Practicing What We Preach

Underlying Models of Education

“The aim of teaching is simple: It is to make student learning possible” (Ramsden, 1992, p. 5). Teaching can be generally defined as a set of activities, often undertaken by an instructor or mentor, which makes learning possible in students. Theoretically, the goal of any university course should be to enable as much student learning as possible. Toward this end, the course on work teams described in this article was designed to put into practice two underlying educational philosophies meant to enhance student learning regarding teams: (a) the scientist-practitioner model of education, and (b) the science of effective training.

Formal coursework on teams is often found in organizational psychology or business programs. Many of these are housed in social and industrial-organizational psychology programs, which in the United States, generally endorse the scientist-practitioner model of training. This model was originally developed for clinical psychology programs during a conference held in 1949 (Jones & Mehr, 2007). The original intention of this model was to ensure that clinical psychologists going into private practice would be able to use scientific principles and knowledge to improve their clinical practices. However, as the field of psychology has grown and changed, this model has been adopted by many other subdisciplines, including industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial-organizational psychologists generally end up in careers focused on science, practice, or a blend of the two. The scientist-practitioner model of education posits that in order to be successful in any psychological career path, students should not only become knowledgeable about the science behind their field, but should also be skilled at practical applications of that field. Regarding work teams, scientist–practitioners are expected to be people who not only engage in the popular practices of team management, but also use and develop research to diagnose and solve problems in teams. This suggests that in order to develop true team scientist-practitioners, courses should emphasize not just the practice of working in teams, but also the research underlying the effectiveness of teams.

The scientist-practitioner model emphasizes a focus on both sets of skills because it assumes that science and practice continually inform one another. One of the primary uses of team science is to provide a way to solve problems in the practical arena (e.g., the development of new team effectiveness interventions in the workplace). In contrast, practice should be the inspiration behind the development of new scientific questions (e.g., the problems of real-world teams that research should be trying to solve). One advantage of the scientist-practitioner model is that students should have the ability to apply the scientific method to all aspects of their practice, regardless of the particular context in which they need to interact with teams. This allows team practitioners to remain relevant and accurate in any career as new science is developed.

In addition to the scientist-practitioner model of education, the course discussed in this article was also designed around the science of training. Training, very similar to teaching, can be defined as any systematic approach to the learning and development of individuals, teams, and organizations (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Research has suggested that training effectiveness, at its core, lies in the ability to incorporate information, demonstration, practice, and feedback (Kraiger, 2003; Prince & Salas, 1993) into professional activities. Information provides the basic knowledge necessary for deeper learning. Demonstration provides an initial practical experience with the topic area. Practice provides opportunities for skill engagement in a safe situation. Finally, feedback allows trainees to continually adjust and improve their skills.

When considering many graduate and undergraduate educational programs, it is appropriate to think of coursework not only as a source of education, but also as a source of career training. In particular, psychology programs that aim to develop scientist–practitioners must also encourage the acquisition of skills and demonstration of behaviors that lead to work effectiveness, not just the consumption of information. The classroom training of team scientist-practitioners should incorporate all four dimensions of training effectiveness (i.e., information, demonstration, practice, and feedback) whenever possible. Accordingly, several different requirements relevant to those teams were built into the industrial-organizational psychology course on teams described in this article.

Validated Team Science Interventions

It is well-established that both teamwork and taskwork processes are critical to overall team effectiveness (Mathieu et al., 2008). Teamwork involves all of the complex interactions among team members that are necessary to organize and complete taskwork and achieve the team’s primary goal (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Some commonly discussed teamwork processes include communication, coordination, and conflict management. Taskwork, a related and yet separate construct, involves individual activities directly aimed at achieving the team’s goal(s). Taskwork is entirely dependent on a team’s goals. Achieving maximum effectiveness in any team requires an active approach that includes planning the structure and expectations surrounding both teamwork and taskwork as early as possible in the team’s lifespan. In fact, Mathieu and Rapp (2009) have found that laying a strong foundation for teamwork and taskwork at the beginning of a work team’s performance cycle, via development of a team charter, results in more effective team performance.

To complete a team charter, team members must discuss and come to consensus about their expectations (and sanctions when those expectations are not met) regarding such matters as members’ roles, scheduling of activities, backup behavior mechanisms, communication, and general work style and approach. A document describing these expectations is developed and kept as a permanent record for the team simultaneously serving as an easily accessible reminder of team members’ expectations as well as a source of public accountability for team members.

