Team Processes), and three categories of output (Task Performance, Teamwork Skills, and Attitudinal Outcomes). Eight of the 22 teamwork factors directly relate to the skills that need to be developed in students, one factor relates to design outputs, and the other thirteen factors inform pedagogies that can be designed for better learning outcomes. In Table 10 of Section 4, we outline which of the 22 teamwork factors pertain to each of five stakeholder groups (curriculum leaders, teachers, students, employers and the professional bodies); thus establishing who will make best use the information and recommendations we make. In the body of this report we summarise the 22 teamwork factors and teaching strategies informed by the Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams, and give succinct recommendations arising from them. This material is covered in depth by the project outputs. For instance, the teaching and assessment strategies will be expanded upon in a projected book on Teaching Teamwork in Design. The strategies are also elucidated by examples of good practice presented in our case studies, and by Manuals on Teamwork for Teachers and Students. Moreover, the project website (design.com index.html=""> visited by representatives of stakeholder groups in Australia and Canada), is seeding a burgeoning community of practice that promises dissemination, critical evaluation and the subsequent refinement of our materials, tools, strategies and recommendations. The following three primary outputs have been produced by the project in answer to the primary research questions:1. A theoretical Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams;2. Manuals on Teamwork for Teachers and Students (available from the website);3. Case studies of good/innovative practices in teaching and assessing teamwork in design;In addition, five secondary outputs/outcomes have been produced that provide more nuanced responses:4. Detailed recommendations for the professional accrediting bodies and curriculum leaders;5. Online survey data (from over 700 participants), plus Team Effectiveness Scale to determine the factors influencing effective learning and successful outputs for student design teams;6. A community of practice in policy, programs, practice and dialogue;7. A detailed book proposal (with sample chapter), submitted to prospective publishers, on Teaching Teamwork in Design; 8. An annotated bibliography (accessed via the project website) on learning, teaching and assessing teamwork.The project has already had an international impact. As well as papers presented in Canada and New Zealand, the surveys were participated in by six Canadian schools of architecture, whose teaching leaders also provided early feedback on the project aims and objectives during visits made to them by the project leader. In addition, design schools in Vancouver, Canada, and San Diego in the USA have already utilised the Teacher’s Manual, and in February 2014 the project findings were discussed at Tel Aviv University in a forum focusing on the challenges for sustainability in architectural education.design.com>

Collaboration and student engagement in design education

One of the great paradoxes in design education is that undergraduate students are encouraged to study and model the behaviors and attitudes of famous designers, but without being aware that such esteemed individuals rarely work in isolation. The vast majority of designers work in teams, as part of both the conceptualization and production processes. Even 'design-auteurs' or 'artist-designers' must still interact with, respectively, clients, consultants and contractors, or patrons, curators and publishers. As a result of this, collaboration is widely considered an essential part of the design process and a critical skill for developing a career in the design industries. However, while design practitioners and the professional bodies that represent them acknowledge the importance of groups and teams, there has been a general reluctance (either an unwillingness or inability) to emphasize the importance or team processes, or em­bed the development of team skills, in undergraduate design curricula. There are many reasons for this situation existing, but we cannot underestimate the general attitude, implicit in much design education and promulgated through the design media, that creativity is an individual trait.

Factors affecting perceived level of virtuality in hybrid construction project teams (HCPTs) : a qualitative study

Purpose-Deploying hybrid construction project teams (HCPTs) in which the common pattern of interactions is a blend of face-to-face and virtual communications has been increasingly gaining momentum in the construction context. Evidence has demonstrated that effectiveness of HCPTs is affected by a perceived level of virtuality, i.e. the perception of distance and boundaries between members where teams shift towards working virtually as opposed to purely collocated teams. This study aims to provide an integrated model of the factors affecting perceived virtuality in HCPTs, to address the conspicuous absence of studies on virtuality in the construction context. Design/methodology/approach-An a priori list of factors extracted from existing literature on virtuality was subjected to the scrutiny of 17 experts with experiences of working in HCPTs through semi-structured interviews. Nvivo 10 was deployed for analysing the interview transcripts. Findings-The fndings outline the factors affecting virtuality in HCPTs and map the patterns of their associations as an integrated model. This leads to discovering a number of novel factors, which exert moderating impacts upon perceived virtuality in HCPTs. Practical implications-The fndings assist managers and practitioners dealing with any form of HCPTs (including building information modelling-based networks and distributed design teams) in identifying the variables manipulating the effectiveness of their teams. This enables them of designing more effective team arrangements. Originality/value-As the frst empirical study on virtuality in the construction context, this paper contributes to the sphere by conceptualising and contextualising the concept of virtuality in the construction industry. The study presents a new typology for the factors affecting perceived virtuality by categorising them into predictors and moderators.

