Engineering students’ thoughts on teamwork and approaches to solving a problem with an underperforming member

Tanju  Deveci; İdris  Bedirhanoğlu

doi:10.59400/fes.v2i2.555

Engineering students’ thoughts on teamwork and approaches to solving a problem with an underperforming member

Tanju Deveci Antalya Bilim University, Antalya 07190, Turkey
İdris Bedirhanoğlu Dicle University, Diyarbakir 21280, Turkey

Ariticle ID: 555

130 Views, 98 PDF Downloads

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fes.v2i2.555

Keywords: engineering education; interactive learning; interpersonal communication; problem solving; soft-skills; teamwork

Abstract

Engineering programs have to develop students’ teamwork skills. However, the onus on content specialists to teach teamwork skills may be challenging partly because of students’ negative attitudes towards and experiences with teamwork. This study investigated 295 engineering students’ thoughts on teamwork and the strategies they used to solve problems with underperforming team members. Data were collected using a survey and a discourse completion task. The results revealed that among the key reasons why the students liked such activities was the exchange of information and experience, increased quantity and quality of work, and interpersonal communication. However, they indicated lack of harmony, social loafing, lack of attention paid to tasks, and individual approaches to learning as reasons for skepticism about teamwork. As to problem-solving strategies, emphatic inquiry and judgmental questioning were most common. Based on these results, we suggest that engineering faculty collaborate with communication instructors in planning and executing soft-skills training for students. Engineering faculty should also be provided with technical support for the incorporation of teamwork activities in virtual environments.

References

[1] Imhonopi D, Urim UM. Gender, teamwork and management: A glimpse into the Nigerian Situation. Journal of Research in National Development. 2012; 10(3): 103-111.

[2] Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). 2018-2019 criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Available online: https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/E001-18-19-EAC-Criteria-11-29-17.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2023).

[3] Chowdhury T, Murzi H. Literature review: Exploring teamwork in engineering education. In: Proceedings of the 8th Research in Engineering Education Symposium: Making Connections; 10-12 July 2019; Cape Town, South Africa.

[4] Tucker R, Abbasi N. Bad Attitudes: why design students dislike teamwork. Journal of Learning Design. 2016; 9(1): 1. doi: 10.5204/jld.v9i1.227

[5] Wolfe J, Powel EA, Schlisserman S, Kirshon A. Teamwork in engineering undergraduate classes. What problems do students experience? In: Proceedings of the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition; 26–29 June 2016; New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

[6] Wolfe J, Powell E. Biases in interpersonal communication: How engineering students perceive gender typical speech acts in teamwork. Journal of Engineering Education. 2009; 98(1): 5-16. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01001.x

[7] Schirato T, Yell S. Communication and Culture. SAGE; 2000.

[8] Bear JB, Woolley AW. The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 2011; 36(2): 146-153. doi: 10.1179/030801811x13013181961473

[9] Basow SA, Rubenfeld K. “Troubles talk”: Effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles. 2003; 48(3/4): 183-187.

[10] Amelink CT, Creamer EG. Gender differences in elements of the undergraduate experience that influence satisfaction with the engineering major and the intent to pursue engineering as a career. Journal of Engineering Education. 2010; 99(1): 81-92. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01044.x

[11] Samad AA, Rashid, Juridah M, et al. Investigating the implementation of team-based learning in a university level teacher education course. International Journal of Asian Social Science. 2014; 4(2): 249-257.

[12] Avery CM, Walker MA, Murphy EO. Teamwork is an Individual Skills: Getting Your Work Done When Sharing Responsibility. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2001.

[13] Payne BK, Monk-Turner E. Students’ perceptions of group projects: the role of race, age, and slacking. College Student Journal. 2006; 40(1): 132-139.

[14] Dawes L, Senadji B. Strategies to engage engineering students in group project work. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE-2010); 18-22 July 2010; Gliwice, Poland.

[15] Deveci T, Ayish N. Personal responsibility and interpersonal communication in a project-based learning environment. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research. 2018; 4(1): 1-17. doi: 10.24289/ijsser.331780

[16] Dörnyei Z. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press; 2007.

[17] Babbie ER. The Practice of Social Research, 14th ed. Cengage Learning; 2016.

[18] Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3(2): 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

[19] Jamieson MK, Govaart GH, Pownall M. Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2023; 17(4). doi: 10.1111/spc3.12735

[20] Hendricks C. Improving Schools Through Action Research. Allyn Bacon; 2006.