Another popular and well-validated team effectiveness intervention is the Team Dimensional Training (TDT) methodology (see Smith-Jentsch, Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2008). This training approach, centered on the use of guided team prebriefs and debriefs, enables teams to develop the ability to diagnose and correct inefficiencies in their own teamwork and taskwork over time. The intervention is built on a theoretical model of teamwork, which suggests that focusing on four primary teamwork competencies—information exchange, communication delivery, supporting behavior, and leadership/followership—will improve team effectiveness (see Figure 1). Information exchange refers to the effective pushing and pulling of information among team members. Communication delivery refers to engaging in communication that is standardized, unambiguous, and brief. Supporting behavior refers to both helping and feedback behaviors, such as offering help or pointing out an error within the team. Team leadership/followership refers to leadership behaviors such as providing suggestions and setting goals, and to followership behaviors, such as seeking suggestions and requesting goal clarification when necessary. In the TDT approach, teams are led through systematic discussions regarding a balance of positive and negative examples of the competencies. Smith-Jentsch and colleagues (2008) have demonstrated that using TDT and guided debriefs after team performance cycles can produce more accurate mental models of teamwork, and more effective teamwork processes and outcomes, than using unstructured debriefs.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The teamwork model of team dimensional training.

Some criticisms have been voiced regarding the rigor of the research and resulting interpretations of the impact of these interventions on team performance (e.g., Moreland & McMinn, 2010). However, in lieu of clearly superior alternatives, these interventions represent the best options currently available to practitioners.

Design of the Course

Our graduate course was designed to teach the science and practice of teams through exposure to primary research and through hands-on experience with team-related interventions. Students were assigned an extensive scientific reading list that included recent work on a variety of team-related topics (e.g., composition, Bell, 2007; processes, Marks et al., 2001; conflict, Li & Hambrick, 2005). They were also assigned to complete a multiphase, semester-long team project. The readings were intended to expose students directly to the science of teams, whereas the project (and related experiences, such as team charters and guided team debriefs) were intended to expose students to the actual experience of working in a team and engaging in team-related interventions.

The semester-long project involved writing a team-related research proposal. Groups were given the option to either develop a research proposal (including a literature review, hypothesis development, and proposed methodology for testing the hypotheses), or they could develop a technical report based on a fictional organizational problem and apply the science of teams to propose a solution for that problem. The purpose of the research proposal was to teach the students how to collaboratively develop ideas based on the materials from the class while simultaneously gaining hands-on experience working in a team. In other words, the research proposal emphasized both sides of the scientist-practitioner model. On the first day of class, students organized themselves into teams of three. Due to the fact that the students in this particular class were already quite familiar and comfortable with one another, the teams were quickly created with all class members being included in one of the formed teams. Also, because of this familiarity, these groups likely performed more effectively than would groups formed of strangers (Moreland, 1999). However, this does not take away from the utility of the team research projects as an experiential learning activity.

As soon as teams were formed, their members began to interact by developing team charters, as described by Mathieu and Rapp (2009). Creating a team charter forced the students to explicitly consider both the teamwork and taskwork processes that they believed would be necessary for success (Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008). The exact format and content of each team charter was determined by the team itself, but the instructor suggested that each team determine and record: (a) the project goals; (b) each team member’s role; (c) the project timeline; (d) expectations and norms for meetings, task performance, and contribution; and (e) sanctions or rewards for enforcing those norms. Teams were given an hour in class, as well as 1 week outside of class, to formalize their charter on paper. Each team member was asked to sign the charter before turning the document in to the instructor. As an example, one team determined several concrete expectations for team interactions. Some of those expectations were that (a) meeting agenda would be emailed to everyone at least 24 hours prior to meetings, (b) meeting minutes would be used to document decisions and tasking, and (c) all project documentation would be housed on a Google-Apps website.

During the second week of class, students individually completed a teamwork card sort to gauge their precourse mental models of teamwork. This card sort was adapted from an existing TDT-based card sort used for NASA flight crews. Items such as “Before embarking on a mission, an astronaut reads the biographies of his future crew-members whom he had never met before to learn more about them” were adapted to fit the student context (e.g., “Before beginning a group assignment, a student reads the available introductory biographies of his fellow group members”). This example is an illustration of the information exchange category of the TDT teamwork framework.

Each student was given an envelope with 18 slips of paper, each containing a description of a student teamwork-related incident like the one above. These incidents were designed to correspond to three of the four categories of teamwork behavior from the TDT model: information exchange (e.g., before beginning her portion of the group project, a student asked her group to clarify her role and their expectations), supporting behavior (e.g., after finishing all of her team tasks, a member noticed that another person still had three items left to finish and offered to help by taking over one of those items), and leadership/followership (e.g., when a team member was deciding what time team meetings should be held, she asked others for suggestions). Statements were not developed to align with the “communication delivery” component of the original TDT teamwork framework as it did not seem directly applicable in the context of student project teams. Specifically, the student teams did not communicate using standardized jargon or acronyms. Furthermore, there was little need for messages to be brief.