Learning style drift : correlation between built environment students' learning styles and the learning styles of their teachers

This paper focuses on the results of a cross-curriculum learning style survey conducted in an Australian School of Architecture and Building as part of an ongoing project aimed at resolving the learning difficulties of students collaborating in multi-disciplinary and multicultural team assignments. The research was conducted to determine how learning style differences in heterogeneous design teams might be addressed through pedagogy. We will argue that the likelihood of and reasons for learning style fluidity in student design cohorts needs determining if learning style theory is to provide a workable model for informing the teaching of design.
In light of evidence in student cohorts of learning style changes as students progress through their studies (Tucker, 2007), this research discusses one explanation of what appears to belearning style fluidity in architecture student cohorts. If, as prior research has indicated, the learning styles of academics are quite different from practitioners, evidence of a learning style drift in built environment students towards the predominant learning styles of their design teachers might suggest that students are learning how to be academics rather than practitioners. This, of course, might have serious implications for built environment teaching and for practice.

How important is team structure to team performance?

This paper discusses the effects of team structure on the performance of design teams. Three types of team structures are differentiated on the basis of the functional and social groups that result from task dependencies and interaction opportunities. The reported findings are based upon results from simulation-based studies using a computational model. Differences across the team structures are investigated through a series of simulations in which the team membership and the workload busyness of the team members are independent variables, and the team performance and formation of team mental models are the dependent variables. Team performance is measured in terms of the ability of the team members to coordinate the set of tasks the team needs to perform. Findings suggest that, in general, flat teams facilitate formation of team mental models, while functional teams are best for efficient task coordination.

The effect of software engineers' personality traits on team climate and performance: a systematic literature review

Context Over the past 50 years numerous studies have investigated the possible effect that software engineers' personalities may have upon their individual tasks and teamwork. These have led to an improved understanding of that relationship; however, the analysis of personality traits and their impact on the software development process is still an area under investigation and debate. Further, other than personality traits, "team climate" is also another factor that has also been investigated given its relationship with software teams' performance. Objective The aim of this paper is to investigate how software professionals' personality is associated with team climate and team performance. Method In this paper we detail a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of the effect of software engineers' personality traits and team climate on software team performance. Results Our main findings include 35 primary studies that have addressed the relationship between personality and team performance without considering team climate. The findings showed that team climate comprises a wide range of factors that fall within the fields of management and behavioral sciences. Most of the studies used undergraduate students as subjects and as surrogates of software professionals. Conclusions The findings from this SLR would be beneficial for understanding the personality assessment of software development team members by revealing the traits of personality taxonomy, along with the measurement of the software development team working environment. These measurements would be useful in examining the success and failure possibilities of software projects in development processes. General terms Human factors, performance.

Investigating factors influencing the perception of creativity in web design

In many disciplines, creativity has been recognised as an important part of problem solving. In business, creativity enables the generation of better solutions and provides an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage. In Information Systems (IS) creativity assists developers in finding solutions to difficult problems by helping to efficiently utilise available resources and allows the more effective planning and running of complex projects. One of the most important aspects of IS development is Requirements Engineering (RE), the development activity aimed at understanding the needs and wants of IS customers. While previous RE researchers suggested that creativity is crucial in building high quality information systems, fostering creative outcomes in RE is difficult as it is affected by the multifaceted socioorganisational context within which IS development commonly takes place. This paper reports findings from an empirical study into creativity in RE. Specifically, it reports various contextual factors which were found to influence the creativity of individuals and their teams.

A process model to support design and construction

This research is focused on developing a highly detailed understanding of current organisational interactions and information flows leading to a definition of the process model for the environment into which information and communication technology (ICT) applications will be placed. The authors of this paper propose a theoretical process model and the associated detailed information structure which reflects the complexity of information, stakeholder interaction and intellectual property concerns which are currently seen in the construction industry. This is being developed and tested against a field study renovation project. The field study project identifies information flows and interactions between stakeholders such as designers, project managers, clients, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. The process model which is being established shows very high levels of complexity in dependencies and interdependencies between implicit and explicit information within the project design and construction teams. Without an understanding of these detailed and complex process interactions, proposals for the application of ICT to the construction industry will not reflect the requirements of those for whom they are being developed.