[21] Beddoes K. Interdisciplinary teamwork artefacts and practices: A typology for promoting successful teamwork in engineering education. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. 2020; 25(2): 133-141. doi: 10.1080/22054952.2020.1836753

[22] Deichmann D, Jensen M. I can do that alone…or not? How idea generators juggle between the pros and cons of teamwork. Strategic Management Journal. 2017; 39(2): 458-475. doi: 10.1002/smj.2696

[23] Meier KS. Gender barriers to communication. Available online: https://work.chron.com/gender-barriers-communication-6858.html (accessed on 12 March 2023).

[24] Pfaff E, Huddleston P. Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education. 2003; 25(1): 37-45. doi: 10.1177/0273475302250571

[25] Kirstein KD. The effect of cultural dimensions on the development of intra-team trust in global virtual teams. In: Distributed Team Collaboration in Organizations: Emerging Tools and Practices. IGI Global; 2011. pp. 64-81. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-533-9.ch005

[26] Deveci T. Freshman students’ emotional intelligence and team-work satisfaction levels. A comparative study: Gender and nationality. Yuksekogretim Dergisi. 2015; 5(1): 35-43. doi: 10.2399/yod.15.007

[27] Olshtain E, Weinbach L. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In: Kasper G, Blum-Kulka S (editors). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press; 1993. pp. 108-122. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780195066029.003.0006

[28] Reisinger Y, Turner L. A cultural analysis of Japanese tourists: Challenges for tourism marketers. European Journal of Marketing. 1999; 33(11/12): 1203-1227. doi: 10.1108/03090569910292348

[29] Al Omari J. Understanding Arab Culture: A Practical Cross-Cultural Guide to Working in the Arab World. Constable & Robinson; 2008.

[30] Staines G, Tavris C, Jayaratne TE. The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today. 1974; 7(8): 55-60. doi: 10.1037/e400562009-003

[31] Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S (editors). The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Brooks/Cole; 1979. pp. 33-37.

[32] Ridgeway CL. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. Oxford University Press; 2011.

[33] Rudman LA, Glick P. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues. 2001; 57(4): 743-762. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00239

[34] Oakley B, Felder, Richard M, et al. Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning. 2004; 2(1): 9-34.

[35] Hartford BS, Bardovi-Harlig K. Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning. 1992; 3: 33-52.

Published

2024-04-17

How to Cite

Deveci, T., & Bedirhanoğlu, İdris. (2024). Engineering students’ thoughts on teamwork and approaches to solving a problem with an underperforming member. Forum for Education Studies, 2(2), 555. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes.v2i2.555

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2024)

Section

Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors contributing to this journal agree to publish their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it for any purpose, even commercially, under the condition that the authors are given credit. With this license, authors hold the copyright.

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Surapati Pramanik

Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, India

eISSN

3029-2956

Publication Frequency

Quarterly

About the Publisher

Academic Publishing insists on taking academic exchange and publication as the main line, carrying out comprehensive management based on science and technology, and fully exploring excellent international publishing resources. Within 5 years, it will form a strategic framework and scale with science (S), technology (T), medicine (M), education (E), and humanities and arts (H) as the main publishing fields. Academic Publishing is headquartered in Singapore and based in Malaysia, with the United States and China providing the main scientific and academic resources. At the same time, it has established long-term good cooperative relations with other publishing companies, scientific research communities, and academic organizations in more than a dozen countries and regions. Academic Publishing uses English and Chinese as its main publishing languages, mainly publishing books, journals, and conference papers in print and online. The vast majority of publications follow the international open access policy, providing stable and long-term quality and professional publications. With the joint efforts of the expert team and our professional editorial team, our publications will gradually be indexed by international databases in stages to provide convenient and professional retrieval for various scholars. At the same time, manuscripts we accept will be subject to the peer review principle, and cutting-edge and innovative research articles will be preferentially accepted for peer reference and discussion. All kinds of our publications are welcome for peer to contribute, access, and download.

more

Volume Arrangement

2024

2023

Featured Articles

Diachronic analysis of Spanish scientific production on teaching methodologies in Primary Education: A scientometric and conceptual perspective (2000–2023)

The evaluation of science is essential to ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific results. Science needs to undergo a review process to ensure the rigorousness of scientific output. This evaluation provides a solid basis for political and economic decisions related to the design and execution of research projects, the establishment of new lines of research, or the identification of areas of specialization. This paper analyses diachronically the Spanish scientific production related to the implementation and development of teaching methodologies in primary education and indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases during the period 2000–2023. This analysis is carried out on the one hand, from a scientometric perspective, based on the analysis of indicators such as diachronic production, the journals with the highest scientific productivity, and the most productive institutions, and, on the other hand, from a conceptual perspective, trying to define its relationship with other areas of education. The general results of this study reveal two clear stages: the first, up to 2010, with little scientific production; and the second, from 2011 onwards, characterised by a general growth. The relationship between this field and others such as initial teacher training, ICT, and didactics is also evident.