The students were given 15 minutes to sort the items into categories and to label those categories based on the concepts underlying them. The expectation behind this procedure is that someone with knowledge of the TDT teamwork framework should be able to correctly (and quickly) sort the items into information exchange, supporting behavior, and leadership/followership categories. However, the students had not yet been exposed to TDT training at the time of the initial card sort, so this exercise was intended as a team knowledge self-awareness exercise. We wanted to illustrate the wide dispersion of teamwork mental models that existed among students prior to completing the course. In fact, the results of the initial card sort did indicate that the students were not very familiar with the TDT teamwork framework.

Directly after the initial card sort, students heard an in-depth presentation regarding the science and practice of TDT (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2008). This presentation had several goals. First, knowledge of TDT was expected to help guide and improve the effectiveness of student teams by providing basic knowledge of teamwork processes. The presentation covered the background knowledge necessary to understand the TDT framework, the utility of guided prebriefs and debriefs, and the empirical results associated with this structured method. Second, the presentation provided an in-depth description of the science behind TDT, as well as instructions on how to apply TDT as a team facilitator. Finally, the presentation also provided exposure to one example of an intervention involving the science and practice of teams. Students were still trained on the communication delivery dimension as a part of the overall TDT theoretical model, but it was made clear that this particular dimension is likely context sensitive and, thus, not applicable to their particular task.

A central tenet of TDT is the use of guided team self-correction to diagnose and correct issues within the four teamwork categories mentioned previously. So, rather than just learning about guided debriefs through information and demonstration, practice opportunities using guided debriefs were built into the student project at two different points throughout the semester. First, the student teams led their own guided debriefs at the midpoint in the semester, reinforcing the knowledge of TDT and allowing off-track teams to engage in self-correction. Guided debriefs were used again at the conclusion of the semester, along with peer evaluations and a postcourse card sort, to provide yet another opportunity to reinforce the teamwork knowledge and skills learned throughout the semester.

Discussion

The inclusion of information, demonstration, practice, and feedback in our team course provides several advantages for the training of team scientist-practitioners. First, the use of team charters and structured team debriefs provide learning opportunities that allow students to become familiar with useful team-related interventions. Second, the inclusion of these experiential activities is in line with the fact that practice is beneficial for skill acquisition (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).

The development of team charters also serves another purpose. Engaging in this activity on the first day of class allows team members to become familiar with one another as teammates. Because students were already somewhat familiar with one another in this particular course, this opportunity may not have been especially beneficial, but in other courses, where students are less familiar with one another, the team charter activity might serve as a critical first step in jump-starting interpersonal relationships within the team. Research has suggested that socialization within a team helps to clarify expectations and roles and is beneficial for overall performance (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).

The guided debriefs served another purpose as well—they allowed us to provide immediate feedback to students about their knowledge of teamwork processes and their current team performance. In this way, guided debriefs provided an opportunity to reinforce the feedback component of effective training. Furthermore, working in project teams throughout the semester also provided students with a real-world team situation in which to apply what they were learning about teams through their readings and discussions. Students were encouraged to think about how the science of teams described their personal experiences within the team, and how it might be useful for improving team performance. The team experience also provided students with opportunities for personal reflection and critical thinking about teamwork topics. Reflective thinking helps to develop the ability of students to challenge their own and others’ beliefs and to actively learn from experiences outside of the classroom.

Regarding the development of research-related skills, exposure to the teamwork card sorting measure provided a deeper understanding of one common measure of teamwork mental models used in the literature, allowing students to better understand the meaning of research findings and providing hands-on experience with at least one tool for the design of team research. Furthermore, the content of the team projects, depending on the topics that were chosen, either reinforced key research skills, such as theory development, experimental design, and technical writing, or they reinforced practical skills, such as the translation of science to practice, and technical writing for nonacademic purposes.

Conclusion

By giving students the chance to engage in scientifically supported team interventions, educators can move past simply transmitting declarative knowledge to facilitating skill learning. This approach provides students with both the knowledge of team science and the practical skills necessary to become successful team scientist-practitioners. The science of teams has provided many simple, yet effective, techniques that can be integrated into instruction easily, without major curriculum redesign. We hope this article initiates discussion regarding the use of empirically supported activities within the classroom to continue to enhance education by not only providing information about the scientist-practitioner model, but by incorporating demonstration, practice, and feedback—cornerstones to training effectiveness.