The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools

This study explores the intricate relationship between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools in the Mansehra district of Pakistan. Teacher self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to manage and influence classroom environments effectively, has been identified as a critical factor influencing both teaching performance and student outcomes. The research employed a mixed-method approach, gathering data from 62 teachers and 310 students using both online surveys (via Google Forms) and physical questionnaires to ensure a diverse and inclusive participant pool. Data analysis was conducted using two complementary tools: SPSS and Smart PLS. SPSS was used for descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, such as t-tests, chi-square tests, and measures of central tendency, to offer an overview of group differences and relationships between variables. Meanwhile, Smart PLS was employed for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a technique suited for complex models and smaller sample sizes. This method allowed for the analysis of both direct and indirect relationships between the study variables—teacher self-efficacy, teaching practices, and classroom management. The findings reveal a significant positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices. Additionally, teaching practices were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that higher levels of self-efficacy not only directly improve classroom management but also enhance teaching performance, which in turn contributes to better-managed classrooms. These results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing teacher self-efficacy can have far-reaching effects on educational outcomes. The study highlights the need for focused teacher development programs that foster self-efficacy, thereby improving classroom management, student engagement, and overall academic success.

Artificial Intelligence in education: A comprehensive study

This comprehensive study delves into the multifaceted role of AI in education, exploring its applications, benefits, challenges, and future implications. The purpose of the study is to show how AI in education helps educators identify gaps in student knowledge and provide targeted feedback to improve learning outcomes. As a methodology, the library method and the study and review of various documents have been used in this research. The study examines the diverse range of AI technologies employed in educational settings, including intelligent tutoring systems, personalized learning platforms, educational chatbots, and virtual reality simulations. Furthermore, the study delves into the numerous benefits that AI brings to education. It highlights how AI-powered analytics and data-driven insights enable educators to gain deeper insights into student learning patterns, identify areas for improvement, and tailor instructional strategies accordingly. Additionally, AI-driven tools promote inclusivity by providing personalized support to learners with diverse needs and learning styles. Despite its transformative potential, the study also acknowledges the challenges and ethical considerations associated with integrating AI into education. Data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the digital divide are examined in detail, emphasizing the importance of responsible AI deployment and ethical guidelines. Looking ahead, the study explores the future implications of AI in education and the evolving role of educators in AI-enabled classrooms. It discusses how AI technologies will continue to evolve, offering new opportunities for collaborative learning, skill development, and lifelong education. In conclusion, this comprehensive study underscores the profound impact of AI on education and the need for thoughtful implementation strategies that prioritize equity, inclusivity, and ethical considerations. By harnessing the potential of AI, education systems can better prepare learners for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Enhancing adult learner success in higher education through decision tree models: A machine learning approach

This article explores the use of machine learning, specifically Classification and Regression Trees (CART), to address the unique challenges faced by adult learners in higher education. These learners confront socio-cultural, economic, and institutional hurdles, such as stereotypes, financial constraints, and systemic inefficiencies. The study utilizes decision tree models to evaluate their effectiveness in predicting graduation outcomes, which helps in formulating tailored educational strategies. The research analyzed a comprehensive dataset spanning the academic years 2013–2014 to 2021–2022, evaluating the predictive accuracy of CART models using precision, recall, and F1 score. Findings indicate that attendance, age, and Pell Grant eligibility are key predictors of academic success, demonstrating the strong capability of the model across various educational metrics. This highlights the potential of machine learning (ML) to improve data-driven decision-making in educational settings. The results affirm the effectiveness of Decision Tree (DT) models in meeting the educational needs of adult learners and underscore the need for institutions to adapt their strategies to provide more inclusive and supportive environments. This study advocates for a shift towards nuanced, data-driven approaches in higher education, emphasizing the development of strategies that address the distinct challenges of adult learners, aiming to enhance inclusivity and support within the sector.